This will be fun, have at it gang, but try to play nice even in the face of such ignorance.
Results 1 to 20 of 287
I don't get you guys
So you guys hate fascism yet you want to force everyone to conform to your ideas through violence at the hands of the state? Did you guys forget that nazism stands for national socialism? Do you guys know that Nazism is simply one of many catastrophic attempts at the political practice called socialism. And I find it peculiar that you guys hate fascism yet you only allow opposing views in subtopic? I also find it funny that guys use the word "right winger" to both describe national socialist and capitalists who hate socialism, regardless the fact that they are polar opposite ideas. Just some observations that I have made...
But seriously, would you guys want to ban capitalism? Would you put a gun up to my head and throw me in a cage if I trade a pencil for a pen with a buddy of mine? What if I opened a pencil shop? The HORRORS, lol. Because apparently profits are evil, right? So when you do something good in your life and you profit from the situation, that is an act of evil? Sounds like religious fanaticism to me. And politicians are evil huh? So the solution is to give control of all resources to the hands of a few men behind closed locked doors? Or better yet, majority rules where the minority gets stomped on? And you want to force everyone into this system, against their will? Interesting.
And you guys call yourself tolerant yet you want to tell everyone where to work, when to work, where to live, what to buy, etc... Should we pretend that people in that system are free because they have the arbitrary freedom to choose their hair style or sexual preference even though their life is centrally planned? It also appears that you guys thing that people with the political opinion to leave other people alone are the intolerant ones? Do you really believe that? Are definitions of tolerance getting confused? Are we speaking doublespeak? Or do we only want the right to do things that liberals want and make everything else illegal, yet claim we are the tolerant ones?
Also, we are part all a collective? What if I am an individual? Is that a thought that you guys can not fathom?
And of course, capitalism caused the American economic crisis? Have you guys ever heard of the Federal Reserve, a creation of the government? Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae, government institutions? Do you know how bubbles work? Do you understand that the government is and has been for decades issuing credit and free money like it is going out of style? And the idea for the government to stop these things, is to blame for our trouble? Have you guys ever heard of Stockholm syndrome?
Of course I must be an angry republican to you guys, regardless the fact that republicans and democrats are two sides of the same coin, a coin that has been consistently extending the reach of the government for the past 50 years? Did you authority worshiping central planers realize that the people you have been calling "conservative" (republicans), are in favor of growing the government? So we call National Socialists right wingers, republicans right wingers, and at the same time we call libertarians right wingers, right? Who needs consistency in definitions anymore, heck, it sounds bad, maybe the people will fall for it. I kid, not sure if you guys are though?
So what is my fatal flaw? I am a just guy who supports the right for people to make voluntary exchanges on their own behalf, and I simply do not want to tell you guys people to live their lives aside from using force or violence on other people? What strawman are you guys going to throw at me? I'm curious. Eitherway, I don't get you guys.
Entertain me.
This will be fun, have at it gang, but try to play nice even in the face of such ignorance.
The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less than he Whom thunder hath made greater?
Here at least We shall be free
A Psychological Symphony, argeiphontes, BIXX, BolshevikBabe, BornDeist, Brandon's Impotent Rage, Broviet Union, Brutus, Captain Red, Comrade Chernov, d3crypt, Domela Nieuwenhuis, Hrafn, L.A.P., Left-Wing Nutjob, Marshal of the People, Psycho P and the Freight Train, Rafiko Bingo, Red Banana, Redistribute the Rep, Rugged Collectivist, Sabot Cat, Short&Direct, Sinister Cultural Marxist, Sinister Intents, Slavoj Zizek's Balls, Thirsty Crow, William Howard Taft, Yugo45, Zoroaster
What do you do for a living, Mr. Warner?
