Adam Smith: The Market Will Provide - Yeah, like this has be [Archive]

Capitalist Imperial

26th July 2002, 15:11

Quote: from I Will Deny You on 11:03 pm on Mar. 18, 2002
That's an odd thing to hear from a man (?) who so dearly loves a country that gives a lower percentage of its money for foreign aid than almost any other developed country. (This is especially disgusting because the United States' economy did so well in the last decade.)

I know that plenty of people on the Left really do "WORRY ABOUT ESTABLISHING THESE INSTITUTIONS". (Remind me to thank President Bush next time I see him for cutting funding for foreign family planning in his first day in office, which was originally the idea of . . . REAGAN! Tell me, what is the Reaganite idea of foreign aid and development? Funding contras? Sorry buddy, but that doesn't count as "PROPER LEGAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS" on the Left.)

The World Bank and IMF, which are both loved so very dearly by flag-waving right-wingers, do nothing but strangle Third World countries after forcing them to abolish "THE PROPER LEGAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS". So what is your proposed solution?

And if you would actually take the time to smell my commie thumb, you'd realize that I put it up my big Leftie nose, not my ass. But that's an entirely different story.

"That's an odd thing to hear from a man (?) who so dearly loves a country that gives a lower percentage of its money for foreign aid than almost any other developed country. (This is especially disgusting because the United States' economy did so well in the last decade.)"

The united states gives more in pure dollars for direct aid than anyone else, bottom line. IWDY, R U counting debt relief? Andd what about direct humanitarian aid from organizations like the peace corps and the red cross. The US is also unsurpassed in this type of relief and assistance.

"I know that plenty of people on the Left really do "WORRY ABOUT ESTABLISHING THESE INSTITUTIONS". (Remind me to thank President Bush next time I see him for cutting funding for foreign family planning in his first day in office, which was originally the idea of . . . REAGAN! Tell me, what is the Reaganite idea of foreign aid and development? Funding contras? Sorry buddy, but that doesn't count as "PROPER LEGAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS" on the Left.)"

Now the US is reponsible for fucking family planning for other nations? WTF? (no pun intended) The propoer legal and economic institutions that need to be established are mainly the responsibilities of those respective regions. As reaganlives said, the regional warlords (basically less-organized thug dictators) will not alow this to happen. Of course, if the US actually tried to intervene in one of these nations in aggressive action to set up legitimate government, the leftists would scream imperialism, so I guess we just can't win.

"And if you would actually take the time to smell my commie thumb, you'd realize that I put it up my big Leftie nose, not my ass. But that's an entirely different story."

Well, that was our mistake, sometimes with lefties, its hard to tell the face from the ass.

Guest

26th July 2002, 17:21

Any money forced out of the citizens to pay for the other citizens is a form of socialism. Regulation of the economy isn't a true capitalist idea, it stems from a desire of the masses to control what the minority do. The socialist would want to prop up the society because most people in the society demand it. They fear they can't survuve without having some assurance that the government (all other people, they hope) will provide for them. So eventually the individual, which in the basis of our country, is sacrificed to the need of the whole to have a babysitter. How does a government with thousands of social programs including welfare and "social" security try to say it is capitalist. And how do all the socialist blame the SOCIAL problems on a capitalistic society that doesn't exist.

Capitalist Imperial

26th July 2002, 18:45

USSR China Sweden USA Taiwan
V V V V V
Communism-------------------------Capitalism
Socialism

Capitalism and communism are to theorhetical ideologies, no nation can truely acheive a pure form of one or the other. They merely lie on the spectrum of ideologies, whether approaching 1 side or tending toward the middle (socialism).

While of course the USA is not pure capitalism, even rightists agree that certain things should be regulated (some form of social security, law enforcement at local levels, education, etc.). However, for all intents and purposes, the United States is a vey capitalist nation, with very limited socialization for mostly regulatory and "safety net" purposes.

Capitalist Imperial

26th July 2002, 18:48

ok, my spectrum looks like crap, but u get the point

Guest

26th July 2002, 20:08

There is no compromise with the rights of the individual. A constant tax to pay for protection of rights should be and was the foundation of america. The Rightists you talk of are nothing more than liberal pink elephant Rockafeller republicans who have made the country what it know is. The right is left. Capitalism was kicked down by the new deal and America has never recovered. All of the social conflicts in government come from the socialistic involvement of government. Government should be there to protect rights, not regulate the way a society exists, that is for the individual who lives his life to chose.

Stormin Norman

26th July 2002, 21:47

Finally, someone who agrees that we live in a mixed economy where socialism has tipped the balance. It will be the death of the market economy, which has enhanced our lives throughout the years. How refreshing, to see that I am not the only one privy to the truth.

Capitalist Imperial

26th July 2002, 22:49

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 9:47 pm on July 26, 2002
Finally, someone who agrees that we live in a mixed economy where socialism has tipped the balance. It will be the death of the market economy, which has enhanced our lives throughout the years. How refreshing, to see that I am not the only one privy to the truth.

Thats kind of dooms-dayish,don't you think, Stormin Norman? The US has always had a margin of socialist element, and very well select things should be public, but is has hardly "tipped the scales" in my opinion. We are for all intents and purposes a highly capitalized nation.

Guest

26th July 2002, 23:49

The founding principles of the nation had nothing to due with majority (democratic) rule. It was about individualism. There was no marginal socialism. Government was there to secure the natural, unalienable, self-evident, rights of man. This did not include government providing for the individuals it governed. The sad truth is that many people couldn't survive without someone else providing. Those people should have left, but they didn't. They demanded that they get part of what was produced by other4s so they could survive. That is the concept of socialism. The new deal sealed our fate, with stupid americans buying into the philosophy of government helping "social" issues, other than protection of individual rights. The philosophy of america changed and what we see every day is the outcome. Now the people who changed the philosophy blame the problems on the philosophy the destroyed long ago, so they can have a society wee everyone is equal, which is naturally impossible.

Stormin Norman

28th July 2002, 10:55

Are you denying the continued erosion of our market economy, CI? I am sure you see it too. How can you not. However, it does appear that since 9-11 people have been shifting back to center, and have become less tolerant of liberal shenanigans (however it is spelled). Then came the Enron and Worldcom scandals that have all of the morons, who failed to recognize a bubble when they saw one, screaming for socialist measures. Watch any news program to witness how average citizens are demanding government protection from market flucuations. I think they should steer clear of the stock market if they don't want to think about what they are doing.

reagan lives

28th July 2002, 17:41

Where to begin. How about here:

"The Rightists you talk of are nothing more than liberal pink elephant Rockafeller republicans who have made the country what it know is."

Hey, I resemble that remark. On the one hand, I object to the word "pink," but on the other hand, I wouldn't be ashamed to be labeled as "making the country what it now is."

"The right is left."

You're absolutely right (no pun intended) about that. The American "right" will always truly be "left" because the United States is founded on liberal principles (read: the principles of liberty). Not the so-called "principles" of the American left per se, but in the scheme of things the American right (with the exception of the way out hootenannies) are defending the conservative side of true liberalism (as opposed to American liberalism). And believe me, you want it that way.

Second of all, I object to the characerization of New Deal programs as "socialist." Karl Marx nor any of his cronies ever outlined such programs...in fact, what they are are very capitalist solutions to the problems that Marx observed. Read Smith again: the unfettered free market is not the goal, the goal is the maximization of competition. These programs increase the level of competition in the marketplace, therefore they are essentially capitalist. And the democratic nature of the state truly solidifies the capitalist nature of these programs...since they are enacted by the people, they (theoretically anyway) represent a calculated decision on the part of the citizen/taxpayer/voter. The citizen decides that social welfare programs that will help his fellow man, prevent crime, insure his comfortable retirement, et cetera, are worth x% of his paycheck each month, in the same way that he decides that company health insurance is worth y%, in the same way he decides that a carton of milk is worth $1.39.

Relax. The application of the term "socialist" to these programs is a fabrication created by 1) the far right idealogues in order to villify them; and 2) the last generation of socialists, who have grown out of their tired philosophy and too old to fight in the revolution, but who want to declare victory anyway.

El Che

28th July 2002, 18:41

By god reagan ur fundamentalist fool! You refuse to recognise the socialistic nature of certain Capitalist reforms, out of sheer stuburness, political fundamentalism and in order to make everything "fit in" with your demonized idea of comunism/socialism etc......

We`ve gon over this before remember... It is a socialism of compromise, it is socialism or socialist elements within capitalism. New deal, third way, solution of compromise.

I mean maybe you are right, and these changes were brought about by Capitalists and have nothing to do with "Socialists" (not that I agree with this mind you), but they are non the less a progression of society, in the humanist direction (as opposed to your jungle style, ever man for him self, hardcore, inhumane capitalist bullshit), which is Socialist in nature. You can not deny it! Because Socialism my friend, is humanism and social progression all in one. 2 in 1!, that should be our new communist slogan.

so..., who cares what smith said, if he defended humanism and social justice then he is a Socialist and you dont even know it.

Its intellectual dishonesty you know, your fooling your self because one piece of evidence doesnt fit your pre-fabricated solution to the crime. Its obvious by the way you talk of capitalism, you truely believe it is the best (for mankind and such), and therefore because you recognise something good and humane in wellfare and western europian democratic socialism then it must be Capitalist! And whatever evidence points the other way, be it history, political theory or just simple common sense style self evident truth, is just overlooked.

Really reagan, if you need communism to all bad there you aren`t too sure of Capitalism are you?

Guest

28th July 2002, 23:00

Jungle style hardly resemble the individual fighting for life alone. Jungle "trbes" are groups of people suffering from lack of individual ability. They therefore join together to justify their fight of men who wish to stnd alone as individuals.

reagan lives

29th July 2002, 23:29

OK, El Che, if in your universe everything good and useful is "Socialist" and everything bad and destructive is "Capitalist," then I suppose that capitalist social welfare must be socialist, along with seat belts, flat screen TV's, and 39 cent cheeseburger day at McDonald's.

"as opposed to your jungle style, ever man for him self, hardcore, inhumane capitalist bullshit"

Jeez, you really don't know anything. Read Smith. Or you could choose to remain ignorant and simplify things to "if he defended humanism and social justice then he is a Socialist." It suppose it's easier than reading and thinking.

And then you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. That really hurts. I'm intellectually dishonest, you say, because:

"because you recognise something good and humane in wellfare and western europian democratic socialism then it must be Capitalist!"

So El Che's argument can be summarized as follows:

-Social welfare programs in capitalist nations are socialist because they are good and humane.

-Adam Smith was a socialist because he advocated good and humane things.

-reagan lives is intellectually dishonest because he (allegedly) ascribes all good and humane things to capitalism solely on the basis of their being good and humane.

"And whatever evidence points the other way, be it history,"

The programs in question were invented in capitalist nations.

"political theory"

They come from Adam Smith, not Karl Marx.

"or just simple common sense style self evident truth"

Enough said.

"is just overlooked."

Like your post should have been.

El Che

30th July 2002, 12:54

That is exactly correct reagan, Capitalism is the social jungle, man exploiting man, steping over his fellow man in order to satisfy his self interest. The extent to which one is allowed to step all over his fellow man is all that is regulated in Capitalist nations. But cruelty and brutality are inherent to Capitalism, even if, over the course of centuries, some of the more harsh realities disapear and more "humane" laws are passed. More Socialistic laws...

If you don`t believe me look to your history books. Capitalism, from its infancy, has been nothing more than a cruel relation of power, between people and peoples, on the individual level or on the state level. Nothing but a tool, an economic tool, with which I can oppress you, use you and many like you, to get ahead in life and then make you be greatful for it.

This is the truth, as I see it. I haven`t quite figured you out yet, but there are only two types of Capitalist sympathisers. If I were to venture an opinion (I know this is getting of track but humor me) I would say you are the lesser of the two evils. The kind that, like my fellow comrades, is interested in the common good but is simply misguided. Not that I think your obtuse, which I do not, but rather I think its a mistake easy to make. The ruling class makes sure it`s ideas prevail, otherwise it could not; and on top of that you are an american.

The simple truth is that while Capitalism exists, while those "tools" of economic nature presist (i.e the possibility that I may employ you and get rich as a result of this), then a grotesc social injustice will also prevail, even if it is not recognised as such by the majority of individuals it is there non the less.

Capitalist "common good" arguments are feeble and weak. Whatever protective, restraining and more humane laws there exist in advanced Capitalist nations today, are no doubt, no doubt in my mind, the result of all those who have struggled to obtain these conquests in favor of all humans and human dignity and against economic interests. Specificaly the economic interests of some to further step all over the rest.

So, dont hide behind smith, he can`t help you and these are not his gains. These are the gains of those who have struggled for social justice, if smith contributed to this, then it is because although he was not a Karl Marx, although he was not brilliant enough to see the whole picture, he saw something and tried to rectify what he saw. But dont be naive, were it not for the blood of those who fought for some dignity against Capital this progress would not have been achived. And of course, as a Socialist I teel you with the upmost ease that this progress is by no means suficiente, I want MORE, haha much more. Perhaps I wont achive it, but no matter, I`m confident someday someone will.

So don`t try and twist my words and take quotes of context, you know what I mean, I`ve said it many times. For someone who yaps indefinatly about the rethorical and debating crimes of one vox, I must say you are as quilty of these crimes as anyone else.

