NationStates Jolt Archive

Just thought I would ask this question as I read recently the socialist/marxist journalist Christopher Hitchens being interviewed by Reason magazine and the way he insists on the intellectual and moral superiority of Western democracies over Islamic countries (to which I concede he does have a point), it seemed odd to hear a one time Trotskyist to speak words that could easily be mistaken for those of a member of the Ayn Rand institute.

Marx once wrote that secular, democratic republics held no form of superiority to old patriarchal feudal systems, as feudalism at least held the virtue of being a system run on more than mere cold, calculating individualism but what he also asserted was that a regression back to such antiquity was a sociological impossibility, given the irreversible effects of the englightenment. Going by this logic then, isn't every so called "socialist" government in the world is another form of state capitalism? The left are overwhelmingly supportive of Hugo Chavez's government in Venezuela, but to me, the reformist socialism which has characterised many famous politicians from Chavez to Harold Wilson is merely a facade for despotism. Socialism from above is perhaps the ultimate oxymoron. When are people going to understand that so called "democratic socialism" is every bit as evil as laissez-faire capitalism.

The only people who can create socialism are the working classes, rising up against their exploiters independant of bureaucrats and populist rhetoricists and of such perverted revisionist ideas such as Leninism.

their are different forms of "socialism". Nazi Germany was run by "national Socialists" and now it has a pathetic coaliton of social and christian democrats.

I say social democracy

If we are talking about a goverment that is going to be over throw by a marxist revolution, then the more undemocratic and olgyarchical the goverment the better, since it would incease the ease of turning the people against the goverment, it would probably help if the goverment leaders are incompetent.

btw has anybody been having trouble getting to hitchens web site(hitchensweb.com)? My comp crashes every time I try and go to it.

Socialists and communists see the democratic political structure as a negating factor to the inherent oppression that comes along with those ideologies. Of course they completely ignore that democracy is not, by any means, a safeguard from oppression. They are forced to assume, like many who espouse inconsistent morality, that majority will is sufficient justification for oppression.

The left and the democratic European Union nations governments are also very supportive of President Dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba for life.

The problem with socialist or communist systems of government as practiced is once they come into power they outlaw all political partys but thier own.

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has not done that yet officially, even though he has limited freedom of the press, and calls his government a socialist Bolivarian revolution not a socialist government.

Only time will tell, if after serving two complete 6 year terms as allowed for under the Bolivarian Constitution he helped write, he will step down and let fair democratic elections with diffrent political partys offering diffrent economic, political and social points of view take place, or if he will find a way to so-called legally stay in power for life, like President Dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba.

The Problem with socialism or communism lets say for the sake of argument the same is, when the state controls everything like all the means of production, and all civil social organizations are under government control and none is private as long as they dont discrimate against others, this creates an automatic dictatorship.

The democratic European socialist nations of Europe like Sweden , Norway and others, can work with diffrent political partys, offering diffrent economic and social points of views, because they concentrate more on offering social services than state ownership of everything.

I wonder how many nations on NS agree or disagree with my two above statements?

In order for something to be liberal democratic their MUST be competition among different groups of people. You must be able to incite a peaceful revolution every few years or so. Communism doesn't have this. Instead they're one party rule over the government makes it impossible to vote for someone with a better agenda. This in turn makes participating in government pointless.

Competition in turn forces a said party to better their agenda which in turn creates progress. American Republicans saw that a vast majority of North opposed slavery and they saw that the Democratic party was divided into pro/anti slavery camps....so they ran on an anti-slavery platform to take control of government. With no compertion the government gets lazy and corrupt.

This is why communism would never take place in a diverse area like the USA. One party can’t serve the needs of a diverse population with different beliefs, ideologies, religion, and culture without stepping on someones toes. Communism is anti democratic. Socialism denies a person the right to use their money in the way they see fit. No economic freedom is anti liberalism. Socialist are just a rehatched version of the classic conservativism created by monarchs and the catholic church to fight Adam Smith's liberalism.

I once heard a AARP commercial that stated that “you don’t tear down entire house because the kitchen sink is broken”, it was of course aimed at Bush’s attempt to reform SS. But the same can apply to capitalism as well. Just because a couple of things are working out...doesn’t mean we have to scrap it

The nature of the government is irrelevant (you are correct in believing that rule-from-above "socialism" is comparable with any form of capitalism), what is important for the socialist revolution to be successful is economic development and having a capitalist infrastructure, rather than some form of feudalism to build on. This is one reason for failure in the Marxist states of the C20th.

