Results 21 to 40 of 539
Socialism:
Workers control of the means of production.
Capitalism:
1. Private ownership of the means of production.
2. Commoditization of... well, the world.
3. Creation of an owning class which buys people and exploits their labor.
I think most people here would agree with those definitions, there may be something I got wrong, or disagreement with the wording, but that's my problem.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." (Fredrick Douglass)
´We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary.´ (Malcolm X)
´Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.´ (Rosa Luxemburg)
Well you can also argue the socialism that has been practiced around the world has created separate classes, the ones in charge like Stalin and Mao and the ones who work, everyone else.
That argument also rings true with exploiting the force of labor, such as the people that controlled the central government had mass majority of while the people under didn't, even though they were lead to believe they did, again look at stalins purges. This concept also created things like disagreeing with the structure creates prisoners and enemies of the Union or community whatever the definition is.
I understand the mentality of spreading the production and rewards to everyone involved, however i don't understand how it can be managed without relinquishing all self liberty to the surrounding community. Also, the person in charge of the management of the spread of production will obviously use it to take personal power. Its the true flaw of humanity, and its been proven through history that this happens.
You're definition is not at all referring to my questions, My questions were simply what is the power structure of the state and what civil liberties need to be retained or not, in a series of different questions all aiming at trying to understand that core methodology.
None, since we belive in the destruction of the state, other things are transitional societies like the USSR and PRCh.
Since stuff will be distributed according to the needs of people, none. But how that's done it's the difficult question, will it be done by "food stamps", by "Kropotkin's heap" or another method?
Freedom is nice, but one always must ask freedom for what and for whom.
¿US constitution? I'm not versed on it, so I cannot answe you this.
Capitalism
Capitalism
Goverment must be abolished.
No freedom to the enemies of freedom, that's my stance (Saint Just's one, but I fully agree with him).
"Nuclear boms for the nuclear family". Seriously, I think that there's more ways of organizing the ubringing of children rather than the nuclear family.
Welcome m8
Para los pueblos de todo el mundo, que luchan por la paz, la democracia y el socialismo, el leninismo es como el sol que trae consigo una vida alegre. - Ho Chi Minh
Comunes el sol y el viento, común ha de ser la tierra, que vuelva común al pueblo, lo que del pueblo saliera
Maoism is (...) Marxism Leninism on cocaine - Rafiq
Pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté - Louis Antoine de Saint-Just
El marxismo conlleva muchos principios que en últimas instancias se compendian en una sola frase: “es justo rebelarse contra los reaccionarios" - Mao Tse-Tung
Die Barrikaden schließen der Strasse aber geöffnet der Weg.
The nation should be destroyed and with it, its class system should be destroyed. Any semblance of government should be replaced with freely associating anarchist federations directly controlled bt the individuals comprising it. If there were to be a centralized state its goal should only be that of a minor directory organ controlled by the directly recallable representatives elected by individuals comprising the collectives, councils, and so on. Tge people don't need a state and neither do they need tge rule of law to decide their own free contacts agreed upon by the individuals themselves. It should be entirely democratic to decide the rules and regulations of the collectives that are comprised of freely associating and disassociating individuals. They'll rule themselves and practice individual autonomy without any authority giving them some kind of order.
All taxation is theft, no one shall ever have to give up anything to singe centralized organ for the sake of its coercive functions. Neither capitalism nor a money system will exist, it will have been abolished to allow for individuals to be free from economic servitude to determine their own schedules, their own lives for their own sake. They'll directly benefit themselves and their community and be able to freely associate and disassociate. There lives will be their own to live with their families, their friends, and their communities.
Why would they do that? There would neither be a state, nor church, no coercive organ whatsoever to negatively influence people to do such a thing. From the people themselves would come the defence against such reactionary sentiments. No one would be destroyed for their personal beliefs because the need produced by some authority would not exist. You'd be allowed to practice your personal religion because that'd be your choice.
The Bill of Right's is a bourgeois construction carefully regulating the rights and privileges given to individuals, it wouldn't have any necessity and would only serve to exist as a historical document produced by the bourgeoisie. This idea of private property would no longer exist, all former private property would become collectivised; owned by everyone and operated by everyone. People would have their own personal possessions. Freedom of speech would exist by default but reactionary sentiments must be crushed.
I'm not done don't reply to this
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge." ~Mikhail Bakunin
Did Stalin and Mao develop the productive forces to the point where material conditions brought a class conscious working class who abolished the state and private property, thus ending commodity production and the alienation of labor? The answer is no. These were not socialist societies.
Again, no one is advocating any sort of class society here.