The Guest

30th July 2002, 17:35

If capitalism is a social jungle socialism is social slavery.

Guest

30th July 2002, 21:57

For god's sake people.... is it really so difficult to understand that without poverty and 3rd world oppressing countries todays capitalism wouldn't exist?? The poor man's cheap labor is the center of all this bullshit, and oppression makes sure it stays that way. When you talk about how well the capitalist countries are doing you tend to forget that....

The Guest

30th July 2002, 23:33

The reason third world labor is so cheap compared to

American is that America has a limited socialism and

sets its status higher that of the rest of the world.

Poverty existed long before capitalism, and people that

said it wasn't a sign of who you were did to (Jesus

loves the poor (weak) but hates the rich (healthy). You

people don't even understand free market.

Guest

31st July 2002, 12:15

The Guest i don't see how what you said can do any good to the capitalist cause. By setting its standards higher america is setting someone else's standards lower. Don't you see the injustice in that? Someone decides who gets rich and who gets poor.. how nice huh?

"Poverty existed long before capitalism"? Gee i thought someone invented it last week...
What i said is that capitalism uses poverty to flourish, to grow, to shine, to even function.... clear enough?

If i didnt know any better i'd say you buried your head in the sand

Guest

31st July 2002, 12:22

"people who said [poverty] wasn't a sign of who you were did [exist] to"
What the hell does that mean?? There's a genetic predisposition to become rich or poor????........ You really do live in a pink world don't you?..

The Guest

31st July 2002, 17:28

No I'd say you buried your head. I said the socialism

you call capitalism feeds on poverty then says it is

capitalism. America is socialist, no free market.

And about the predisposition I meant that people have

been saying it is like that for thousands of years. I

wasn't being punk, just trying to say that being pink, or

blaming capitalism, is just the scapegoat they chose

now to blame capitalism. It is Marxist bullshit. If Marx

tells all the poor that they can't get out of poverty any

way besides revolting against others 150 years latter

that is the philosophy they believe.

Guest

31st July 2002, 18:28

"America is socialist, no free market."

You've got to be kidding me

The Guest

31st July 2002, 22:53

You don't think government in America equals business

in America. You must live in sand. Regulation = no free

market. The black market is probably todays only free

market, though I am sure guerrillas (and other socialists)

would like to change that.

reagan lives

1st August 2002, 01:30

Sorry for the delay...I knowingly and of my own volition alienate my labor for 40 hours a week in exchange for a wage. You guys know how it is.

"That is exactly correct reagan, Capitalism is the social jungle, man exploiting man, steping over his fellow man in order to satisfy his self interest."

Funny...I don't remember saying that. And a review of my previous post isn't helping to jog my memory. I must have written it, then got kicked in the head by a mule, then edited it, then drank a 22 of Johnny Walker Black, which would explain why I don't remember it.

"But cruelty and brutality are inherent to Capitalism, even if, over the course of centuries, some of the more harsh realities disapear and more 'humane' laws are passed. More Socialistic laws..."

You know, this really, really sounds like "Capitalism is bad no matter what, and anything good is Socialist." Is this the impression that anyone else here is getting? Because that seems ridiculously narrowminded to me, but it does explain why I don't seem to be getting through to you.

"If you don`t believe me look to your history books. Capitalism, from its infancy, has been nothing more than a cruel relation of power, between people and peoples, on the individual level or on the state level. Nothing but a tool, an economic tool, with which I can oppress you, use you and many like you, to get ahead in life and then make you be greatful for it."

Usually when one begins a paragraph with "if you check your history books," one follows with some argument that is predicated on one or more specific historical facts. Oh well, from now on I'll just assume that you don't know what you're talking about until you prove otherwise.

"This is the truth, as I see it."

I don't doubt that for a second.

"The simple truth is that while Capitalism exists, while those "tools" of economic nature presist (i.e the possibility that I may employ you and get rich as a result of this), then a grotesc social injustice will also prevail, even if it is not recognised as such by the majority of individuals it is there non the less."

No matter what the circumstances or outcomes, capitalism is bad because El Che says so. End of discussion. I feel so much smarter now. As I said, I spent eight hours of my day working in a warehouse, not to mention the two hours I spent commuting, in exchange for a wage. I worked overtime yesterday, and as a result of that the company I work for was able to fulfill its obligations for the month. It made way more money as a result of my work than it paid me. But I don't give a hoot in hell how much they made as a result of my work, all I care about is how much they pay me for my time and labor. They could make half of what they pay me, they could make twice what they pay me, they could make a million times what they pay me, the only transaction that involves me is the sale of my labor in exchange for wage. As a side note, I also took a generous lunch and two breaks, and before we started in the morning we had our daily "safety meeting" to make sure that none of us get hurt, and the supervisor made sure to tell us to take a water break in the air conditioned break room whenever we felt like we needed it (it was a hot one). If I felt that I wasn't being paid enough, I'd go ask him for more. If he said no, I'd go find another job. Where's the injustice in this picture?

"Capitalist 'common good' arguments are feeble and weak. Whatever protective, restraining and more humane laws there exist in advanced Capitalist nations today, are no doubt, no doubt in my mind, the result of all those who have struggled to obtain these conquests in favor of all humans and human dignity and against economic interests. Specificaly the economic interests of some to further step all over the rest."

I'm sure that your fragile philosophical position is well butressed by these unfounded beliefs. But the facts are as follows:
-Capitalism, from the first, was established as an economic theory that sought to maximize the common good through the encouragement of competition in a market of free and self-interested individuals
-Capitalism has provided more for those who participate in it than any other theory, practice, experiment, or miscellaneous socioeconomic project in the history of the world. Even Karl Marx knew this.
-The advancement of worker's rights in America has been almost entirely carried out within the capitalist market...that is, the changes were enacted as part of the system, not imposed on it from a foreign source (i.e. Congress). Certainly, the legislature has enacted reams of labor laws, but they largely followed court decisions, which were almost always the result of collective bargaining issues. There are exceptions, of course...Roosevelt's demanding of the 40 hour work week comes to mind. But most of the advancements have come from the treatment of labor issues as just another fungible asset to be negotiated. That's why the progress in labor laws has worked out so much better in the US than it has in most European nations...because it is "privatized" rather than being sent down from on high by politicians.

"So, dont hide behind smith, he can`t help you and these are not his gains."

Don't you hide behind your ignorance of Smith. It's clear to everyone by now that, despite your widesweeping pronouncements about what capitalism is or is not, or what it can or cannot be, you have never even cracked its foundational text. Can you imagine what the response would be if I told some commie here not to "hide behind Marx?"

"So don`t try and twist my words and take quotes of context, you know what I mean, I`ve said it many times."

No, as a matter of fact, I don't know what you mean, because you refuse to present any evidence to support your claims. Also, I'd like to know when I've taken your quotes out of context, because I don't think I have. It doesn't do one much good to take someone's quotes out of context when said quotes are sitting (in full context) on the same webpage.

"For someone who yaps indefinatly about the rethorical and debating crimes of one vox, I must say you are as quilty of these crimes as anyone else."

Examples, please. (Don't worry, I don't really expect them).

vox

1st August 2002, 03:57

Reagan,

Just a couple of questions, easy ones that shouldn't take up too much time.

Since you clearly state that the market needs to be regulated, are you a Keynesian or a Galbraithian, or some mixture of the two?

When you write that "©apitalism has provided more for those who participate in it than any other theory, practice, experiment, or miscellaneous socioeconomic project in the history of the world. Even Karl Marx knew this," what, exactly, do you mean by "more," which is a rather fuzzy word. Also, is this "more" proved by the GDP (or GNP, if you plan on going back a ways) or on a per capita basis? And, of course, there's always the question of distribution, so exactly who got "more?"

You also write that labor benefitted from capitalism, and that court decisions and Congress played a major role. However, I'm wondering about the labor movement, which you don't discuss. Did workers face serious hardships, and death is here considered a hardship, striking for nothing? Given the authority with which you speak, you know about workers being paid with chits instead of US currency, right? Of course you do. Why else would the Company Store be so famous? And, of course, perhaps you'd like to explain how the Taft-Hartely act aided workers. I suppose you're correct that workers' issues are "privatized" to a certain degree in the US, which simply means that workers continue to struggle for rights because they aren't codified into law, and, if they are, the department to investigate abuses is seriously underfunded.

Thanks for taking the time to reply,

vox

peaccenicked

1st August 2002, 04:06

capitalism is bad because El Che says so.
I thought I would just pick apon your most infantile remark.
Nobody here enjoys the sound of their own rhetoric as much as you and SN. Your posts are full of self righteous assumptions, and disgraceful subterfuges of the truth.
It is like you are trying to invent history to suit patriotic capitalism better than the establishment. You could be possibly looking for a job there.
El Che and I got onto your crude apologises for capitalism, have you got something new up your sleeve?
No!
Just the same old utopianism of Smith. You live in a complete fantasy world.
Smith has been dead a long time and completely buried by corporate capitalism. What they tried to do to Marx
was achieved by the British empire with Smith.
If anything Smith is poineer of the modern social conscience. He had illusions in self regulation.
You have either illusions in the fairness of US foriegn policy or are a very insincere person.
I find you shockingly pompous and silly.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:08 am on Aug. 1, 2002)

Linksradikaler

1st August 2002, 14:44

Capitalism is bad because it's unplanned, unstable, and dangerous--in economic terms--to the vast majority of those who fuel it.

Socialism is better because of its ethos--which is the greatest good for the greatest number of people--and because it is planned from stem to stern.

Now, a lot of capitalists say that socialism is doomed because it is a closed system that allows no capital throughput and thus value is impossible to determine (and entropy is always increasing). But economics isn't physics and labor can create value from within, based on society's needs. What is needed more is emphasized more, in the ideal socialist system.

Capitalists will also say that socialism quashes innovation and thus slows progress. I disagree. I'd say socialism NORMALIZES progress, slowing it to the point that society has some time to re-adjust to each advance. For example: instead of car plants re-tooling with robotic assembly lines in one month and displacing all the workers at once, it can phase in re-tooling over a couple of years to give workers a chance to re-train. Thus, no worker sits idle and social production remains high. In capitalism, it would be lay-offs, plant closures, and misery, resulting in crime and other social ills.

But here is the key to Marx's theory: capitalism comes first. Not feudalism. Not mercantilism. CAPITALISM. So, from a Marxist perspective, Russia's system was doomed from day one. Russia never developed a capitalist infrastructure, which is what socialism is based on.

China, on the other hand, by adopting capitalism run by a communist party, is really the country to watch. China is willing to sell its labor cheap to trick westerners into investing, which builds capitalist infrastructure, which will facilitate a switch-over to a potentially successful example of "socialism in one land." A lot of people have cynically given up on China. I still watch and wait. I foresee a day of nation-wide nationalization of foreign holdings in China and a new stage in its progress towards socialism (if it is indeed still heading that way).

reagan lives

2nd August 2002, 01:50

Nice to see you throwing strikes again, vox.

"Since you clearly state that the market needs to be regulated, are you a Keynesian or a Galbraithian, or some mixture of the two?"

Now why on earth would I, or you, or any other self-respecting autonomous individual with half a working brain want to confine himself with such labels? So I suppose the answer, if anything, would be "mixture," but I even hesitate at that.

"When you write that '©apitalism has provided more for those who participate in it than any other theory, practice, experiment, or miscellaneous socioeconomic project in the history of the world. Even Karl Marx knew this,' what, exactly, do you mean by 'more,' which is a rather fuzzy word. Also, is this 'more' proved by the GDP (or GNP, if you plan on going back a ways) or on a per capita basis? And, of course, there's always the question of distribution, so exactly who got 'more?'"

Another dispatch from the planet Sophistia. "More" is not a "fuzzy word" at all, it is an absolutely clear comparative term. Contemporary capitalist nations produce MORE than non-capitalist nations. Capitalist England produces MORE than feudal England. Capitalist America provided MORE for its citizens than the Socialist USSR. As for the distribution, it's across the board...compare the working class in America to the lower class in any non-capitalist nation and you'll see what I mean. Do you care to refute any of these statements, or are you going to continue to ask rather banal questions and wait for me to fall into some trap?

"You also write that labor benefitted from capitalism, and that court decisions and Congress played a major role. However, I'm wondering about the labor movement, which you don't discuss...I suppose you're correct that workers' issues are 'privatized' to a certain degree in the US, which simply means that workers continue to struggle for rights because they aren't codified into law, and, if they are, the department to investigate abuses is seriously underfunded."

So...I did discuss the "labor movement" after all. I'd tell you that that's what I was refering to when I talked about the "privatization" of worker's rights, but it seems that you figured that one out on your own.

"And, of course, perhaps you'd like to explain how the Taft-Hartely act aided workers."

I'm sorry, did I say that it did? The Taft-Hartley Act, like many things in this world dearest vox, had far too many consequences and reprecussions to be labelled as simply "aiding workers" or "hurting workers" in your patently black and white world view. It further empowered the NLRB (that nefarious enemy of the union worker), it loosened the power of the union over the workers it purported to represent, and it required the employers as well as unions to give due notice before terminating a collective bargaining agreement. Of course, the de facto assumption of the role of "arbitrator" by the federal government standardized labor negotiations and removed the fangs from both sides of the table. And the Act also prohibited unions from contributing to political campaigns, although that provision was later overturned. Do you see, vox, why you should be wary of thinking of things as complex as the Taft-Hartley Act in dichotomous terms?

