better system

[neozen]

forget the idealogies, forget which philosophy is to be follow....or.( the perfect system/way)
tell me is there a better system that the anglos-(eg. Britain, US)created? in terms that most people thinks is 'fairer' and acceptable .....

[vox]

Is there a better system?

Sure. If we want a better system.

Capitalism is not, obviously, some sort of Natural Law. It's a man-made system, and, like any other man-made system, can be changed or replaced, just like a slave system or a feudal system.

We create the system. We enable the system. We ARE the system.

Can we do better? I think so. The right-wingers here don't.

vox

[Augusto]

Vox,

Let me begin by saying that it's a pleasure to see you on the board once again. I always check in but find nothing of interest, so it was a pleasure to hear that Reagan was back on, and it was the icing on the cake to see you here.
It can be like the good ol' days again Vox. Remember the innocence of youth? The long summer nights around the campfire, the skinny dipping in the swimming hole, the experime....sorry. To your post then.
So tell me, were you a cheerleader in high school, I meaning its really an inspiring pep talk you've posted, It's almost kinda of sad your team never wins and its prospects don't look too good.
Since there's really not much of substance in it there's not much to contend, except your second to last line: "Can we do better? I think so. The right-wingers here don't." From experience I've learned thatnearly anyone who disagrees with you and believes in private property is a 'right-winger', and since I succumb to both opinions I can't help but feel that this comment is directed at me.
So then as a Vox appointed right-winger let me say that I too believe in a better system. But unlike Vox I, and those of my ilk, not only propose solutions rather than simply put forth a laundry list of grievances, but I propose solutions that work.
Vox, like most members of this board, sees all the world's problems arising out of the economic system known as capitalism. For this they can't be blamed, they adhere to an fanatical and orthodox ideology. Communism to communists is an all-encompassing system, and so they're chosen anti-thesis of this ideology, capitalism, must too be all encompasing. You can't blame these people for the irrational, downright stupid idea that the world and its events are materialistically determined, that control of capital is the sole force, and that capitalism the root of all problems.
This view is preposterous because any careful study of history (which Marx obviously didn't perform when he wrote kapital or grundrisse) reveals that there are more forces at play on the grand arena of the world than simple economic ones. Culture, race, religion and countless other forces, as they are excercised by individuals, play out the grand dialectic of history. Yet vox see's nothing else other then capitalism, and what should replace it.
But does capitalism need replacing? We obviously know vox's answer, of late he and his ilk have cheered the occurance of financial scandals like enron and worldcom in much the same way that lenin and his coffehouse buddies celebrated the onset of World War 1. They saw these events as the faults of capitalism and cared not for the victims, but celebrated the elucidation they expected such events to bring to the masses. Just as lenin and his turtle neck wearing coffee shop buddies were wrong, so too is vox. The economic recession that is taking place today is a hardship that people must endure, but it is not one that will take down capitalism anymore than any other recession of the last hundred years.
More over the financial scandals of american corporations are not symptons of capitalism. When a murderer is caught, tried and sentenced do we then complain that this was a failure of the justice system. No we recognize that it is for such an action that the justice system was set up. So when capitalism's regulations catch up to its criminals why should we bemoan the system. If anything these scandals are proof that capitalism requires vigilance, and that with such vigilance in place it will function properly.
Of course vox doesn't care, he is not motivated by pragmatic considerations but by ideology, capitalism will always be evil to him and there's nothing that can be done to remedy that opinion. He will continue to bemoan capitalism within the safe confines provided for him by the very system he abhors within the nation that so far best exemplifies this system.
But if he bemoans capitalism what does he want it to be replaced with, you might ask? Why the answer is simple, communism. YET WHAT THAT ENTAILS HE WONT SAY.
The world is plagued by many problems, many of which do indeed arise out of poverty. But it is a poverty caused by the dearth of capitalism. Africa, for instance is plagued by poverty, what vox's solution is i've yet to be told. Does he propose land distribution like the sort that is plunging zimbabwe into famine, does he propose collectivization like in starving N. Korea, does he want state control of industries like in the Soviet Union? Vox never says, he simply replies, we want a better system, a communist system.
Well vox, I too want a better system, a capitalist system that would provide for africans and north koreans, and even russians freed from totalitarianism but living within a hollow state, the same benefits that Americans and western Europeans have. I think the first world has a great many advantages that other nations don't, I think we need to export constitutional democracies, efficient judiciaries, property rights, capitalism.
I look at africa which you say has been starved by capitalists. What do you mean, have their natural resources been pillaged? Last I checked the problem with africa is that there are no exports, there is no foreign investment, in short there are no capitalists.
Well vox like you I want a better system. Every capitalist does.