What do you mean "relinquishing liberty to the surrounding community"? You yourself are part of the community, there is no dictatorial force making you do anything or taking away any of your personal freedoms or what have you.
What person in charge of management? Management would be a collective effort in such a society, any attempts at a power grab by, say, an elected delegate in some sort of production association, would be immediately stopped by those who elected him, who would have the power to revoke said delegate's status as a delegate. You seem to be falling into the idea that humans have a "human nature" that is inherent within all of us, that we're all greedy, power hungry beings at our core and we corrupt everything we touch. This is simply false, as it is the material conditions that dictate prevailing moralities and perceptions throughout society, not the other way around. It is the morality of the ruling class that permeates throughout civilization, because they're in such a position to spread that morality culturally, politically, etc. It's a simple case the the base determining the superstructure.
This is the perfect response to what i was looking for to help understand socialism, however i do have a couple questionsNone, since we belive in the destruction of the state, other things are transitional societies like the USSR and PRCh.
Since stuff will be distributed according to the needs of people, none. But how that's done it's the difficult question, will it be done by "food stamps", by "Kropotkin's heap" or another method?
Freedom is nice, but one always must ask freedom for what and for whom.
¿US constitution? I'm not versed on it, so I cannot answe you this.
Capitalism
Capitalism
Goverment must be abolished.
No freedom to the enemies of freedom, that's my stance (Saint Just's one, but I fully agree with him).
"Nuclear boms for the nuclear family". Seriously, I think that there's more ways of organizing the ubringing of children rather than the nuclear family.
Welcome m8
1. How do we transition out of a USSR?
2. Freedom for the people in terms of exploring their own self identity through spiritualism or religion
3. I do not believe true capitalism has been practiced in america, i think its looking at the problems this empire has created and blaming it on something that it identifies itself as, just as we cant say ussr is the reason communism doesnt work because they weren't practicing true communism like you stated.
4. Why should we not allow freedom across the board even if they dont agree with the society? And who will decide who the enemy is?
5. Do you have any solution to other ways raising children besides delegating them to the surrounding community or nuclear family because i am unaware
People. I don't think one person should be in charge of bridge safety.
They'd be appointed I guess by some form of technical commission and ultimately subject to democratic control, but to be honest, how the future society organises itself isn't really our concern, how we organise now to get rid of this one is far more important.
Depends what you mean by 'wants' really. People will want things, sure. But they'll almost always be able to get them. So though there are lots of 'wants' they're mostly short-lived.
I assume you mean 'worship' rather than 'warship'. I don't even think the US consitution allows the right to have a warship.
Well, if it isn't practiced, then logically it isn't the biggest problem, and likewise you have no problem with us overthrowing it. So, we are against something that we call capitalism, and as you don't even think it exists, what reason have you for opposing us?
When we say 'capitalism', assume we have said 'wage labour and commodity production' instead. I guess you're one of those 'the only true capitalism was when we were independant homesteaders and you could shoot black folks on your porch' types?
I'm talking about what might be called 'man's inhumanity to man', which is a product of our seperation into class societies, which leads us to consider others as our enemies, and as means to ends. I don't know what you're talking about.
I believe you were asking about government and freedom of thought then...
Government will not be 'regulated'. What could regulate a government - a government? That's like stabbing yourself to avoid blood loss.Government as such would cease to exist in a classless society. We would all administer everything in common.
I'm not sure how you could regulate people's thoughts without some kind of thought-sensor.
Yes, children belong to 'nobody' in the sense that they're not property and you can't just throw them away when you're bored of them/instill them with your own twisted world-view just because you're an idiot.
Parents are part of the community. How could they not be? The children are part of the community. How could they not be? Do parents have more 'rights' over their children than society as a whole? No, because children aren't property.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Sorry, double-post.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
There are degrees to socialism and what extent it has over the economy, however the fact that you say mao and stalin were not true socialists is the same essence of me saying USA is not capitalist, considering its for the most part always had a us government form of influence on the economy.
Im suggesting the problems with trying to implement socialism in the past has paralleled the problems outlined in the previous response.
Im asserting the relinquishment of liberty to my surrounding community because i believe that if the community dictates my life, i no longer have the freedom to go explore my own self in a way that would make me happy. Hence, if the community says i can not follow jesus because they believe its better not to, i will never know what its like to be a christian. Or if the community says i can not eat meat, i will never know what its like to eat meat. That is the relenquishment of liberty i am stating
I dont think all humans are greedy, i do however think some of them naturally are born that way. If you read Thomas Paine's common sense he makes this argument very clear when he talks about the difference between the lions and lambs of kings. Although he refers to inept leaders opposed to good ones, its the same sense of greed and corruption. There is a nature vs nurture argument going on to this day in the study psychology, however no side has proven to be absolutely true.