For the record, I don't appreciate the implication that I believe that workers who have faced mortal peril achieving terms of employment that we can now take for granted were "striking for nothing." I think I've made my position abundantly clear, and I have no idea where you got this impression. Perhaps from your own prejudices. Just a guess.

(Edited by reagan lives at 1:53 am on Aug. 2, 2002)

peaccenicked

2nd August 2002, 02:25

Reagan lives. How many times do we have to tell you that Stalinism and its hybrids are enemies of socialism.
The defeat of the October revolution was not merely a national event but the failure of the first wave of world revolution.
Of course we need the most productive powers to be successful. The second wave of world revolution is still at the starting blocks. Most of us recognise that has to be thoroughly democratic,even more democratic than existing capitalism and believe that workers in the advanced countries wont accept anything less. It is not just an economic question.
Your attempt to drown us in the legacy of Stalinism is the last great hope of the super rich exploiting class.
Your false ideological position is doomed because it rests on the wishful thinking of a brazenly corrupt and irrational elite, which historically is a doomed entity. The clock is ticking.

RedCeltic

2nd August 2002, 03:21

The failure of Stalinism is an opportunity for the democratic left, who has long been opposed to the authoritarian nationalistic agenda, to emerge from its shadow.

We are on the threshold of a new era, and the start of a new millennium. We must learn from the mistakes of the October Revolution that provided political inequality, yet look forward with a renewed vision as we build a newer and stronger democratic left.

In building a worldwide grassroots movement, we must continue to keep democracy at the core of our foundations.

Not one of the nations that was or is communist, had ever practiced a democratic government, nor free elections. Not one was highly industrialized, nor possessed an overwhelming surplus of goods and crops produced, which is required for a successful revolution.

Marx’s vision was for the revolution to take hold in the west first, and trickle down to the east and third world.

Yet since 1917 we have been working backwards. How can you honestly expect people who have never known anything but tyranny create anything but what they already know?

The same goes for what the outcome of the revolution in the west would be? How could people who know nothing but democracy be satisfied with tyranny? They wouldn’t, and shouldn’t. To suggest such a thing is ludicrous, and asinine.

As Peaccenicked said, we are merely at the starting block. The revolution, ( with luck a peaceful one) is such a far ways off that I know beyond a doubt that we will all be dead, berried and forgotten before it comes about.

We are setting the ball in motion.

Capitalist Fighter

2nd August 2002, 04:31

In relation to the topic, "The Market will provide", it has peoples, the market has provided humans with great technological advances, surplus of food, labour, et cetera. However the market does not distribute. There in the problem lies. While nobody can argue there is enough food to feed the world 2 times over, the fact is corrupt governments have not distributed these pletiniful and abundant resources to the population, therefore causing poverty, crime and the blackening of the capitalist ideology. Capitalism and the market has provided, evil dicatators such as Mugabe and Quaddafi do not distribute.

Augusto

2nd August 2002, 12:56

Quote: from peaccenicked on 2:25 am on Aug. 2, 2002
Reagan lives. How many times do we have to tell you that Stalinism and its hybrids are enemies of socialism.
The defeat of the October revolution was not merely a national event but the failure of the first wave of world revolution.
Of course we need the most productive powers to be successful. The second wave of world revolution is still at the starting blocks. Most of us recognise that has to be thoroughly democratic,even more democratic than existing capitalism and believe that workers in the advanced countries wont accept anything less. It is not just an economic question.
Your attempt to drown us in the legacy of Stalinism is the last great hope of the super rich exploiting class.
Your false ideological position is doomed because it rests on the wishful thinking of a brazenly corrupt and irrational elite, which historically is a doomed entity. The clock is ticking.

I just wanted to point out that once again its not the capitalist, or in this case reaganlives, that brings up stalinism as a case against socialism, but peaceniked.
Peace, for the time most capitalist have been here the simple equation of stalinism=socialism has ever rarely been brought up except by the likes of you. The objections to socialism reach far beyond such superficial arguments, and every time these objections are presented you immediately cry that capitalists here are equating stalinism and socialism and so the debate is null and void.
TAKE A LOOK AT REAGANLIVES' POST ABOVE, WHERE DO YOU SEE HIM EQUATE SOCIALISM AND STALINISM? Yet the first line of your response reveals a persistent intellectual dishonesty from which you have never escaped.
Peace, socialism and stalinism are not synonymous, yet the contentions against socialism go far beyond the historical and into the moral. Stop setting up such a ridiculous straw man for you to knockdown, much like the ideology you espouse you will only find yourself on a quixotic quest.

Redceltic,
That's a really cute post. I love the quasi racism and the implications of cultural superiority implicit in it:

"Yet since 1917 we have been working backwards. How can you honestly expect people who have never known anything but tyranny create anything but what they already know?"

Yes redceltic all those stupid non-westerners could never succeed at creating anything but tyranny.

I understand that such a statement, coming from you, is not really a betrayal of any racist sentiments, but simply of downright ignorance. I know you're a history student, so if you want to stick by such a statement show me how non-westerners are culturally inferior, assuming of course you would consider tyranny an inferior form of government.

ArgueEverything

2nd August 2002, 14:54

"I just wanted to point out that once again its not the capitalist, or in this case reaganlives, that brings up stalinism as a case against socialism, but peaceniked."

no, thats not true. it is not necessary for a capitalist to say outright "stalinism equals socialism" for them to make that very same assumption. an example from reagan lives, which you seem to have missed is "Capitalist America provided MORE for its citizens than the Socialist USSR." he calls the stalinist soviet union Socialist, thereby trying to invalidate the theory of Socialism.

this is despite almost EVERY leftist on this board's unwavering hatred of stalinism.

Augusto

2nd August 2002, 16:13

Again you guys sidestep the question.

If reaganlives calls the USSR socialist and you reply that it is not socialist but stalinist then pray tell, what is socialism. What does it entail politically and economically. I've read what Marx had to say over and over again, I was like you guys for most of my life. Furthermore thousands of soviet economists and political theorist also read what marx had to say, their interpretations were manifest in the USSR. You say that this is not socialism, I am willing to give you the benefit of a doubt if you simply told me what socialism/communism entailed. Again no one in my 11 months on this board has even attempted such a venture.
I believe that you guys hate "stalinism" and love "socialism", but I'm not sure if any of you know what that is, as none of you have ever expressed what it is.

James

2nd August 2002, 16:24

Fair points.

But i'm not really seeing it that way,

I see socialism as being Libertarian, really democratic. ie everyone gets a say blah blah blah

I'm totally against authertarian ideas. If that makes me "not a marxist" then okay, i'm not going to cry over it (because i'm being truthful here; i've only read a few articles by Marx, and the communist manifesto - i saw it being flawed, so decided to stick to more "modern" ideas, if you follow what i'm saying).

Stalinism was authertarian. I'd hate to live in a place like that, i'd hate to have my freedom of expression taken away from me.

To me Stalinism defeats the whole object of "Socialism". As i've said i believe socialism to be truly democratic. Its not very democratic when one person has total power over the whole nation.

I think thats all, please ask more specific things, and i'll gladly answer (because it not only answers your questions, but helps my inner self, and my beliefs develope)

RedCeltic

2nd August 2002, 16:25

Redceltic,
That's a really cute post. I love the quasi racism and the implications of cultural superiority implicit in it:

"Yet since 1917 we have been working backwards. How can you honestly expect people who have never known anything but tyranny create anything but what they already know?"

Yes redceltic all those stupid non-westerners could never succeed at creating anything but tyranny.

I understand that such a statement, coming from you, is not really a betrayal of any racist sentiments, but simply of downright ignorance. I know you're a history student, so if you want to stick by such a statement show me how non-westerners are culturally inferior, assuming of course you would consider tyranny an inferior form of government.

I was not talking about culture, I was talking about capital and industrialization. The Soviet Union was under a tyrannical leadership. China, historically has always been a communal society with little or no voice in their government.

That doesn't make them culturally inferior. In many areas, the east has always been more advanced than the west. Take Mathematics for example.

I've said many times, and will say again, one can't expect to go from a feudalistic barely industrialized society to a successful socialist utopia.

One of the major benefits of Capitalism is that it often leads to more of an individuality, and therefore more of a democratic state. Capitalism is an important stage in the development of socialism. After all... socialism is an answer what will replace capitalism... not an alternative to it.

The Soviet Union didn't become authoritarian because Russian people are somehow inferior to Americans and Western Europeans... became authoritarian because that's what the people where used to.

Augusto

2nd August 2002, 16:33

so how and when was this tradition of tyranny lifted from 'western' societies then. What I'm trying to point out is that its far too convinient to explain away the failures of your system on the cultural conditioning of the people who took it up, and completely excuse the failures within your system. The liberal western democracies, the US included, have a long and storied tradition of depotism. The people in the liberal western democracies once found themselves at a point where they too knew nothing but tyranny yet they moved away from it. Why couldn't the Russians or the Chinese or North Koreans or Vietnamese do this within the context of communism? Perhaps it's because communism/socialism is inherently coercive and totalitariian.

Stormin Norman

2nd August 2002, 17:08

In response to James who said:

"I'm totally against authertarian ideas"

Then why do support an economic system that advocates central control over the means of production and distribution of goods? How can such a system be implemented without authoritarian measures? Furthermore, aren't you a self proclaimed anarchist? How do economic controls fit within your philosophy behind government? I suggest you take a look at the contradictions between what you claim to believe and what you support.

James

2nd August 2002, 17:21

Hang on!!! Woah!!!

Quote me norman, then i can answer.

RedCeltic

2nd August 2002, 17:24

Quote: from Augusto on 10:33 am on Aug. 2, 2002
so how and when was this tradition of tyranny lifted from 'western' societies then. What I'm trying to point out is that its far too convinient to explain away the failures of your system on the cultural conditioning of the people who took it up, and completely excuse the failures within your system. The liberal western democracies, the US included, have a long and storied tradition of depotism. The people in the liberal western democracies once found themselves at a point where they too knew nothing but tyranny yet they moved away from it. Why couldn't the Russians or the Chinese or North Koreans or Vietnamese do this within the context of communism? Perhaps it's because communism/socialism is inherently coercive and totalitariian.

Look, The average person living in Russia, Vietnam, etc... their life didn't change very much. They went from one totalitarian state to another.

This has nothing to do with socialism... You go about your business... work your job, live your life, raise your kids... who the hell cares who's running the country?!

It has nothing to do with being inferior, but the average person who is used to living under one corrupt government or another, simply doesn't care... and heck why should they? They have learned it's beyond their control.

You can't make a comparison to this way of life to the west, and you can't make a comparison to authoritarian communism to libertarian communism, or democratic socialism, for the only thing to be said against it is that it's yet to be existing.

Yet, socialist reforms, they have existed under social democracy, if you agree with them or not is debatable, however you can’t say that socialism has had nothing but a negative impact on the world.

RedCeltic

2nd August 2002, 17:34

Then why do support an economic system that advocates central control over the means of production and distribution of goods? How can such a system be implemented without authoritarian measures? Furthermore, aren't you a self proclaimed anarchist? How do economic controls fit within your philosophy behind government? I suggest you take a look at the contradictions between what you claim to believe and what you support.

Democratic control over the means of production does not mean an undemocratic means of government. Economy and form of government are diffrent things.

Augusto

2nd August 2002, 22:51

Quote: from RedCeltic on 5:34 pm on Aug. 2, 2002

Then why do support an economic system that advocates central control over the means of production and distribution of goods? How can such a system be implemented without authoritarian measures? Furthermore, aren't you a self proclaimed anarchist? How do economic controls fit within your philosophy behind government? I suggest you take a look at the contradictions between what you claim to believe and what you support.