(Edited by Augusto at 8:42 am on Aug. 1, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

blood hell you again, that post was just gibberish full of assumptions and downright lies.
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/misindex.html
How long are you going to remain an absolute beginner?

[vox]

Augusto,

How very tiresome.

Truly, it's a shame you claim to be an expert on me when you quite obviously have not read the posts I've made about overdetermination, which, if you had read them, would have, hopefully, made you reconsider the monism with which you threaten me.

Rather than play your game of "let's forget the topic," I wish, rather, to stay very much on topic.

The topic is, can we do better? I said that we can. You said that, well, what exactly did you say about that?

Nothing, really.

You did attack me. That's obvious.

However, attacking me and answering the original post are very different things.

If you want to attack me, feel free, of course. However, if you want to talk about the topic of this thread, I'm afraid you will have to do more.

Indeed, you didn't even talk about my response.

Is this really the best that right-wingers can do? Is this all you have to say: vox is wrong? Hee! I must be quite some fiend to merit so very much attention.

So, Augusto, reply to the post or start a new thread. I know that you prefer a scattershot approach, hoping, nay, PRAYING to hit a target. But that doesn't work anymore.

A diatribe against me doesn't cut it.

I'm right, you're wrong.

vox

[Augusto]

vox,

You're "response" was 10 lines long, including the signature. In my reply to it I pointed out that I only had issues with the second to last line, I think I made my case against your statement quite clearly.
Yet you persist with your sophisty:
"Rather than play your game of "let's forget the topic," I wish, rather, to stay very much on topic.

The topic is, can we do better? I said that we can. You said that, well, what exactly did you say about that?"

Vox, I agree that we can do better, if you had read my response you would see that we're in agreement. The difference between you and I, the prevalent fault in your outlook on which I and reaganlives have repeatedly called you on is that you have no remedies.
Look at the quote I took from you and pasted above. Look at it again and again, now read your first post again. Both are exemplary voxisms and both are vacuous. The question was "can we do better?" You're answer was yes. Well vox now the question is tell me how. In the 11 months that I've been on this board I've yet to hear a remedy from you for any of the worlds problems.
Vox it's not hard to be an 'expert' on you, and thats you're fault. Yet I would very much enjoy to debate something other than sophisms and personal attacks. Over the last 11 months on this board I have actually given ideas on how we may go about solving some of our worlds problems, I have actually put forth ideas that have worked. You've given nothing. Please vox, don't do this to yourself, I would very much like to be an expert of a more intricate topic. Tell me vox, how would communism, your idea of a better system, help?

[Stormin Norman]

"But if he bemoans capitalism what does he want it to be replaced with, you might ask? Why the answer is simple, communism. YET WHAT THAT ENTAILS HE WONT SAY."

I have also noticed this, and called Vox on it. The minute you ask him a question about his belief system he runs like a coward. Yes, he is quick to criticize the work of others, but always fails to produce any of his own. I submit that this is why Vox supports communism. If his real life experiences resemble what he has done on this board, then it would suit him to rape and pillage the hard work of others. After all, it appears that he is incapable of producing anything of value. Anyone with this handicap would be better off stealing from others. Isn't that what communism is all about, stealing that which does not belong to you for the greater good, your greater good. I suppose that being a staunch supporter and professing your undying devotion, entitles you to a greater percentage of the scavenged wealth, than say the worker. Perhaps if your system if implemented, then you can acquire a cushy job, free of any hard work, Vox. After all, it is fear of hard work that drives your ideology.

