Reaganlives

[peaccenicked]

You say that there is something inherent
in communism that leads to dictatorship, what
in theory?

you say that capitalism is designed to
cope with dissent.
Who designed capitalism ?

[Guest]

Capitalism was not designed. It was the natural coming together of human beings who first endeavoured as small scale merchants and then into larger ones as their markets and consumers increased. Notice how socialism did not develop naturally as human nature dictates, and socialism contradicts human nature.

[reagan lives]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...pic=133&start=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=133&start=0)

[Capitalist]

I think we can all agree for once.

There is no such thing as Communist Dictators

Only Communsit Tyrants.

[MindCrime]

Tyrants are by definition not Communistic.

[vox]

Here's what Reagan Lies had to say:


Look, here's the problem.

Inductively, history seems to suggest that communist attempts devolve into authoritarianism. Many opponents of communism say that this is (in Humese) a necessary connection, whereas proponents of communism insist that it is only a constant conjunction. The question, then, is whether or not there is something inherent in communism that causes it to always produce dictatorships, or whether that's just the case for the specific examples that we have.

For one thing, communist supporters say that there is nothing in the face value of communist theory that demands dictatorship. True enough. But is there something hidden in communism that naturally leads to dictatorship? The majority of anti-communists insist that "human nature" causes individuals to abuse the system and create a dictatorial regime. I, personally, don't think it's anything quite so abstract.

From whence do dictatorships arise? What kinds of systems demand authoritarianism? Basically, deposts of the non-benevolent variety arise when dissent cannot be afforded. Capitalist democracies are designed to allow dissenters. If you don't want to participate in the capitalist economy, fine, you can sit there and be poor. If you don't want to participate in democracy, fine, don't vote. The world will keep on spinning. Communist systems, whether they be democratic or otherwise, inherently do not provide for such dissent. Those who are not in favor of the system must be expunged from the society, there is no other choice. Those who choose not to produce should not be allowed to consume...and in communism, the only way to prevent this is to get rid of those who don't want to produce. I think that this is where communism inevitable leads to authoritarianism.

He doesn't say much until that last paragraph. There, he states that in capitalism people who don't work are allowed to be poor. He does not, however, even attempt to tackle the much harder problem that some people who work in a capitalist regime are poor. It seems poor RL can't think of that on his own.

He also presents a communism without democracy and states, in an authoratative manner, that this is the only communism.

Comrades, anyone who has read anything by Marx knows this to be false of its face. Indeed, the entire idea of communism of to enlist greater participatory democracy, and participatory economics follows from that, for where people have a greater say in the social sphere, corporations have less.

Reagan Lies follows this awkward logic down to its terribly misbegotten conclusion:

"Those who choose not to produce should not be allowed to consume...and in communism, the only way to prevent this is to get rid of those who don't want to produce. I think that this is where communism inevitable leads to authoritarianism."

No, what Marx wrote was "From each according to his ability, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED." That's a far cry from the caraciture that Reagan Lies uses to substantiate all of his previous points, which now fall upon the sand with no solid foundation.

Reagan Lies wants us to believe that Marx demands slavery. Read Marx for yourselves and you'll see, very clearly, that Reagan's theory is his own, not Marx's.

vox

[reagan lives]

Theories are only as good as their practice.

"He does not, however, even attempt to tackle the much harder problem that some people who work in a capitalist regime are poor."
Yes, some people who work in a capitalist regime are poor. It's a shame. But it's better than everyone being poor, like they are under a communist regime.

"He also presents a communism without democracy and states, in an authoratative manner, that this is the only communism."
No, I explained why that's the only communism. Looked into those critical reading classes yet? And, judging by this grammatical debacle, a introductory writing course might not hurt either.

"Indeed, the entire idea of communism of to enlist greater participatory democracy, and participatory economics follows from that, for where people have a greater say in the social sphere, corporations have less."
More obfuscation from vox. Ask yourselves, comrades: does participatory economics follow from participatory democracy? Why? What does the say of corporations in the social sphere have to do with the collective action problem I brought up? Why does vox waste our time?

"No, what Marx wrote was 'From each according to his ability, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.'"
This statement (which I didn't quote directly because I give everyone here a little more credit than vox, and assume that you all are familiar with at least the Cliffs Notes version of Marx), is the basis of my entire argument. What happens, oh wise vox, when the individual and the society disagree about the individual's ability and need? A bullet in the noggin, that's what. Communism needs an authoritarian central power to make sure that everyone is giving according to his ability before he recieves according to his need. It needs authoritarianism not because of "human nature," but because of the nature of collective action problems.

(Edited by reagan lives at 4:31 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

RL you say that communism leads to stalinism
but then say that communism is stalinism because there
is only a stalinist solution to communist problems.
Where in Marx Engels et al does socialism dictate ability
or anything to do with ability. ability is a given ie human beings have ability. Then you go on to say communism
can't be democratic because stalinism is not democratic.
Same old useless eqation that denies the truth of socialist theory. Socialist have no need to suppress dissent because there is no contradiction between
ability and need except in your own head.

[peaccenicked]

another thought.
The only apparent contridiction, is that society needs a prioritisation of abilities, there is no earthly reason why this can not be resolved democratically as all abilities add to the richness of society.

[AgustoSandino]

peacenicked, i gave you more credit than that. Setting up your own strawmen by blatantly misquoting reagan, where did he say communism leads to "stalinism". Reagan doesn't say that socialsm can not be democratic because stalinism is not democratic. He says that socialism can not be democratic because its fundemental premises are UNdemocratic, i.e. the bullet in the noggin.
Finally, even socialists with minimal political power, i.e. the members of che-lives, have shown that they can't distance themselves from squelching dissent. Are you unaware of what precipitated the creation of this forum?