Now you suggest that everyone will be incharge of management are you allocating that the 7 billion people hold the knowledge to equal production sharing? And if they dont, then your assuming that somehow we have to re educate them, then by that standard it can come across as colonialism in the sense that your going to different places around the world and forcing people to learn what you believe. The only way for a true socialist power to work without central government it to have a worldwide revolution. because there is necessity of protection from other regimes and other countries. Well, for intensive purposes, lets say the entire world becomes socialist, then how can we possibly allocate every single person in to decide what the fair share of goods is without having any form of representation, and then there ya go, once you create representation you create government. Unless, there are other ways around it that i am unaware of and id like to know what they are
No
There is a growing trend among the libertarian crowed to decry that our current system is "crony capitalism" or somehow otherwise "not real capitalism", citing communists who disavow Mao and Stalin as engaging in the same exercise. That is untrue.
Capitalism is universally accepted by academics of all stripes as an economic mode of production in which private property is owned privately by individuals and economic activity is geared towards the profit of those individuals. What you're doing is moving the goalposts by adding on some other definition, that capitalism now has to have zero government intervention to be truly capitalist.
When socialists reject the USSR or Mao's China as non-socialist societies, we do so on the grounds that what they and their parties built in their respective countries did not even remotely meet the criteria of what is known as socialism, or communism.
The problems with trying to implement socialism in the past came a misunderstanding of the nature of such a revolutionary movement from those trying to implement bring it forth, or an honest attempt at its implementation in isolation, which of course meant that these attempts were met with open hostilities and were forced to retreat into something else entirely.
Luckily, such a relinquishment has nothing at all to do with socialism.
Nature v. nurture refers to debates on certain aspects of human psychology such as gender, mental disorders, etc. It is not in relation to some sense of intrinsic human nature.
In a given workplace those operating the tools of production will have the power to decide how to allocate what they have produced, this implies nothing beyond what was just stated. There is no central body deciding what is "fair" and "unfair", only people preforming socially necessary labor and in exchange consuming what they desire.
HAHA i meant worship idk why i said warship
I am not against you guys in the essence of things need to change, however i am against the proposed planning of this rebirth civilization, i do have questions which is why i am curious into asking you so i can further my knowledge
Idk how you can allocate me for being a racist, which is a common theme when it comes to socialists trying to discredit capitalists, I already said i believe in civil liberties above everything else. There is no way i can be racist and say that, i know USA had a history of it, but it has changed in this aspect for the better
When you stated alienation i thought you meant atrocities committed by the governments in the world, alienation of a realization to what is going on, or alienation allowing it to go on.
The form of governmental regulation would obviously be citizens, in my idea of a country, through the uses of representatives and different powers of the government. However, how do you propose we decide what is better for the community and what isnt? What happens to the people that disagree, are they forced to accept? Is there any civil liberty? Who decides the decision of the community? Everyone besides the minority that disagree then what happens to them are they forced to deal with it?
Its not about deciding who "owns" the children, its about who decides which philosophy is instilled in the childs upbringing, such as what is right and what is wrong, or things like important aspects of life. I am assuming that because i belong to the community we all would have the same thought on what is right and what is wrong, or philosophy then can you tell me why every single person in here differs with every single response they give me, either slightly or immensly? Then, if people tend to differ, who would be right? If you tell your child its ok to do this then your neighbor says no its not ok to do that who would your child listen to you have no role in your offspring? Would you even have a self identity in this utopia?
It is a crony capitalism, because corporations decide policies to create influence over economy, its not a free market economy. You can say its to a certain level of capitalism but its the same as saying its a certain level of socialism that Canada practices, even america has socialism in its current policy with things like welfare and social security. This mentality that we blame capitalism because of crooked corporations is not true at all, its the failed policies of the officials with the corporation taking control of the government. If there is free market capitalism this would not exist and non intervention, this would not exist.
I mean your suggesting that the revolutionaries in china or russia were not socialist, so then thats your stance, however it seems that corruption and strong central government has been a result of socialism every time its been tried to be put into place. The same argument you make against capitalism.
So your suggesting that the failure of the revolution is because of the enemy, so are you saying that the enemy has always won in these regards?
In a truly socialist country would i be able to eat meat if the majority said it wasnt allowed, yes or no
Nature vs nurture is response to genes vs sorroundngs, such as if you have a violent hereditary gene you will be violent based on your surroundings it has eveything to do with power abuse.