[peaccenicked]

What does communism entail?
How many times have we answered that question? I don't know.
You say it entails theft, of whom, millionaires and billionaires. How can you justify such excessive wealth and priviledge, seriously. You are profoundly digusting.
Especially when wealth is created by squeezing the poor. Corporate power is operation rip off.
Do you think you fools stand a chance of pulling the wool over our eyes.
Try living in the real world, if you can, you brain dead suckers.

[reagan lives]

Sooooo...did peacenick just say:
"What does communism entail?
How many times have we answered that question? I don't know [how many times we've answered that question]"

OR:
"What does communism entail?
How many times have we answered that question? I don't know [what communism entails]"

These are the questions that plague our times. I tend to read it as the latter, but it's really in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

As for vox, he typed very clearly in his first post:

"Can we do better? I think so. The right-wingers here don't."

Now, as Agusto pointed out, we've been here for 11 months, he and I. And vox was there the first day, the very first day, and we made him go absolutely ballistic, and then we had a good laugh about this guy who took himself, his virtual persona, his not-so-virtual ego, and his outworn ideology so seriously, possibly at the risk of his own psychological well-being. But I digress. The point is, we've known vox a long ass time, and his half-hearted attempt to question Agusto's "expertise" doesn't change the fact that when vox says "right-wingers," he's talking about us (not exclusively us, but we are certainly included under the heading). In light of this, vox's statement quite clearly reads "[reagan lives and Agusto] don't [think that a better system is possible]."

And Agusto, clad with yet another new moniker (did you know that you can get your password emailed to you if you forget it, or you can change it to something you can remember?) responded by saying that we (he didn't speak for me nor did he claim to, but I agree with him) DO in fact believe that another, better world is possible, and he proceeded to extend to vox and to everyone else here the courtesy of explaining the basis for this belief and some of the tenets upon which the better world can be founded. He also pointed out that vox has never, ever done this in nearly a year since we've been conversing with him.

vox then accused Agusto of changing the subject. You be the judge. Tiresome, indeed. He also accused Agusto of "saying nothing." I present vox's original post, Agusto's reply, and vox's response (which, ironically, includes the very accusation in question), and I'll let the audience decide who's saying "nothing." vox, in lieu of replying to a single point in Agusto's post (and don't try to say that there weren't any) tried to discredit it on the grounds that he (Agusto) didn't stay in bounds, that he gave too broad a response. Hard to believe, in light of how clearly and elaborately vox outlined his position in his original post.

Who's getting tiresome here?

[peaccenicked]

Not the latter at all. Communism has been dabated thoroughly here. What has not changed is the ideological swipes that capis use. All we do is ceasely
refute your misconceptions. You are so boring. You just through the same shit all the time. It is blatant that you are not interested in understanding socialism. You here to bad mouth it, like a bad habit. There something really disturbing about your personalities. What on earth are you trying to achieve? Con us into thinking that you are fair minded people. Sorry, it will never happen.

[Augusto]

And yet peace you, or vox, have yet to say what communism entails. Ah, what the hell, i have to quote your second to last post, its classic and I wouldn't want you editing the fun out of it:

"What does communism entail?
How many times have we answered that question? I don't know.
You say it entails theft, of whom, millionaires and billionaires. How can you justify such excessive wealth and priviledge, seriously. You are profoundly digusting.
Especially when wealth is created by squeezing the poor. Corporate power is operation rip off.
Do you think you fools stand a chance of pulling the wool over our eyes.
Try living in the real world, if you can, you brain dead suckers. "

In anycase peacenik have you ever thought of a career in politics, you can go far with doubletalk like the above. Unless you stutter or something.

Once again the question presented to you and vox is what does communism entail, what would you do differently, what would you like to see done?


(Edited by Augusto at 4:22 pm on Aug. 2, 2002)

[Brian]

As for the 'Left vs. Right' argument, there seems to be a healthy dose of McArthism going on in the minds of the American posters here. Socialism does not equal communism. The majority of the Scandanavian nations have socialist-leaning governments, with some of the highest tax rates in the world, but for that, they also have the best health care and public education facilities in the world. I am against the union-controlled side of socialist politics and I see myself as economically right-wing, but I am definitly NOT conservative when it comes to domestic policy.