[peaccenicked]

"Inductively, history seems to suggest that communist attempts devolve into authoritarianism" Vox quote of RL.
Where in socialist theory is a 'bullet in the noggin'
a fundamental premis of socialism.
I think this actual proves he can't think of socxialism without positing stalinism and apperently neither can you.
I am aware what created this board it has nothing to do with squelching dissent but a result of capis overriding the intention of this board which was to be a meeting place of the left. You are here using your freedom of speech to undermine the intention of this board which is
called CHE-LIVES and not Che was a stalinist.
Apparently you have not had the courtesy to read the whole thread or you might have spotted RL cowardly retreat into the absurd "socialism=stalinism" imbecilic
infantile rant.

[AgustoSandino]

Ah peacenicked, QUOTE reagan using the word Stalinist in his post. He doesn't go into a communism=stalinism rant, he simply points out the coercive "authoritarian" nature of socialism.
Finally Che's self and well publicized adherence to Maoism is just as repugnant.

[peaccenicked]

"He doesn't go into a communism=stalinism rant, he simply points out the coercive "authoritarian" nature of socialism. '
When all the capitalists repeat this lie in every post.
It sounds like a rant to me. A burst from the gramaphone of MacArthy. There is no argument here merely a repetition of stalinism is undemocratic, Socialism is Stalinism. Socialism is undemocratic.
It is laughable, you guys could not pass a baby course on Aristotles formal logic.
All A is B
All A is C
therefore All B is C
An elephant has a trunk,
An elephant is an animal
All animals have trunks.
It aint necessarilly so. DUMBHEADS
And you have shown no necessary link
between socialist theory and Stalinist practice.
Why not argue about ability and need,
try and prove something that has logic and does not try to surpass the laws of identity.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:03 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:05 pm on Feb. 28, 2002)

[reagan lives]

Could you please quote where I said that socialism was the same as Stalinism?

[Jurhael]

It's pretty easy to be able to "allow for dissent" when the dissent is small and powerless. When they're NOT, then it becomes a different story.


As for those who don't want to produce, you get that in Capitalism and it sure doesn't stop THEM from consuming. As for expelling those who don't want to produce in "socialist countries", where has THAT happened?

[peaccenicked]

"Inductively, history seems to suggest that communist attempts devolve into authoritarianism.''

Now what does authoritarianism mean in this context:
the complete supression of dissent ie the dictionary definition of stalinism.
Tell me what is your pendantry getting at.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:11 am on Mar. 1, 2002)

[Rosa]

tell me peaccenick, how would your "democratic-socialism" deal with the nazi-march in Berlin?

[peaccenicked]

I'm one for smashing their skulls, but I am ready to listen
to Chomsky view that we should take the high moral ground and allow them freedom of speech and assembly but
as soon as they infringe others rights. I am all for smashing skulls.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:42 am on Mar. 1, 2002)

[Rosa]

but their speech is alla about infringing others rights? Inviting other people to do that?

[AgustoSandino]

well i think what we're seeing is that ,while you accuse us of not being able to move beyond equating socialism and stalinism, which we dont, you are the one that can't escape the notion of equating the two. You are so enamored of this contradiction that you keep arguing against it, despite the fact that no one here is proposing it.
Again, Reagan is not saying that socialism always becomes stalinism. Even a cursory view of history shows us that it sometimes becomes maoism, castrois, kimism, "pol potism", fabian socialism (which ruined india), statism, etc. What we are saying is that socialism, does not devolve into opression due to the mistakes of the people interpreting it, rather it is INHERENTLY oppressive.
To each according to their ability, to each according to their need...
As far as i'm concerned I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T ALLOW ME TO DETERMINE MY OWN NEED.

[peaccenicked]

Where in communist theory does it state that people should not determine their own needs.
You are simply misrepresenting something you quite obviously have not studied.
you are lying about stalinism, the essential nature of
counter revolution is stalinism and this is what is meant(complete suppression of dissent)
by reference to other forms of it.
I have never made the equation of socialism and stalinism.
Fabians were meritocrats, who had admiration for Stalin, and dabbled in fascist eugenics, as such they were the antipathy to socialism. They took more from Neitzsche than Marx. Macdonald was an imperialist toady but he can hardly be held personally responsible for the colonialisation of india.
Sandino you find it easy to promote ignorant lies
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=22&topic=149 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=149)

(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:20 pm on Mar. 1, 2002)






(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:49 pm on Mar. 1, 2002)

[reagan lives]

"I have never made the equation of socialism and stalinism."
True enough. But you insist on bringing up the relationship, or lack thereof, IN EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN POST YOU MAKE. When are you going to get it through your thick skull that nobody here except you is talking about socialism in terms of Stalinism?

"you are lying about stalinism"
YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE TALKING ABOUT STALINISM HERE. YOU DUMB FUCK.

Jurhael:
"As for those who don't want to produce, you get that in Capitalism and it sure doesn't stop THEM from consuming."
What. I hear a goddamn lot around here about the plight of poor Americans.

"As for expelling those who don't want to produce in "socialist countries", where has THAT happened?"
Get serious.

[peaccenicked]

Thou protest too much.
ALL that has been discussed is what.
You have no argument that does not slur socialism with stalinism. None at all.
you are simply lying like you always do
your head ii full of ignorant lies and ad homenin hypocrisy.
what does this suggest,
'I think that this is where communism inevitable leads to authoritarianism.'



(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:26 pm on Mar. 1, 2002)

[reagan lives]

where in authoritarian theory does it say it must lead to stalinism?
I have never made equated authoritarianism with stalinism.
All A is B
All D is Q
But you say Z is B why?
this is a joke your head is full of lies
what does this suggest?

