Question to socialists

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, there is authority in communism.

Yes, there is a power structure between assemblies. But I spoke of 'lowest assembly' because of the vertical nature, from the bottom up: the bottom is low.

Yes, there needs to be management. We have collectively said this some 5 times already. This has already been addressed.

Yes, there will be a division of labour of some sorts. Some economists and statisticians. I have already addressed this.

No, communism is not utopian. You have produced no credible arguments for this.

I still haven't explained the disposal concept? What are you talking about. You said, one 'disposal method' would be work points, but that his would be money. I said it's not money because it doesn't circulate. In a higher phase, it'll be free access.

'not one person has sufficiently told me what makes socialism functions better then capitalism and why it's worth my life to fight for the revolution' That's because you make it impossible to have a productive discussion. Trying to invoke 'technicalities' to 'refute' our assumptions: technically, that's a state/government by this definition I'm really stretching or redefining. That's been the majority of your arguments. I don't care about those definitions. I don't care what you call the institutions. I care about the institutions and the implications.
And these institutions in socialism guarantee there'll be no unemployment because there is no labour market; no poverty because income is not contingent on the market value of labour; there's no food insecurity because needs, not profits direct distribution; there's no crippling financial stress and debt; there'd be a four hour work week very early in the first phase of socialism. That's what's important, not whether this is properly 'social control' or 'a state' or 'authority' by some abstracted definition.

[The Feral Underclass]

Executive decisions have to be done by a source of authority. If the people or person executing policies have no authority, there is no policy because people won't listen

Have you ever been involved with a decision making process that involved communities coming together to make decisions about issues that directly affect them? I'm asking a genuine question here. I'm interested to know what experience you have that prompts you to conclude so certainly this opinion.

"Lower level assembly" suggests there's a power structure with the other assembly, creating representative power over community to make certain judgement calls, otherwise we would not elect anyone.

Where does he use the term "lower level assembly"?

The system Tim is describing is known as mandat imperatif. The neighbourhood assemblies Tim talks about are where the decisions are made. This is where the executive is. The city and regional assemblies that are made up of delegates have no executive decision making power.

The delegates attend those assemblies with specific mandates (of an executive decision and then one or two agreed compromises perhaps) that they cannot arbitrarily alter. If they attempt to do so, the neighbourhood assembly recalls the delegate.

The purpose of those delegate assemblies is then to aggregate the decisions, reach a compromise and then put into practice the decisions. If no compromise can be reached or another decision has to be made, the delegates relay that information to the neighbourhood assemblies who then vote on it.

I have seen this principle in action. With technology as it is now, decisions and information can be relayed on a rolling basis so that a decision can be made within a day. It not only works, it actually provides direct democratic control to those people who are affected by these decisions and allows everyone an opportunity to dissent. Sometimes people don't like decisions, I know I haven't when I've been in these situations, but you abide by the democratic process because you believe in the process.

The fact is in every form of production there needs to be management, such as if I am working as a coal miner part of my life and decide to become a fisherman and join with fishermen there has to be a person responsible for overseeing all production. Management, however this is not what I am taking about. What I'm talking about is only few members of society can actually effectively decide the value of bread and decide the value of water, considering their personal knowledge on economics. Such as a farmer can not tell an economist the different ways to actually economize. But, the economist can tell a farmer how much grain is needed. Does that not make sense? They. Might be elected but it will be circulated considering only the few of them with sufficient knowledge compared to the mass of society

This paragraph doesn't make any sense in any way.

In a communist society the value of things like bread or water is decided based on who needs bread and water. The bread and water is then produced and distributed based on that. People will work in the water plants to ensure a continuous flow of water in your taps and toilets. People will work in bread factories to produce enough bread to distribute to everyone who needs and wants bread.

How do we decide who needs bread? Who knows. We can discuss that. I don't really care how we come to that decision, so long as everyone who needs bread is provided with it.

Not one person has said what you said and not one person has sufficiently told me what makes socialism functions better then capitalism and why it's worth my life to fight for the revolution

Is this debate really about what functions better? Both systems function in their specific ways. Determining which system is better is based upon what your objective is. If your objective is to privately own the means of production and create profit then capitalism functions better. If your objective is for working class people to be liberated from exploitation and for the means of production to be collectivised, then socialism is better.

