The class struggle - Why commies and cappies should join han

[von Mises]

Since it is so obvious that people cannot be exploited by cigar smoking CEO's, however can be ruled by the oppressing class, the government, I think that why should lay aside our ideological differences and work together.

Can capitalists force you to do military service, or force you to pay for things you don't actually want, like subsidized gameshows on national television?

[Xvall]

I don't like the government either; however, I doubt many communists would be willing to side with anarcho-capitalists. However, you do not seem to be a capitalist in the same way that, for example, Storman Norman is. Who knows.

[Ymir]

From a communist(marxist) viewpoint, the cigar smoking CEO is exactly who exploits people. The government is usually run by capitalists or protects their rights. The capitalists, with such a large tool in their hands, would not willingly destroy it and join forces with communists whose goal is to take away their capital.

[abstractmentality]

von Mises: i think that you completely underestimate the structural forces that weigh upon all of us, pushing us into certain acts, or what some social theorist call agency. you ask if "capitalist[] [can] force you to do military service," and i will say that it does not "force" you to enter into the military, but structres can "push us to jump" into the military (thats a thought from Jay MacLeod's ethnography Ain't No Makin' It, p 255). You see, a youth coming from a working class structure or even "sub-working" class structure has many forces pushing him/her towards their future actions, whether it be economic conditions, the limited prospect for college, seeing through the "equal opportunity" that is said to be for all, or a slew of other structures, and these things push different people different ways. this can bring people to take part in selling drugs, taking part in the military, or a few other options.

i can write forever on this, but i will stop there.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 4:01 pm on Mar. 4, 2003)

[sc4r]

Quote: from von Mises on 10:36 pm on Mar. 4, 2003
I think that why should lay aside our ideological differences and work together.



LOL as if.

Its a shame in a way if you are one of the few genuine ideological capitalists because our objectives are pretty much the same.

But our proposed solutions are almost diametrically opposed.

Nevertheless if you actually are prepared to lay aside your ideological differences and accept democratic decisions about property rights I would be perfectly prepared to let you do so :-)

This isnt what you were saying though is it :-)

[Pete]

Capitalism is the Thesis
Communism is the Antithesis
Socialism is the Synthesis

Basic Marxism. Eventually Capitalism will fall from the wieght of it's inner hypocracies.
[about capitalism]"Further on it is a wolf race; one can succeed only at the cost of the failure of others." ~Che. This means that not everyone can better themselves, the most evident lie in Capitalism. The rich will stay rich for hte most part as the poor stay poor. Capitalism should not work with democracy, but since the plutocrats have such a web of propaganda it is weakly held together.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 9:28 pm on Mar. 4, 2003)

[Tkinter1]

There are hints of Socialist integrations into the predominately Capitalist US. The two systems would balance each other if regulated properly.. Everybody knows opposites attract :)

[Moskitto]

Na+ + Cl- ---> NaCl
H+ + OH- ---> HOH (H2O)

[von Mises]

The reason I say this is that we have given the monopoly on the use of violence to the government based on ideas of Thomas Hobbes especially. If all people were intrinsically good then there would be no problem, because they wouldn't abuse the power they have.

What you see now for instance in the US or in Latin America is indeed that companies use the government for their own interest. This is extremely dangerous because as an individual you have little chance to protect yourself from arbitrariness.

Reading Marx carefully you will find that he is also in favor of property rights. It is because the worker’s work is his property that Marx may conclude the worker is dispossessed of his remuneration. However here he makes a misstake.

[Pete]

Where do you read that VonMises? I read in the Communist Manifesto the complete opposite.


In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

He does not mean all property, just the property of large land owners, like say the ranchers who constantly push the poor farmers in Mexico deeper into the jungle by appropriating their lands. This is not a good type of property he seeks to abolish.

The idea about companies being intwined in US and Latin America (and Canada) is an obvious result of the colonial period. Many colonies where started by monopoly companies who slaughtered the natives without thinking (with the exception of the French) because they where bad for business. Just because it has existed for 500 years does not make it right. The abolition of such companies would be benificial. The Hudsons Bay Company still operates today as a retail store, and it once ruled over half of what is now Canada. (The HBC Land and Ruperts Land). Since the early days these people have been entangled with the government. They are the colonial form of Aristocracy and need to be dismantled!