[peaccenicked]

"Interesting coming from you, vox, who has spent so very much time telling people that capitalism is an economic system, not a political one. When it suits your purposes, I suppose.

As for your question, I would ask you to name instances of "real democracy" being brought to nations by the USSR. How vox doesn't choke on his misplaced arrogance is beyond me. Hee"
One of RLs posts.

This speaks abundantly clear to me that you equate
The stalinist USSR with socialism. You are asking Vox to make some identity with it.
Now you are playing word games to deny something you are guilty of and it is plain to see what your game is.
So tell me more about authoritarianism,
how is it inherent to socialism.
So far all you have done is misrepresent Marx on ability and need. Are you simply trying to avoid this fait accompli stab in the dark.

[reagan lives]

peacenick, do you deny that the USSR was founded as a result of a socialist revolution and upon socialist principles? Admitting this FACT does NOT mean that we are equating socialism with stalinism. Grow up and get over yourself. "Stalinism" is a form of authoritarian despotism...it formed naturally AS A RESULT OF a defect in the communist system which I have pointed out rather eloquently in another thread (the link is provided on page one of this thread, and vox copied the whole thing). Does this mean that "socialism equals stalinism" as you keep insisting that I believe? NO. Now, when you're ready to discuss WHAT I SAID, let me know, because you have yet to respond to the substance of my post (and it's obvious that vox has retreated with his tail between his legs).

[peaccenicked]

"Look, here's the problem.

Inductively, history seems to suggest that communist attempts devolve into authoritarianism. Many opponents of communism say that this is (in Humese) a necessary connection, whereas proponents of communism insist that it is only a constant conjunction. The question, then, is whether or not there is something inherent in communism that causes it to always produce dictatorships, or whether that's just the case for the specific examples that we have.

For one thing, communist supporters say that there is nothing in the face value of communist theory that demands dictatorship. True enough. But is there something hidden in communism that naturally leads to dictatorship? The majority of anti-communists insist that "human nature" causes individuals to abuse the system and create a dictatorial regime. I, personally, don't think it's anything quite so abstract.

From whence do dictatorships arise? What kinds of systems demand authoritarianism? Basically, deposts of the non-benevolent variety arise when dissent cannot be afforded. Capitalist democracies are designed to allow dissenters. If you don't want to participate in the capitalist economy, fine, you can sit there and be poor. If you don't want to participate in democracy, fine, don't vote. The world will keep on spinning. Communist systems, whether they be democratic or otherwise, inherently do not provide for such dissent. Those who are not in favor of the system must be expunged from the society, there is no other choice. Those who choose not to produce should not be allowed to consume...and in communism, the only way to prevent this is to get rid of those who don't want to produce. I think that this is where communism inevitable leads to authoritarianism."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.


Reading over your post again,
You make claims based on weak premises.
If you actually read what I have been saying you would know that I believe socialist revolutions have led to counter revolutions. Implicit in your argument is that revolution
leads to authoritarianism, by passing counter revolution.
which you by pass sleight of hand. A social revolution in a poor country with no real democratic traditions is
a breeding ground for despotic counter revolution, that is all that history has taught me on this matter.
Then you go on to assert that socialism crushes dissent because it does not allow for laziness. This also a weak argument, as that is a human quality not a freedom of speech.
There is no real connection here.
Capitalism does not allow for laziness either. In the UK
the State forces people to job clubs or it withdraws benefits.
There is no necessary connection in the UK, to dissent.
Your induction is based on very weak premises and hardly eloquently put.
Capitalism has not been designed for dissent,
Chomsk illustrates quite well how it manufactures
consent , it gives the rich the greatest voice and marginalises the voices of the poorest.

[reagan lives]

The only thing "Chomsk" illustrates is his own prejudices.

"If you actually read what I have been saying you would know that I believe socialist revolutions have led to counter revolutions."
I'm glad that you believe that. Basically, you define "counter revolution" as any deviation from socialist ideals. I explained why those deviations occur.

"Implicit in your argument is that revolution
leads to authoritarianism, by passing counter revolution.
which you by pass sleight of hand. A social revolution in a poor country with no real democratic traditions is
a breeding ground for despotic counter revolution, that is all that history has taught me on this matter."
You insist on "counter revolutions" because you can't face up to the facts about socialism that I presented in the post that you copied. We both agree that authoritarianism has evolved out of nearly all socialist experiments in the history of mankind...you (in order to maintain your illusions) chalk it up to "counter revolution" (because it's inconcievable that the ideology that you are so married to could possibly lead to authoritarianism)...I, on the other hand, approached the situation critically and presented an explanation that seems to have satisfied everyone except for you and vox.

"Then you go on to assert that socialism crushes dissent because it does not allow for laziness. This also a weak argument, as that is a human quality not a freedom of speech.
There is no real connection here."
I'm sorry, I suppose I'm really stupid, but this phrase makes no sense to me.

"Capitalism does not allow for laziness either. In the UK
the State forces people to job clubs or it withdraws benefits.
There is no necessary connection in the UK, to dissent."
If you don't see the difference between "withdrawing benefits" and shooting people in the head, then I feel sorry for you.

You've been reduced to babbling incoherently, peaccenicked. It's time to give up.

[peaccenicked]

I do not see anywhere in socialist theory
an argument for shooting people in the head,
only a withdrawal of benefits.