Democratic control over the means of production does not mean an undemocratic means of government. Economy and form of government are diffrent things.

well begin with the post above and work backwards. There are so many points want can raise to the statement above. One can ask its author to clarify his blanket statement that democratic, i.e. communal, control of the "means of production" won't infringe on an individuals' rights to dispose of the means of production. One can also remind the other of the conception of a tyranny of the majority; how the commonweal of society, if so simply defined may in fact violate a societies notion of liberty and so "democratic controls" of the means of production would oppressive (I don't think he'd quite like democratic controls of said means, if purchasing patterns are any indication then the democratic concensus would arrive at the SUV as the transportation ideal))
One can bring up such issues with such a brevious statement, but I will choose to harp on another. That "economy and form of government are different things." This is perhaps one of the most disengenious statements made by socialists so that in the face of history they may ignore the crimes committed for their ideals.
I'm not exactly sure about RC politics, they waver from the silly to the looney, but I'm pretty sure that the political thread that links him to most of the comrades her at che-lives is the theoretical foundation put forth by marx (to which most of your really have no clue about save the forty pages written in some pamphlet).
In any case assuming redceltic is a marxist of some sort he, if not you, must agree that all that we see in society is economically determined According to marx all social conventions from sexual politics to religious iconography is determined by the economic conditions of peoples existance social conventions, from class roles to gender roles, from sexual politics to racial identities and everything in between can be derived from economic situations. This marxist notion stands against RC's statement that government and economies stand apart.
But why do I have such issues with RC's statement if it betrays the spirit of marxism and conforms with my opinion that the world is more complex than economic and material deteterminism allow?
Well the reason is quite simple, the present disciples of marx, having witness the crimes committed in the name of their messiah and his teachings, need to explain them away as someone or something elses fault.
Marxism/socialism is not stalinism. Marxism socialism is democratic. Those are the lines spouted forth time and again on this Board. Well we need not needlessly tread that old ground abouth socialism's inherent totalitarian nature, but we do need to point out that if history has yet to provide any examples of socialism, it provides ample evidence for the natural relation between capitalism and democracy. Only capitalist nations have had republican liberal democracies, and vice-versa.
Governments and their economies are are infinitely intertwined, Marx thought as much, and so perhaps, the socialist economic policies of 20th century socialist regimes do inform the government policies, and vice-versa.

reagan lives

3rd August 2002, 00:30

Why is it that whenever the self-proclaimed "socialists" on this board are left without any answers, they change the subject by saying that "Stalinism is not Socialism?" Incidentally, I don't ever remember hearing that line quite so much before those Stalinists showed up a ways back and whooped it up for a while. One of the reasons why I got so bored with this forum was because I had to keep typing the same post about the necessary connection between theoretical socialism and actual totalitarianism. I know that peacenick for one has read it at least three times (at least, he has participated in threads in which it appeared). If you guys don't have anything new or useful to say (like, for instance, the outline of your ideology that Augusto has asked for), then don't say anything at all.

peaccenicked

3rd August 2002, 03:34

There is no connection between totalitarianisn and theoretical socialism. It is merely something you desire.
An outline of our ideology is impossible as we oppose ideology. For socialists, it is a matter of science that capitalism like all societies is of a transient nature and the if human evolution is not disrupted by natural or man-made disaster, there will be a higher form of society
based on common ownwership of the means of production and a democratic plan for human need.
It makes more sense than the perpetual barbarism of capitalism in which greed is the ruling ethos.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:35 am on Aug. 3, 2002)

reagan lives

3rd August 2002, 03:51

Here's a tip for the young kids out there...this applies to life in general, not just silly commie Internet b-boards. This is for free.

Whenever someone says
"An outline of our ideology is impossible as we oppose ideology..."

And then in the same paragraph says something like
"there will be a higher form of society based on..."

That's the big clue that tells you they're full of shit. If someone denies "ideology" (like Ferris Bueller..."isms in my opinion are not good...they could be fascist communists, it wouldn't change the fact that I don't have a car") and then goes on to outline what his idea of a "higher form of society" would/could/should be based on, they're blowing smoke up your ass.

I personally like how peacenick purportedly eshcews "ideology" because for "socialists" (like Ferris implies, the suffix "-ist" necessitates some sort of ideology, even if that ideology is in fact the blanket opposition to ideology, which is of course an ideology in and of itself) this is all a "matter of science." You have to appreciate that sort of crazy conviction in a person. Not only does peacenick believe that his ideology is right, but that his righteousness is as natural, basic, and self-evident as gravity.

Of course, peacenick's whole helplessly arrogant and wildly self-contradictory little treatise was nothing more than a half-assed attempt at a dignified way of dodging the question yet again.

"An outline of our ideology is impossible as we oppose ideology." Haha. That's a good one...creative. Get real.

(Edited by reagan lives at 3:52 am on Aug. 3, 2002)

peaccenicked

3rd August 2002, 04:01

What non sense from a modern day flat earther defending the status quo with the ideology of the status quo. Socialists hold that science is open not dogmatic.
Defenders of the status quo uphold the dogmas of the status quo. The capitalist society is not based on any science other than the interests of shareholders.
Socialists look at the interests of society as whole and ask what plan can serve us best as a whole, not the interests of an elitist minority.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:02 am on Aug. 3, 2002)

The Guest

3rd August 2002, 04:52

peacenicked is just full of shit. Try to talk relevence and he gives you shit. No scientist could have created anything if he was caught up with trying to push along all the other people who should have be pushing themselves. Socialism only serves those who want to be served therefore those who want to be independent only end up serving.

Stormin Norman

3rd August 2002, 05:14

In response to Peacenicked:

"An outline of our ideology is impossible"

Maybe for a mental midget, such as yourself. I am still waiting for one of you communists, which claim to possess infinite knowledge of the ways things are and should be, to outline your positions. We hear a lot of doubletalk, and see plenty of evasion tactics. When will one of you communists grow the balls and stand behind your ideology. I'm sorry. Did I say a bad word? Okay then, your pathetic worldview.

peaccenicked

3rd August 2002, 05:27

TheGuest is merely saying that the poor deserve to be poor if they are not motivated. Pure bullshit.
Who is he to determine peoples motives? What motivates him to spread his own useless ignorance.
SN. Pure bullshit. You are not interested in our positions you are just interested in sounding off all the anti-communist shite you heard at first grade.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:31 am on Aug. 3, 2002)

The Guest

3rd August 2002, 05:34

They don't teach anti-communism in first grade. It more

resembles socialistic tribal priciples. You are right that I

am not interested in your ideas, I already heard them.

Who are you to determine peoples motives. That is

what I was saying. Each person has their own motives,

mine are mine yours are yours. This is very good under

an Adam Smith thread, it is like the invisible hand, if

everyone looked out for his own self interest, an

invisible hand would push all along. Instead morons like

Peaccenicked tell us we should help others, letting our

interest collapse, then not only one person has failed

but two. Think, if everyone does that pretty soon we

will all be equal. Peaccenicked, do you know who is

responsible for creating the cirriculum used in public

schools? You don't sound like you do.

If I don't want to be served what good is socialism to
me? Why do I want to pay?

Stormin Norman

3rd August 2002, 05:39

"SN. Pure bullshit. You are not interested in our positions you are just interested in sounding off all the anti-communist shite you heard at first grade."

Try me. I think that you will find that I am a good listener. I will sit back and objectively evaluate your idea of a just economic system. That is, of course, if you should chose to man up.

peaccenicked

3rd August 2002, 05:44

You dont know the slightest thing about my views, all
you have done is repeat commonplace capitalist ideology. Even if I told you my views which are all over this site, you would still repeat to me the crap you swallowed from some capitalist institution like the media, the school or the church. You are about as brain dead as an insect.

The Guest

3rd August 2002, 05:50

Media is owned by liberals. Why do you think Macarthy

called them all in in the Communist trials. When has the

media ever presented a true free market capialist piont

of veiw. Why was the supposed revolution of the 1960's

so well recieved by the media, why was the media anti-

Veitnam? I stopped taking in propaganda from anybody

along time ago, if only the same were true for you.

And Peaccenicked, you post constantly accusing others

of diverting the issue yet you never seem to answer

any questions, just claim that we are speaking from

the "establishment," which is liberal by the way.

peaccenicked

3rd August 2002, 06:00

The media is not liberal that is a right wing capitalist fantasy. The media acts as a cheerleader for the war machine. America pulled out of Vietnam because it was a military cock up. The media helped pave the way.

Augusto

3rd August 2002, 08:00

Quote: from peaccenicKKKed on 5:44 am on Aug. 3, 2002
You dont know the slightest thing about my views, all
you have done is repeat commonplace capitalist ideology. Even if I told you my views which are all over this site, you would still repeat to me the crap you swallowed from some capitalist institution like the media, the school or the church. You are about as brain dead as an insect.

In essence peaceniKKKed is saying that since we wouldn't understand, he won't tell us. It's a nice way to dodge the question peaceniKKKed, but your act is getting tired. I hope you find out what socialism is soon, cause you can't go on being a socialist without that tidbit of info.

(Edited by Augusto at 9:06 am on Aug. 3, 2002)

peaccenicked

3rd August 2002, 08:43

''What nonsense from a modern day flat earther defending the status quo with the ideology of the status quo. Socialists hold that science is open not dogmatic.
Defenders of the status quo uphold the dogmas of the status quo. The capitalist society is not based on any science other than the interests of shareholders.
Socialists look at the interests of society as whole and ask what plan can serve us best as a whole, not the interests of an elitist minority. ''

Augusto. I have views, you just dismiss them. You dont argue. you capis here are the most dim witted people I Become into contact with.
What are you saying. Socialism must necessarily be totalitarian like some dead head bhuddist mantra.
Not many people on the right in the UK deny the possibility of democratic socialism. They mostly go for the human nature argument.
How many times do you think I faced this puerile nonsense?

(Edited by peaccenicked at 8:44 am on Aug. 3, 2002)

Augusto

3rd August 2002, 09:02

since its kinda of late where I am PeaceniKKKed I'm going to give you the brief response.

First those people on the right are stupid, there's no such thing as human nature, any four year old can tell you as much.(Furthermore I think its quite funny you think me a rightist).
Secondly peaceniKKKed, the totalitarian nature of socialism, in simplest terms, arises from socialisms founding principle. The "democratic," as you call it, control of the means of production and the distribution of resources towards society's welfare and not the individuals is dehumanizing and totalitarian.
First it violates the basic human freedom of people to dispose of their properties (in the Lockian sense) as they see fit, since the concept of need would be established not by the inidividual, but by society.
Secondly, if you feel that society's welfare always supercedes in importance the individuals welfare, as can be simply derived from the statement "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." Then you perceive an individual to be nothing more then the function he preforms to the greater good of society. If this isn't dehumanization, then peaceniKKKed, you should go back to the hive.
Finaly peaceniKKKed, the only opinion you have expressed over the last few days is: that you believe that we believe you to be stalinists because you are socialists. Yes this I will simply dismiss, but besides that peaceniKKKed I inspection of my posts does not show me dismissing any of your views. In fact they have been begging you to express your views, and each time a request has been put forth, you ignore it by saying we wouldn't understand, or we wouldn't pay attention to you. Hey PeaceniKKKed, try us, or at least me. I really want to hear an opinion, so at least I have the choice before me to reject it out of hand.

(Edited by Augusto at 9:08 am on Aug. 3, 2002)

peaccenicked

3rd August 2002, 09:59

''First those people on the right are stupid, there's no such thing as human nature, any four year old can tell you as much.(Furthermore I think its quite funny you think me a rightist). ''

Sarcasm, as if you dont know the human nature arguement refers to greed. Most children learn that they want have any friends if they are greedy.

''Secondly peaceniKKKed, the totalitarian nature of socialism, in simplest terms, arises from socialisms founding principle. The "democratic," as you call it, control of the means of production and the distribution of resources towards society's welfare and not the individuals is dehumanizing and totalitarian. ''

The same old dead headed mantra.

''First it violates the basic human freedom of people to dispose of their properties (in the Lockian sense) as they see fit, since the concept of need would be established not by the inidividual, but by society. ''
I have told you before that that is pure and utter crap and has no bearing on socialist theory whatsoever.
How can society determine individual needs
when all needs are to be provided for. The only thing in the road is scarcity, and that reduces with productivity and technological development. Socialist society would at first prioritise basic needs like housing, employment and health.
What need do you think we cannot provide for?

''Secondly, if you feel that society's welfare always supercedes in importance the individuals welfare, as can be simply derived from the statement "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." Then you perceive an individual to be nothing more then the function he preforms to the greater good of society. If this isn't dehumanization, then peaceniKKKed, you should go back to the hive.''

Societes welfare? society is made up of individuals. What happens now is the looking after of shareholder interests at the expense of everybody elses interests.
We dont propose an elite, so who gets more than whom is only dependent on things like family size and health needs. Everybodys interests are not naturally opposed to everybody elses.
We want to put an end to the dog eat dog society.
I dont see any argument that states how one person's interests must be maltreated by a society of freely associating equals.

I have argued all this before on a previous thread.
It was you who did not reply to it.
What you are saying is akin to an accusation of stalinism. You say that socialism is about making people do something against their will.

That is pure bullshit. You are just a shamefaced liar, who has no understanding of socialist theory whatsoever.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:01 am on Aug. 3, 2002)

Linksradikaler

3rd August 2002, 16:01

I seem to be being ignored, but I think everyone is missing the point with all this sectarian arguing.

1. The methods of production, distribution, and management developed and established under capitalism are what runs socialism, too. The differences between the two systems is merely the FOCUS and meaning of "profit", or created excess value. In capitalism, profit is made in MONEY, which is simply CAPITAL (real stuff) abstracted and solidified into pieces of paper and silver. And CAPITAL is simply abstracted and solidified LABOR, solidified into, well, EVERYTHING man-made!
In a capitalist system, the excess value created by labor is skimmed off and deposited into shareholder accounts, with VERY little "trickling down" to the class that created it. In socialism, excess value is still skimmed off and applied towards operations and upgrades of factories, plants, computers, etc., but with FAR more money going to the workers who made that excess value possible.
In other words, capitalism is really just socialism in which the workers are also the shareholders by law. Period.

2. Capitalism does not make sure that everyone in society has the basic necessities, which, according to the socialist ethos, is a human right. Now, capitalists and conservatives say that if we combine higher prices paid for labor with everyone's basic needs being taken care of, there will just be a bunch of freeloaders laying around sponging off of those (few) who actually work. Perhaps. But I say we've already got lots of people like that...they're called stockholders: people who make money off of work THEY aren't doing! And in socialism, a system where production and consumption has to be SUPER high ALL THE TIME, I can guarantee you that freeloaders would be ostracized and shamed into working. In fact, that was one thing I liked about Clinton's "welfare deform": everybody had to work. Of course, in a socialistic system, that wouldn't be such a problem because day care centers would be attached to a LOT of workplaces. People could work and not fret about whether their children were being cared for. And there is no reason for ANYONE not to work. Even paralyzed people can dictate documents into microphones hooked to computers. Even imbeciles can sweep the streets.