[Augusto]

simply because i love vox so much and would like to see him come back with his description of communism. I'm going to ask everyone to take note that once again when the going gets tough the tough get going, come back vox.
Well I hope your out researching or something. I guess your approach of fleeing avoiding the question posed before you: 'what does socialism/communism entail,' is more dignified than peaceniKKKeds. He's throwing a four yearld old tantrum over on the adam smith thread.
So come on back vox, things just arent the same with out. We miss you, not just me, but granpa john, and sally, the twins, even twinkles the cat with the gimpy leg...

[peaccenicked]

What does socialism entail?
There many ways to look at it the simplest is the negation of private property and the introduction of a social plan, to give society a sound rational basis to develop on.

[Augusto]

Thats very broad PeaceniKKKed.

In anycase, your blueprint, if we can call the negation of private property and the introduction of a "plan" to run and develop society, a blueprint, sounds very much like in the Soviet Union or in Cuba or in N.Korea or eastern europe.

You try to distance yourself from the bloody and criminal legacy of communism, yet your prescriptions for change are skeletal copies of some of histories greatest blunders.

[Brian]

Augusto is like a fucking genuis, he makes Albert Einstein look like a moron compared to him.

[peaccenicked]

''In anycase, your blueprint, if we can call the negation of private property and the introduction of a "plan" to run and develop society, a blueprint, sounds very much like in the Soviet Union or in Cuba or in N.Korea or eastern europe. ''

What I have been saying is that the negation of private property and the introduction of a social plan, has never been successfully practiced. How can we consider anti democratic practices as being social.
I am also saying the the negation of private property and the introduction of a social plan does not necessarily lead to a criminal dictatorship.
The poor countries dont stand a chance of developing a social plan while the dominant mode of production in the world is capitalism. No revolution can be contained in one country for very long, it is doomed to go on a counter revolutionary trajectory.
I am not a revolutionary through subjective desire, I see socialism as the only long term solution to the continuing horrors that are rooted in the callous economic relations of capitalism. Personal or party dictatorship, merely usher in a new phase of pre-capitalist development resulting in the eventual arrival of an unregulated market system, open to the predators of finance capital.
The bogey of stalinism, tied to the ''consumer revolution''
are empirical realities but both of these chimeras of the present phase of world society have no real basis in reason.
The looming stagnation of the market can wipe out the grip of these ''safe and secure'' premises and bring forth a new level of international class struggle, unparalleled in human history

[vox]

Augusto,

I've humiliated you too many times, and everyone knows. Remember the wonderful thread about your sock merchant? You ran away for two months or so after that, didn't you? Or was it longer? You lost, I won. Same as always.

As for your current question, I'm afraid you'd have to be far more specific, though I doubt you can be. In light of that, the proper response is equally as broad.

I refer you, of course, to Marx and Engels. I refer you to Lenin and Trotsky and Luxemburg and DeLeon. I refer you to Debs and Harrington and McNally and Draper.

If you want something specific, you will, of course, have to ask about a specific system. It is, of course, more appropriate to talk about various socialisms.

But that's not want you want, is it? No, I think you want a blueprint of a future society. Of course, anyone with half a brain understand what a ludicrous notion that is.

So read up, son, and you'll find several answers.

Glad I could help,

vox

[Stormin Norman]

Vox,

Why don't you give a brief description of each one of the varieties, and explain the differences? Which you do you like best, and why? That is unless you are only familiar with the names and know nothing about the theories. Vox, prove to me, that you know of the things you speak.

[peaccenicked]

Varieties of socialism?
Try reading the communist manifesto!

[Stormin Norman]

I've read it. I just wanted to see whether one of you could synthesize the points for me, or if you were only capable of speaking in big words without the burden of knowing what it is you're talking about. From what I gather, you know nothing, as you have always failed to answer any of our questions honestly.

[Capitalist Fighter]

This is great.
For the capitalist's we have Storming Norman, Reagan Lives and Augusto and for the commies we have vox and peacenicked. This is like a huge royal rumble with alliances! If only i could be bothered to read all these threads....oh well.

[Augusto]

PeaceniKKKed, most of the time it seems that's the only Marx you guys have read. But since Vox named dropped, I think it only fair that he substantiate the relevance of his sources, their applicability to the modern world.