However, that doesn't exclude us from celebrating short-term gains and fighting over social issues within the current system. We like our rights too. :p

Stalinism would definitely be the best form of socialism to take. It was the most successful and the only reason it supposedly "failed" is because others quit on it. In reality, they failed Stalinism.

...When are people going to understand that so called "democratic socialism" is every bit as evil as laissez-faire capitalism...
Interesting name..... :D

Now answer me: Do you believe in an anarchistic, no central government-type communism, or do you believe in some sort of central planning body?

The nature of the government is irrelevant (you are correct in believing that rule-from-above "socialism" is comparable with any form of capitalism), what is important for the socialist revolution to be successful is economic development and having a capitalist infrastructure, rather than some form of feudalism to build on. This is one reason for failure in the Marxist states of the C20th.

However, that doesn't exclude us from celebrating short-term gains and fighting over social issues within the current system. We like our rights too. :p

Really, so shouldn't Marxists be among the most vocal and strong capitalist supporters? You guys need to get on the ball. Join us. You know you want to.

Really, so shouldn't Marxists be among the most vocal and strong capitalist supporters? You guys need to get on the ball. Join us. You know you want to.

Ugh. No.

Classical Marxist (as opposed to Leninist) communist theory believes that you need capitalism before socialism. However, it (edit for clarity- it meaning capitalism) ceased being necessary a long time ago.

However, it ceased being necessary a long time ago.
How do you tell?

Socialists and communists see the democratic political structure as a negating factor to the inherent oppression that comes along with those ideologies. Of course they completely ignore that democracy is not, by any means, a safeguard from oppression. They are forced to assume, like many who espouse inconsistent morality, that majority will is sufficient justification for oppression.
Glad to see you still post! I missed ya!

Everyone else: The dude just got a teeny-tiny bit smarter. That's all. :D

How do you tell?

In a feudal society, the peasant class had no power to achieve change (there were countless peasant revolts over the last 1000 years...how many were successful in toppling governments and replacing them with a peasant-ruled society?). Thus, in the cases of China and Russia, the revolution began chiefly within the bourgeois class and then imposed their ideals upon the peasantry, so nothing really changed for the majority of the population.

In a developed capitalist society, the workers have complete control if they so desire it- the upper class is dependent on the working man to keep his position. It is possible for workers to begin the revolution on their own accord, and establish socialism from below. From the moment workers had this power, the revolution became possible.

Only time will tell, if after serving two complete 6 year terms as allowed for under the Bolivarian Constitution he helped write
Sure he will! What Pinko hasn't?
:p :p :p :p

In a feudal society, the peasant class had no power to achieve change...
So you're talking about Education? Just because no peasant revolution was successful (and those that were didn't adhere to your ideals) doesn't mean that the Feudal Lord wasn't dependent on his Peasants, does it?

What about you? Anarcho-Communism or Central Planning?

So you're talking about Education? Just because no peasant revolution was successful (and those that were didn't adhere to your ideals) doesn't mean that the Feudal Lord wasn't dependent on his Peasants, does it?

Sure, but the peasants were also dependent on the Feudal Lord for protection. It's less a matter of education, and more a matter of the goods and services they require. Peasants couldn't defend themselves or completely provide for themselves. When they got the power to do so (or lost the need to), the liberal revolution occured - although it had its roots in the bourgeoisie, of course. I maintain that there wasn't *any* wholly peasant revolution that was successful.

What about you? Anarcho-Communism or Central Planning?

Anarcho-Communism. I'm not a strictly orthodox Marxist.

I believe Marx himself hated socialism with a vengance. His line of argument was that socialism does relieve the suffering of the poor - but it doesn't change the fact they are getting screwed over. As a result, the poor are far less likely to revolt and it only delays the change from capitalism to communism - he would have preferred more extreme capitalism so it would be obvious how unfairly the working class are treated and make revolution more likely.

(you are correct in believing that rule-from-above "socialism" is comparable with any form of capitalism)

Capitalism is inherently meant to not be rule from above. That is the whole purpose of private property ownership.

Capitalism is inherently meant to not be rule from above. That is the whole purpose of private property ownership.