What do you want? We're not here to sell you the idea of socialism. No one here is obligated to convince you of what to do with your life. If you cannot see worth in working class people not being exploited for profit, then no one can convince you. You need to decide for yourself whether you want to see people slaving away at a shitty job to create profit for some rich guy, or whether you want people to work in jobs that directly benefit themselves and their communities, and which they have control over.

[Blake's Baby]

I tried to explain this pages ago using the phrase 'soveriegn assemblies' and saying that the committees of that assembly didn't 'rule' it though they did 'execute' the wishes of the assembly (and therefore, they were an executive).

But, it didn't seem to go anywhere.

[Baseball]

'not one person has sufficiently told me what makes socialism functions better then capitalism and why it's worth my life to fight for the revolution' That's because you make it impossible to have a productive discussion. Trying to invoke 'technicalities' to 'refute' our assumptions: technically, that's a state/government by this definition I'm really stretching or redefining. That's been the majority of your arguments. I don't care about those definitions. I don't care what you call the institutions. I care about the institutions and the implications.
And these institutions in socialism guarantee there'll be no unemployment because there is no labour market; no poverty because income is not contingent on the market value of labour; there's no food insecurity because needs, not profits direct distribution; there's no crippling financial stress and debt; there'd be a four hour work week very early in the first phase of socialism. That's what's important, not whether this is properly 'social control' or 'a state' or 'authority' by some abstracted definition.

Well-- the claim is being made that the institutions will guarantee no poverty, four hour work week ect. Fine.
But it is not a "technicality" to ask to demonstrate that this is true--- and to demonstrate this within the context of a "socialist" environment.

[Sinister Intents]

Ok sexism exists in the usa, how is this capitalisms fault please explain

Sexism does indeed exist and because entire marketing campaigns include some extremely sexist content, as well as children being normalized into sexism and misogyny early on in their lives through their parents, school, and the media. Sexism gets normalized as part of the structure of modern capitalist society and sexism and misogyny are rather profitable, after all porn in it's thousands of forms, prostitution, the sex slave trade, and so on.

you can wear whatever you want, however society has a set of normalities and people might look at you weird, and how does capitalism create this?

I want to dress exactly the way I want without being judged by assholes, called names, scoffed at, or threatened with verbal and physical violence. Again this can go straight back into how things are marketed to sell commodities and services, ever hear of gendered marketing? Gendered marketing creates a schism between men and women and helps to create and normalize the artificially created divide, it helps make the idea of the gender binary more rigid and ignores the fact that gender is a spectrum, like sexual orientations.

Women are viewed as baby makers because WOMEN CAN BEAR CHILDREN MEN CANT, how is this sexism because of capitalism?

Which not every women wants to get pregnant or have children, that is sexist to view women as simply baby makers. This is sexism because that assumes that's what a women's purpose is. Young girls get this normalized and pushed into them at a young age through marketing of commodities and services, through the media, and through their parents. A child's initial years are the most important for their development. If you get them while they're young, you have them sold for life.

Ok so men need to stop hitting on women, and this is going to help reproduction of humanity how? And how is this because of capitalism?

What would you do if I said: "Hey sexy!" and grabbed your ass in an aggressive manner? How would you feel if I made sexual advances towards you, or relentlessly commented on how sexy or attractive you are or treated you in a sexist way in general? Yeah you should stop hitting on women because it's fucked up and creepy. I can remember a banned member who made multiple sock accounts stalking me and telling me what he wanted to do with me sexually. This is because of capitalism because, again, how things are marketed, how children are raised, and how children interact because of how they're raised, what they've seen and heard and they think it's fine and never question it because it seems normal to sexualize and infantilize women.

What in society shows women are mens servants? Women get stigmatized by construction work not because their women and men hate women, but because most women cant lift over 100 lbs and that is part of the job requirement, how is this sexism? My wife, who is 5'1 and 100 lbs can in no way shape or form be apart of a construction crew sorry if that is sexist

How women are often treated by their husbands, I've noticed the majority of men act as the bread and money earner and women get to raise the kids and take care of the house and take care of their husband. I'm 5'6" and 138 lbs. and I can't life 100 lbs comfortably at all. I need assistance with heavy objects often times. I've seen lots of cis women who can lift more than me and out perform me in my industry, I've noticed they work just as hard as cis men if not at times harder than some of the lazy Bastards I've met. To assume women are weaker than men is pretty sexist, you're assuming women are lesser than men. What the hell do you mean job requirement? That women should be weaker?