Socialism is highly mobilized capitalism, with the means of production in control of elected leaders. This does not have to be at a federal level. It could be at a state level or even a more local level. It doesn't HAVE to turn into a Stalinist monster. In a country like the Unites States, with a long history of loving freedom and democratic ideal (if not realities), I don't think it COULD become Stalinism.

reagan lives

3rd August 2002, 16:21

pea¢eniKKKed's argument, as taken from his last post, can be summarized as follows:
- human nature is greed
- the argument that "the centralized control over means of production is dehumanizing and totalitarian" is a "dead headed mantra" that, naturally, needs no further refutation beyond pea¢eniKKKed's say-so.
- "How can society determine needs when all needs are provided for?" pea¢eniKKKed busts out the chicken-and-the-egg defense. How can society provide for needs when it cannot determine them? What's next, the Chewbacca defense?
-then pea¢eniKKKed, in his final stunt, launches into what appears to be an argument for capitalism. To wit:

"Societes welfare? society is made up of individuals."
YES! Then he says this:

"What happens now is the looking after of shareholder interests at the expense of everybody elses interests..."

But later goes on to say:

"Everybodys interests are not naturally opposed to everybody elses...I dont see any argument that states how one person's interests must be maltreated by a society of freely associating equals."

So, what he seems to be saying here is that, although certain details of our current American system may be flawed, there's no reason why a society of "freely associating individuals" who are all pursuing their own interests must necessarily trample on the interests of others. Welcome to our side, pea¢eniKKKed.

Augusto

3rd August 2002, 16:57

Quote: from Linksradikaler on 4:01 pm on Aug. 3, 2002
I seem to be being ignored, but I think everyone is missing the point with all this sectarian arguing.

1. The methods of production, distribution, and management developed and established under capitalism are what runs socialism, too. The differences between the two systems is merely the FOCUS and meaning of "profit", or created excess value. In capitalism, profit is made in MONEY, which is simply CAPITAL (real stuff) abstracted and solidified into pieces of paper and silver. And CAPITAL is simply abstracted and solidified LABOR, solidified into, well, EVERYTHING man-made!
In a capitalist system, the excess value created by labor is skimmed off and deposited into shareholder accounts, with VERY little "trickling down" to the class that created it. In socialism, excess value is still skimmed off and applied towards operations and upgrades of factories, plants, computers, etc., but with FAR more money going to the workers who made that excess value possible.
In other words, capitalism is really just socialism in which the workers are also the shareholders by law. Period.

2. Capitalism does not make sure that everyone in society has the basic necessities, which, according to the socialist ethos, is a human right. Now, capitalists and conservatives say that if we combine higher prices paid for labor with everyone's basic needs being taken care of, there will just be a bunch of freeloaders laying around sponging off of those (few) who actually work. Perhaps. But I say we've already got lots of people like that...they're called stockholders: people who make money off of work THEY aren't doing! And in socialism, a system where production and consumption has to be SUPER high ALL THE TIME, I can guarantee you that freeloaders would be ostracized and shamed into working. In fact, that was one thing I liked about Clinton's "welfare deform": everybody had to work. Of course, in a socialistic system, that wouldn't be such a problem because day care centers would be attached to a LOT of workplaces. People could work and not fret about whether their children were being cared for. And there is no reason for ANYONE not to work. Even paralyzed people can dictate documents into microphones hooked to computers. Even imbeciles can sweep the streets.

Socialism is highly mobilized capitalism, with the means of production in control of elected leaders. This does not have to be at a federal level. It could be at a state level or even a more local level. It doesn't HAVE to turn into a Stalinist monster. In a country like the Unites States, with a long history of loving freedom and democratic ideal (if not realities), I don't think it COULD become Stalinism.

Where do we begin, how bout with number 1...

First off money is not capital nor a representation of it. Money is the objectification of one of the most abstract notions out there, value. Marxist theory proposes that labor is the most important determinant of value, but unfortunately for all of us (as I too would like to live under as system where my shoe laces are always tied and my but is always wiped as peaceniKKKed makes communism seem in the last post he wrote) marxist theory doesn't explain how value is allotted here in reality. Labor, while an important determinant of value is not the sole determinant of value, people succumb to what Marx called fetishes. That means they place value on things for no apparently logical reason. You can buy payless shoes, but you get nikes which are more expensive even thought both will do the job. That is a fetish. Since the value of something is not determined SOLELY by the labor put in to producing the thing, then labor can not take sole credit.
Marx's ofcourse accuses the capitalist of skimming the profit of the top because he proposes that it is only the workers that have infused a product with their labor. This ofcourse is not true, the capitalist, the entrepeneur is the catalyst for production, without him there is no production. You seem to think that without the nike corporation, for instance, cambodians would be picking Air Jordan's out of trees. But it is the Labor of Nike's shareholders, the money that they save and invest in Nike, which Nike then invests in a plant in who knows where, that then allows the peole of who knows where to make nikes, hell to be employed. Since the shareholders share, purchased by money is a representation of the fruits of the shareholders labor then the shareholder is certainly infusing value into a product and must receive a return.

2. Capitalism indeed makes sure that everyone in a capitalist society has access to basic necessities. why is it that nations with "centralized control over the means of production" could not feed their populations, while those without such control, capitalist nations, can. It's because capitalist allows everyone access to these necessities by virtue of market exchange.
Yet socialists, living under the assumption that justice means that everyone has everything, I'm looking at PeaceniKKKed's post in which he says: "What need do you think we cannot provide for?" Thats hardly true, needs go beyond necessities, sure to survive its necessary to have water food shelter, etc. But needs are also artificially constructed. And why not, people want shit, and if that's what they want, why should I stand in their way, right? Life is about having more than the basic necessities and capitalism not only provides for the basic necessities (when was the last time you heard of a famine in a capitalist nation) but it allows you to have more, if you want it. Ofcourse we handled your accusation that shareholders just sit on their ass up above where I showed you that their stake in a corporation is a representation of the surplus value they've created through their labor.

Finally your proposal that even "imbiciles can sweep the streets" is noble in spirt, I suppose, but you don't realize that this is what happens already under capitalism. Within your socialist world there are no class divisions, at least that's how i understand it, let me know if I'm wrong. Well if there are no class divisions are you proposing that these "imbiciles" get paid as much as surgeons, per say, so that class divisions will be eliminated.
Hey man if you want to give the means of production over to elected leaders, i.e. congress, then I think there's really something wrong with you. Think about. In anycase I'd prefer to retain control over the my own means of production, the machinery of my labor, and you over yours. But if you want Republicans controlling your means of production go ahead, one thing government always needs is power.

Linksradikaler

3rd August 2002, 18:08

"First off money is not capital nor a representation of it. Money is the objectification of one of the most abstract notions out there, value. Marxist theory proposes that labor is the most important determinant of value, but unfortunately for all of us (as I too would like to live under as system where my shoe laces are always tied and my but is always wiped as peaceniKKKed makes communism seem in the last post he wrote) marxist theory doesn't explain how value is allotted here in reality. Labor, while an important determinant of value is not the sole determinant of value, people succumb to what Marx called fetishes. That means they place value on things for no apparently logical reason. You can buy payless shoes, but you get nikes which are more expensive even thought both will do the job. That is a fetish. Since the value of something is not determined SOLELY by the labor put in to producing the thing, then labor can not take sole credit."

I disagree. If you take advertising, distribution and shelf space into account as a form of labor, as truck drivers, advertisers, commercial actors, commercial directors, camera men, photographers, shoe store workers etc. are providing mental and physical labor for clients like Nike, you see that the "labor value" of Nikes doesn't stop at the sweatshop door. Payless spends far less on the "fetish-creating," and thus charges far less for a product of equal (or greater) quality than Nikes. Value always comes from somewhere. People don't just invent it out of thin air. If you look hard enough and think hard enough, you find it.

"Marx of course accuses the capitalist of skimming the profit of the top because he proposes that it is only the workers that have infused a product with their labor. This ofcourse is not true, the capitalist, the entrepeneur is the catalyst for production, without him there is no production."

I disagree again. The only thing keeping the "entrepeneur" in his position of ascendancy is the power of the capitalist state. You can shoot all the CEOs today and tomorrow all the workers and distributors and salesman will do their jobs at the same levels they did today. My point is that the notion of "private property" as a legal weapon is all that keeps the boss in the boss' chair. And anyone who says that the boss is the catalyst of production has never seen a strike.

"You seem to think that without the nike corporation, for instance, cambodians would be picking Air Jordan's out of trees. But it is the Labor of Nike's shareholders, the money that they save and invest in Nike, which Nike then invests in a plant in who knows where, that then allows the peole of who knows where to make nikes, hell to be employed."

Well, you're drilling a hole in your canoe to let water out with this argument. You admit that the shareholder works hard to make money and is thus creating value, as Marx theorizes. You then extend this to state that the worker is entitled to MORE than what he rightfully earned with his labor by getting a return on an investment.

"Since the shareholders share, purchased by money is a representation of the fruits of the shareholders labor then the shareholder is certainly infusing value into a product and must receive a return."

Again, I disagree. A "return" is simply excess value taken from productive workers--in many cases without even the benefit of bargaining--and given to someone who DIDN'T create the excess value. No matter how the original investment money was gotten, this is an unjust arrangement. A worker should be paid teh full value--FULL value--of his work.

"2. Capitalism indeed makes sure that everyone in a capitalist society has access to basic necessities. why is it that nations with "centralized control over the means of production" could not feed their populations, while those without such control, capitalist nations, can. It's because capitalist allows everyone access to these necessities by virtue of market exchange."

a) All experiments with state socialism up to now have NOT followed the line of socialist evolution. Thus, from a Marxist perspective, they were doomed from day one. Only in countries with highly productive CAPITALIST systems with capitalist infrastructures can socialism even begin to work.

B) Capitalism is supposed to work that way, but it doesn't. If it did, I'd be a Republican. Health care should no more be a commodity than "freedom of opinion." It is a basic human right, or, at least, it should be.

" Yet socialists, living[sic] under the assumption that justice means that everyone has everything, I'm looking at PeaceniKKKed's post in which he says: "What need do you think we cannot provide for?" Thats hardly true, needs go beyond necessities, sure to survive its necessary to have water food shelter, etc. But needs are also artificially constructed. And why not, people want shit, and if that's what they want, why should I stand in their way, right? Life is about having more than the basic necessities and capitalism not only provides for the basic necessities (when was the last time you heard of a famine in a capitalist nation) but it allows you to have more, if you want it. Ofcourse we handled your accusation that shareholders just sit on their ass up above where I showed you that their stake in a corporation is a representation of the surplus value they've created through their labor."

Well, if I follow your badly-punctuated line of reasoning here, I agree. People should be allowed to have more than the basic necessities and should have to work more to get more. BUT...and this is a big BUT...socialists believe that society should supply those BASIC necessities--just teh basics--to EVERY member of that society, no questions asked. If someone doesn't want to work and doesn't mind living in an undecorated concrete apartment, and eating 2000 calories of government cheese per day, fine. Society will provide it WITHOUT keeping people who want more from getting it. That's what socialists like myself envision as a just society. We even take care of the lazy losers.

"Finally your proposal that even "imbiciles can sweep the streets" is noble in spirt, I suppose, but you don't realize that this is what happens already under capitalism. Within your socialist world there are no class divisions, at least that's how i understand it, let me know if I'm wrong. Well if there are no class divisions are you proposing that these "imbiciles" get paid as much as surgeons, per say, so that class divisions will be eliminated."

No. Doctors should be paid more than garbage men. I am a socialist, not a communist. But pay should be given according to one's OWN WORK AND SKILL (and the value created thereby), not that of others. A factory administrator should make more than the floor workers, but no 30X more, as in capitalism.

"Hey man if you want to give the means of production over to elected leaders, i.e. congress, then I think there's really something wrong with you. Think about. In anycase I'd prefer to retain control over the my own means of production, the machinery of my labor, and you over yours. But if you want Republicans controlling your means of production go ahead, one thing government always needs is power."

Like I said in my previous post, control of production does not have to be at the national level. There can be a regional model that keep politics local. And in a society where it is impossible to get obscenely rich on another person's work and skill, I doubt many Republicans would remain.

reagan lives

3rd August 2002, 23:21

Wow, there's a lot of bullshit in there that reflects zero understanding of economics, so I'll just go with the greatest hits:

"Payless spends far less on the 'fetish-creating,' and thus charges far less for a product of equal (or greater) quality than Nikes."

You're confused about what the term "value" means. There is no such thing as objective value. Value is only in the mind of the consumer...it is a measure of how much the consumer wants something. Therefore, the value of a product like shoes varies from person to person, that's why we have Nike and we have Payless, and both stay in business. You want a shoe that will keep your foot dry, therefore you shop at Payless, to get the pay the lowest possible price to attain that end. Another person wants his shoes to impress girls, therefore he goes to Foot Locker and buys the new Nikes. He, and plenty of other people like him, are willing to pay $100 for those shoes. They like the shoes better than they like their $100 bill. You, on the other hand, are willing to pay only $10 for a pair of shoes, so you go to Payless. Assuming that production costs are relatively equal (which is a big assumption, but whatever), Nike has created a product that is ten times more valuable than Payless's. They can then use the profit from the shoe to employ ten times as many people, which will allow them to further fetishize their product, etc etc. The long and short of this is that value is, indeed, created out of thin air. As Augusto said, people place value on things for no "apparently logical" reason...that is, for reasons other than providing food or shelter. If you still don't believe me, let's go with another example. The baseball I use to play catch with my brother is worth next to nothing. Let's say it cost me $5 and it has no resale value whatsoever. But if I take it to Yankee Stadium and get it signed by Jason Giambi, it's suddenly much more VALUABLE. Why? Because someone out there is willing to pay hundreds of dollars for it. Why? Not because it's suddenly a superior baseball. Not because they're going to eat it. Because of some Marxist "fetish." Value created out of thin air.