Vox, let us talk about Utopian elements in Marxists thought. Let us see how 150 years of progress have invalidated Marx's remedies to existence. How Marx, as an economist had no understanding of the law of diminishing returns. How he made the propesterous claim that:
"No capitalist voluntarily introduces a new method of production, no matter how much it may increase the rate of surplus value, so long as it reduces the rate of profit."
Yet this statement betrays a profound misunderstanding of capitalists, who seek not to maximize the rate of profit, but simply the aggragate profit, basic calculus reveals that a reduction of rate of profit can maintain a growing total profit.

Let us then move to Lenin and Trotsky. Ofcourse that's the clear outline of socialism. So let us study lenin the man who created the secret police, a man who savored the death on destruction of world war one for the sake of his ideology's long term prospects. Let us discuss lenins theses on the inevitability of war, let us discuss lenins theories on "eliminating" the non-revolutionary elements of the proletariat as he outlined in his early 20th century articles in the journal iskra.

Then lets discuss trotsky, a man so thoroughly abhorred by the fellow travelers of this century that he came back into fashion only long after his death and after the fall of communism. Let's discuss his theories on communist militarism, and how he criticized functionarism in the red army and had to defend himself from charges of militarism by the party's left.

Let us discuss Rosa Luxembourg and how she failed to not only sway the German people, but even German socialists who feared the Bolshevik regime she tried to set up. Let us discuss how she miserably misunderstood international economics bolsters, not weakens capitalism and increase its ability to promote material progress, and not hinders it..

Let us discuss Daniel DeLeon, and how his attempt to radicalize the labor movement failed. Let us disccuss how Unions in general were frowned upon my Marxists, and ask how you can reconcile support of unions,which i support and are a capitalist and bourgeoise institution, which your espousal of marxism.

Let us talk about Eugene Debs, a hell of guy I will admit, stuck by his guns, but unfourtunately even that was not enough to get him more than 5 percent of the vote. If a case is so self-evident, then why do most people not understand. How debs adherence to Marxist economic determinism renders him far to simple. In an Arena article entitled "socialist Ideals", he offers the world the panacea of socialism, "when the bread and butter all the men women and children the world are rendered secure dread of war...We'll have literature and art such as the troubled heart has never before conceived...We shall have beautiful houses...We shall have beautiful thoughts and sentiments, and a divinity in religion." Ofcourse the satisfaction of the bread and butter problem in eastern europe was not enough to solve all of society's problems.

Harrington and the DSA are basically well intentioned people, thought harrington was a well intentioned person, but they too couldnt convince anyone thats serious about changing things for the better. The DSA's platform basically reads like Debs' statement above. The promise of everthing to everyone if we get in power, without an explanation of how you get everything. Why not join a cult they too offer me eternal happiness. And Harrington is basically like you guys: laundry lists of grievances and when pressed for solutions simsply replies with the word handed down by moses, i mean marx-socialism.
McNally, the white washing of Marxism's leninisms history history.
Drape, like you guys, ignores the flaws that are found the the works of the socialist thinkers above. You fellows mimick his insistance that socialism need not be what manifest itself in the USSR, and like him, when pressed for remedies he presents the same solutions which are being implemented by the socialism that manifested itself in the USSR.

you can name drop all you want, but you should also heed the reality that the names you've dropped stand largely oppossed to each other from a philosophical perspective.

In anycase Vox, you're still avoiding the question, what is socialism man.

(Edited by Augusto at 9:33 am on Aug. 4, 2002)

[reagan lives]

Jesus Augusto, didn't you read vox's post? He clearly said that asking him to justify his existence here with answers instead of rhetoric is "ludicrous."

vox, you seem to like labels a lot. In your world, everyone is an -ist of some sort. So what are you, then? What do you support, specifically? One of the first principles of being a reasonable person is not to let go of any idea or theory until you have a firm grasp on its replacement. You're asking us, and by us I mean the entire civilized world, to scrap an economic system that puts food on our tables and cars in our garages. If you're serious about that at all, you'd better be able to tell us exactly what you support, how it's going to help, and why it's not going to head right down the same path as all other "great ideas" of its ilk. Or, if you're nothing more than an intellectual side show act, the academic bearded lady, then dodge the question again like you always do, say "Hee," and declare yourself the victor.