Yes Thomas Hobbes said life would be "dreary, brutish, and short" with out government, but he must have been acting in selfinterest. Let me set up a scenario to show that people are generally good. You are walking down a city street, and you see someone starving in their own filth. Your first instinct is pity, or sadness. Then the conditioned response of moving away and disregard that 'lazy excuse for life'. The first reaction, I am taught as a writer, is how you feel beneath all of your social walls built up since birth. THerefore the pity you feel is a sign of your eternal goodness. You may have to go back to the first time you saw a homeless person if you live in a big city.

A second example is religion. All religion comes from humans, a way of explaining human nature and the world. Is it not a coincidence that the basic laws are humanitarian in nature? Do not kill, steal, and help your borther out. These are the basis of human nature, since they where established so many years ago before the current corruption could come over us. Remove the filth and stress of capitalism and these laws will no longer be needed since they are inherent in Man.

Just to sum that up, Thomas Hobbes is wrong. The bad people are conditioned to be such. Humans are naturally good, and allow them to return to nature and divisions will cease to exist.

Summing up what I said for all you inpatient people:
1. Marx is against private property and large land holders (the communist manifesto), and until von Mises provides a source he should be disregarded on that point
2. Companies controlling government is part of the colonial legacy that does not mean that it is good. They are the American (N. and L. America) Aristocracy, and should be treated that way and abolished.
3. People are naturally good, unlike what Hobbes said. Your gut reaction is the true human reaction, all that follows in conditioning.
4. All early laws (10 commandments) are based on Human Nature, and so if we are desocialzied and removed from the poisioned enivronment of capitalism having written laws would be unneccassary because human nature would rule.

I hope you read it all instead of my summary!

[von Mises]

I do not think that a Microsoft or Exxon could exist in this size in a true free market. But that is another dispute.

By saying do not steal you acknowledge that there are things which belong to someone, that someone is the owner. It was probably in his interest because he saw that without government his rights would be violated. The religious rights you refer to, freedom, the right to live, according to Hobbes can only exist if there is some authority which can command these rights.

Nor with Hobbes nor with you I agree. You argue that people are generally good but that they are conditioned. Many scientist suggest that next to external conditions also genetics are important do explain people's behaviour.

But if you are correct then there can be no objections to capitalism. If indeed human nature is generally good then people would use the gain of their efforts to enhance the lives of those who are less fortuned.

Just by reading the writings of Marx you can destillate such things. But there are also people within the libertarian movement who have written about this. These are generally the more progressive ones for I haven't met a single one that disputes the importance of Marx' historical analysis.

[Pete]

"But if you are correct then there can be no objections to capitalism. If indeed human nature is generally good then people would use the gain of their efforts to enhance the lives of those who are less fortuned. "

If I am correct then there is a major flaw in Capitalism. It is motivated by greed not comradery. Capitalsim leaves no space for the little guy. There can be no objections to Communism, I believe you meant.

My definition of stealing. IF someone is starving and another is feasting, the feasting man has stolen from the starving man. Everyone has the inborn right to get what they need to survive, by withholding the right you are stealing food,shelter, LIFE from them.

Marx's historical analysis is great. I don't get what your saying here, could you expand your arguement??

" do not think that a Microsoft or Exxon could exist in this size in a true free market. But that is another dispute."

I agree.

[Larissa]

Von Mises, in my capitalistic country, until not long ago, and just like it's still going on in other capitalist countries of the region, Military Service was mandatory. So the "capitalist" government did not ask you whether you were willing or not to go to Military Service.

Second, I believe in a government who:
- Gives people access to basic free alimentation;
- Guarantees the citizens rights to health and education;
- Provides an income for the retired people o people who need a financial support from its society;
- Provides jobs; protection and leisure time for workers;
- Provides housing, preferably a private property;
- Aims to achieve its unique goal of a fair and egalitarian society, progressively more in solidarity.

Capitalism doesn't support this fully, despite it pretends it does. The capitalist system is selfish. That's its own nature.

(Edited by Larissa at 2:31 pm on Mar. 5, 2003)

[Tkinter1]

"The capitalist system is selfish"

And the Socialist system is dependant.

I believe that the two would balance each other out.

[Anonymous]

My definition of stealing. IF someone is starving and another is feasting, the feasting man has stolen from the starving man. Everyone has the inborn right to get what they need to survive, by withholding the right you are stealing food,shelter, LIFE from them.

So one man's need automaticaly produces a burden on the other? If the man who is feasting earned his food justly and fairly then I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to keep it. It is not his fault the other man is starving.

Your right to life does not give you the right to another's.

[abstractmentality]

DC:
I suggest that you read the ethnography Ain't No Makin' It by Jay MacCleod. i think that say much to your reply above.