Women get branded as a slut for what they wear, that is society not capitalism wont change with economics sorry

That is entirely sexist to brand a women a slut for what she wears, we all should be able to wear whatever we want without any kind of stigmatization or prejudice against what we wear. That has a lot to do with capitalist society because the image of women gets marketed as just that, as sluts, as objects, as naggy, mean, unintelligent, weak, sluts with emotional problems and so on. Look at sitcoms, commercials, every day interactions between people that get programmed into them through the media, how things are marketed, it gets started very early on and both men and women internalize these negative views. So I'd be a slut for wearing my Cannibal Corpse shirt, makeup, a black skirt, fishnet on my legs, spiked wrist bands? If you called me a slut I'd fucking punch you.

Its only sexist if you take it as an insult to your entire sex, if someone calls me an asshole or tells me that I should get shot by a firing squad, I don't immediately think its an insult to all men everywhere. and how is this capitalisms fault

It's sexist to call a women a slut, a ****, a *****, a whore, and so on as a pejorative insult and again this can be explained with what I've already said. If you call me a ***** I'd be pretty pissed with you.

If a man grabs a girls ass he doesn't know and says nice ass, its not because of sexism in society its because the man is an asshole who has no restraint what so ever, still this is not capitalisms fault

That is entirely sexist, and this still gets created because of capitalism and you can see many examples of sexist trash in how things are marketed, in the media. If you drunkenly grabbed my ass I'd probably make you regret it.

Wow and free market capitalism also let's women decide what to buy and what not to buy. The social stratification is not capitalism fault it's societies fault. You like to blame the wrong thing all the time. I'm jot arguing society has fd up qualities to it, but I am suggesting if women around the world united to change the idea of clothing and pop culture all they would have to do is stop buying it. That's it and the problem is solved.

Capitalism gives you choices of commodities and services, sure. But free market capitalism is certainly an idealistic conception, you cannot have a true free market. State control will always show it's necessity and monopolies will rise regardless. Small businesses will grow and out compete other businesses, grow, and eventually die. Wal-Mart will eventually go the way of K-mart. I'm rightfully blaming capitalism and class based society for sexist ideas and misogyny being sold and taught to people. The capitalist state stratifies society to meet it's own ends. The bourgeoisies influences and has control over the markets and they make sure that through this they modify people's behavior to fit profitable ends. They're ensuring the falling rate of profit is low so they can maximize their returns. The goal of capitalism is to gain profit and maintain your growth in profit. To suggest women should stop buying products would have no effect because the people in the capitalist system are coerced into being dependent upon the system. To assume women should band together ignores the fact that people's consciousness isn't destroyed through normalization and internalization of sexism, a lot of women are forced to accept the system or they're so engrained in it that they don't see what's wrong and they fight to defend their delusions because reality is scary. What would solve the problem is direct militant action by feminists against the state, the class system, and capitalism. We must destroy the State with it's patriarchy it has erected, we must destroy the systems set in place that create the situations that make people the way they are.

Also her argument was ridiculous she said she can't buy skimpy clothes without looking like a slut but then they are seen as baby makers. I don't think capitalism creates a mentality that women are machines for sexual reproduction. I am actually utterly surprised you feel like capitalism does not create freedom in economics it's pretty shocking

My argument wasn't that at all, my argument was that I should be able to dress as a women and be viewed as a women without being judged and stigmatized. I should be allowed to express myself the way I want without people being fucking assholes and just accept me for who I am. You're a moron. I want to be seen as my own independent women and not masculized any longer.

The sexist mentality is certainly created through people's religious views, how things are marketed, how people are portrayed in the media and so on, capitalism and the class structure certainly create and foment sexist cultural norms and misogyny. Why the fuck would I think capitalism creates economic freedom? As a business owner I can see how restrictive and terrible this system is.

[Sinister Intents]

Well-- the claim is being made that the institutions will guarantee no poverty, four hour work week ect. Fine.
But it is not a "technicality" to ask to demonstrate that this is true--- and to demonstrate this within the context of a "socialist" environment.

I understand the want to see how communism will work with actual people. How can this be demonstrated in the first place without having an actual communist society? You will not easily find your example, but certainly do look at what was achieved by the Ukrainian Free Territory, the Paris Commune partially, Anarchist Catalonia, and primitive communist tribes for your examples. I'm sure there are others, but that is what I can immediately think of.