[Stormin Norman]

"Or, if you're nothing more than an intellectual side show act, the academic bearded lady, then dodge the question again like you always do, say "Hee," and declare yourself the victor. "

LMAO
That is pure gold! Pure Gold! Academic bearded lady!

[Augusto]

just reminding peaceniKKKed and vox to tell us about socialism.

[reagan lives]

It shouldn't be that hard for them...I mean, this is the kind of stuff that they're supposed to be talking about in the Commie Club, isn't it? Or do they just have a big circle-jerk and talk about how stupid the "right wingers" are that kick their asses out in this forum?

[Augusto]

So much for vox and peaceniKKKed, I suppose Vox thought he could get away with the name dropping.

[peaccenicked]

Hardy ha ha.
How he made the propesterous claim that:
"No capitalist voluntarily introduces a new method of production, no matter how much it may increase the rate of surplus value, so long as it reduces the rate of profit."
Yet this statement betrays a profound misunderstanding of capitalists, who seek not to maximize the rate of profit, but simply the aggragate profit, basic calculus reveals that a reduction of rate of profit can maintain a growing total profit.''

To quote the whole paragraph.
''No capitalist ever voluntarily introduces a new method of production, no matter how much more productive it may be, and how much it may increase the rate of surplus-value, so long as it reduces the rate of profit. Yet every such new method of production cheapens the commodities. Hence, the capitalist sells them originally above their prices of production, or, perhaps, above their value. He pockets the difference between their costs of production and the market-prices of the same commodities produced at higher costs of production. He can do this, because the average labour-time required socially for the production of these latter commodities is higher than the labour-time required for the new methods of production. His method of production stands above the social average. But competition makes it general and subject to the general law. There follows a fall in the rate of profit — perhaps first in this sphere of production, and eventually it achieves a balance with the rest — which is, therefore, wholly independent of the will of the capitalist.''

This brings out the point Marx is making more completely, that new methods of production are inflicted on the capitalist, to survive he has to adapt. What Marx
is saying is that the capitalist would like to think short term but has by necessity to think longer term. It is in the nature to run away from capital intensive operations. Marx does not argue that the Capitalist seek to maximise the the rate of profit per se, willy nilly.

More fundamental is surplus value.
''Capital has evolved into command over labour, and sees to it that work is done regularly and intensively. Moreover, it compels the workers to do more work than is necessary for their sustenance; and, in pumping out surplus-labour, it surpasses all earlier production systems based upon direct compulsory labour.''

The economics of socialism is all about this surplus labour which is more than needed for the sustenence of the worker.
This is appropiated by the capitalist and dispensed with
to his own desires. This is the source of capitalist power. The capitalist can use it to lobby pariliament.
He uses it as his social ''wage'' But he has done nothing but provide initial capital.
What Socialism is is the transformation of surplus value into the social wage of the working class, in which the working class as a whole controls its output.
That is not utopian. What is utopian is the belief that the working class will put up with capitalist power forever.







(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:12 am on Aug. 5, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:19 am on Aug. 5, 2002)

[reagan lives]

...still waiting for that description of pea¢eniKKKed's or vox's ideal socialist system...

[peaccenicked]

Lenin does as good a job as anyone
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...rev/ch05.htm#s4 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/staterev/ch05.htm#s4)

[vox]

Peacenicked,

Augusto pulled out the same quote several months ago. He is, apparently, content to have the same conversation over and over again, regardless of how obviously flawed the tiny point he is trying to make is. I, however, grow weary of the same conversation and refer Augusto to our previous threads.

Reagan Lies,

You want me to outline the perfect socialist system? What a bizarre thing to ask for, since, by it's nature, society changes yet perfection, by definition, is absolute. I've never claimed to want a perfect society, only a better society.

You may write that I'm asking "the entire civilized world to scrap an economic system that puts food on our tables and cars in our garages," but I'm only asking you to scrap an economic system that creates poverty, or does poverty somehow exist outside of the economic system of a society in your right-wing dreamland ?