[peaccenicked]

RL, counter revolution is not any deviation from socialist ideals but a return to exclusive bourgeois values, as the guiding principle in the relations of production.
It is not a nit picking affair but a fundamental turn around.
Secondly, you are trying to impute through the method of ignorant lying that the death penalty for laziness is a socialist norm, This is entirely untrue and has never been in our traditions.it is exactly as posited in the UK,
those who do not work and do not search for it do not eat.
The working class as a majority power would never allow its own people to starve through unemployment, ill
health or old age. Socialists have always campaigned for an end to unemployment, better health care and
larger pensions.
You are simply propagating ignorant lies about socialism
to rationalise your support for the murderous system of imperialism.

[pastradamus]

|Name one country that wasn't fucked up before communism came? lets see all you hypocrate capitalists answer that!

[vox]

Theories are ony as good as their practice.

"He does not, however, even attempt to tackle the much harder problem that some people who work in a capitalist regime are poor."
Yes, some people who work in a capitalist regime are poor. It's a shame. But it's better than everyone being poor, like they are under a communist regime.

Once again, Reagan Lies failed to even try to answer the question. Please explain to the class, Reagan Lies, just why you think this is the case? Please?

I suggest that in a communist society there are no poor, for the class distinctions are broken in a material fashion. In order to have the poor, you must have the rich. Too, communism, according to Marx, demands an industrial society, so the means of production are there to be used, yes? It's silly to think, as Reagan Lies surely must, that everyone suddenly forgets how to manufacture any given commodity.

Hmmm, people work, commodities are produced without a profit incentive. Things get done. Yep, sounds good to me.



"He also presents a communism without democracy and states, in an authoratative manner, that this is the only communism."
No, I explained why that's the only communism. Looked into those critical reading classes yet? And, judging by this grammatical debacle, a introductory writing course might not hurt either.

I must have missed that part. Could you go into a little more detail about it?

See, it seems to me that you're overlooking a rejection of Lenin. Maybe not, but maybe so. The only way to tell is for you to give a little more info, okay? :)

By the way, read the sentence again. You'll find all of its nouns and articles in order. I understand what counfused you, poor Reagan Lies, but I defy you to point out the alleged error.

"Indeed, the entire idea of communism of to enlist greater participatory democracy, and participatory economics follows from that, for where people have a greater say in the social sphere, corporations have less."
More obfuscation from vox. Ask yourselves, comrades: does participatory economics follow from participatory democracy? Why? What does the say of corporations in the social sphere have to do with the collective action problem I brought up? Why does vox waste our time?

Participatory democracy means that, before a chemical plant could start storing waste in your groundwater, you'd get to have a say! See how it relates to corporations?

Also, participatory democracy, a concept I'd wager you've not heard of before this, demands that politicians be personally accountable for their actions, just like the working class is. Strange concept for someone like you, huh? If politicians can't be bought by corporations, then maybe, just maybe, people could have a wee say?


"No, what Marx wrote was 'From each according to his ability, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.'"
This statement (which I didn't quote directly because I give everyone here a little more credit than vox, and assume that you all are familiar with at least the Cliffs Notes version of Marx), is the basis of my entire argument. What happens, oh wise vox, when the individual and the society disagree about the individual's ability and need? A bullet in the noggin, that's what. Communism needs an authoritarian central power to make sure that everyone is giving according to his ability before he recieves according to his need. It needs authoritarianism not because of "human nature," but because of the nature of collective action problems.

"Collective action problems?" And you accuse ME of bad grammar? Howsabout leaving made up terms undefined? Sounds like a problem to me.

Fact is, Reagan Lies, no one, and certainly not me, ever said that resources would be unlimited. The point is that everyone will have their basic needs met, and that's enough. That, truly, is their need, isn't it? So, where's the argument?

Hell, even in prison the convicts fight for jobs, simply to have something to do. I understand that you don't quite get that, but you wouldn't have your cable TV to distract you from doing anything, see? It's not, I think we can all agree, a need.

vox

(Edited by vox at 5:00 am on Mar. 3, 2002)

[AgustoSandino]

He does not, however, even attempt to tackle the much harder problem that some people who work in a capitalist regime are poor."
Yes, some people who work in a capitalist regime are poor. It's a shame. But it's better than everyone being poor, like they are under a communist regime.

Once again, Reagan Lies failed to even try to answer the question. Please explain to the class, Reagan Lies, just why you think this is the case? Please?-vox

Well it is an unfortunate circumstance for ideologues like Vox, that here in Reality we judge things based on their benefits. Why is a system, capitalism, that has some poor, superior to a communist system in which everyone is made poor? I think, Vox, that is called a rhetorical question.


I suggest that in a communist society there are no poor, for the class distinctions are broken in a material fashion. In order to have the poor, you must have the rich. Too, communism, according to Marx, demands an industrial society, so the means of production are there to be used, yes? It's silly to think, as Reagan Lies surely must, that everyone suddenly forgets how to manufacture any given commodity.-vox

One of the most blantant and ill thoughtout pieces of sophistry that I've ever read. All you have done here vox is prove reagan's first point. You say that the existance of the "poor" is predicated on the existance of the rich. So, "In order to have the poor, you must have the rich." Since Communism erases class distinctions that are determined materially, i.e. makes everyone poor, then there really are no poor. You really make this fun vox.




"Indeed, the entire idea of communism of to enlist greater participatory democracy, and participatory economics follows from that, for where people have a greater say in the social sphere, corporations have less."
More obfuscation from vox. Ask yourselves, comrades: does participatory economics follow from participatory democracy? Why? What does the say of corporations in the social sphere have to do with the collective action problem I brought up? Why does vox waste our time?