[DDR]

I understand the want to see how communism will work with actual people. How can this be demonstrated in the first place without having an actual communist society? You will not easily find your example, but certainly do look at what was achieved by the Ukrainian Free Territory, the Paris Commune partially, Anarchist Catalonia, and primitive communist tribes for your examples. I'm sure there are others, but that is what I can immediately think of.

Star trek :P

[Baseball]

I understand the want to see how communism will work with actual people. How can this be demonstrated in the first place without having an actual communist society? You will not easily find your example, but certainly do look at what was achieved by the Ukrainian Free Territory, the Paris Commune partially, Anarchist Catalonia, and primitive communist tribes for your examples. I'm sure there are others, but that is what I can immediately think of.

And they failed...

[Sinister Intents]

And they failed...

They were crushed but within them lies their success before their death

[Baseball]

The system Tim is describing is known as mandat imperatif. The neighbourhood assemblies Tim talks about are where the decisions are made. This is where the executive is.

What was the quote "No man is an island"?
This notion that the local neighborhood assemblies are where the "decisions" are made cannot be taken seriously - even if we are talking about decisions about placing a stop sign, or some such thing,

The city and regional assemblies that are made up of delegates have no executive decision making power.

One of the cliched jokes nowadays is that elected officials don't do anything. And while that may be true, it is certainly not designed to be that way.
Yet the socialist community proposes to create an institution that by its own definition does nothing.

Why would a socialist community, which has eliminated the capitalist under the theory that they do nothing useful for society, create an institution that by its own definition does nothing useful for society?

The delegates attend those assemblies with specific mandates (of an executive decision and then one or two agreed compromises perhaps) that they cannot arbitrarily alter. If they attempt to do so, the neighbourhood assembly recalls the delegate.

Which opens up the age old debate of reps vs constitutients:
Does the former owe the latter their loyalty, or their best judgement?
There is no reason to suppose the socialist system would settle on the former rather than the latter.

The purpose of those delegate assemblies is then to aggregate the decisions, reach a compromise and then put into practice the decisions.

The latter part is an executive, administrative function. It means that the decisions need to be enforced in some fashion, and thus there must be means to do so. All fine and dandy.
But please recall such requires the creation of bureaucracies (which in turn need to be monitored) with power over people, ect., which at some point would need logical geographical limitations placed upon it.
In other other words, a government and a state is required.
Which supposedly does not exist in the socialist world.

If no compromise can be reached or another decision has to be made, the delegates relay that information to the neighbourhood assemblies who then vote on it.

Or for convenience sake, the assemblies might just decide to trust the best judgement of their delegate, a judgement to be renewed or rejected on Election Day. People, after all, have lives outside of politics.

I have seen this principle in action. With technology as it is now, decisions and information can be relayed on a rolling basis so that a decision can be made within a day.

As above... maybe somebody is on vacation, is sick, or otherwise does not wish to be bothered on that day?

It not only works, it actually provides direct democratic control to those people who are affected by these decisions and allows everyone an opportunity to dissent. Sometimes people don't like decisions, I know I haven't when I've been in these situations, but you abide by the democratic process because you believe in the process.

And if one doesn't believe in the process...?

How do we decide who needs bread? Who knows. We can discuss that. I don't really care how we come to that decision,

yes, you do. Capitalism is a way to provide people with bread. That solution is rejected by the socialist. Fine. But saying that you don't care what replaces it, well, seems rather irresponsible on your end.
It also seems to continue the same mistake socialists of earlier generations made.

If your objective is for working class people to be liberated from exploitation and for the means of production to be collectivised, then socialism is better.

But if you don't care how everyone who needs bread, gets bread, then how can you claim that socialism ends exploitation, that the workers are liberated ect.? Clearly, there must be other objectives for socialism.

What do you want? We're not here to sell you the idea of socialism.

How about prove the idea of socialism?

[Blake's Baby]

What was the quote "No man is an island"?
This notion that the local neighborhood assemblies are where the "decisions" are made cannot be taken seriously - even if we are talking about decisions about placing a stop sign, or some such thing...

Why? Seems reasonable enough to me, decisions should be made at the lowest level possible, at the workplace or neighbourhood level. That's how to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. There's no necessity to have a higher level of decision-making if there doesn't need to be. If there does need to be a higher level of decision-making, then the local assemblies mandate delegates to a higher-level body that makes a decision about regional policy.