I believe I have offered ideas on this board. Possibly not to you directly, but certainly in all of the posts I've made here I have. Considering that you mention my name in almost every thread you post (I think RL may have a bit of a crush on me) you seem to be my greatest fan, so surely you've read them. For example, I've maintained that nationalizing the banking industry would be a wise course of action. Surely you know this.

At every turn, you lie about what I've written, and I've shown this before. It's become a tired game. Indeed, you started out as the most reactionary member of the forum, and you still are. Your only argument seems to be that everyone but you is wrong. It doesn't hold any water anymore.

vox

[Stormin Norman]

In response to Vox who stated:

"You may write that I'm asking "the entire civilized world to scrap an economic system that puts food on our tables and cars in our garages," but I'm only asking you to scrap an economic system that creates poverty, or does poverty somehow exist outside of the economic system of a society in your right-wing dreamland?"

Could you outline exactly how capitalism creates poverty rather than wealth, please?

You also say that the banking industry should be nationalized. That's funny, coming from somebody that dodged my questions in "Captalists Argue This Down". I remember you saying that I was wrongly accusing you of supporting complete government control over the economy. Exactly what would the ramifications of nationalized banking be, and how would that measure end the poverty you're so staunchly oppossed to?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 9:51 pm on Aug. 5, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Capis argue that the policy of wealth redistibution towards the poor will make the poor poorer.
How more moronic can you guys get?

[Stormin Norman]

Nice retort, commy. Perhaps you should go back to posting other people's articles.

[peaccenicked]

Perhaps you should take the hint from my sig.
ya small-minded fascistic shitbag.

[Stormin Norman]

Why would I read your sig? I have read enough of your other posts to deduce that it is probably another moronic idea.

[peaccenicked]

blah blah

[vox]

This reply is for any Leftist on the board who may think that SN made a point:

"Could you outline exactly how capitalism creates poverty rather than wealth, please?"

Here, SN confuses two different things: the creation of wealth and the distribution of wealth. I've said before that a moment of reflection generally exposes right-wing arguments as being ridiculous, and here's a perfect example of that. Critical reading skills are all one needs to see how utterly silly SN's question is.

No one, I think, has ever argued that capitalism doesn't create incredible wealth, but there is a rich literature freely available online about the inherent problems of the distribution of wealth when capitalist social relations are in place. Here's a random piece (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0701-05.htm) about it, and there are tons more.

But even without getting in to all of that, the obvious and easiest response is that poverty exists in capitalist nations. How then could one argue that an existing economic situation has nothing at all to do with the economic system in place? It's senseless, really.

"Exactly what would the ramifications of nationalized banking be, and how would that measure end the poverty you're so staunchly oppossed to?"

Notice what SN does here: he blatantly ties the end of poverty to a random example I gave. Nowhere did I say that this would end poverty, of course, but this is what SN read. How anyone could take such extreme foolishness seriously is truly beyond me. SN shows himself here as something to be laughed at, not engaged with.

A national bank would, of course, be accountable to the citizenry at large rather than to a small group of shareholders. This, by virtue of its very nature, increases the democratic control that citizens have regarding the way the bank operates. Rather than being a command structure, it's a demand structure where the public gains control of its financial institutions.

If I had more respect for SN, heck, if I had any respect for SN, I'd say that he was cleverly trying to obfuscate the issues by linking poverty reduction to an offhand example I gave, or by deliberately confusing wealth creation with wealth distribution. I fear that I don't believe that's the case, though. I think he simply isn't capable of understanding what I wrote and his confusion is evident in his post. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.

vox

[reagan lives]

I hope everyone took note of how vox dodged the question posed to him by swearing that he's answered it before, and then trying to get my goat by calling me "his biggest fan" (hardy har har har). Is anyone here fooled? Augusto and I have taken up this line of questioning because we've been here for a combined 22 months, and neither of us can think of an instance when either vox or pea¢eniKKKed has presented one single idea or explanation of their favored system. vox, though, swears he has. Hey, he can always say that he's done so plenty of times in the Commie Club. Please, vox, if you're not too scared, come on and refresh my memory.