"to become a philosopher, start by walking very slowly"
your observing is pretty daft then, you see "national socialism", a term german fascists used because socialism was very popular in those times, has nothing to do with socialism, or can you explain all the capitalists in nazi germany still in power? all the private proberty that existed? all the profits these capitalists made because of the nazis?
also we want to abolish the state not take over it.
as for opposing ideologies, its there that shit like the op doesnt get spamed everywhere in the forum and actual discussian can still take place.
yeah we want to abolish capitalism, for it is a system that is build upon exploitation of the majority of human kind so a few can make big profits thanks to that exploitation.
that is capitalism, what we want to abolish.
isnt that bourgois democracy in a nutshell?
again that sounds just like todays system.
most peoples lives are allready centrally planned, or what do you think we do in the workspaces? spending our freetime the way we want? no, we have to work the way the bosses want us to work.
do you confuse us with liberals? we arnt tolerant, where did you got that idea from? we arnt tolerant to cappies, homophobes, sexists, racists and all the other shit.
oh hey look i never read anything about communism ever and therefore i strawman like there was no tomorrow.
of course its a capitalist crisis, crisis is an inherent part of capitalism. also the state and capitalism go hand in hand, the one cant exist without the other. so i see that you dont understand capitalism and the current crisis.
oh god a whiny libertarian, what else is new.
you support a system that through threat of violence forces everyone to participate in it, nothing is voluntary in this system, its global its everywhere and you cant escape it and if you want to survive you need to participate in it.
sadly you are to boring to really entertain us, wich is a shame.
you are complety right of course, but i do need to waste some time, so its at least some kind of distraction.
All i want is a Marxist Hunk.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!
Collectivities within society are ultimately formed by individuals, just as people are ultimately formed by complicated arrangements of subatomic particles.
We can still examine these arrangements as a functioning whole without being forced to render everything down to it's most elemental level, though.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
No. Our ultimate aim is to "smash the state".
No. The "socialist" moniker was an attempt to pander to working class voters in Germany, which was acknowledged by Hitler himself. The Nazis also didn't have much of an economic policy -- indeed, Fascists are usually the "courage is my ammunition" types who don't really give a thought to economics. In practice, though, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between Germany and other contemporary countries with Keynesian war economies.
Probably a good time to point out that Fascism, by the way, is a specific political ideology, and it is not a word for "mean people in government".
This is done specifically to maintain the board as a board for revolutionary socialists, anarchists, etc. The idea is to keep the main board for political discussion from a radical left-wing perspective, and have OI for discussion from all other viewpoints. This is not a general politics forum.
You should probably observe a history book and some actual political writing as well, at some point. In content, Nazism and Fascism are clearly on the right, for their anti-egalitarianism, nationalism, support of "traditional" gender roles, cultural or racial suprematism, etc. etc. etc. That doesn't mean everyone on the right is a Nazi, obviously, and of course not everyone on any side of the political spectrum is expected to be in agreement with other right-wing ideologies. That's absurd.
Also, the Nazis got a great deal of support from industrialists (capitalists!) in Germany, and abroad. Henry Ford was a big fan of his, for example.
None of these are things that we advocate. Please try again. And do try, this time.
lmao
I don't think you've ever actually read a socialist opinion on the economic crisis. Why should we bother to give you serious responses if you aren't seriously engaging with these ideas in the first place?
You honestly think this is news to us? Or to anyone?
Wait, so only people you agree with can be right-wingers? Everyone else is, then, on the left, even if we don't agree with them? Sounds like you're more interested in "my team yay, your team boo" tribalism than actually talking about political philosophy.
The moment I realize I just responded to an overly-long troll post. One simply cannot lack self-awareness to this degree.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
As I have some time on my hands...
The Nazi Party was founded in 1919 and was originally 'socialist' with racial-national tendencies. However, in the course of it's evolution, it can to aggressively emphasize both the nationalist and racist part of it's platform (courtesy of 'the fuhrer').
There was a history of internal disputes within the Nazi Party as the 'left-wing' faction tried to shift course. I believe their was a split sometime in the mid twenties when a group of national socialists (emphasis on the socialism) left the party to form their own.