[von Mises]

CrazyPete,

We can argue on and on about what system is best but after all arguments and 10 pages further we'l probably end where we started. And the greed of for instance the eighties produced an enormous amount of new jobs.

Larissa,

That is what I mean. Mandatory military service is the modern equivalent of what we call slavery. If you object then they will throw you into jail. But not only "capitalists" governments abuse their power, all governments abuse their power. That is inherent.

Your utopian government is based on the idea that everyone is equal. That's ok, but you can't have both equality and freedom.



(Edited by von Mises at 2:03 pm on Mar. 6, 2003)

[Pete]

And VonMises, Ill post a better arguement in a few hours when I get back from class, but It seems that you allow your self to accept that we are utopian. Our ideals are, so are yours (if they arent then you havent a heart or a brain that can think creativily). But we are all realists and don't live in a bubble.

[Larissa]

Quote: from von Mises on 9:36 am on Mar. 6, 2003

Your utopian government is based on the idea that everyone is equal. That's ok, but you can't have both equality and freedom.
(Edited by von Mises at 2:03 pm on Mar. 6, 2003)
Actually my "utopian" government is a free nation government and you can check it out at:
http://www.cubagob.cu
(under the Social Development tab) I didn't made up anything, it's already set and working ok.

(Edited by Larissa at 11:20 am on Mar. 6, 2003)

[von Mises]

Is this site also in English? And by the way why should I believe the Cuban government?

Does anyone of you know an article from a socialist who tries to formulate an answer to the fundamental flaws of socialism put forward by von Mises?

(Edited by von Mises at 2:53 pm on Mar. 6, 2003)

[Larissa]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 6:16 pm on Mar. 5, 2003
"The capitalist system is selfish"

And the Socialist system is dependant.

I believe that the two would balance each other out.
The socialist system works based on solidarity. The capitalist system doesn't.

Capitalism's goal is "Capital" = money. If we needed stones instead of money, it would still be the same. I mean, its goal would be: stones, pebbles, rocks, etc.

There's nothing "wrong" with this. Basically, we all need and exchange "element" (e.g. money, stones, whatever) to live, to buy and sell (trade) stuff, etc.

Similarly, a doctor cares about health, an attorney about laws, an economist about financial issues, etc. Capitalism cares about Capital.

Socialism cares about society, social concerns, people.

Now, the problem is, as CrazyPete well remarked, that Capitalism is a system that makes the rich people/countries become richer and the poor ppl/countries become more and more poor.

While socialism benefits both sides within a context of equality, Capitalism doesn't work that way.

And, please note, I'm talking about systems, the inherent nature of the systems. Not about cappies or commies.

Maybe the confussion comes when you live in developed countries where there's a broad middle class and the differences between the rich and the poor appear not to be so evident.

But, within a global scope, there exists just a few powerful and rich nations who exploit the "too many" poor developing or third world countries, and THIS is not very egalitarian in my opinion.

Third world countries are constantly harassed by Capitalist countries who seek their selfish benefit of increasing their own capital and sustain the Capitalist system.

People in need, living in developing countries often have to face serious disadvatanges like high unemployment rates, high inflation rates, high cost of living and they just can't cope with this. And Capitalism only adds unfavourable elements to these countries' real scenarios.

This way, let's say for instance, the owners of a foreign or local pharmaceutical company employ people for coins. They pay very low wages that hardly allow people to make a living.

The gap between the owners' profits and the workers salaries is huge. Further more, most workers cannot afford buying the drugs or medicines they produce.

Some profitable companies attempt to do some "good actions" for the "benefit" of the society. Still, what they actually do is keeping their own system running. They "donate" money to non-profit or charity organizations while they benefit from tax deferring or they benefit with some legal type of money laundry.

Others give away money for scholarships at Universities where they will aftewards pick up the best garduates to employ at their companies as trainees, but exploit them by overloading them with managerial tasks under the promise of a higher position. Of course, this funds are not intended to let poor people get a chance to study (please bear in mind I'm not talking about developed countries, but developing ones under a capitalist system).

Finally, many companies give away money in order to secure a political candidature. By supporting certain type of organizations they assure their own benefit. Once they are part of the country's political system they can act for their own benefit again.

So, this is not very democratic in the real sense of democracy.

This is why Capitalism is a selfish system.

On the other hand, socialism pursuits a general welfare and an equitative distribution at all elves. It aims to benefit all the people not a small part of the population.

This seems too simplistic, but it's essential to understand why capitalism is not likely to share hands with socialism ever. In fact, many capitalist countries have adopted "socialist" measures to improve their own people's lives.