...
One of the cliched jokes nowadays is that elected officials don't do anything. And while that may be true, it is certainly not designed to be that way.
Yet the socialist community proposes to create an institution that by its own definition does nothing...

I don't know where you get that idea. It obviously does 'something' but it isn't a government.

...Why would a socialist community, which has eliminated the capitalist under the theory that they do nothing useful for society, create an institution that by its own definition does nothing useful for society?...

Who says that we'll be creating an institution that does nothing useful? First, it's not a permanent body, secondly, it has a specific function that it carries out.

...

Which opens up the age old debate of reps vs constitutients:
Does the former owe the latter their loyalty, or their best judgement?
There is no reason to suppose the socialist system would settle on the former rather than the latter...

They're not 'representatives'. They're delegates. They're mandated to do what the assembly mandates them for. If the assembly says 'do this and this, but use your skill and judgement on that', then that's what the delegate does. If the delegate goes against the mandate the assembly can instantly recall them.

...
The latter part is an executive, administrative function. It means that the decisions need to be enforced in some fashion, and thus there must be means to do so. All fine and dandy.
But please recall such requires the creation of bureaucracies (which in turn need to be monitored) with power over people, ect., which at some point would need logical geographical limitations placed upon it.
In other other words, a government and a state is required.
Which supposedly does not exist in the socialist world...

I don't think this is the case. The executive is not permanent. The only 'enforcement' necessary is in the unlikely event that some group loses the debate and refuses to accept the result. Why would they do that? Why would bureaucracy need to be created? The lowest level of decision making would I think act against the creation of a bureaucracy. Even if it is necessary (say, to ensure safety in electrical engineering or something) the bureaucracy would be overseen by the lowest units.

As to 'geographical limitations' and 'government and state'... no socialist has ever claimed to my knowledge that there will be no administration in a socialist society. But a 'state'? A state is an organ of class rule and when there are no more classes, there can be no more state either. Why should there be 'geographical limitations' to anything? Some decisions can be made locally, and they will be; some need to be made on a regional basis, and they will be; some may need to be made on a worldwide basis and they will be. Where is the geographical limitation?

...Or for convenience sake, the assemblies might just decide to trust the best judgement of their delegate, a judgement to be renewed or rejected on Election Day. People, after all, have lives outside of politics...

'Election Day'? What's that?

If assemblies want to send delgates for fixed periods, that's up to them. Can't see why they would and at my workplace and in my neighbourhood, I'd argue against it. But even if some assemblies did, they can't force other assemblies to adopt the same system.

...
As above... maybe somebody is on vacation, is sick, or otherwise does not wish to be bothered on that day? ...

If they can't fulfill their duties as a delegate the assembly is free to replace them.

...
And if one doesn't believe in the process...?

Change it. This is a much more flexible system than representative democracy in a bourgeois republic. You don't need money, newpapers and TV stations to speak in your assemblies.

...
yes, you do. Capitalism is a way to provide people with bread. That solution is rejected by the socialist. Fine. But saying that you don't care what replaces it, well, seems rather irresponsible on your end.
It also seems to continue the same mistake socialists of earlier generations made...

Why are 2 billion people one meal from starvation if capitalism can provide bread? Because there's no profit in it. Capitalism doesn't provide bread, it provides profit. The Roman Empire was better at stopping its people starving than the 'free market' is.

...
But if you don't care how everyone who needs bread, gets bread, then how can you claim that socialism ends exploitation, that the workers are liberated ect.? Clearly, there must be other objectives for socialism...

The question wasn't about how people get bread, it was about how we decide how people get bread. So don't try to claim that it's about bread, it isn't, it's about decisions.

We aren't fortune tellers. We don't have ddetailed plans about how we're going to administer things. Know why? Because we won't be administering things. You seem to have the idea that we're some kind of weird collective think-tank who want to take over and run things after the revolution.

It's not like that at all.It's not like we're Che and Fidel hiding in the Cyber Madre plotting our internet guerilla offensives and deciding who gets which ministry. Post-revolutionary society will be built by the working class not some internet politics nerds.

...
How about prove the idea of socialism?

Why? You seem to have the notion that we have to convince you. We don't. You don't get it. Fine. I suspect when the revolution comes, you'll go 'oh, right, that's what they were talking about', because sometimes we don't communicate our ideas very well, and sometimes people achieve a better understanding from seeing soemthing than hearing about it, and sometimes people have to do something to learn it. I could be wrong, you might say 'well, I still believe in exploitation and social division, I'm taking up arms for wage-slavery and private property!'. That will be your decision not ours.