Participatory democracy means that, before a chemical plant could start storing waste in your groundwater, you'd get to have a say! See how it relates to corporations?-vox

It is unfortunate for you vox, that you set up such a strict paradigm for discussion for yourself. Here you posit two entities against each other, the "people" and the "corporations", revealing the simpleminded manichean conflict that motivates you. The problem is the world is not so simple, it is not the "good" people, vs the "evil" corporations. All of society's ailments did not arise from the creation of corporations vox.
Do you know anything about how corporations work, vox? Who do you think controls corporations, let me give you a clue, its the stockholders, the people. There is no dichotomy between the "people" and the "corporations."

Also, participatory democracy, a concept I'd wager you've not heard of before this, demands that politicians be personally accountable for their actions, just like the working class is. Strange concept for someone like you, huh? If politicians can't be bought by corporations, then maybe, just maybe, people could have a wee say?-vox

Last time I checked vox, politicians are legally and socially accountable for their actions in western representative democracies. Althought they certainly arent in marxist dictatorships.


"No, what Marx wrote was 'From each according to his ability, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED.'"
This statement (which I didn't quote directly because I give everyone here a little more credit than vox, and assume that you all are familiar with at least the Cliffs Notes version of Marx), is the basis of my entire argument. What happens, oh wise vox, when the individual and the society disagree about the individual's ability and need? A bullet in the noggin, that's what. Communism needs an authoritarian central power to make sure that everyone is giving according to his ability before he recieves according to his need. It needs authoritarianism not because of "human nature," but because of the nature of collective action problems.

"Collective action problems?" And you accuse ME of bad grammar? Howsabout leaving made up terms undefined? Sounds like a problem to me.-vox

"Collective action problems," vox are you that pendantic or just a stupid. Actually I think you're on that level where pendantry and stupidity meet. "Collective action problems," is just what it means, that when people act collectively they have problems, i.e. they disagree. Look at participatory democracy like we HAVE here in America. The decisions of government chart out the collective path of the nation, but people disagree on the direction of the path all the time. Fortunately our democratic system allows for the creation of compromises.

Fact is, Reagan Lies, no one, and certainly not me, ever said that resources would be unlimited. The point is that everyone will have their basic needs met, and that's enough. That, truly, is their need, isn't it? So, where's the argument?-vox

Well vox, here you must define the "basic needs" of people. The problem is that when you do, you'd see that capitalism provides for the basic needs of people more effectively than socialism does, and furthermore, it fulfills other needs as well.
Do you propose, vox, that we all return to the natural state and live in fear of social anarchy and disentary? Because I, and most people happen to like the material wealth of modern society and look forward to more.
Do you propose that famine should be erradicated and everyone supplied with just enough food survive. Because if thats the case capitalism has done just that. Look at all the famines of the 20th century, and you will see centralization and a violation of market principles at work.
I don't know exactly what YOU THINK you are proposing when you say that people's "basic needs" will be met, but what we all see being proposed is that everyone will be poor. People will work and receive only subsistance amounts of the fruit of their labor. You are proposing theft, and the retardation of society. And ironically, you are proposing that we dismantle capitalism not because it is not doing its job, but because it is too good at doing its job.

Hell, even in prison the convicts fight for jobs, simply to have something to do. I understand that you don't quite get that, but you wouldn't have your cable TV to distract you from doing anything, see? It's not, I think we can all agree, a need.-vox

and neither is your PC, so fuck off, people want more then their "need" vox, history certainly attests to that, and you seem to have a problem with that. THEREIN LIES THE TOTALITARIAN NATURE OF SOCIALISM; when people that fancy themselves intellectuals, like yourself, and believe they know what is best from society, attempt to impose that vision on society. You would take people's wants away, their cable tv, and give them only their needs, because you pretend to know what is best for them.

[reagan lives]

So much to do here...we'll start with the easy stuff first.

""Collective action problems?" And you accuse ME of bad grammar? Howsabout leaving made up terms undefined? Sounds like a problem to me."
1) Leaving terms undefined is not a grammatical problem, it's a rhetorical one.
2) Any of your comrades who have taken first year political science courses will tell you that I certainly did not make up the term "collective action problem." Once again, vox, I overestimate your education. I am truly sorry for this.


"He also presents a communism without democracy and states..."
That's good, that's an independent clause.

"...in an authoratative manner, that this is the only communism."
What? What does this mean? If you had said "...and he asserts in an authoritative manner that this is the only communism" then you would have been correct. Instead you made a grammatical error. Just accept it and move on.

Now that I'm done explaining why I'm smarter than you, we'll get into the theory:

"Please explain to the class, Reagan Lies, just why you think this [that all are poor in communist systems] is the case?"
Well, vox, you've asked me this specific question before in another thread, and I will explain it to you again. Luckily for you, I have infinite patience for stupidity.
When criticizing the class structure of the United States, you refer (ad nauseum) to the idea that the working class in America is opressed because they are dependent upon the owners of the means of production for survival. They, effectively, can NOT excercise their will because they're too busy working 18 hour days in extremely hazardous cancer factories for pennies. They, naturally, don't WANT to do this, but they have no choice because they are poor, and therefore dependent. In your terms, the poor are not free because of this hopeless dependence, and the upper class is characterized by their ability to do absolutely whatever their evil hearts desire. They have not the petty concerns of the proleteriat, because they know that there will be a roof over their heads and food on their children's plates even if they take a month long vacation to Tahiti. For you, whether you want to admit it or not, the notion of class is predicated on freedom from dependency.
In communist systems, none are free because all are dependent. When working for the collective, one cannot simply decide to take a month off. One cannot simply decide that one wants a change of vocation, or that one wants to retire early. It is not permissable. Freedom, in communism, is traded for equity. Do not bother trying to deny this, it's disingenuous and it doesn't suit you very well. All citizens are dependents in communism, and therefore they are all poor, as we understand the term now.
Last time I explained this to you, you attempted some sophistry about me equating will with capital. Obviously, there's nothing I've said that equates "will" with "capital"...we all know, however, that this is simply an attempt on your part to play on your comrade's prejudices about capitalist ideas. Not that I think this preempt will prevent your senseless and irresponsible demagoguery.