Much of the appeal of the Nazis in the later 20's and early 30's was among the middle classes who had lost out financially in the 1923 hyperinflation and the great depression and consequently the socialist 'rhetoric' of the Nazi's had much appeal. However, the Nazi party only took off because it was backed by German Industrialists. So Hitler played a very skillful game of using 'left-wing' langugage to get people on side whilst pursuing a nationalist adgenda. It is important to remember that Hitler had a problem with "Jewish" capitalists, not german ones because he believed the former were a threat to the Aryan race.
The 'night of the long knives' in 1934 brought about the destruction of the SA which called for a 'second revolution' of a 'socialist' character, leaving the Nationalist side triumphant.
So the Nazi's put racial politics before class politics.
From the point of view of the liberal/libertarian individualist ideology, this is 'true'. You criticism of 'socialism' relies on the defining socialism as increasing the power of the government, with the consequence that individuals lose their personal liberty.
So, yeah- their are differences between liberalism and fascism.
Communists/Marxists however emphasize the similarity between the two as both- to a greater or lesser extent- share a commitment to private property and therefore the maintenance of the capitalist system. In this sense, Fascism represents the dictatorial defence of a capitalist system based on private property, where as "communism" (i.e. government by communist party- Marxists have a different definition) represents the dictatorial defence of a 'socialist' system based on social/common/state property.
Whilst their are similarities in both fascism and communism, (in theory) they represent difference class interests.
We can't "ban" capitalism. Rather, capitalism is destroying itself. Overtime capitalism produces large corporations which deny the right of private property to the vast majority of people in the population who are forced to work for them in order to survive; the 'proletariat' or 'working class'.
Marxism begins with the assumption that profit is based on 'exploitation'. Profit, in a Marxist sense, is not INHERENTLY evil but is a necessary part of taking away a section of the products of society (surplus value) so that it can be re-invested in expanding economic activity and improving the means of production through science, technological development etc.
What is 'evil' about it, is that profit takes away from the working class. Marxism asserts a 'natural right' for property to belong the producers, which is 'alienated' from them. Society is divided in to those who own the means of production (the 'capitalists') and those who sell their labor power in order to subsist (the 'proletariat').
Profit is a problem for the proletariat when the concentration of capital into monopolies means that the incentive to develop the economy is reduced because their is no longer the competition to 'check' the economic power of large corporations. Instead, they use their market power to increase the amount of 'surplus value' (or 'profit') they get out of the population- until eventually, the working class is screwed so tight it turns round and say "f*ck you- we'll start our own system".
politicians are not 'evil'- though they certainly try. From the Marxist perspective, the problem is the "class" character of the state. Who does the state work for? if it works for the capitalists this is a problem for the proletariat. so the 'proletariat' would rather run it's own state.
If it was as simple as telling everyone what to do, Stalin would have won the Cold War. Thankfully, it isn't.
Planning is not simply the result of what 'we' want (assuming we're the ruling class here), but it the result to trying to find the balance between the objective needs for economic development (what we can do) and the subjective needs for human-social development (what we want to do).
Freedom in the 'communist' sense (and it is different) is freedom of action; the ability to set a goal and achieve it. This however, overlaps strongly with concepts of power.
Where do you draw the line between tolerance of anothers political opinion and tolerance of another persons ability to commit an injustice? We're using different 'ideologies' to say different things.
"tolerance" is dependent on who rules. Liberals have the "paradox of tolerance"; you can only tolerate people who will tolerate others. If you have people who do not tolerate this right- tolerance becomes self-defeating.
In much the same way communists distinguish between 'opposition' within the system and 'counter-revolution' which would overthrow the system. We tolerate 'socialist' views based on a consensus surronding the necessity of social ownership, as opposed to 'capitalist' views which requires private property. Historically, Communists have been both politically liberal and authoritarian.