Im suggesting what is fair in terms of food and common necessities. Lets say an epidemic breaks out, who decides who gets the limited medicine or not?
When you say 'we've not had true capitalism for 100 years', it's something that's just a ridiculous assertion that has no basis in historical fact. Thomas Edison used to promise New Jersey politicians $1000 for every favourable legislation. The Union Pacific and Central Pacific railway companies were bribing Washington politicians left, right and centre to get free land to build upon and get $24 million in bonds to help in financing their projects. A state judge defended JP Morgan's right to sell defective rifles to the Union army during the American Civil War (after he purchased them from a state armoury and sold them for a huge mark-up). Government tariff kept global competitors out of the steel market to allow US Steel to grow rapidly. Soldiers and police were used again and again to break strikes and demonstrations of the poorest in society and the courts have consistently been arrayed against the poorest in the favour of the rich (1877 strikers prosecuted in federal courts, 1894 railway strike attacked by soldiers etc etc). During the strikes and workers movements fighting for the eight hour day, businessmen came together in committees with congressmen to plan how to stop the struggle and in Chicago they set up state militias and recruited extra police ready to break any picket lines.
The state in capitalism functioned in the past just as it does today: to protect the interests of the national capitalist class, to arbitrate between the disputes of the capitalists and to suppress working class rebellion; from shooting striking workers (such as in Marikana in 2011) to creating an education system that suppresses creativity and development of ideas in favour of making individuals skilled and compliant workers. The state and class society are intrinsically linked and the only way to abolish the state is to abolish class society which is a system predicated on private ownership of the means of production.
Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin
Every single example you have stated has shown government influence in economy. Every single one, which is not the practice of full capitalism. The biggest issue in early days of america was the creation of a national bank, now lets remember this history of the national bank and what it actually does. It has government officials control the interest rates of the economy, which is not true capitalism. Every time there is a national bank in america, is every time we are not practicing true capitalism.
The fact that the federal government sent people to impact the working protesters, is another instance of not only untrue capitalism, but its also an unconstitutional act by congress because workers have the constitutional right to protest. Private ownership of production, is not private ownership of government. thanks for proving my point that governmental interference causes suspension of civil liberties.
However, this is why the mentality of united states constitution rectifies itself with civil liberties, because guess what, the strikers won and got their rights. That would never happen in a communist regime, people would just shoot them down for being against the "republic"
I didn't say you were a racist; I was asking if you believe the middle of the 19th century was 'true' capitalism.
You do realise that 1/3 of black males are imprisoned at some point in the USA? Glad to see it's no longer a racist country.
No, attrocities committed by people because of stupid reasons like thinking killing other people is reasonable or just the best idea in the circumstances.
Yeah. Because the alternative is that the minority dictates to the majority. But if the decision has been made fairly, with the discussion of those involved, then the minority has to accept that it won't always win. if you discuss with someone and they say 'even if I agree you win the argument I'm going to ignore it anyway', then they're an asshat who needs to grow up. The majority has a right to be a majority, and the minority has the right to be a minority. But if you take part in the discussion, in the decision-making process, you can't complain if you lose.
I'm assuming that we'll all have different ideas about things and that these ideas need to be discussed. The fact that you don't have the same idea kind of vindicates my viewpoint here I feel.
Children need to know how to learn. They need to evaluate informtion given to them. If you tell your children it's OK to set themselves on fire, and your neighbour tells them it isn't, who's right? Why should you have any 'rights' over your offspring? I'd rather they had rights.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
The problem is that for socialists, the end goal is no government and no policy; any step in between the classless, stateless society based on the social control of the means of production and the overthrow of bourgeois rule is simply a means to an end.
Oh, and where does this claim that "in a true capitalist state the government will have no over sight in production [sic]" come from? That's not how people generally use the term "capitalism" - in fact, even the early British liberals, that American libertarians claim to slavishly follow, were well aware that regulation is necessary for commodity production, for the markets, to function (see Smith for example). In fact you seem to agree as well since you talk about a capitalist state.Originally Posted by Libertie76
So in fact when you talk about "capitalism" you don't mean to talk about what people generally call capitalism but some extra special "real" capitalism that can't exist.
Presumably the workers' councils would be elected. How they would be elected is an open question; "one person one vote" is not a sacred principle to us, and ensuring class dominance is more important than ensuring "fair" representation.Originally Posted by Libertie76
Well that's nice.Originally Posted by Libertie76
Unfortunately we care about the ability of women to have abortions at any point for whatever reason far more than we care about people being "forced to pay" for abortions (or gay marriage or IVF or affirmative action or whatever).
