NationStates Jolt Archive

you are idiots. the idea of COMMUNISM not socialism is that property is theft from all but one person. socialism is the new way as capitalism leads to greed and death. the entire point of socialism is that everyone has the same rights but communism gos to far and destroys it by making it everyones and everything is the states. socialism on the other hand believes that the poorer you are the less taxed you become and the richer the more tax you pay. if you read the communist manifesto you would know this. :mp5: :sniper:

Er you're actually completely wrong. Communism is not how you describe it. In communism, there is no state. The people collectively own the means of production. Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism where all industry is owned by the state (but the state at this point is actually "the dictatorship of the proletariat", a small group of proletariats running the nation after overthowing the borgeoisie). This is Marx's definition of socialism, but I think the modern common definition is slightly different (or as this thread has shown, no one seems to have a concrete definition anymore).

It's only more difficult because at present there are nation-states to oppose any attempts at imperialism. If the nation-states didn't exist, and we just had a mass of corporations, then it would become much easier.

I don't agree. Look at Somalia. A bunch of lightly armed disorganised skinnies sent the worlds most powerful army packing. Would microsoft have more chance than US Army?

Yes, but in a democracy "the army" and "the police" aren't discrete, separate entities with single monolithic ideas. They are made up of ordinary individuals, with their own opinions and votes.

It is easier to take over an existing state than build a new one from scratch, in the same way it's easier to steal a car than build one from scratch. If someone was rich, talented and evil enough to start a state from scratch he could easily seize an existing one. Politicians are selected for being willing and able to push others around, on the free market police owners would be selected for pleasing customers.

I agree that it's a reason why you don't want to be dominated by evil people -- but I think evil people would seek power in any form. What I'm saying is that, if you free the world of nation-states, what's to stop evil and powerful people from reconstructing them, or their analogues, from corporate power bases?

Other corporations and an armed populace. It's much harder than seizing an existing state where the hard work's already been done.

OK, but my main objection was to the idea of Anglo-Saxon and other medieval courts as being "private" in the above sense. They were owned, all right, but all that meant was that their justice could be, and was, bought and sold. In an era of tremendous differences between rich and poor -- in an era, in fact, when the poor didn't actually own anything that could be regarded as (moveable) wealth, -- the idea of running a fair "private" court was nonsensical. If the serf didn't like his lord's justice -- tough. He couldn't go out and seek another competing court. In short, I wasn't questioning the concept of private courts, I was questioning the relevance of Anglo-Saxon and medieval manorial courts to the concept. They are really not good examples of something which should be emulated by anybody. And I agree that "evolution" and "improvement" are not the same thing -- but it still doesn't mean that a power structure might not "evolve" naturally from one state to another.

Oh, sorry. I've given you the wrong impression. I wasn't talking about law courts of barons. I meant private law as used by merchents. I invite you to read the links I supplied or do a google search for the molinari institute.

Er you're actually completely wrong. Communism is not how you describe it. In communism, there is no state. The people collectively own the means of production. Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism where all industry is owned by the state (but the state at this point is actually "the dictatorship of the proletariat", a small group of proletariats running the nation after overthowing the borgeoisie). This is Marx's definition of socialism, but I think the modern common definition is slightly different (or as this thread has shown, no one seems to have a concrete definition anymore).
Actually, Marx and Engles used communism and socialism interchangeably.

And semantic word games come across weak to me. And tiresome. Look, I already went through the games earlier on this thread. Not gonna do it again. :headbang:
Semantic word games? The point of the essay is to illustrate that socialism is evil, chiefly because it inherently makes slaves of people. If the terms set by the author are in question, then this compromises the validity of the argument, surely?

Apologies if you've already been through this, I admit that I haven't read the whole thread. I'm not particularly in the mood for a lengthy discussion, so let's just let this lie.

I don't agree. Look at Somalia. A bunch of lightly armed disorganised skinnies sent the worlds most powerful army packing. Would microsoft have more chance than US Army?

Hm. True. But one (or two, or three) examples is not a guarantee. Also, it's arguable that the Somalians were motivated, in many cases, by nationalism or an analogue, and that the US army was bound by restrictions placed on it by the UN, the Geneva Convention and other international ties and treaties. A Microsoft Militia might be less restrained. Although they'd probably be plagues with near-constant equipment failure :). But it's a fair point.

It is easier to take over an existing state than build a new one from scratch, in the same way it's easier to steal a car than build one from scratch. If someone was rich, talented and evil enough to start a state from scratch he could easily seize an existing one. Politicians are selected for being willing and able to push others around, on the free market police owners would be selected for pleasing customers.

Well... it's arguable that in a democracy a politician or political party is (ideally) selected for the ability to please the majority of the voters. It's also arguable that a free market police force might be selected for pleasing the richest, most influential customers -- always a danger. Like Bolivia's recent World Bank-mandated flirtation with privatised water: the company decided that it wasn't economic to continue to supply water to their poorest and most outlying customers, so they cut them off. Simple economics. However, their poorest and most outlying customers objected, forcefully, and turned the water back on themselves. The private company then abandoned the whole idea and the water supply is back in state hands, subsidising water delivery to the rural poor in the best interests of everybody. However, I concede that an enlightened capitalist company might do the same -- although I doubt very much if they would have ever invested in the loss-making (but necessary) infrastructure in the first place.

Oh, sorry. I've given you the wrong impression. I wasn't talking about law courts of barons. I meant private law as used by merchents. I invite you to read the links I supplied or do a google search for the molinari institute.

Ah. My mistake, sorry.

It is not on the capitalist's terms, it is on mutually acceptable terms. Do you think the Real Madrid directors want to pay Beckam millions per month? (or week or whatever) I'm sure the General Motors shareholders would love to pay their CEO minimum wage but those terms wouldn't be acceptable to any acceptable candidate. FS, you're one of the few socialists here who has proven himself smart enough to earn my respect, you're smarter than this.

when you're poor and your savings are running out, you feel the pressure to take what you can get. i've been there - i worked for a couple months at a job where i wasn't even breaking even because nothing else had worked out. and this was after i had graduated college. mutually acceptable does not necessarily equal mutually benefitial or even 'truly' acceptable. it can often just mean least bad.

as a general principle, you need the job and the capitalist needs somebody to fill the job. but if you aren't lucky enough to be in a position where the labor market is very limited or aren't buddy-buddy with members of the board of directors, then you wind up needing the job more than the job needs you. they have their pick of any of a thousand or a million (theoretically, at least) other schmoes in the same position as you, and will probably get on well enough without anyone for awhile. which essentially means that they are holding almost all of the cards, and somebody will take whatever the capitalist offers. you aren't only 'bargaining' with the firm, but also with the starving masses of the unemployed.