This is an 'human nature' problem. Communists start with the idea that because man is defined by production, and production is social- man is therefore inherently social. Liberals start with the idea tha man is defined by thought or conscious, which is individual. This leads to competing conceptions of wants and rights which offset the possibility of co-operation. Though the degree to which people are selfish or social under both ideologies is disputed.
By "stockholm syndrone" I assume your referring to the 'regulatory' capture of regulatary authorities by the people their regulating. If regulatory authorities serve the interests of the people they regulate; it means the federal reserve serves the banking community.
Marxists would begin with this assumption because in our view 'economics' determines 'politics' and no matter how far the state attempts to regulate the 'economy' it will only ever do it in so far as it is in the interests of the people it's regulating; the 'capitalist' class.
I hope that means you want to rip apart anti-terrorist legislation, cut back the powers of the NSA for mass surveillance [hi guys, how are you? still saving freedom and democracy from ordinary people?] and reduce the size of the US military?
I'm in the "communism is there to make us free" camp. So I'm opposed to government taking away civil liberties- irrespective of whether it's capitalist or communist. The abuses in the USSR etc, make me want to throw up- and Revleft probably has a few "Marxist-Leninists" who feel the same way.
Most of revleft would be put up against the wall and shot in the USSR, DPRK, etc.
Right and Left (according to political scientists) define who supports social inequality (the 'right') and who supports social equality (the 'left').
Most of us here have a problem with these definitions too and whilst 'political compass' is helping in defining where we stand, it is no where near accurate.
For example, Stalin in 1931 rejected the call for "equality of income" as counter-revolutionary because he believed that worker's needed an "incentive" to work hard in a communist economy. The "freeest" part of the economy of the USSR was the labor market (except I think during the war years 1941-45)- which caused great embrassment for Soviet Economists.
But because Stalin/USSR supported social equality in the long-term they're still identified as 'far left'.
You see the world through a different ideological lens based on the information and experience we have to hand. that's all.
If you're the rich man at the top of a skyscraper- you can see the world stretching out before you and the 'little' people with their 'little' struggle are very abstract and not important to you.
If you're the poor man, those struggles take on a much greater importance because their the immediate struggle for survival. Then they look up at the skyscrapper and think the rich man gets it all it's own way.
I'm illustrating my point- I don't think you're rich. As very few people are.
The "Left" would question whether the 'exchange' is voluntary. How can someone freely enter in to a contract if they they are dependent on another person to give them a wage for food, shelter, clothes etc.
Economic freedom in the communist sense is that everyone has access to these goods and therefore cannot be coerced by the threat of starvation in to doing a job (known as 'wage slavery').
But if you have the money and your in a contract with someone who has to sign it, you're free to screw everyone else and call it's "their choice".
This is an interview with Hitler about what he though socialism was...
Hitler on 'National Socialism' -
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
The free market is not evil.It is just against our class interests which is to abolish capitalism.
I hope for nothing,I fear nothing,I am free-Nikos Kazantzakis
Oh fuck, I totally did.
brb joining libertarian party
""Even today Kaganovich is such an ardent supporter of Stalin that no one would dare to say anything derogatory about Stalin in his presence. Among all of us he was a 200 percent Stalinist." - Molotov
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's bunkers." - Enver Hoxha
fka. Enver "The Bunker" Hoxha
#FF0000, A Psychological Symphony, BornDeist, Brandon's Impotent Rage, Brutus, Captain Red, Comrade Jacob, Craig_J, Das war einmal, dodger, Fakeblock, Gia, Hermes, Luc, Marshal of the People, Nakidana, ola., Petrol Bomb, Rafiko Bingo, Red Banana, Red Commissar, Redistribute the Rep, roy, Rugged Collectivist, Sinister Cultural Marxist, Slavoj Zizek's Balls, William Howard Taft, Yugo45
I think that you're a little mistaken about what people on this forum think. I for one do not agree with expanding the state and think that people will have more freedom in a decentrally-planned economy. You seem to think that everyone here agrees with a centrally planned apparatus which is nowhere near the case. Once you realize this most of your complaints have no leg to stand on.