Unions and cooperatives exist in capitalist countries as a way of neutralize the exploitation by the capitalist system. Other socialist measures that some advanced and developed countries have adopted are social benefits like paying students to study at universities, like it is done in Cuba, a socialist country.

Now, if socialism were so terrible, why would a country like Cuba pay for the students to facilitate them study at university levels? Cuba has one of the lowest illiteracy rate in the whole world.

If the system wanted its own people to be "dependant", what is the point of educating them? Why not just leave people ignorant so the government can "rule" them better?

So, like I said before, there's nothing wrong with capitalism focused on making money, the problem is its goal is not caring for people. And that's an inherent characteristic of the system, it's not that some people are BAD people with BAD intentions. THEY are not the bad guys, but the Capitalist system is. As a result, what we would call the "bad guys" are all those who support an unscrupulous selfish system.

(Edited by Larissa at 12:08 pm on Mar. 6, 2003)

[von Mises]

Unless you can prove the opposite an economic system based on socialism can never work. Theory and real live prove I am right.

I can start by pointing all the flaws in your line of reasoning but I have a simple question: why do you prefer equality over freedom and what authority do you think you possess to order people how they should live their lives?

[Larissa]

Quote: from von Mises on 1:42 pm on Mar. 6, 2003
Unless you can prove the opposite an economic system based on socialism can never work. Theory and real live prove I am right.

I can start by pointing all the flaws in your line of reasoning but I have a simple question: why do you prefer equality over freedom and what authority do you think you possess to order people how they should live their lives?

Sorry, I understand you refer to freedom as free trade? Please let me know.

I mean, to me freedom is quite another thing. It's the opposite of "slavery" for instance.

I'm all for freedom and equality, in fact equality is what actually makes people free. No differences, no ppl over other ppl or below other ppl.

When ppl are exploited, oppressed or starved by a system then we cannot say they are free.

[von Mises]

Free as in free trade is part of libertarianism but that's not what I meant.

That is what you think, but by giving people social rights you are denying them their individual rights. You can't have both. Your ideals can only be accomplished with the use of violence as we have seen and read. Individual rights should be protected, so I am oppressing you I should be punished.

[Tkinter1]

"In fact, many capitalist countries have adopted "socialist" measures to improve their own people's lives. "

Thats what I was talking about.

[Larissa]

Quote: from von Mises on 2:36 pm on Mar. 6, 2003
Free as in free trade is part of libertarianism but that's not what I meant.

That is what you think, but by giving people social rights you are denying them their individual rights. You can't have both. Your ideals can only be accomplished with the use of violence as we have seen and read. Individual rights should be protected, so I am oppressing you I should be punished.
No, not at all. First of all, Ghandi didn't achieve his ideals through violence. Second, "giving people social rights you are denying them their individual rights" is not correct. See, for instance, what happens in Cuba, where people have both rights. They don't eliminate individual rights, many people have their own businesses, like the paladares or boarding houses. Those are examples of individual businesses not owned by the government. In the political arena, the Proyecto Varela people (another party different from the Communist Party) hold its meetings openly in Havana, as you might have seen broadcasted on CNN, and no one was "arrested" for that.

So, what indivudal rights are suppressed within socialism? In Cuba the "private property" exists. My husband's family (nobody holds a political position or charge) have two houses of their own, one where they live (two people) and the other one it's their vacation house at the beach, so?

What I do believe in, is that collective rights are far above personal or indivudal rights, and this is the point where we don't agree, just that.

We are talking about two different things, and maybe you think that the ideas you support are better than mine as well as I have the right to think the opposite.

[Pete]

Von Mises: "I disagree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death the defend your right to say them." (Baron de Montisque I believe).

Larissa basically summed up what I was saying. But I was doing some reading this afternoon for a project and stumbled on a quote that shows the weakness of Capitalism, refering to social ideals, "democracy can hardly be expected to flourish in societies where political and economic power is being increasingly concentrated and centralized [Patriot act, Monopolies, Large Multi-nationals, mergers, ect.]. But the progress of technology has led and is still leading to just such concentration and centralization of power [big companies granted government support, therefore putting them under tabs, but still on the free market]. As the machinery of mass production is made more efficient it tends to become more complex and more expensive [an electric drill vs a traditonal one] - and so lessa vailable to the enterpriser of limited means [small businesses can not afford to exist, and are bought out by the big coperations]. Moreover, mass production cannot work without mass distribution; but mass distribution raises problems which only the largest producers can satifisfactorily solve [small businesses fall behind, leading to the centralization of economic power in the hands of few]." (Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World Revisited. London: Flamingo Modern Classics, 1994. (26))

If you didn't realize, the square brakets where my comments.