"You can shoot all the CEOs today and tomorrow all the workers and distributors and salesman will do their jobs at the same levels they did today."

First of all, let's distinguish between the "CEO" and the owners. As for the owners, usually the shareholders represented by the Board of Directors...if they were shot the workers would not be able to do their jobs as well, because they wouldn't have any jobs. As for the CEO, she's just another worker who happens to have gone to school a little longer and is better paid...without her the workers still probably wouldn't have jobs, because the company that employs them would have gone out of business a long time ago (the CEO keeps the company in business because she knows about things like "value" and how it's not all derived from labor). And without all the workers, she wouldn't have a job. Private property keeps the boss in the boss's chair, and keeps food on the worker's table. And, if he's ambitious and talented enough, it will someday allow the worker to become the boss.

"Again, I disagree. A 'return' is simply excess value taken from productive workers--in many cases without even the benefit of bargaining--and given to someone who DIDN'T create the excess value. No matter how the original investment money was gotten, this is an unjust arrangement. A worker should be paid teh full value--FULL value--of his work."

The worker is paid the full VALUE of his WORK. This is different than the VALUE of the PRODUCT he works to create or distribute. Remember how we talked about value before? You can go back and read it again if you need to. The value of the worker's labor is the price at which he's willing to sell it. I would rather spend an hour on the couch than in the warehouse, but throw in $10 and you've got yourself a deal. The only thing the worker cares about is selling his labor for the highest price, just as his employer's only concern is selling his product for the highest price. The value of labor is determined by how much the employer is willing to pay for it, and how much the worker is willing to sell it for. And that's the ONLY source of its value.

"BUT...socialists believe that society should supply those BASIC necessities--just teh basics--to EVERY member of that society, no questions asked. If someone doesn't want to work and doesn't mind living in an undecorated concrete apartment, and eating 2000 calories of government cheese per day, fine. Society will provide it WITHOUT keeping people who want more from getting it. That's what socialists like myself envision as a just society. We even take care of the lazy losers."

And how, precisely, do you plan to do that? I picked up something later on about regionally controlled politics with no national-level influence, which already sounds like a crock (someone needs to coordinate them if the market isn't going to). But I'll give you a chance. Explain to me how you plan to build a society that will provide so-called "basic neccessities" and still allow people the unfettered pursuit of their own happiness (not the happiness that you think they should pursue). Be as specific as possible, please.

(Edited by reagan lives at 11:25 pm on Aug. 3, 2002)

Linksradikaler

4th August 2002, 00:07

"Wow, there's a lot of bullshit in there that reflects zero understanding of economics, so I'll just go with the greatest hits:"

Well, your tone is pretty insulting and aggressive, but your points are valid, so I'll reply anyway.

"You're confused about what the term "value" means. There is no such thing as objective value. Value is only in the mind of the consumer...it is a measure of how much the consumer wants something. Therefore, the value of a product like shoes varies from person to person, that's why we have Nike and we have Payless, and both stay in business. You want a shoe that will keep your foot dry, therefore you shop at Payless, to get the pay the lowest possible price to attain that end. Another person wants his shoes to impress girls, therefore he goes to Foot Locker and buys the new Nikes. He, and plenty of other people like him, are willing to pay $100 for those shoes. They like the shoes better than they like their $100 bill. You, on the other hand, are willing to pay only $10 for a pair of shoes, so you go to Payless. Assuming that production costs are relatively equal (which is a big assumption, but whatever), Nike has created a product that is ten times more valuable than Payless's. They can then use the profit from the shoe to employ ten times as many people, which will allow them to further fetishize their product, etc etc. The long and short of this is that value is, indeed, created out of thin air. As Augusto said, people place value on things for no "apparently logical" reason...that is, for reasons other than providing food or shelter. If you still don't believe me, let's go with another example. The baseball I use to play catch with my brother is worth next to nothing. Let's say it cost me $5 and it has no resale value whatsoever. But if I take it to Yankee Stadium and get it signed by Jason Giambi, it's suddenly much more VALUABLE. Why? Because someone out there is willing to pay hundreds of dollars for it. Why? Not because it's suddenly a superior baseball. Not because they're going to eat it. Because of some Marxist "fetish." Value created out of thin air."

a) Why are girls impressed with Nike shoes? Is there not a media component to it? A product placement component to it? A company like Nike spends BILLIONS marketing its shit all over the world in magazines, movies, newspapers, commercials, videos, etc. These things contribute to the value of a commodity, just as they do to whatever lunkheaded steroid monstrosity--who sells himself as a commodity--you've got signing your ball bag down at Yankee Stadium.

"First of all, let's distinguish between the "CEO" and the owners. As for the owners, usually the shareholders represented by the Board of Directors...if they were shot the workers would not be able to do their jobs as well, because they wouldn't have any jobs. As for the CEO, she's just another worker who happens to have gone to school a little longer and is better paid...without her the workers still probably wouldn't have jobs, because the company that employs them would have gone out of business a long time ago (the CEO keeps the company in business because she knows about things like "value" and how it's not all derived from labor). And without all the workers, she wouldn't have a job. Private property keeps the boss in the boss's chair, and keeps food on the worker's table. And, if he's ambitious and talented enough, it will someday allow the worker to become the boss."

My point was that the worker will show up and work no matter who owns the killing floor, be it John Dickface XIV and Sons or the State of Tennessee. They will go on creating value regardless of who holds the "deed." Ownership of anything is at least a thousand times as imaginary as you seem to think a commodity's value is. Democratically elected bodies can do at least as good a job--no, better--running a company than the Republican fuckwads who buried Enron.

"The worker is paid the full VALUE of his WORK. This is different than the VALUE of the PRODUCT he works to create or distribute. Remember how we talked about value before? You can go back and read it again if you need to. The value of the worker's labor is the price at which he's willing to sell it. I would rather spend an hour on the couch than in the warehouse, but throw in $10 and you've got yourself a deal. The only thing the worker cares about is selling his labor for the highest price, just as his employer's only concern is selling his product for the highest price. The value of labor is determined by how much the employer is willing to pay for it, and how much the worker is willing to sell it for. And that's the ONLY source of its value."

Bullshit-a-mundo. All value in a commodity was put there by somebody (or a collection of somebodies). Sure, values fluctuate with styles and fads, but it all gets there somehow. People don't just pull it out of their Bush..I mean asshole.

"And how, precisely, do you plan to do that? I picked up something later on about regionally controlled politics with no national-level influence, which already sounds like a crock (someone needs to coordinate them if the market isn't going to). But I'll give you a chance. Explain to me how you plan to build a society that will provide so-called "basic neccessities" and still allow people the unfettered pursuit of their own happiness (not the happiness that you think they should pursue). Be as specific as possible, please."

Oh, Christ. I don't have room or time to outline an entire fucking plan for you, dimbulb. But state-run fabrication of cheap housing at a regional level (akin to a TVA-like regional plan) would keep out-of-work people busy and house others. It works in other countries, like some in Scandinavia, and would sure as shit work here. Americans can do anything, you puddle of semen.

reagan lives

4th August 2002, 01:38

I'm really sorry if you got offended when I pointed out that you've never cracked an economics textbook in your life, but you should have thought of that before you opened your mouth.

"a) Why are girls impressed with Nike shoes? Is there not a media component to it? A product placement component to it? A company like Nike spends BILLIONS marketing its shit all over the world in magazines, movies, newspapers, commercials, videos, etc. These things contribute to the value of a commodity, just as they do to whatever lunkheaded steroid monstrosity--who sells himself as a commodity--you've got signing your ball bag down at Yankee Stadium."

YES! HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT VALUE MEANS!! I feel like I've accomplished something. Well, if things like media exposure and advertising contribute to the value of a commodity, then how can any one person claim to be the source of its value? And if they can't, then how can you demand that they are entitled to the entire value of the commodity? If they're not, if the value is a product of an organized and multifaceted effort by numerous individuals who all contribute differently, then doesn't it make sense that they should all simply be compensated for the value of their labor, and not the value of the product? And Giambi isn't a lunkhead, and he doesn't take steroids. And in fifth grade they taught me that when I preface something with "a)" there should always be a "b)."

"My point was that the worker will show up and work no matter who owns the killing floor, be it John Dickface XIV and Sons or the State of Tennessee. They will go on creating value regardless of who holds the 'deed.' Ownership of anything is at least a thousand times as imaginary as you seem to think a commodity's value is."

And John Dickface XIV will go employ other people if his employees quit and go to work for the Sons of the State of Tennessee. Just because people are replacable doesn't make them worthless. If you think investment capital is imaginary, then I'd like to see you try to start a business.

"All value in a commodity was put there by somebody (or a collection of somebodies). Sure, values fluctuate with styles and fads, but it all gets there somehow. People don't just pull it out of their asshole."

For someone who advocates an entirely new economic system, you seem to be a little short on details. If values fluctuate with styles and fads, then should workers' compensation flucuate accordingly? If I work in the pog factory, and then a year after I retire on pension pogs become worthless, should my benefits be cut off? If this was the method by which laborers were compensated, not much would get made. But even here you acknowledge that the value of a commodity is a reflection of the work of many people. But the person who invested the capital to employ all those people and rent the factory in the first place is responsible for none of the product's value?

"Oh, Christ. I don't have room or time to outline an entire fucking plan for you, dimbulb."

Of course you don't. Nobody around here seems to. If you ever find the time in what I'm sure is an exceedingly busy schedule, I'm here to read it.

"But state-run fabrication of cheap housing at a regional level (akin to a TVA-like regional plan) would keep out-of-work people busy and house others. It works in other countries, like some in Scandinavia, and would sure as shit work here."

THAT'S IT? That's your master economic plan? In one post you're implying the elimination of private property, and when pressed for details you give me state-funded low income housing? Shit, we have that already. But it doesn't employ people who would otherwise be unemployed, because all government jobs go to unions. But I'll humor you...where is the capital for the manufacture of this "housing project" going to come from?

peaccenicked

4th August 2002, 02:13

'') All experiments with state socialism up to now have NOT followed the line of socialist evolution. Thus, from a Marxist perspective, they were doomed from day one. Only in countries with highly productive CAPITALIST systems with capitalist infrastructures can socialism even begin to work. '' Reagan lives
Is this not trying to drown socialism with the legacy of Stalinism?
Human nature is not greedy that is only what capis wish it to be.

''Everybodys interests are not naturally opposed to everybody elses...I dont see any argument that states how one person's interests must be maltreated by a society of freely associating equals."

So, what he seems to be saying here is that, although certain details of our current American system may be flawed, there's no reason why a society of "freely associating individuals" who are all pursuing their own interests must necessarily trample on the interests of others. Welcome to our side, pea¢eniKKKed'''

America is not about individual freedom, that is pure bullshit. The main freedom in the USA is the freedom of the super rich to exploit most of its individuals or keep them unemployed and people beyond its territory through the IMF and the World Bank.
RL . You are just one big enormous liar. Who you trying to kid?

(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:15 am on Aug. 4, 2002)

reagan lives

4th August 2002, 02:28

You know pea¢eniKKKed, I really have no recollection of writing that first thing there. It certainly doesn't sound like something I'd write...the implication that socialism can even begin to work is pretty much a dead giveaway that it isn't. So could you provide a link to where I wrote that, or else stop calling ME a "big enormous liar?"

"America is not about individual freedom, that is pure bullshit. The main freedom in the USA is the freedom of the super rich to exploit most of its individuals or keep them unemployed and people beyond its territory through the IMF and the World Bank."

Alright pea¢eniKKKed, if you say so then it must be true. Especially if you say that America is not about individual freedom while posting on an public Internet message board.

Augusto

4th August 2002, 02:31

i hope peaceniKKKed can explain how unemployment of the masses benefits the capitalist elite. especially that even with this recession our unemployment rate is still at 5 percent. lower than any anywhere, except of course north korea.

peaccenicked

4th August 2002, 02:58

Right RL , I made a mistake scanning the thread and in who wrote what? I ll apologize for that.
for the first part, but how you can say the US is a free association of individuals is well beyond me.
to the''if you say so'' shite.
This is my oppinion yes, everytime I back it up you say it is not my authorship not my thoughts. I think that makes you a totalitarian windbag. Basically you deny the nature of class society. Your head is completely up your arse. Your arguments dont ammount to anything but a camoflage for brutal war mongering imperialism
You issue a set of lies that, in my oppinion, puts you in the neo nazi with liberal clothes camp. People are dying because you too many people like you defend the market sytem. If you started recognizing the murderous nature of the capitalist class, instead of promoting their ideological fantasies. You would be in a better position
to do something about it.
I dont think you really want to know the nature of the system you defend.