As for individualism, that depends on what you mean. If you mean something like Stirner then fuck no, but if you mean that people should be free to do what they wish provided that they don't harm another then I agree. The difference is that exploitation and hoarding things to sell is a form of harm in my opinion. I am willing to expand upon this if you request it.
Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand. ~ Karl Marx
formerly Triceramarx
It really isn't surprising that you don't "get us" (of course, there is no "us", but that's really not important right now). Judging by your posts, you're a member of the petite bourgeoisie or those strata who are affluent enough that "rising up" to the petite bourgeoisie is a real possibility for their members. Probably cis-male, straight, white, of the dominant nationality etc. As such, socialism is objectively against your class interest.
Well - our ultimate goal in the short term is to smash the bourgeois state, and in the long term we expect any form of state to wither away as class society is destroyed. Most of us, however, hold that between the revolutionary seizure of power and the communist society there will exist a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship will "force everyone to conform to our [sic - of course these ideas aren't some plan that we came up with during a leisurely discussion over a cup of coffee] ideas". That is the function of the state, after all.Originally Posted by #FF0000
The point is that fascism isn't "enforcing laws through violence" (all laws are enforced through violence). Nor is fascism "authoritarianism" (and nine times out of ten, people who talk about "authoritarianism" are absolutely clueless). Fascism is a specific political form, relying on mass popular mobilisation (a strategy lifted wholesale from socialist organisations) in order to push a reactionary agenda.
What touching faith in advertising. You must be one of those people who buy "zero-calorie" soft drinks. The name of the NSDAP contained the word "socialist", but then again the Emperor of the French also called himself a socialist, and the main conservative party in Portugal calls itself "social-democratic". In practice, the NSDAP never advocated the socialisation of the means of production, and it certainly never enacted socialist policies. In fact, unlike the aforementioned Emperor of the French, Hitler ultimately answered to the heads of the large German cartels.Originally Posted by Time Warner
There was nothing socialist about Strasser and such people - their support for petty artisan production with state backing places them firmly on the right even if we ignore their racism, family-mongering and support for imperialism.Originally Posted by Red Economist
It really does take a healthy dose of ignorant privilege to compare being restricted to a specific sub-forum of an explicitly socialist forum to the murder of Jews, Roma, Slavs, LGBT people, socialists, trade union organisers etc.Originally Posted by Time Warner
Not to mention that - as far as you people are concerned, this is Edelweiss's sacred personal property and he can do with it whatever he wants.
Well, no, no one really cares what you do with your pencils, unless you've managed to amass a warehouse's worth of them, in which case you could probably expect to see them confiscated in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat.Originally Posted by Time Warner
And who would produce the pencils for you, magical space pixies? The dictatorship of the proletariat would mobilise to smash attempts to reinstate wage-slavery and the market.Originally Posted by Time Warner
Because the system that includes profit is inimical to our class interest.Originally Posted by Time Warner
I think it is clear at this point that you have no real grasp of socialism as a movement - or are simply trolling. With the exception of "when to work", all of these things would be for individual workers to decide, unless truly exceptional circumstances are in place (and there is need for e.g. labour armies and so on).Originally Posted by Time Warner
Of course, if you want an example of a system that forces workers to work in places they don't want to work, live in places they don't want to live etc., look no further than capitalism.