"Hmmm, people work, commodities are produced without a profit incentive. Things get done. Yep, sounds good to me."
Do you mean to suggest that things DON'T get done when they're done for profit incentive? Don't be ridiculous.

"I must have missed that part [when I describe how communism leads to authoritarianism]. Could you go into a little more detail about it?"
Yet another concept that I've explained to you before. I will not get tired of explaining my ideas to child-like intellects, vox, so stop trying to wear me out. Communism is predicated on the belief that all will work to the best of their ability for nothing more than what they need. Perhaps many, even most of them would. But, since the communist plan promises sustinance to all, what can it do with those who don't want to work? What if I am born under a communist system, and I say "nuts to working, I'll just sit back and reap the benefits of my collectivist society." I cannot be tolerated. I must be removed from the society. There is no other option. If I make the same decision under capitalism, I will become fantastically poor and probably starve or freeze in the street. But the society, the state, does NOT have to actively expunge me, as they would under a communist plan.

As for your explanation of participatory democracy, thank you for that. I am so lucky to be lectured in political theory by someone who doesn't know what a collective action problem is. But, vox, I did not ask what participatory democracy is. I asked why you think communism naturally leads to it. Please answer my question.

[peaccenicked]

''Communism is predicated on the belief that all will work to the best of their ability for nothing more than what they need. Perhaps many, even most of them would. But, since the communist plan promises sustinance to all, what can it do with those who don't want to work? What if I am born under a communist system, and I say "nuts to working, I'll just sit back and reap the benefits of my collectivist society." I cannot be tolerated''
Where did you get this fairy tale from Mama Joe Macarthy.
'Nothing more than what they need'
Communism is predicated on a superabundance of goods, that are freely available.
The refusal to work has never been deemed a capital offence by any socialist theorist.
Or did you make this up off the cuff.
You say communism will become authoritarian because of shirkers. In sense you are right, because those who refuse to work are people that no society really tolerates. You say they are tolerated in the US, you mean allowed to beg. Yes I think we can afford that toleration too. Can you see a reason why not, but if the conditions of work are controlled by the workforce rather than some greedy capitalist or some stalinist bureaucrat, work would become a desire rather than a drudge. Our shirkers would be a relatively good problem to have, Hell lets have a party with them, no not a lynching.
You are so amusing when you tell fairytales,

[reagan lives]

"but if the conditions of work are controlled by the workforce rather than some greedy capitalist or some stalinist bureaucrat, work would become a desire rather than a drudge."
Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Have another hit from the bong.

"Communism is predicated on a superabundance of goods, that are freely available."
Take this up with vox (and Marx) who says that overproduction is the downfall of capitalism. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here peaccenicked.

"The refusal to work has never been deemed a capital offence by any socialist theorist."
Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Of course, you would contend that these are not socialist theorists. You're right, and I agree. But they are what socialist theory inevitably leads to, because of the reasons that I've described.

"You say they are tolerated in the US, you mean allowed to beg."
Yes, exactly, they are allowed to beg. They are allowed to remain within the society, even though they are not being productive.

"Yes I think we can afford that toleration too."
Anyone who has ever tried to establish a socialist society would disagree with you.

"Our shirkers would be a relatively good problem to have"
You think so? What if you were a good working communist, who got the same in return for your work in the factory that a "shirker" got for sitting at home all day? Would you want to have a party with him then?

[peaccenicked]

''but if the conditions of work are controlled by the workforce rather than some greedy capitalist or some stalinist bureaucrat, work would become a desire rather than a drudge."
Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Have another hit from the bong'''
I dont know what you find so funny, I find that the work that I do which is voluntary in the community much more rewarding than 12 hour shift in a Kitchen. The difference is in the sociable hours and the democracy in the care service. No one person should have to do such long hours daily. The boss told me there was 4 more people coming and after two months of this, I told him where to put his overtime.
The sort of laziness you talk about I think Lenin called it 'oblomovitis.'
He railed against it ,he did not legislate against it.On top of this,
how would you like your family and mates calling you a loafer etc There is such a thing as Social pressure.
Stoltz was the man, you should read it, it is very funny.(oblomov)
'Our shirkers would be a relatively good problem to have
You think so? What if you were a good working communist, who got the same in return for your work in the factory that a "shirker" got for sitting at home all day? Would you want to have a party with him then?'
Yes it would be a bit of a piss off but we are so used to unemployment that many of us regularly treat the unemployed, I dont blame them(the unemployed) when there is high rates of unemployment and I have been without myself
.
Anyway I would much prefer that problem than to have an exploitatative boss,
We would get round to discussing the problem with the individual, we might well just table it as depression,
Socialism has not been set it stone, it is a democratic problem for the future far from most peoples immediate concerns,
I really dont see why you think it will lead to authoritarianism, laziness is a social problem that will probably less worse than drugs, alcohol and ill health



(

(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:54 pm on Mar. 3, 2002)

[AgustoSandino]

For someone who mastered the art of cutting and pasting, I find it offensive that you would not make your post more legible.

[peaccenicked]

i am sorry i have a cold i was just about to edit give me time.
done

(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:57 pm on Mar. 3, 2002)

[AgustoSandino]

its cool, i just had a really hard time with that. thanks.

