And what do you want us to do to prove it?
Results 1 to 20 of 28
Often the Revlefters make very nice, sometimes eloquent, condemnations of capitalism.
But even if every criticism was true, even if their analysis of the nature of capitalism is accurate, what does that say about socialism? It seems to me it says- nothing. A criticism of capitalism is not a proof that socialism will be better, or that it has the answers, and will function in the fashion socialists say it will.
And what do you want us to do to prove it?
Well the criticism of capitalism is that it is prone to crisis.
The crisis comes out of the competition between capitalists.
Because socialism is about rational planning, its production is based on human want/need not maximisation of profits.
So, socialism will not be prone to the crisis that capitalism suffers from.
You really need to read some introductory books on Marxism because its quite a complicated idea. I personally have trouble explaining it. But, if its explained well, supplied with evidence, then it gets much easier.
It would seem that profits can only accrue if human wants/needs are met. Why is that bad?
Well, it is my belief that true socialism (and true democracy, for that matter, though the two can often be seen as synonymous) can only exist on a local, small scale level, with no monolithic powers threatening its freedom and existance. What I mean by this is have all the community's of the world given almost full autonomy, with provincial and world governments only function to be preventing any one of these being hostile, aggressive to any others, or from getting to much power, as well as to keep the routes of equal trade open and well lubricated, so to say.
But think about it, they call the US and Canada "democracy's"...but what democratic power does one really have if all the power you weild is marking down a little card once every 4 years for who you want to lead you, alongside with 200 million other voters? You really only have the power of a 1/2,000,000 say in the choosing of a limited selection of potential leaders. In small communities, every member of the society could directly take part in the legeslation and executive power of their respective community. If your community is not well-suited to your individual tastes, simply move to another one (the benefits of alter-globalism) that is more akin to your way of thought. There wouldnt really be any leaders, as the society would be small enough for everyone to be a mmember of parliament (so to say) in the community, and to have actual power.
This is not some idealistic fantasy, this form of government currently exists in a large number of communes within nations (so unfortunately not given full autonomy), and in history. One good example of this is the Tribal Democracies which existed in North America (Turtle Island) before the arrival of the European Imperialists. These societies, like the Iroqouis Confederacy or the Aniishanabe peoples, produced some of the most stable societies to ever exist on the face of the Earth. If you look at the structures of pre-colonial indigenous societies, you will find much of the same. With Modern Technology, they can be adapted to giving 9 billion people a stable and equal existance on this small planet.
The problem with this system is that it is fragile, and needs a global confederacy with limited power to keep it in existance and check any greedy powers which may rise. How this is to be done is through a parliament, mediated on the sub-global level by Provincial "governments", whose only service wil be to bridge the Communal Level with the Global level on a completely democratic level (the people of the Commune will decide on a Provincial representitive, who will in turn help choose the Global representitives for terms no longer than a year and a half). This process, and the unison between all people of the world has never been more easy. The internet and high speed travel has made the world much smaller, so choosing a community has never been easier. Trade between the communities, on a fair and equal basis, will bring wealth to all. Those who do not have resources will be given funds for clean industry by the provincial or global levels.
Such a system, adapted globally, has never been done, so it can not be prooven to be possible, but neither can any aspect of the future.
If you disagree, proove to me that Capitalism, which has only really existed for 2 centuries, is stable enough to make its tricentenial.
For more information on the structure of a Libertarian Socialist world, read Bakunin's Revolutionary Catechism
<span style=\'color:red\'>Liberty without Socialism is privilege, injustice; Socialism without Liberty is Slavery and Brutality.
-Mikhail Bakunin</span>
<span style=\'color:gray\'>The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.
-Murray Bookchin</span>
<span style=\'color:red\'>When we ask for the abolition of the State and its organs we are always told that we dream of a society composed of men better than they are in reality. But no; a thousand times, no. All we ask is that men should not be made worse than they are, by such institutions!
-Peter Kropotkin</span>
there is the fatal assumption of the socialists, that the masses are capable of "rational planning".
"The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended." - Ludwig von Mises
Socialism isn't something that can be "proved." Neither can capitalism, feminism, nor feudalism, be "proved."