Of course, to the affluent straight petite bourgeois, the freedom to choose a sexual orientation is unimportant.Originally Posted by Time Warner
What people? Right-wing "libertarians" like Ron Paul? Their bigotry, particularly racism, misogyny and homophobia, is well-documented. Not to mention their function in modern capitalist society - to provide ideological cover for the dismantling of what remains of the reforms workers fought for in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.Originally Posted by Time Warner
Societies are mostly comprised of individuals, and individuals can only be individuals by functioning in a social context (otherwise they are feral animals). So the entire dichotomy is nonsensical. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter. Socialists aren't feel-good "communitarians", nor do we want to shut everyone up in a monastery.Originally Posted by Time Warner
First of all, "monetarist" theories of the crisis are notoriously vague, and they can't explain the cyclic crises that capitalism experiences. Second, capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. This doesn't preclude government intervention (in fact, without government intervention, the market wouldn't exist).Originally Posted by Time Warner
Third, it's funny that you accuse us of fascism and then peddle lolbertarian theories about the gummint and evil bankers being the cause of the crisis, as if that's not the favourite refrain of modern antisemites.
Last edited by Anglo-Saxon Philistine; 18th March 2014 at 14:05. Reason: Clarification.
All I want to say at the OP is lol, and also I'm late here, everyone else beat the fuck out of it
God damn that post was unoriginal.
No thanks, I'm here to entertain myself.That's why I'm even responding to this pile of rubbish
Your fatal flaw is spouting off talking points about your perception of what the left means without bothering to investigate. Do you really expect people on Revleft to respond to your points if these have all been asked and answered? If you would have bothered to use the search function on the forums you would have gotten an answer to every one of your misconceptions. If you still disagree, they would have provided a useful springboard. I was going to respond to each one of your criticisms, until I realized they have already been covered. Please post again, once you have used the forum search.
Last edited by Loony Le Fist; 18th March 2014 at 14:35. Reason: Added question mark.
I am actually glad that this post received some throughout responses. I really do appreciate that. I will respond to everyone but I will only respond to a few people tonight because it will take some time to get to everyone.
Sasha: Would you mind elaborating on my ignorance? That is a bold claim. I actually find it funny that the first response from this community is an ad hominem attack. I hope this isn't a sign of what is to come. Pro tip: back up your words if you want credibility.
Synthesis: I am a small business owner.
Per Levy: Whatever you call it, Nazism is WAY closer to a socialist society than a libertarian or capitalist society. Philosophically they are complete opposites. Hitler nationalized nearly all aspects of the economy while promising hope and change, lines straight out of propaganda playbook (which he took classes in). Then, after taking over the economy under the auspices of socialism, he went nuts... and you know what happened. But any way you slice this issue, Nazism is in fact one of many failures of socialism. When a single entity has control over all means of production, coupled with a monopoly on force, things go south fast, and historically the tragedies are on a level of their own. Do you honestly believe that "your" socialist, centrally planned idea for a society will just suddenly work and never fall to corruption? That is what every politician says, and we know how trustworthy they are, right?
But I will admit that I don't know your individual views on this subject. So excuse me if I misjudge your position. With that said, you want to abolish the state? As in removing the role of the government? As in an anarcho-capitalist society? Are you sure that is your position? Or do you want to keep the state and have them centrally plan every industry? If you are for anarcho-capitalism, then I'd say you are getting closer but that appears not to be the case. You want to "abolish capitalism". So how do you do that? How do you prevent human beings from trading and making voluntary exchanges without a state to prevent them? Do you have to strip everyone of anything of value so they have nothing to trade with? The truth is that the only way to stop people from doing such things is through violence from the state. That is what happens in all of history's attempts at communism. They lived in police states. But further, would you seriously have me arrested and thrown in a cage if I started trading things with people on a voluntary and profitable basis? Would you do that to your own mother as well? Do you view that as some sort of crime? You do want to abolish capitalism after all, right?
Now, if you are arguing that people can embrace socialism on a voluntary basis, then that is a whole other thing. If people want start up voluntary socialist communities or tribunals or what have you, then that is not violent and I have no problem with it. That type of society would allow people to choose what they want to do with themselves, including the option to produce what they want on their own or as a collective. That is called a voluntary society, more specifically, that is a free-market libertarian capitalist society. If you like the idea, don't be afraid to research it.