[AgustoSandino]

just dont want vox to miss this

[AgustoSandino]

since I always get called on when I dont see things i wanted someone to respond to this. What "commies" no response?!? That's what I'd expect from you sorry losers anyway.
Sorry that was just my vox impression.

[vox]

"Well it is an unfortunate circumstance for ideologues like Vox, that here in Reality we judge things based on their benefits. Why is a system, capitalism, that has some poor, superior to a communist system in which everyone is made poor? I think, Vox, that is called a rhetorical question.

"One of the most blantant and ill thoughtout pieces of sophistry that I've ever read. All you have done here vox is prove reagan's first point. You say that the existance of the "poor" is predicated on the existance of the rich. So, "In order to have the poor, you must have the rich." Since Communism erases class distinctions that are determined materially, i.e. makes everyone poor, then there really are no poor. You really make this fun vox."

A point so nice he made it twice.

One has to wonder, however, why Agusto insists upon predicating his definitions in a post-socialist society on pre-socialist definitions? He used some good circular logic there but didn't really answer anything, alas. Indeed, he accepted the socialist idea of a classless society and then proceeded to impose a class (poor) upon it! Such doublethink may be good for the National Review, but I doubt that anyone here bought it.

"It is unfortunate for you vox, that you set up such a strict paradigm for discussion for yourself. Here you posit two entities against each other, the "people" and the "corporations", revealing the simpleminded manichean conflict that motivates you. The problem is the world is not so simple, it is not the "good" people, vs the "evil" corporations. All of society's ailments did not arise from the creation of corporations vox."

And, of course, I never said they did, but Agusto prefers to set up strawmen to knock down, as he always did in the past, rather than deal with what is in front of him.

Also, I did not set up a dichotomy but merely presented a situation that exists in communities. One might want to read up on the Yucca facility for more on this.

If you read back through the thread, you will find that I posited participatory democracy as having an effect on corporate earnings. I think that we can all agree that if we, as the citizenry, suddenly elected only socialists to the gov't that this would have an impact on corporate earning, yes?

Agusto says that I make things too simple, that it's not "evil" corporations against "good" people, terms I, of course, did not use. However, Agusto does not, conveniently for him, mention corporate lobbyists in his little tirade, does he? Perhaps Agusto believes that the "good" people have the same power as a corporate lobbyist, but I certainly hope not. That would suggest a dosconnect with the real world that might require medication to cure.

Fact is, and anyone who reads the news knows this, corporations have a greater say in US gov't than the average citizen through lobbying. My original intent, and the one I stand by, is that the greater the participation of the citizenry, the less the influence of corporations, and this also means corporate lobbyists. It's not I who have simplified things, but Agusto.

"Do you know anything about how corporations work, vox? Who do you think controls corporations, let me give you a clue, its the stockholders, the people. There is no dichotomy between the 'people' and the 'corporations.' "

Here, Agusto makes clear that he equates, at the very least, stockholders with the citizenry. Indeed, he gives the private sector equal footing in the public sphere as he does voting! It's a rather bizarre twist on the "one person, one vote" principle, for in a company, it's not one person one vote, but one share one vote, so those who own more shares have a greater say.

I can already here the objection: "Don't you think that those who have more to lose should have more to say?" But that's the difference between participatory democracy and the corporate plutocracy that Agusto endorses.

If I don't own stock in a company that wants to dump toxic waste in my community, I should have no say? I should only have as much say as the amount of stock I own entitles me? Rubbish. Yet, there's Agusto, saying that there is no dochotomy between the people and the corporations. According to Agusto, we're all equal players. I don't think that's true.

"Last time I checked vox, politicians are legally and socially accountable for their actions in western representative democracies. Althought they certainly arent in marxist dictatorships."

Well, the US was found guilty by the World Court in 1986 of violating international law in Nicaragua, but the US hasn't done anything about that.

Accountability is a nice word to throw around when there is no way of changing who is in power. Fact is, the candidates presented to US voters are bought and paid for by corporations (http://www.opensecrets.org/ .)

Also, the two party system ensures that few "outside the box" can be elected. The "accountability" of our elected officials goes only as far as corporate sponsorhip wishes it to go. Regardless of politics, do you really think that Bush and Gore were the best possible candidates? If so, then you can stand by what you said. If not, then perhaps you should start looking at the wiring underneath the keyboard, eh?

As long as corporations can sponsor candidates like rick concerts, we are practically ensured of a selection between Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dumber.

"'Collective action problems,' is just what it means, that when people act collectively they have problems, i.e. they disagree. Look at participatory democracy like we HAVE here in America. The decisions of government chart out the collective path of the nation, but people disagree on the direction of the path all the time. Fortunately our democratic system allows for the creation of compromises."

And I'm all for that. However, given the amount of corporate interference, how can you determine what are "collective action problems" and what are PR successes? Surely you're not suggesting some sort of omniscient voter consciousness, right? All people know all things all the time? Perhaps you are, but again, I hope not.

As long as corporate entities ahve greater access to the media, and it's been shown that they do, how can one speak of genuine "collective action problems" within the citizenry?

"Look at all the famines of the 20th century, and you will see centralization and a violation of market principles at work."

I believe I've recommended Sen to you before, but I'll do it again. Sen showed that famine increased without any violation at all of free market pronciples. I strongly suggest you read some of Amrtya Sen's work in order to eradicate the vulgar economics you display. Kampuchea will prove you wrong, Agusto.

" I don't know exactly what YOU THINK you are proposing when you say that people's "basic needs" will be met, but what we all see being proposed is that everyone will be poor."

This is such a complete misunderstanding that one can only presume it's intentional.