Again, I refer you to my comments about "capitalism" - you can't redefine widely understood terms at will so that your argument sounds coherent.Originally Posted by Liberlict76
What are you talking about? The CFS was Leopold's private property. According to the libertarians, he had a sacred right to do whatever he pleases on it. Or do you think that a market needs to be forcefully opened in your house?Originally Posted by Liberlict76
Except I am talking about social raising - the raising of the new generation is a matter of social interest. Even today, a significant role is played by the staff at creches, kindergartens, schools and so on. As for "who knows better" for your child, if you try to teach your child that they should listen to you unconditionally, that blacks are a lesser kind of humans, that being gay is a sin etc., apparently society does know better than you. And no rational, consciously planned society will give you the right to do whatever you please to your child as if they were your chattel.Originally Posted by Libertie76
You should understand that 'true' capitalism requires a state to function. It requires a state to uphold property law, to imprison dissenters, to suppress the working class, to prevent damage to property. That is the function of the state in contemporary society: to defend the ideal conditions of capital accumulation. The ridiculous assertion that somehow it's the state's fault that there are crises and fluctuations in capitalism is naive at best. These crises are the inherent flaws of capitalism, its contradictions come to light. The state belongs to the capitalist class. It is arranged specifically to the benefit of business, for capital even if capital is paralysed to the whims of its own flaws. You're attaching such a superstition to the state that you might as well call it God: "Without God inflicting all those rules and regulations we would have 'true' capitalism". The state, just like God, is a creation of the conditions that humans have developed for themselves. It has developed to be the primary defence of the ruling class against the working class. Capitalism needs the state like the human body needs oxygen.
Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin
Right now america is 1 in 3 people have been to prison, not just blacks, its because of more government regulation and more government over site along with subsidies to prisons. Most prisoners are drug offenders, its obvious america is a police state, but this isnt the message of the constitution its actually the exact opposite, the killings in waco 20 years ago really show this to be true, especially because since then there has been act after act disbanding our liberties from every single president. In order to dismantle any police state, we must dismantle the power structure of the government by means of striking where it is the worse. That would obviously be a destruction of the control of the economy.
Socialist revolution is a big supporter of killing the opposition if i am not mistaken.
Just because the majority wins does not mean the majority should be able to suspend civil liberties and rights protected to humanity. If the majority of USA won 100 years ago, there would still be Jim crow laws, and just because they won it would destroy all opposition to even bring it back to the table because as soon as you question it you are an enemy of the republic.
Yes the children should be able to learn by themselves, however, when they are at an age of not being able to decide for themselves who will hold more bearing to the growth of the child? The community or the mother? How about we let the child naturally choose, and if that's the case it shows the individual will hold more bearing then the community, for the child will always choose their parents.
It definitely vindicates your opinion which is why freedom of speech is so crucial to the development of humanity as a species once people control speech no matter their economic philosophy, is when we never advance as humans.
That is wrong, capitalism is private ownership of production. It does not call for any government or any state. It is the constitution of the republics that initiate the state or the government. The united states constitution delegates the promise to private property and everything it promises but it does not promise to practice capitalism, its just what has been practiced because if practiced correctly it defends civil liberties. Capitalism does not need the state, corporations involved in things like military industrial complex, or monopolizing banking require a state to institute laws for their own protection, however the true practice of capitalism allocates for absolutely no government involvement.
It is arranged for the benefit of business, but it is also in the benefit for business to try to produce the best product for the customer. With government subsidies that monopolize markets there is no need to create the best product because there is no competition.
Capitalism does not need a government, however democratic republics do need a government. I think your confused in the roles of the philosophies.
Figures for 2009 (the last I could easily find):
Total male prisoners: 2,096,300
White prisoners: 693,800
Black prisoners: 841,000
Latino prisoners: 442,000
So... even though there are fewer African-Americans in the USA than Whites, there are still more male African-Americans than Whites in prison.
I think the US would have a lot further to go before it's non-racist.
Anyway, aren't you arguing that America is currently bad (it not being properly capitalist and all) and that it was better when it had slavery etc?
If you mean, civil wars are brutal, then yes I agree. Of course, if we could assume that the capitalists would see our point of view and not try to destroy us and everthing else just to hang on to their ill-gotten gains, then everything would be fine and dandy.
We're social beings. If you think you can do without the rest of us, good luck.
I'm sure this all means something to you, but I think you're quite wrong. The modern nuclear family is a very recent invention, and it doesn't hold true all over the world, so the idea that it somehow natural is just wrong. There are various African proverbs which express the idea 'it takes a village to raise a child'. I don't know why you find this idea so hard to accept, but I take it you don't have children.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