I disagree. Rule by your employer is no different to rule by government.

I disagree. Rule by your employer is no different to rule by government.

Fact.

I never found it fair that others are able to control the people who do all the work, when they do next to nothing themselves.

Authority... Can't say it's fair for anyone.

Rule by your employer is no different to rule by government.

Ah yes, because your employer enforces laws with the threat of armed violence and incarceration. Because your employer taxes you and uses the money to fund wars and corrupt politics.

Oh wait, he doesn't. Quit whining, employment is not "being ruled by," and if you think it is that is *your* problem with an inability at comprehension.

Ah yes, because your employer enforces laws with the threat of armed violence and incarceration. Because your employer taxes you and uses the money to fund wars and corrupt politics.

Oh wait, he doesn't. Quit whining, employment is not "being ruled by," and if you think it is that is *your* problem with an inability at comprehension.

Actually, the employer can fire any employee for little to no reason, depending on where you live.

And, in a twisted way, employers do use the money to fund wars and corrupt politicians. Directly or indirectly (pff), they still do it.

You're the one who has a problem, man.

I disagree. Rule by your employer is no different to rule by government.

True, although there is hopefully a different motive: a private employer will be employing as a method of personal profit, while under a truly nationalised (as opposed to state capitalist) industry would not deliver profit to the employer, since all 'profit' would be reinvested in that industry.

Which form of government would be best?

Although I believe in a form of central planning, this planning should be controlled in turn by the people. The best example of where people exercise control over the government is Switzerland, where budgets and laws can constitutionally be put to a referendum by petition by people and/or interest groups.

There's a general overview at http://www.swissworld.org/dvd_rom/eng/direct_democracy_2004/

I think that that kind of system is very much compatable with socialism, far more than authoritarian dictatorships, which benefit noone.

Actually, the employer can fire any employee for little to no reason, depending on where you live.

Yes, and that is exactly like how a government can spy on you with little to no reason, search you, detain you anywhere you happen to be, incarcerate you and in the end execute you.

No, no it isn't. Not even close.

And, in a twisted way, employers do use the money to fund wars and corrupt politicians. Directly or indirectly (pff), they still do it.

Pfft. Indirectly, then, YOU fund wars and corrupt politicians. Unless you evade income tax, in which case you may find yourself in a bit more trouble than you would for merely being fired.


You're the one who has a problem, man.

I do have a problem with people who try to equate business with government. There is really no basis, you have to stretch analogies and it just comes across as usual whining by people who don't like their bosses.

Just thought I would ask this question as I read recently the socialist/marxist journalist Christopher Hitchens being interviewed by Reason magazine and the way he insists on the intellectual and moral superiority of Western democracies over Islamic countries (to which I concede he does have a point), it seemed odd to hear a one time Trotskyist to speak words that could easily be mistaken for those of a member of the Ayn Rand institute.

Marx once wrote that secular, democratic republics held no form of superiority to old patriarchal feudal systems, as feudalism at least held the virtue of being a system run on more than mere cold, calculating individualism but what he also asserted was that a regression back to such antiquity was a sociological impossibility, given the irreversible effects of the englightenment. Going by this logic then, isn't every so called "socialist" government in the world is another form of state capitalism? The left are overwhelmingly supportive of Hugo Chavez's government in Venezuela, but to me, the reformist socialism which has characterised many famous politicians from Chavez to Harold Wilson is merely a facade for despotism. Socialism from above is perhaps the ultimate oxymoron. When are people going to understand that so called "democratic socialism" is every bit as evil as laissez-faire capitalism.

The only people who can create socialism are the working classes, rising up against their exploiters independant of bureaucrats and populist rhetoricists and of such perverted revisionist ideas such as Leninism.


"The only people who can create socialism are the working classes, rising up against their exploiters independant of bureaucrats and populist rhetoricists and of such perverted revisionist ideas such as Leninism."

..which is precisely WHY socialism is impossible to create in it's "perfection".

In the scenario you posit, there is no organizing "entity" (force), as humans
require a non-mass-mind to organize them,.. and any non-mass-mind
(individual or subgroup) will always degenerate into despotism due to "self
interest", if that self-interest is not checked by the competition inherent in
NORMAL (capitalist) societal/economic structures.

Therefore,..your socialist utopia is utterly impossible.