''Especially if you say that America is not about individual freedom while posting on an public Internet message board.''
Freedom of expression is not the only freedom and the ammount of self censorship in the US media is notorious. Take the Florida vote steal. Americans in the US could only read about it in the UK press.
Do you want the evidence. We had the X ray camp fiasco which was one of me ripping your information apart as far as I remember.

Augusto

4th August 2002, 09:30

PeaceniKKKed I know you're old, but are you getting senile. Neither reagan or I have ever complained about your lack of originality, we know its difficult for you to form an original thought and we let it go. I can't begin to see how that makes us Totalitarian windbags?
Yes I deny the nature of class society, Marxist class analysis is one of the most useless tools for understanding society and human relations.
Who says we support war mongering and imperialism. For us the world is not black and white, we are pragmatic, and sometimes war is necessary and sometimes, well its not.
People are dying, because they have no capitalism

Plus you've yet to answer what socialism entails.

Stormin Norman

4th August 2002, 10:09

I have concluded that the reason for the socialist/communists' reluctance to put the actual theory down on paper for us to witness is either rooted in ignorance or fear. Yes, fear. They think that they can dress up an otherwise poor idea and hide the truth from people who might be open to new ideas.

Hey, it doesn't sound so bad. I can sit on my ass, in my home (provided by the state), eating my food (provided by the state), talking on a Che-lives website with a computer (provided by the state). That would be wonderful for anyone who lacked the proper motivation to determine their own level of success. It is a pot smokers dream (maybe the state can provide the pot too).

Let me just say that I don't deny that I think communist ideology, no matter how pious the intention, results in a Stalinist type of catastrophe. When you allow the state to hold your future in their hands, you put yourself at risk of death. I believe that most of the communists on this board realize the inevitable results of communism and this is the fundamental reason that they fear to speak the unspeakable. Since they have failed to properly lay out Markist theory or any other variety of socialism/communism, I will take it upon myself to synthsize and analyze the fundamentals of Marxist communism. I have done this before and will again let the world view what you leftist try to avoid. That is the truth behind their theory. Let me see how they try to dress this up and make it look pretty.

Marx’s philosophy can be paraphrased as follows:

‘Earlier times were defined by complex hierarchical class systems, but the modern capitalist system had simplified the classes into two groups. The bourgeoisie and proletariat, or simply put, the have and have nots. This new change was brought about by the industrial revolution, which forever changed production through the use of mechanized labor, improved technological motive power, and a new type of division of labor. Increased productivity established a world market in order to unload all of the goods resulting from these improvements. Modern bourgeoisie were merely a product of this development as they severed the feudal system in order to establish free-trade. Free-trade is a brutal exploitation of all occupations. The interdependence of the free-market has decimated self sufficiency of nations and interrupted indigenous cultures, as capitalists worked diligently to expand their markets around the globe. This process unequally distributed the wealth and set up centralized governments solely for its own gain. The unfortunate result being overproduction, which leads to war, as the powers that be necessarily destroy a percentage of the modes of production. Another unfortunate aspect of capitalism, is that the working class gets caught up in the market and become subjected to the same laws of supply and demand as any other commodity. They become alienated by the machine and are paid only what is required to subsist. These men are no better off than slaves. The light at the end of the tunnel remains, the fact that increasing organization made possible by technological advances in communication would inevitably bring the destruction of the oppressive bourgeoisie. Since, in order to fight foreign nations the bourgeoisie “had to pull the proletariat into the political arena”, it supplied its own means of destruction. Since the proletariat are without property and alienated, their families destroyed by capitalism, they would have nothing to loose, and everything to gain, in the event of armed rebellion.’

Furthermore, Marx defined the role of communists to the underprivileged class of proletarians. Marx was adamant about the fact that communists could peacefully coexist with all other labor unions and working-class parties. He felt that communists could unite all proletarians regardless of nationalities, hence the statement “Workers of the world unite”. Communism he thought was the ‘most advanced’ political party that ‘pushes forward all others’ for the same ultimate goal. The goal being the violent overthrow of the modern state and the replacement of the proletariat in political positions.

Marx reasoned that all prior struggles required the abolition of someone’s property into the hands of another. Bourgeois property, defining the ultimate cause of social injustice, the abolition of all private property was necessary. Capital being the mode of exploitation must be converted into a ‘collective product’. Since, only 10% of the population are actually property owners, of course, for most people this would make little difference. In doing this the only individuality that will diminish is that of the bourgeoisie. Never mind the loss of law and order, it was only put their to maintain the status quo.

Marx also felt that the only people who were able to have meaningful family lives were the bourgeoisie. That being true, then abolition of the family would “stop the exploitation of children by their parents”. Education would then be taken from the oppressor.

Marx was also under the assumption that the upper class commonly used prostitutes and engaged in wife swapping. These accusations were justification for the destruction of the institute of marriage and implementation of legal form of promiscuity.

“The charges of communism made from a religious, a philosophical and generally, from a ideological standpoint are not deserving a serious examination.” Marx held belief that man’s perceptions and ideas were capable of bending with social changes. The ruling class have always rewrote history and communists can make their ideas prominent after the bourgeoisie overthrow. Communism must throw out all truth in order to defy historical patterns, being the general idea.

In order to implement communism Marx recommended a list of ten points be closely followed.

1.)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2.)A heavily progressive or graduated income tax.
3.)Abolition of all right to inheritance.
4.)Confiscation of property from all emigrants and rebels.
5.)Centralization of credit in banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.)Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7.)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8.)Equal obligation for all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9.)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of all distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10.)Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, ect...

According to Marx, when all these have been implemented, all production will be publicly owned, and the political nature of the communist party will magically vanish.

Such striking statements, which advocate a total reworking of the political and economic structure do deserve thorough examination based on their philosophical and ideological merits. Marx’s manifesto is chalk full of contradictions. In order to understand why communism takes such inhumane form when put into practice, it is important to examine these paradoxes.

So examine them, my friends. What do you think of Marxist theory now that you have had a chance to see the heart of his philosophy?

Augusto

4th August 2002, 18:10

Hoping peaceniKKKed or vox won't forget to do their homework and give us some socialist proposals.

reagan lives

4th August 2002, 19:52

Don't worry, they're probably at the library right now.

reagan lives

5th August 2002, 04:15

...OK, we know they're back from the library, because they've both posted in other threads in this forum. We're still waiting, guys.

peaccenicked

5th August 2002, 05:26

Marx is out of date on specific programme.
Che lives is not a political party but the political groups that I have been involved with, take most of their ground thinking from here.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938-tp/
Trotsky is not always right, nobody is, but many of ideas are still influential in current debates on party programme. There must be hundreds of different socialist programmes on the net. I dont really have the inclination or desire to discuss leftist differences with
hostile morons . Basically all you want to do is sneer.
What a shitty part of your 'humanity'.

vox

5th August 2002, 05:35

Reagan Lies,

Are you referring to me in that last post?

If so, what are you talking about? I wasn't aware we were having a conversation in this thread. Were we?

I asked some questions, you answered. I believe your answer to be filled with misrepresentations. What exactly were you expecting? A response? Just how interesting do you think you are?

I let your non-response stand for anyone to read. I believe it speaks for itself. I don't think that anyone here, except right-wingers, need it to be explained to them. You quite obviously didn't talk about the labor movement in the post I drew the questions from, and that you tried to equate the labor movement with worker's issues is ludicrous on its face. Two capitalists talking about worker's issues is not the labor movement.

Now, I could fill a post with things like that, showing your misrepresentations for what they are, or I could safely assume that anyone reading it, at least, anyone I'd want to talk to, would understand just how pitiful the reply was. Why would I need to point it out?

vox

Stormin Norman

5th August 2002, 09:42

That's funny! LMAO! Thanks for proving exactly how worthless you are, Vox.

Linksradikaler

5th August 2002, 19:02

"YES! HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT VALUE MEANS!! I feel like I've accomplished something. Well, if things like media exposure and advertising contribute to the value of a commodity, then how can any one person claim to be the source of its value? And if they can't, then how can you demand that they are entitled to the entire value of the commodity? If they're not, if the value is a product of an organized and multifaceted effort by numerous individuals who all contribute differently, then doesn't it make sense that they should all simply be compensated for the value of their labor, and not the value of the product? And Giambi isn't a lunkhead, and he doesn't take steroids. And in fifth grade they taught me that when I preface something with "a)" there should always be a "b).""

First off, I want to apologize for insulting you in my last post. It was the end of the day, and no one likes having their ideas called "bullshit" out of hand. I don't regard your ideas as bullshit, and I think it was unsporting and childish to call you a "puddle of semen" and a "dimbulb." I do hope you'll accept my apology. And the "a" not being followed by a "b" was because my ability to type often outpaces my proofreading ability.

That said, we're still talking around each other. I never said that any ONE person creates value in a commodity or doesn't. It's one KIND of person that creates value: he who sells his labor to an owner (or group of owners), who does NOTHING to create or add value in terms of LABOR after the original legwork of raising capital to start the business.

(To digress, this is why I am not a communist. A small-business owner who works alongside his employees creating value should have the right to own the business he is maintaining with his own labor every day.)

The director of Nike's commercials is adding value to the product(s) being sold through his intellectual and artistic ability. The semi-literate musclehead "acting" in the commercial is adding value through his labor. Ditto the lighting guy. The sound guy. The film editor. The guy who designs the ad campaign. The person taking photos for the magazine ads. As I said earlier, the value-adding does NOT stop at the edge of the killing floor. The "fetishism"--the illogical demand--comes from somewhere...even IT is created through physical, mental and artistic travail. Without all those people working to make a commodity more valuable, it languishes in the 99 cent bin. For example, imagine building a time machine and dropping a Nike tennis shoe into a bronze-age village. What is its value there? Of course that's arguable, but I'd venture that it would be nil.

The capitalists sell the product for exactly what it is worth. He doesn't, however, pay the people who created the worth what their labor was worth! He paid them less! All of them! Otherwise, there would be no profit made. What he didn't pay them they keep for themselves.

And I doubt very much that any pro athlete these days is 100% steroid free.

"And John Dickface XIV will go employ other people if his employees quit and go to work for the Sons of the State of Tennessee. Just because people are replacable doesn't make them worthless. If you think investment capital is imaginary, then I'd like to see you try to start a business."

No one is worthless. Everyone is incalculably valuable. They can only do so much WORK, however, be it machine and computer-assisted or not. People should not become wealthy from work they are not doing. That's what we labor-theory folks believe. Why does this upset capitalists so much? Is it not a fair and Christian value that "he that worketh not, eateth not"? Socialists like myself think everyone is enrtitled to subsistence and survival. I DON'T believe everyone is entitled to comfort. And no one is entitled to wasteful luxury.

And I don't think start-up capital is imaginary. Money is very real in all its forms and raising it takes talent and brains. But the right and authority of an "owning" class to make MORE money from the value-creating labor of a working, non-owning class IS. Ownership is a social construct, a de facto agreement between most members of the society. We LET the boss be the boss and allow our representatives to create laws to protect that ownership. If society someday changes its mind about that arrangement, then the current arrangement is null and void. There is no divine power outside the state and society keeping owners in the owner's chair.

"For someone who advocates an entirely new economic system, you seem to be a little short on details. If values fluctuate with styles and fads, then should workers' compensation flucuate accordingly? If I work in the pog factory, and then a year after I retire on pension pogs become worthless, should my benefits be cut off? If this was the method by which laborers were compensated, not much would get made. But even here you acknowledge that the value of a commodity is a reflection of the work of many people. But the person who invested the capital to employ all those people and rent the factory in the first place is responsible for none of the product's value?"

These are some of the hardest questions for a labor-side thinker to answer.

a) "If values fluctuate with styles and fads, then should workers' compensation flucuate accordingly?"

If by compensation you mean wages, the answer must be yes. The socialist must give the same honest answer as the capitalist on this question. If people are willing to pay less (work less time or less hard) for something, it can only be sold for less and those making it must be paid less to keep the venture alive, if the society is to make any sense. But whatever the value of the commodity to the end-user, the laborers must be paid the full value of their labor unless they agree to take a pay cut or cut in benefits in a democratic fashion. They must be informed and then allowed to decide. The price of labor as a commodity fluctuates, but remains higher when non-working shareholders aren't demanding eternally higher returns on their investments (and the law isn't dictating that CEOs and other controlling officers do everything "legal" that they can to deliver them). Furthermore, should a commodity become absolutely valueless, the venture must end and the workers must be trained to do something more useful and valuable. Socialists aren't masochists.

On the other hand, a socialist society ideally wouldn't waste resources making things that fall out of style after six months. Imagine a state-run Pokemon factory! Nobody wastes time, money, or labor building, advertising or selling Pokemon (or Silly-Putty or first person shooter video games, etc.) or creating demand for such things.

Whew! Another however. Should a small businessman WANT to build video game machines (or Pokemon) in his garage (buying a selling to other small businessmen and individuals), fine. I don't even think such people should be taxed, if they bargain with the workers and pay the workers exactly what their labor is worth. But private businesses will simply not be allowed to grow past a certain point without automatic nationalization.

B)"If I work in the pog factory, and then a year after I retire on pension pogs become worthless, should my benefits be cut off?"

Like what happened with Enron? No. Of course not. Pensions should not be based on the future value of the company in a future market. Talk about an insane gamble! Jesus! Pensions should be based on the productivity of the (integrated) social economy as a whole at the point of retirement.