Our task here isn't to convince anybody. If you're here because you want to learn, fine, that's up to you. Engage with the process. If you're not, then, I wonder why you are here? You've been on these boards a good long time, but you've not developed your positions one iota as far as I can see, and you still seem to have little idea about what socialism actually entails. You're still defending capitalism as rational decision-making process. I wonder what you get out of this.

[liberlict]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QD75lUm51s

[Blake's Baby]

Is that a video of an oompah-band, some cats hilariously jumping on a sofa, or a contribution to the debate?

[liberlict]

Contribution to the debate. I had a bad time formatting the YouTube tags now.

[Blake's Baby]

Could be an oompah-band or some cats hilariously jumping on a sofa, given the context you've provided.

[Thirsty Crow]

But it is not a "technicality" to ask to demonstrate that this is true--- and to demonstrate this within the context of a "socialist" environment.

You're right, it's not a technicality to ask for such a demonstration - it's patent nonsense and an absurdity since demonstration here can only refer to pointing out working examples of it in an environment, but that same environment isn't there at all.

[liberlict]

Could be an oompah-band or some cats hilariously jumping on a sofa, given the context you've provided.

You can watch it if you care. You just have to press a link. Would be interested in your (or anybody's) thoughts on The Road To Serfdom. That video did a good job of condensing the main ideas into cartoons.

[Baseball]

Why? Seems reasonable enough to me, decisions should be made at the lowest level possible, at the workplace or neighbourhood level.

It doesn't exist in isolation. The decision of the auto workers to build 100 cars is nice, but fairly meaningless if the tire makers vote to make enough tires for 75.

I don't know where you get that idea. It obviously does 'something' but it isn't a government.

Of course it is. It governs that which is done.

Who says that we'll be creating an institution that does nothing useful? First, it's not a permanent body, secondly, it has a specific function that it carries out.

to govern

I don't think this is the case. The executive is not permanent.

As the assemblies are permanent, it would seem that they would permanently need the institution to place their decisions into "practice."

As to 'geographical limitations' and 'government and state'... no socialist has ever claimed to my knowledge that there will be no administration in a socialist society. But a 'state'? A state is an organ of class rule and when there are no more classes, there can be no more state either.

"Administration" is the state. It does the same thing.

Why should there be 'geographical limitations' to anything?

These are your words, not mine-- the neigborhoods.

Why are 2 billion people one meal from starvation if capitalism can provide bread? Because there's no profit in it. Capitalism doesn't provide bread, it provides profit.

This isn't an argument for the superiority of socialism. Its a criticism of capitalism. Not the same thing.

The question wasn't about how people get bread, it was about how we decide how people get bread. So don't try to claim that it's about bread, it isn't, it's about decisions.

Yes-- its about how socialism functions.

We aren't fortune tellers. We don't have ddetailed plans about how we're going to administer things. Know why? Because we won't be administering things. You seem to have the idea that we're some kind of weird collective think-tank who want to take over and run things after the revolution.

After the revolution, presumably socialists would like to think the society will be socialist.

It's not like that at all.It's not like we're Che and Fidel hiding in the Cyber Madre plotting our internet guerilla offensives and deciding who gets which ministry. Post-revolutionary society will be built by the working class not some internet politics nerds.

And presumably (hopefully) according to means that are sufficiently socialist.
Unless you wish to argue that anything which the working class decides by definition fits the description and character of socialism.

Why? You seem to have the notion that we have to convince you. We don't. You don't get it. Fine. I suspect when the revolution comes, you'll go 'oh, right, that's what they were talking about', because sometimes we don't communicate our ideas very well, and sometimes people achieve a better understanding from seeing soemthing than hearing about it, and sometimes people have to do something to learn it. I could be wrong, you might say 'well, I still believe in exploitation and social division, I'm taking up arms for wage-slavery and private property!'. That will be your decision not ours.

OK-- socialists do not believe they need to engage with political opponents.

You're still defending capitalism as rational decision-making process.

Well, since socialists hereabouts often seem fairly insistent they have no reason to explain the rationality of socialism, mine seems the more reasonable course.

[Q]

Closing this thread as it reached the 500 post maximum, which is a limit according to the owner.