Obviously I'm not a marxist, so I won't mind if you ignore me entirely. :)

Yes, and that is exactly like how a government can spy on you with little to no reason, search you, detain you anywhere you happen to be, incarcerate you and in the end execute you.

No, no it isn't. Not even close.



Pfft. Indirectly, then, YOU fund wars and corrupt politicians. Unless you evade income tax, in which case you may find yourself in a bit more trouble than you would for merely being fired.



I do have a problem with people who try to equate business with government. There is really no basis, you have to stretch analogies and it just comes across as usual whining by people who don't like their bosses.

1: The U.S. PATRIOT Act pretty much allows all that.

2: Well, since my family's on welfare, we don't pay tax.

3: Eh? I'm not equating. I'm relating.

Ah yes, because your employer enforces laws with the threat of armed violence and incarceration. Because your employer taxes you and uses the money to fund wars and corrupt politics.

Oh wait, he doesn't. Quit whining, employment is not "being ruled by," and if you think it is that is *your* problem with an inability at comprehension.

Please, there is no need to take that tone. I'm sure that we can both discuss things in a perfectly civil manner, so comments like "quit whining" aren't at all necessary.

Anyway. Your employer can't arrest you....but they *can* deprive you of your means of living if you refuse to abide by their rules. For example, if I decided to grow facial hair, i'd be out of a job. If I refuse to do a dangerous or uncomfortable task they set for me, i'm out of a job (I thought refusing to clean freezers without any protection was reasonable, but obviously not. Granted, I do have some rights here, but it's difficult to make an issue out of it, because if I lose, i'm out of a job.). My employer tells me when I work- If it doesn't fit in, tough luck.

We have to abide by our employers wishes, otherwise we end up worse off...that isn't some form of rulership?

For the record, i'm not the biggest fan of government, either...

It'd be best not to bother with him, really. You just can't have a civil debate with his type.

Heh, he insulted me quite a few months back for being on welfare. So kind.

It'd be best not to bother with him, really. You just can't have a civil debate with his type.

Heh, he insulted me quite a few months back for being on welfare. So kind.

Never hurts to try....

Never hurts to try....

Perhaps. Looking at his track record, though, it's pretty much futile.

Please, there is no need to take that tone. I'm sure that we can both discuss things in a perfectly civil manner, so comments like "quit whining" aren't at all necessary.

Yeah, well knowing quite a few Evil Capitalist Overlords (tm), it irks me on a personal level to see them all delegated to the position of stereotypes by anti-capitalists. Forgive me for wandering into the areas of flame?

Anyway. Your employer can't arrest you....but they *can* deprive you of your means of living if you refuse to abide by their rules.

You forgot another "if." If you have no job skills and your current job is your only possible alternative to unemployment. Employers are a dime a dozen, really.


We have to abide by our employers wishes, otherwise we end up worse off...that isn't some form of rulership?

You know, when you're in my house as a guest, you have to abide by my wishes or you don't get to stay. Does that mean I rule anyone who visits my house?


For the record, i'm not the biggest fan of government, either...

Okay, so noted. :fluffle:

Yeah, well knowing quite a few Evil Capitalist Overlords (tm), it irks me on a personal level to see them all delegated to the position of stereotypes by anti-capitalists. Forgive me for wandering into the areas of flame?

Forgiven and forgotten. :)

You forgot another "if." If you have no job skills and your current job is your only possible alternative to unemployment. Employers are a dime a dozen, really.

Eh. It took me 8 months to find this job...I work in a supermarket. And I know i'll have just as much trouble when I finish my degree. Sure, I could get another job eventually...but 8 months without employment is a long time and a lot of money lost, so it's easier to do what i'm told.

And I know a *heap* of people who can only manage to get casual work, despite having tertiary qualifications of some sort.

If my skills were invaluable, your point would make sense. However, most people aren't, and can be replaced at the drop of a hat.

You know, when you're in my house as a guest, you have to abide by my wishes or you don't get to stay. Does that mean I rule anyone who visits my house?

Different issue. If you don't want me gnawing on your furniture (lol...for example), that's perfectly understandable. That's not rulership, that's common sense and politeness. But if you won't let me in your house because I have a beard, and I have to wear a yellow hat and do your gardening while i'm there, and then kiss your feet before I can leave, that's a different story. :p

The problem with socialist or communist systems of government as practiced is once they come into power they outlaw all political partys but thier own.