C)"But the person who invested the capital to employ all those people and rent the factory in the first place is responsible for none of the product's value?"

I don't think he did NOTHING AT ALL. But he didn't do millions of dollars worth of labor. He shuffled some papers within a system designed to reward him far past his actual physical, mental and artistic output. These "VC" types do the air-conditioned legwork, cutting red tape to start a business. Great. But that's all they did. Then they go to fucking Tahiti, living like Lords off of workers' sweat without lifting a finger outside of plush offices, banks and country clubs, trying to talk OTHER exploiting sacks of caviar into making MORE money off of MORE people while still doing nothing creative except shifting MONEY around. You want fetishism? Well, there it is. I mean, they make some phone calls, contact some friends and loan officers and real estate whores and insurance agents and lawyers and, voila. A business is created. And you somehow think they deserve to be billionaires? And MY ideas are bullshit?

"Of course you don't. Nobody around here seems to. If you ever find the time in what I'm sure is an exceedingly busy schedule, I'm here to read it."

One person to do alone what you demand is a huge job. It would takes teams of people long hours to plan an economy. The Soviets couldn't do it correctly because they were so busy frantically building basic infrastructure, trying to feed people, and staving off invasion and counter-revoultion (not to mention shooting and imprisoning people). I have complete faith, however, that Americans in modern America could do it. Shit. We can do anything, can't we?

"THAT'S IT? That's your master economic plan? In one post you're implying the elimination of private property, and when pressed for details you give me state- funded low income housing? Shit, we have that already. But it doesn't employ people who would otherwise be unemployed, because all government jobs go to unions. But I'll humor you...where is the capital for the manufacture of this "housing project" going to come from?"

Like I said, a TVA kind of thing. Put solar cells on the roofs to supply power to the town they're located in. Use the grounds to grow medical marijuana. Figure out a way to make the projects productive. I'm working on faith here to a large extent, admittedly. But aren't the "privatize everything" people doing the same? Imagine if America's power supply was COMPLETELY in the hands of corps the likes of Enron and Halliburton! Yikes. But I truly believe it can be done. The TVA is self-financing, from what I understand, and it is a healthy source of revenue for the feds. Planning works.

Listen, I don't claim to have all the answers, really. I just think of all the possible answers, capitalism is lacking far more than it should, from a human perspective.

Linksradikaler

5th August 2002, 20:48

Oops. I forgot to say "municipal bonds" in the last part of my last post. Sell municipal bonds to buy the pot seed or solar panels. Or both!

El Che

1st September 2002, 19:24

reagan lives: This is getting old, you circle round and round and say nothing of substance. Understand that the only thing that interests me is the subject(s) in and of them selves, you on the other hand, it is obvious, are more concerned in cracking jokes and "taking shots" at leftists. I know everyone does it and I don`t pretend to be a exception, but there is a time and place for everything and I wish you would concentrate on the issues, otherwise this is pointless. Seriously gringo.

For example you insist on simplifing a portion of my argument by saying that I consider "everything good" as socialist and "everything bad" as capitalist... Now is this serious? What clarification do you expect me to give when presented with such rubbish? Let me try this excercise in futility: To say Capitalism is "bad" is to be vague to the point of absurdity. I would never say something like this, and I dont believe you are so dumb as to honestly believe that is what I`m saying. Bad in what sense? in a moral sence? certaintly I believe Capitalism to be moraly wrong, but I wouldn`t argue morals with you for that would be another excercise in futility. Where morals are concerned I go only so far as to state where I stand, which I believe I`ve done implicitly, but again I wouldn`t try to argue morals, to impose morals. What I do argue and present to you are the reasons that lead me to believe imorality and harm lie in the economic reality genericaly called Capitalism. I show you harm to the worker by refering to objective things such as the exploitation of the same by Capital. You can deny that this exploitation (apropriation, by Capital, of "value" created by the worker) is imoral, but you can`t deny that it exists... To be synthetic, when presenting my case I refer exclusivly to the universality of the empirical, and you are free to disregard and disagree with the ethical implications I derive from the former, but at least be honest and clear.

Returning once again to the expropriation of "value" from the worker, I put value between commas because I know you will take contention with me on this point. You point out that "value" is supposedly "relative". Extraordinary observation... However you fail to realise that what you call "value", in the way you use the word, is a fiction and that is exactly why it is relative... Its a fiction necessary, no more then necessary to Capitalism, it is Capitalism its self. If you take away this fictionary property of commodity you are left with nothing but the commodity its self, which in turn ceases to be a commodity in the true sense of the word. Your also correct when you say labor is just another commodity within capitalism, an extraordinary commodity at that but just a commodity like the rest. Something to be played with in a manner that with yield a profit to the player. The irritation with which you, often in capital letters, explain these concepts as if they where news to leftists or even as if they contradicted leftists betrays how little you know about that which you absolutely and definatly condem.

So having agreed with you that value is relative, you ask me: "doesn`t that relativity explain and indeed justify Capitalist practices?" -Energeticaly you continue- "If its relative then each one is free too do as he pleases and to attribute value as he sees fit."

Lets start from the top, but keep in mind that when I speak of right and wrong I am expressing an opinion as I`ve said above and your entirely entitled to disagree (however keep in mind that there are other matters, such as facts, where I wont tolerate contradiction). There is nothing wrong this relativity of value in and of its self, but what creates the problems is the result of this relativity on human society. The result is the world around you. It is true that if we start talking about all the things that wrong with the world, a great majority of them are the, at least partial, responsibility of the way human society turned out, and is there, or has there ever been, a force more profound and powerful in shaping the world and society than this relativity? this economic activity based on playing with the relativity of commodity value to achive personal gain?

I think you get the picture, basicaly what we are saying, is that: based on the palpable results of this state of affairs, it should be considered proven, twenty times over, that this economic reality is harmful to a great of humans (the victems of the relativity game, the vanquised) and therefore to society in general. There must be another way, because the important thing is the people, and we intrepide pioneirs are the ones seeking it.

As for history books... I wrote that to address your romantic notion that "Capitalism is a theory that was implemented for the good of all blah blah blah" Capitalism as I seem to remember started in vence in the 13th 14th century, when religious fundamentalist iron grip of the church ( that was opposed to capitalis practices) started to loosen up, that along with tecnological (i.e navigation and agricultural advances that gave europe a comercial surplus surplus) advances and a population boom. The venezians played rather well as I recall and soon the whole of europe was in the game, as soon as people understood how much they had to gain by transporting and trading goods (relativity) there was no stoping them. From then on it was a snow ball and europe just kept on going. Smith and those of his kind came along much later, they had nothing to do with implementing Capitalism and they changed nothing, except perhaps the advent of heavy protectionist policies by govs. But I`m reluctant in attributing such changes to the work of theorists, rather the big factor in this equasion is the interior dinamics of capitalism its self. So much so that centuries later theorists decided the best thing to do was to mess around with the dinamics as little as possible, smart fellas. Anyway... there is no common good here, only social darwinism, on an individual and state level.

Finaly, just to humor you:

"Also, I'd like to know when I've taken your quotes out of context, because I don't think I have."
---
"This is the truth, as I see it."
I don't doubt that for a second.

"or just simple common sense style self evident truth"
Enough said.

"is just overlooked."
Like your post should have been.

augostos: what I wrote addressed to RL should cover most of your objections since you argument in the same way, i.e of the virtues of capitalism VS the need for change. Feel free to splater your simplistic nonsense all over these pages, while avoiding the redundant discussion of moral nature of which you are so fond of.

peacenicked I wish I had your synthetic powers because this is just a big waste of time and I never cover as much ground as I would like too.

Linksradikaler didnt have time to read all you wrote but will comment when I have more time, wellcome a board.

(Edited by El Che at 7:30 pm on Sep. 1, 2002)

El Che

3rd September 2002, 14:27

No relpy? Good, less nonsese all round.

In that case, with the above in mind lets move on:

I`d like to address some other issues raised, namely by augostos. As a brief forward I would only say that its a shame you gave to mix your valid points and honest grievences with your cheap shots and intellectual dishonesty, sophistry and intentional misrepresentation. This is evident, if you pay close atention, in numerous references. As is the intentional, premeditated nature of these cheap shots. You alternate between the use of this useless bullshit and the explanation of some brief, well known arguments in defense of Capitalism; coupled with a superficial (at best...) critique of Marx & Marxism in general.

Now, where to start? cronologic order perhaps... why not?

1-You write:

"for the time most capitalist have been here the simple equation of stalinism=socialism has ever rarely been brought up except by the likes of you. The objections to socialism reach far beyond such superficial arguments, and every time these objections are presented you immediately cry that capitalists here are equating stalinism and socialism and so the debate is null and void.
TAKE A LOOK AT REAGANLIVES' POST ABOVE, WHERE DO YOU SEE HIM EQUATE SOCIALISM AND STALINISM?"

And then later:

"I believe that you guys hate "stalinism" and love "socialism", but I'm not sure if any of you know what that is, as none of you have ever expressed what it is."

Meaning, implicitly, that socialism really does amount to stalinism, ultimatly at least, we just dont know any better. How clever you are no? If you say one thing and its contrary at the same time, you can`t be wrong! To help you in your sophistical controsionisms you profess a false ignorance.

"Secondly peaceniKKKed, the totalitarian nature of socialism, in simplest terms, arises from socialisms founding principle. The "democratic," as you call it, control of the means of production and the distribution of resources towards society's welfare and not the individuals is dehumanizing and totalitarian."

All the above to show only that you do infact equate Socialism to Stalinism. Well, at least when it suites you, you do.

2-With relation to the topic of point 1, you ask the question: if Socialism is not Stalinism then what is it?

Being simplistic and giving a personal interpretation of term with multiple significancies I`ll say that it is mainly...goals. A set of sociological goals fundamented upon an ideological and philosophical stance, more or less defined and with a substancial degree of consensus on most issues.

How we will arrive at our goals, or even if it possible to do so in full, is largely an incognita to the sane mind. However, I`m quite sure that there is, at least, a huge amount we could achive provided that "we" are the majority, which, as you can easily observe is not the case. Its never too much so I`ll say it again: these "goals", this Socialism to be strived for in a proportional representative democratic context. (I mentioned "majority", which kind of gave that away, but I really do want to help you with your learning difficulties. You better make the most of it! I wont be here forever you know.)

So, recapitulating, all I can give you right now is goals. Theorical ones, practical ones on specific cases, short term, mid term, long term ones, etc. All it would take is some typing, if you bother to look around this site (news section for example) you`ll find loads of issues where we are proposing concrete, "down to earth", prefectly realistic changes. I`m not going to discuss the configuration of planet Utopia with you, I`ll leave that to you. You need to focuss on that because thats the only way you can convince your self of the solid foundations of your fantasy world, and its the same with our famous equasion.

3- Then you take a slash at RedCeltic acusing him of racism blah blah, totaly unfounded trash and more intellectual dishonesty, refusing to understand his point and intentionaly misrepresenting him.

4- And now some curious statements:

"One can ask its author to clarify his blanket statement that democratic, i.e. communal, control of the "means of production" won't infringe on an individuals' rights to dispose of the means of production."

As you well know "the individual`s rights" are subjective and relative. One`s rights end where the other`s rights being. The difference between you and me is that I believe the individuals right to own the means of production trample upon the rights (right to decency and humanity, right not to me stripped of the product of your work) of those who own no means of production (a necessary majority) and therefore must produce for those who do. Goverment holds legislative power, from which all right stems, we hold power to over goverment. Therefore and in conclusion, it is for each to decide, in his own mind, which rights take precedance. It has nothing to do with totalitarianism my friend, that is simply one more lie spread for the sake of the rulling class.

"One can also remind the other of the conception of a tyranny of the majority"

How nice, a euphemism of democracy. If you know a better form of goverment please do tell.

Resuming the rest of your babling nonsense: system of goverment and economic system are different concepts and different object realities but as realities the interdependant, intertwined and mutualy influencial or determinant. Which is why Democracy in Capitalist nations can, in a certain sense of the word (looking at Marxist-Leninists), be called bourgeois Democracy. Good to see you picking up on some Marxist insights. Also, in case you didn`t know, the belief that the economic base stricktly determines all ofter aspects of social life no longer holds any water (if it ever did) in most of the Marxist world.

5- You say little else of interest, except, perhaps, maybe this:

"Yet socialists, living under the assumption that justice means that everyone has everything(...)Well if there are no class divisions are you proposing that these "imbiciles" get paid as much as surgeons, per say, so that class divisions will be eliminated."

ElChe calling planet Utopia, augostos do you read?

Firstly "everyone" can´t have "everything", only one person may have everything, and only in an abstract theoretical sort of way. This is the sort of rubbish we could do with out.

Sencondly, I don`t know if complete equalitarianism is possible, but I dont dismiss it. It depends on weather or not, when raised in a different society and taking lots of other things into consideration, they will work and remain active for the sake of others rather then for the sake of personal gain. This because there is no reason why everyone shouldn´t make the same, except for the fact that the system (economic one) would, possibly, crumble. In which case the next best thing is to do is compensate people for their work and simply the bourgeois blood sucking leeches out of the equasion. (for reasons that I will explain if I have to...) In any case augostos this is a dilema too far down the road of Socialism for you or I to be even thinking seriously about it. As the yankees say, get real.

And this concludes our presentation of Socialism 101 for this evening.