Far from everyone being "given," by some unnamed entity, only a subsistence level existence, socialism provides basic needs (for the very dense: health care, clothing, food, water, shelter) to all as they need it. No where, of course, does any socialist say that work should not benefit the worker. Just the opposite, in fact.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" does not mean equality, it means that the socio-economic system will not abandon those in need, as happens in the USA (with it's shamefully high child poverty level) but will provide a social arena in which each can fully develop his ability, for poverty, as known today, is not an option.

Your clear misunderstanding of this is, as I said and I believe, intentional. If it's not, read up a bit more.

"and neither is your PC, so fuck off...."

The crux of Agusto's argument: fuck off. Hee!

" THEREIN LIES THE TOTALITARIAN NATURE OF SOCIALISM; when people that fancy themselves intellectuals, like yourself, and believe they know what is best from society, attempt to impose that vision on society."

First off, I don't know what you mean by "best from society." Could you explain?

Now then, I'm accused of attempting "to impose that vision on society." Impose? Me?

I fear that Agusto gives me too much credit.

I'm certainly an advocate, yes, that is true. Advocating something is not "imposing," in Agusto's hysterical and tawdry language. I iimpose nothing. I state my case. People are free to agree or disagree as they will. It you only Agusto who thinks in terms of "imposing" anything upon the citizenry.

"You would take people's wants away, their cable tv, and give them only their needs, because you pretend to know what is best for them."

How could I take "wants" away? What dreadful silliiness.

Too, I don't pretend to kow what's best for anyone. I simply say that I think basic needs should be met and that people should have he ability to flourish in a world that allows it. For this I'm wrong?

I guess so, if you're Agusto.

vox

[vox]

PS Agusto, that little "calling out" you did failed, as do all your imitations of me. See, here's the trick. Wait until the person posts in another thread, first. Then wait a day or two, then do it.

Sometimes a person honestly misses a thread. It's too bad that you're so insecure that you need to imitate me. I understand it, though. I'm kind like that.

vox

[Guest]

Some observations:
"One has to wonder, however, why Agusto insists upon predicating his definitions in a post-socialist society on pre-socialist definitions?"
That's a neat trick, vox...denying all terms and definitions works well when you're losing an argument. Your attempt, however, is betrayed by the fact that this territory has been crossed already in this thread. Reagan spake:
"All citizens are dependents in communism, and therefore they are all poor, as we understand the term now."
Yes, he and Agusto are talking about "poor" in its current definition. And you can bet your bottom dollar (ha ha) that, even if there was a different term for this condition in your "post-socialist" Bizarro world, it would suck nonetheless.

"If you read back through the thread, you will find that I posited participatory democracy as having an effect on corporate earnings. I think that we can all agree that if we, as the citizenry, suddenly elected only socialists to the gov't that this would have an impact on corporate earning, yes?"
Another brilliant argument from vox. I can just as easily say that participatory democracy is harmful to socialism because if we, as the citizenry, suddenly elected only libertarian capitalists to the gov't, it would have an impact on socialist policies. Wonderful.

"Perhaps Agusto believes that the 'good' people have the same power as a corporate lobbyist"
Alright, vox...you've shown that you don't even know what a collective action problem is, and now you demonstrate that you don't understand interest group theory. What *do* you know about American domestic politics? What, doesn't Chomsky teach you these things? If not, I'd suggest a second source.
Okay, vox. Would you say that environmental lobbyists are "good" people? How about Amnesty International? How about the American socialist party? Because these, vox, are all interest groups who play in the same arena as the corporations. Now, before you go shooting your mouth off about shit you don't know again, I suggest that you go find an essay on American interest group theory and read it carefully. Kenneth Dam, perhaps.

"Here, Agusto makes clear that he equates, at the very least, stockholders with the citizenry."
For SHAME, Agusto!

"If I don't own stock in a company that wants to dump toxic waste in my community, I should have no say?"
Say in the company? No. But you can go down to the town hall and get things done there, where you do have a say. As long as your mayor isn't "bought and sold" by the corporations (there's too much soft money in local politics today, isn't there vox?). But seriously, by participating in your local government you can prevent corporations from dumping things in your community, or you can at least tax the snot out of them for doing it. If you don't believe this, vox, then you prove once and for all that your opinions are based on the vitriolic screeds of people like Chomsky instead of on actual experience.

"Yet, there's Agusto, saying that there is no dochotomy between the people and the corporations. According to Agusto, we're all equal players. I don't think that's true."
You know why this is funny? When you get this, you're going to laugh, my friend. Check this out, and think hard about it: you define "dichotomy" in dichotimal terms, just like you do everything else. Here you have the dichotomy between "dichotomy" and "equality," without considering any other possibilities. If it isn't a dichotomy, it must be equality. That's fucking hysterical.

"Regardless of politics, do you really think that Bush and Gore were the best possible candidates?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. "Regardless of politics." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Regardless of economics, do you really think that socialism is the best possible economic system?

For the record, Agusto is wrong about what "collective action problems" are, and I take it from the fact that you didn't jump all over his shit that you don't know what they are either. Collective action problems are the problems that arise a group works for common benefit, and the personal cost of not working towards said benefit becomes extremely low (because the rest of the group is working towards it). It's called "free riding." It has a tendency to show up wherever public good are. The Tragedy of the Commons and today's environmental protection issues are good examples.

"Sen showed that famine increased without any violation at all of free market pronciples."
I suggest that you visit the other thread, where Agusto and Reagan tore this one a new poop chute.

"I'm certainly an advocate, yes, that is true. Advocating something is not 'imposing,' in Agusto's hysterical and tawdry language."
You advocate imposition.

"for poverty, as known today, is not an option."
That's true...it's a foregone conclusion.

[vox]

Where is Agusto?

vox