Now let me cover the economic points that you made. First, today's system is far from a free market capitalist system. It is not even close as a matter of fact. GDP is propped up by government spending and QE, almost everything is subsidized, regulated or taxed to death, heck, the best investment for a large corporation make these days is to invest in a politician. You saw how much wall-street money Barack Obama received, right? That is the game, the government uses force through the military, police and IRS to steal money from one group of people and give it to other people, inflating the dollar, doing political favors, and sticking the tab on everyone else, while they pay with a lower standard of living and future.
Now let me exercise your brain. Without the government's role in the economy, that system does not exist. Understand that the government has a monopoly on force and they use it, while a corporation can only convince you to exchange goods with them. There lies a critical difference. It is when the government gets involved in the economy, that corporations lobby politicians to use force on people make them buy things against their will. ACA is great example of that. But in a free market, if a business is ripping off their customers, they will go out of business. But if a business is in bed with the government, then they can rip off their consumers all they want and the government is the one paying them. That is called crony capitalism. Remove the government and this stuff can't happen. So there is quite the distinction between free-market capitalism and quazi-socialist crony capitalism. Hopefully this is not too confusing.
Speaking of quazi-socialist crony capitalism, lets talk about America’s current crises... Do you know what caused the housing bubble or anything about the situation? This is not rocket science, I promise it really isn't. First, under the idea to make housing affordable to low income families, both political parties decided to establish government guaranteed credit lending agencies called Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae. What these institutions did, was they told the banks that if they finance with them, the loans given out will be covered by the US tax payers in an event of default. The government completely took the risk out of lending, and the Austrian economists like Peter Schiff pointed this out the whole time while the Keynesians denied it. Anyhow, the banks started going crazy, taking out as many loans as possible because they knew that they would get bailed out. Meanwhile, people started buying houses that they couldn't afford and they thought that prices would go up indefinitely, construction companies were building huge neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere to cash out, everyone was making money, and we had quite artificial, government inflated the boom. Then came the bust. The loans couldn't be paid for, the government kept their promise and bailed out the banks while they also simultaneously gave the banks more legal power than every under the mirage of "regulation". And of course housing prices collapsed, people got stuck in underwater mortgages, ghosts town with filled with brand new houses started popping up everywhere, Obama used the crises to spend as much money as possible, tossing out favors left and right, prices on everyday goods skyrocketed, and the Federal Reserve started buying its own bonds by the trillions. Oh yeah, I should mention something about the Federal Reserve, without them the housing crises would have never happened, it would have been impossible, it couldn't have been financed. Wrap your head around that one and tell me how a lack of government interference caused this crisis?
And finally, let me break down two different types of force. One includes violence, the other doesn't. Examples of force that don't include violence are things such as breathing, eating, etc... Things that you are simply required to do, yet are not violent. Examples of force that do include violence are drug laws, taxation, theft, wars, laws in general - all of these things are enforced by men with guns, who send you to a nice little cage if you disobey. And abolishing capitalism will require quite a bit of violent force to accomplish such a task. Heck, just crack open a history book and see the things that governments have already done attempting that goal.
I'll respond to more people tomorrow.
"Philosophically" the US has no job overthrowing regimes -democratically elected leaders- in the four corners of the world. "Philosophically" companies have no reason to bust unions, it goes against the freedom of expression and association. It's simply a ridiculous thing to look at reality "philosophically".
A capitalist society is very very simple. We vote governments in "liberal democracies" but they decide on very little. Gay marriage, abortions, weed legalization, a tougher immigrant policy. Stuff like that.
Does the government in a liberal democracy decide how many jobs are there? The wages payed? The goods produced? Their prices?
No. These are decided by the companies. The bigger the company the more it gets to decide. And of course by saying companies one can only mean the companies' shareholders.
These are the people that decide almost everything that actually matters in the world today.
Are shareholders elected? Are they held accountable? Do they "serve the people"?