You siad you could prove the opposite of what Lara has. Do so.

[von Mises]

"I disagree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death the defend your right to say them." (Baron de Montisque I believe).

Could also be Voltaire but it's not quite clear.

As Murray Rothbard already said "' a true free market is irreconcilable with the existence of a state". So you can try and try but you won't convince as long as you give examples of power abuse by governments.

I can provide you with the article (http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSApp.html#Appendix), of Von Mises, as it would be stupid to refrase his clear arguments why socialism can never work. But if you can provide me with a decent defence why he is wrong, we can talk about it. Until now I haven't found one.

Larissa, of course you are entitled to your opinion. However, my opinion would be very dangerous in your world as it is not in the interest of the collective to pursue your own happiness. Not to be rude, but this is the truth. Even Uruguay knew this when it became the first Latin American country backing a UN resolution against Cuba for mistreatment of dissidents and political prisoners.

[Larissa]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 3:03 pm on Mar. 6, 2003
"In fact, many capitalist countries have adopted "socialist" measures to improve their own people's lives. "

Thats what I was talking about.
ah, ok, now I understand what you meant.

[Larissa]

AFAIK, the only prisioners mistreated within the Cuban territory are the Al-Qaeda suspects held in Guantánamo, actually being brutally tortured by the CIA.

(Edited by Larissa at 5:55 pm on Mar. 6, 2003)

[von Mises]

But do you mind if think higher of the opinion of the UN or Human Rights organizations than yours? Needless to say that I don't support this mistreatment either.

[Pete]

Cuba is aplauded for its human rights, is it not?

[Pete]

I ask in the form of a question because Larissa has both been to Cuba as a vistor and a resident. SHE KNOWS. The Human Right's adivsories may claim to be neutral, but everyone has their baises. It takes living there to know how bad or how good it really is.

[Anonymous]

I'll refer you to SN's last post in this thread (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=1710&start=10).

[Pete]

And that has to do with this thread why?

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Larissa on 1:54 am on Mar. 7, 2003
AFAIK, the only prisioners mistreated within the Cuban territory are the Al-Qaeda suspects held in Guantánamo, actually being brutally tortured by the CIA.

(Edited by Larissa at 5:55 pm on Mar. 6, 2003)





Despite the fact that these prisoners are not protected under the Geneva Convention, the treatment they have received is consistent with international law. *The reason we have been so careful in providing quality detainment for these dirtbags is to curtail the sort of ignorant criticism that you bring to the discussion, Pete. *We knew well in advance that morons would try to claim that the terrorists had rights too. *Therefore, we decided to stop this predictable criticism dead in its tracks. *If you can provide any evidence that contradicts the government's position, I would be more than happy to hear it. *Tell me how allowing the Taliban and Al Qaeda combatants to receive the following items can be see as a violation to the international treaty, remembering that the Geneva convention does not apply to these detainees.

"The detainees, both Taliban and al Queda alike, are receiving, as a matter of United States policy, the following items:

-Three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws
-Water
-Medical care
-Clothing and shoes
-Showers
-Soap and toilet articles
-Foam sleeping pads and blankets
-Towels and washcloths
-The opportunity to worship
-Correspondence materials, and the means to send mail
-The ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to security screening."

Source: *A well sourced essay entitled Detainees or Prisoners of War?: The Applicability of the Geneva Convention to the War on Terrorism; Diane K. Hook

It must be very nice to be able to run off at the mouth without any responsibility, whatsoever. *I have noticed that you continually make claims that are utterly false, Pete. *You are often mistaken, and never bother to provide sources for any of the bullshit statements you make. *This is a characteristic that makes you look foolish, as you should at least be correct in your assumptions when you make off the cuff remarks, without backing them up. *What are your sources, Pete, Commondreams, Z-Magazine, The Che-lives newsletter?

I was referring to this, although I see you've already responded.

[Pete]

Yes, I thank you for pointing that out! I was actually trying to remember where I posted about Korea :)

[von Mises]

Let's kick the topic with a quote from Von Mises


"The rich, the owners of the already operating plants, have no particular class interest in the maintenance of free competition. They are opposed to confiscation and expropriation of their fortunes, but their vested interests are rather in favor of measures preventing newcomers from challenging their position. Those fighting for free enterprise and free competition do not defend the interests of those rich today. They want a free hand left to unknown men who will be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow and whose ingenuity will make the life of coming generations more agreeable. They want the way left open to further economic improvements. They are the spokesmen of material progress."