But I don't think that we'll get a straight or sensible answer. And I have good reason for that belief...to wit: shoddy logic like this:

"But even without getting in to all of that, the obvious and easiest response is that poverty exists in capitalist nations. How then could one argue that an existing economic situation has nothing at all to do with the economic system in place? It's senseless, really."

What's senseless is you trying to slip this kind of argument past us. Poverty exists in capitalist nations, therefore capitalism causes poverty. An argument that seems almost as self-evident as your stupidity, vox. Banks exist in capitalist nations too, therefore capitalism must cause banks. Inflation exists in capitalist nations, therefore capitalism must cause inflation. Gee, conclusions are much easier to reach when you forget about "logic" (which, since it exists in capitalist nations, is clearly nothing more than a bourgeoise invention and tool of opression).

If capitalism causes poverty, why does poverty exist to a much more horrifying degree in every other practiced economic system ever devised by man? And if poverty exists in every practiced economic system ever devised by man (including the one that you espouse), then what the hell is your point?

"A national bank would, of course, be accountable to the citizenry at large rather than to a small group of shareholders. This, by virtue of its very nature, increases the democratic control that citizens have regarding the way the bank operates."

vox, hook me up with some of that shit you've been smoking. If you really believe this, then you're even dumber than the last logical train-wreck indicated. What do you think, interest rate adjustment will be put up for referendum? The bank tellers will be duly elected?

vox, I'm still waiting for you to tell me more about your own ideas. I am a very patient person.

[vox]

"I hope everyone took note of how vox dodged the question posed to him by swearing that he's answered it before, and then trying to get my goat by calling me "his biggest fan" (hardy har har har). Is anyone here fooled? Augusto and I have taken up this line of questioning because we've been here for a combined 22 months, and neither of us can think of an instance when either vox or pea¢eniKKKed has presented one single idea or explanation of their favored system. vox, though, swears he has. Hey, he can always say that he's done so plenty of times in the Commie Club. Please, vox, if you're not too scared, come on and refresh my memory."

Comrades,

This first paragraph is mostly a personal attack on me, but what little "substance" it has is an outright lie. In my repsonse to RL, I wrote that I'd given suggestions before, and I offered one as an example. This is a far cry from the claim that RL makes. Is there any question about this? Nope, because you can all go back and read what was written.

"What's senseless is you trying to slip this kind of argument past us. Poverty exists in capitalist nations, therefore capitalism causes poverty. An argument that seems almost as self-evident as your stupidity, vox. Banks exist in capitalist nations too, therefore capitalism must cause banks. Inflation exists in capitalist nations, therefore capitalism must cause inflation. Gee, conclusions are much easier to reach when you forget about "logic" (which, since it exists in capitalist nations, is clearly nothing more than a bourgeoise invention and tool of opression)."

Here RL tries to get us to believe that the distribution of wealth in a capitalist society has nothing at all to do with capitalism. He tops it off with this bit of nonsense:

"If capitalism causes poverty, why does poverty exist to a much more horrifying degree in every other practiced economic system ever devised by man? And if poverty exists in every practiced economic system ever devised by man (including the one that you espouse), then what the hell is your point?"

Either RL is trying to get us to blame, say, Feudalism for the problems that exist within a capitalist society or he is saying that poverty is a force in and of itself that cannot be vanquished.

That poverty has existed in other societies is not an answer for why it exists in a capitalist society. It's obvious to everyone but RL that the distribution of wealth is very much a part of our economy, and the fact is that in a capitalist society poverty does not just magically appear but is the result of the economic system. This concept seems to be too profound for RL to grasp.

"vox, hook me up with some of that shit you've been smoking. If you really believe this, then you're even dumber than the last logical train-wreck indicated. What do you think, interest rate adjustment will be put up for referendum? The bank tellers will be duly elected?"

Why anyone would think bank tellers would be elected is beyond me. Do we elect the workers at the DMV? At your public utilities? Of course not. It's a simple distraction technique.

Right now, the Federal Reserve, in the control of the ruling elite, sets the interest rate. Right-wingers find this situation preferable to a group that is accountable to the public. Where is RL's objection to that? There is none given, of course. RL prefers to rely on silly suggestions when making a "point."

vox