No, they are expected, encouraged even, to serve their own interests and maximize their profits. They're bosses, within the confines of their company they rule. They decide who gets payed and how much, they decide who gets hired and who leaves. Isn't that similar to how you'd describe an economy ran by communist bureaucrats?
Sometimes everything runs smoothly. Bosses are not challenged, they have no reason to be afraid. They might even be adored by the crowds.
And some other times nothing runs so smoothly. Maybe there is a crisis and they need to cut wages. Maybe the workers organized and are going on strikes. Maybe some of these workers are thinking that bosses are simply unnecessary.
What do the bosses do then? At that point a liberal democracy is not enough. At that point they need the whip, they need fascism. They need obedience by their workers, they need to send to prison the troublemakers.
Fascism rose in Italy at the same time many workers started occupying the factories where they worked. Nazism rose in Germany after a huge economic crisis, with millions unemployed and with Communist Party of Germany becoming stronger and calling for a revolution.
Hitler was elected chancellor by "centrist" politicians as well as his own thugs. He was elected chancellor with the best wishes of all the german industrialists. His first action was blaming the communists for the fire in the german parliament, imprisoning their leaders, later banning the party and with it demostrations and free speech.
You think that capitalists ponder whether some action is justified "philosophically" based on the garbage Ayn Rand wrote? No, they do what they need to do, thinking in strictly materialist terms. And at times these supposedly firm supporters of free will and free expression decide to strip that right away from their workers. To keep themselves and their wealth safe.
This is how fascism is born. Any other view can only belong to the extremely naive.
...We shall never recognise equality with the peasant profiteer, just as we do not recognise “equality” between the exploiter and the exploited, between the sated and the hungry, nor the “freedom” for the former to rob the latter. And those educated people who refuse to recognise this difference we shall treat as whiteguards, even though they may call themselves democrats, socialists, internationalists, Kautskys, Chernovs, or Martovs.
V.I. Lenin
I don't get you either. You don't have to be a psychologist, a scientist, an Einstein observer to observe with your own eyes, that capitalism in USA only benefits Donald Trump, Obama, Tom Cruise, Jennifer Lopez, Madonna, rich celebrities, rich stars, and an upper layer of the middle classes like doctors, lawyers and small business owners. And they all live a very happy nice life earning more than 60,000 dollars a year.
However they are only a minority about 30% of USA population. But for the rest of USA, for about 70% of USA life is a hell on earth, a labor gulag, without any opportunity for a college profession, without medical coverage, with decadent physiology, with diabetes, cancer and yellow teeths.
USA is really a third world nation of poverty, obesity, physical ugliness, stupidity (because of no college profession) and yellow teeths (because of no dental care) for the majority of people. And a rich developed country only for a few.
That's the way capitalism works in Mexico, USA and all of the countries of this world with capitalist systems
.
"Dad, how many pounds of potatoes does an american have to eat before he dies." -Matt Dillon, in a movie
Except that you won't find anybody here (except maybe a few of the Stalinists) defining socialism or communism as a system run by bureaucrats. Your philosophy and ours share the same understanding: people who control the means of production make the decisions. The difference between us is that you want a small elite of private owners to control the means of production and make decisions on everybody's behalf, whereas the revolutionaries on this forum want democratic control (not bureaucratic control) of the means of production, and want everybody to participate in decisions that affect their own lives. How's that for "free choice"?
Communism is the absolute realisation of the individual, it is the seizing of the self. My issue with capitalists is exactly that they are not individualist enough, that they demand that we sacrifice ourselves to capital and ideology. What do you suppose work, property and the struggle for survival does to the individual? It enslaves me. And you call us communists the violent enforcers of power, ideology and conformity? Pfft.
"It is slaves, struggling to throw off their chains, who unleash the movement whereby history abolishes masters." - Raoul Vaneigem
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things." - Karl Marx
"What distinguishes reform from revolution is not that revolution is violent, but that it links insurrection and communisation." - Gilles Dauvé