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has not done that yet officially, even though he has limited freedom of the press, and calls his government a socialist Bolivarian revolution not a socialist government.

Only time will tell, if after serving two complete 6 year terms as allowed for under the Bolivarian Constitution he helped write, he will step down and let fair democratic elections with diffrent political partys offering diffrent economic, political and social points of view take place, or if he will find a way to so-called legally stay in power for life, like President Dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba.

The Problem with socialism or communism lets say for the sake of argument the same is, when the state controls everything like all the means of production, and all civil social organizations are under government control and none is private as long as they dont discrimate against others, this creates an automatic dictatorship.

The democratic European socialist nations of Europe like Sweden , Norway and others, can work with diffrent political partys, offering diffrent economic and social points of views, because they concentrate more on offering social services than state ownership of everything.

I wonder how many nations on NS agree or disagree with my two above statements?

It has happened in most cases sofar that a socialist/communist takeover results in (again in most cases another) a dictatorship. I think your first point is pretty much true. In a real leftish country the state will own everything, but in the proper leftish country the state will be everybody.

As for Chavez, doubt he will survive long so close to Uncle Sam...

It has happened in most cases sofar that a socialist/communist takeover results in (again in most cases another) a dictatorship. I think your first point is pretty much true. In a real leftish country the state will own everything, but in the proper leftish country the state will be everybody.

As for Chavez, doubt he will survive long so close to Uncle Sam...

Already covered that. The socialist/communist takeovers of the 20th century have been middle-class revolutions...not workers revolutions. It was in effect the middle-class imposing their views upon undeveloped nations which consisted mostly of a rural agricultural "peasant" class. With only a weak working class to fall back on, they naturally slid into dictatorship to keep their power.

Coincidentally, the nation that came closest to achieving something approaching direct workers power (Spain) was also the most economically developed.

Eh. It took me 8 months to find this job...I work in a supermarket. And I know i'll have just as much trouble when I finish my degree. Sure, I could get another job eventually...but 8 months without employment is a long time and a lot of money lost, so it's easier to do what i'm told.

And I know a *heap* of people who can only manage to get casual work, despite having tertiary qualifications of some sort.

If my skills were invaluable, your point would make sense. However, most people aren't, and can be replaced at the drop of a hat.

Even employers i.e managers can also be replaced. So it's really not the same as rulership, esp. in the US where even impeaching someone doesn't seem to change anything, and is a lot more difficult.

And that doesn't mean it will always take 8 months to find a job.

I sympathize, but even so you have skills not available to everyone, and you should be exploiting yourself as much as possible! Don't give in to apathy!



Different issue. If you don't want me gnawing on your furniture (lol...for example), that's perfectly understandable. That's not rulership, that's common sense and politeness. But if you won't let me in your house because I have a beard, and I have to wear a yellow hat and do your gardening while i'm there, and then kiss your feet before I can leave, that's a different story. :p

Of course, if I was PAYING you to do my gardening while you were here, then it would again be understandable, no? I mean you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Even if you can find another hand. The beard thing is silly, but also understandable in some situations.

The main issue is employment with any given employer is voluntary; needing to work is not, but compare it with government. You can't really change government at will... there aren't 25 million nations in the world. Even if there were, changing country is a LOT more difficult than changing a job, partly because of all those paranoid rulers with guns. And nuclear weapons. Etc. Business is like a snotty child at times, but government is like the neighborhood serial killer.

I have to agree with the posters who said that ideally, socialism would come from the people. The U.S. already has provisions for establishing a township, a city, and a state. It would be quite easy for said township/city/state to establish its own rate of taxation and implement its own socialist policies. The problem would be for the state to secede, but that's something to worry about a long way from now.

Even employers i.e managers can also be replaced. So it's really not the same as rulership, esp. in the US where even impeaching someone doesn't seem to change anything, and is a lot more difficult.

Well, I beg to differ. I think it's still rulership, even if they have to answer to someone. I mean, to use another example, the President can't oppress you directly, but his individual police officers can. Given the culture that seems to pervade in my workplace amongst the managers and supervisors, I wouldn't be surprised if a replacement achieved nothing. I'll admit that I cannot say for sure whether or not this is typical, though.

And that doesn't mean it will always take 8 months to find a job.