They're ideas, not math equations.
There is also the fatal assumption of the Capitalists that if you try to keep people dumb they won't teach themselves.
In response to ZX3 : The goods that are produced under Capitalism reflect the demands of those that command the greatest purchasing power, because Capitalism is a system of commodity production in which goods and services are produced for the purpose of exchange so as to yield a profit for the Capitalist. Given the inequality in the distribution of income that exists, these demands do not represent the needs of society as a whole but only the preferences of a small group. So your point does not stand - and I have given this criticism before by the way, and you have never responded to it.
It is unfair for you to demand that we describe every aspect of Socialist society in advance. Historically, the new forms of political and economic organisation that have been formed have always reflected the historical conditions and material requirements of each country in turn.
There has been a tendency on these boards as of late for Socialism to be considered something that can be objectively shown to be a preferred system of social organisation. This is, for me, an absurd way of thinking, There is no need for us to 'prove' Socialism to the ruling class. Socialism is an ideology like any other - an economic and political system that will benefit the working class at the expense of the bourgeoisie.
what?
"The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended." - Ludwig von Mises
And with billions of people in want of the most basic of human needs your thinking is proved rubbish. So after our welfare is looked after, it is then the capitalist makes a wee bit on the side for himself?
"The essence of all slavery consists in taking the product of another's labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live" -Leo Tolstoy
"Government is the shadow cast by business over society."
John Dewey
RIP Ian Tomlinson (victim of UK police brutality)
Socialism is, mainly, ecomomocs. So it is indeed often a math equation.
Teach themselves to do what? What exactly will socialism "teach" people to do, which is in opposite as to what capitalists would teach people to do?
Asserting that socialism will benefit the working class does not make it so.
The history of the 20th century what with socialist regimes plunging their countries into wars, repression does not seem to be something which the working class can claim to have benefited by. Naturally, socialists will deny that previous regimes which claimed to be socialist were in fact socialist. Its the classic "out" of socialism, which in such circusmstances begin to resemble a religion rather than some scientific or scholarly movement.
It is false your characterisation of capitalism, in which I did indeed respond to in the past. The claim is that capitalism produces for only people who have money. Certainly there are capitalists who do this. But only a small minority. After all, not everyone is rich.
I have never asked for socialists to describe each aspect of socialism as it advances. But what i have asked, as well as others, is a general sort of statement. If socialism will produce enough items for all, show how that could be done. If there is no distribution issue, show how it would be the case. Certainly, there will be regional differences. But unless those differences will include relabeling capitalist economic principles as "socialist" they will largely be similiar in design and execution.
As I indicated earlier, a critique of capitalism is not a proof of socialism.
Fail. Socialism is an economic system or ideology, not an assertion, or singular mathematical equation (incidentally very few, if any, branches of economics can be represented by one singular mathematical formula that can be proved or disproved).
Your 'response' to my point is fallacious because it mischaracterises what I was saying. Obviously I am not saying that all economic resources under Capitalism are used in the production of goods for the ruling class. As you rightly point out, even those that command purchasing power represent an oppurtunity for a profitable investement, and in any case, it is necessary for the working class to have access to the minimum requirements of survival in order to ensure a supply of labour of suitable quantity and quality for the Capitalist to continue production. Rather, I was making a point that Capitalism has the tendency to use resources to produce goods that are demanded by a small proportion of the population who command great purchasing power. This is a point of concern because an oppurtunity cost is involved. The scarce resources of which I speak - which are not just limited to monetary or material non-human resources but also include time and labour - could have been used to produce goods that are more urgently required by a larger number of people.
This can be judged to be preferable to the maldistribution of resources that occurs under Capitalism because it is accepted that economic systems are judged on the basis of utilitarianism - we are to seek those outcomes and structures that achieve the greatest sum of satisfactions for society at large. It should be clear, through the situation described above, that Capitalism fails to do this - and thus is allocatively inefficient (to use bourgeois economic theory and terminology)
Yeah, because whoever claims to be socialist really is.
Socialism is indeed a system which ought to be proved, not asserted. Hence, the thread.
Socialism is not being asserted, because Socialism is not an assertion. Hence my post.