I sympathize, but even so you have skills not available to everyone, and you should be exploiting yourself as much as possible! Don't give in to apathy!

I'm not apathetic, i'm looking for a job replacement right now, hopefully at somewhere that's a little more "free". We'll see. :)

Of course, if I was PAYING you to do my gardening while you were here, then it would again be understandable, no? I mean you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Even if you can find another hand. The beard thing is silly, but also understandable in some situations.

Well, of course, If I were being paid to do the gardening, I'd be happy to do it. Though, if you were paying me to do the gardening and ordered me to do your laundry, then I should have a right to refuse. (Case example: I get paid to work on checkouts. I was ordered to clean a freezer, wearing only a shirt and pants. I refused. I was told that if I didn't do it, I could go home and not bother to turn up tomorrow. So I did it; I wasn't even offered gloves. I had to ask after my hands started going numb.)

The main issue is employment with any given employer is voluntary; needing to work is not, but compare it with government. You can't really change government at will... there aren't 25 million nations in the world. Even if there were, changing country is a LOT more difficult than changing a job, partly because of all those paranoid rulers with guns. And nuclear weapons. Etc. Business is like a snotty child at times, but government is like the neighborhood serial killer.

My perception is different. Business is a snotty rich child...but government is his bodyguard.

Just thought I would ask this question as I read recently the socialist/marxist journalist Christopher Hitchens being interviewed by Reason magazine and the way he insists on the intellectual and moral superiority of Western democracies over Islamic countries (to which I concede he does have a point), it seemed odd to hear a one time Trotskyist to speak words that could easily be mistaken for those of a member of the Ayn Rand institute.
A great deal of Marxists have become Neoconservatives in the U.S.

No fucking idea why, because they're quite honestly totally separate ideologies, in my opinion, except for their shared zealous, ruthless, and amoral approach to politics, especially foreign policy and security.

Well, I beg to differ. I think it's still rulership, even if they have to answer to someone. I mean, to use another example, the President can't oppress you directly, but his individual police officers can. Given the culture that seems to pervade in my workplace amongst the managers and supervisors, I wouldn't be surprised if a replacement achieved nothing. I'll admit that I cannot say for sure whether or not this is typical, though.It seems to be, at least for non-unionized places.

Well, of course, If I were being paid to do the gardening, I'd be happy to do it. Though, if you were paying me to do the gardening and ordered me to do your laundry, then I should have a right to refuse. (Case example: I get paid to work on checkouts. I was ordered to clean a freezer, wearing only a shirt and pants. I refused. I was told that if I didn't do it, I could go home and not bother to turn up tomorrow. So I did it; I wasn't even offered gloves. I had to ask after my hands started going numb.)It's a shame you don't have a union there. Even the most corrupt union would've gotten you protection from that. (Incidentally, I'm still researching whether or not the IWW can represent you in Australia. I'll get back to you soon.)

Actually, the employer can fire any employee for little to no reason, depending on where you live.

And, in a twisted way, employers do use the money to fund wars and corrupt politicians. Directly or indirectly (pff), they still do it.

You're the one who has a problem, man.
Governments tend tobe considerably richer than businesses and ALL firms are poorer than the top eighty countries. I think there are two , something like GM is nearly as wealthy as Egypt.

Capitalism actually amounts to a massive decentralisation of power through private property, and your employer does not force you to work for him. He is as much depndent on you as you are on him. Also, he is just looking for profit rather than the perverse ends which are despotic government may be looking for. Get a grip my boy.

It's a shame you don't have a union there. Even the most corrupt union would've gotten you protection from that. (Incidentally, I'm still researching whether or not the IWW can represent you in Australia. I'll get back to you soon.)

Aye, thanks. I'm still interested. And we do have a corrupt union. Not worth paying $5 a week for, though.

Aye, thanks. I'm still interested. And we do have a corrupt union. Not worth paying $5 a week for, though.Really? Have you checked your contract? I should think that such a thing wouldn't be legal in your union contract. In my union, we do have a separate rate for the baggers, but the baggers also only have a set number of jobs that they can be required to do, cleaning the freezer wouldn't be one of them.

Private people and groups actually nurture their own dissent, which incidentally makes the capitalism the only philosophy to do this. E.g. private people giving money to libraries which always house marxists and Ches Guevara lovers. Dissent is banned in socilaist countries.

I favour harsh socialism.

The workhouse was a good idea on some levels (give the unemployed a job and home) but poorly executed (shit jobs, shit housing, shit food).

A great deal of Marxists have become Neoconservatives in the U.S.

No fucking idea why, because they're quite honestly totally separate ideologies, in my opinion, except for their shared zealous, ruthless, and amoral approach to politics, especially foreign policy and security.
Amoral s the wrong word.

Private people and groups actually nurture their own dissent, which incidentally makes the capitalism the only philosophy to do this. E.g. private people giving money to libraries which always house marxists and Ches Guevara lovers. Dissent is banned in socilaist countries.Not at all. Socialism is inseparable from democracy. Any country which banned dissent is, by definition, not socialist. Perhaps they were communist, but I doubt it.

Private people and groups actually nurture their own dissent, which incidentally makes the capitalism the only philosophy to do this. E.g. private people giving money to libraries which always house marxists and Ches Guevara lovers. Dissent is banned in socilaist countries.
that was meant to say universities not libraries. Got libraries on the brain as ever. It's a curse

World should try the anarchosyndicalism. That's what I stand for, at least. Democratic communities without any owning class, ruled by the producers. Factorier owned by the community, but no government or people whose fulltime job is to give orders to their subordinates.

SHOOT THE RICH PEOPLE.

Governments tend tobe considerably richer than businesses and ALL firms are poorer than the top eighty countries. I think there are two , something like GM is nearly as wealthy as Egypt.

Wrong...

http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html

Capitalism actually amounts to a massive decentralisation of power through private property, and your employer does not force you to work for him.

Not through force, however, through threat of withdrawing your income, he does. Decentralised power can be just as oppressive.

He is as much depndent on you as you are on him.

This is true (I would argue that he is even more dependent) , and the fundamental reason why many of the measures they implement are unjustified.

Also, he is just looking for profit rather than the perverse ends which are despotic government may be looking for. Get a grip my boy.

Governments are after a profit too...

Not at all. Socialism is inseparable from democracy. Any country which banned dissent is, by definition, not socialist. Perhaps they were communist, but I doubt it.

This seems to be a tendancy among to social democrats to claim that marxism is not socialism which to me it is. Anyway can you explain your point as I would call venezuela a socilaist country, and Cuba in fact.

Wrong...

http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html



Not through force, however, through threat of withdrawing your income, he does. Decentralised power can be just as oppressive.



This is true (I would argue that he is even more dependent) , and the fundamental reason why many of the measures they implement are unjustified.



Governments are after a profit too...
Governments may well be after profit but they have a whole range of other lusts. Also, the statistics you have given me are not true, the measurements themselves are warped so I read in a book called Why the Global Market Economy Works by Martin Wolf. It's worth a read if your interested. I can't remember why at present but it's something likecertain key outputs are counted twice. On a normal scale corporations don't enter the top fifty.

If your employer does threaten to withdraw your income, you can find another job. Many arguments here seem to be based on the ides of a monopsonistic buyer of labour.

Really? Have you checked your contract? I should think that such a thing wouldn't be legal in your union contract. In my union, we do have a separate rate for the baggers, but the baggers also only have a set number of jobs that they can be required to do, cleaning the freezer wouldn't be one of them.

$5 is the minimum figure, I think. It simply isn't worth paying for. I'd rather join a seperate union that would look out for me (the rate itself isn't too bad, as long as i'm getting something for it), if there were one that could cater to my interests. If the IWW can do it, i'd be happy to sign up for that same amount.

This seems to be a tendancy among to social democrats to claim that marxism is not socialism which to me it is. Anyway can you explain your point as I would call venezuela a socilaist country, and Cuba in fact.Those countries might enact certain socialist policies; however, if they censor the media, and crack down on dissent, then they aren't socialist. Another tenet is socialism is equality, or near equality of income. Fidel Castro lives in a palace, his income is hardly on the same level as a Cuban peasant.

I disagree. Rule by your employer is no different to rule by government.

I find that statement to be a little ridiculous, there are many drastic differences between governments and the people. I could get into the fine tuning of good employee management, and how that differs from running a strong government, but that isn't necessary.

Here is the central difference between governments and employers:

The government is society's way of managing itself. It has no other purpose or goal than to manage society. So, through society's power, you are subject to all of the whims of those in power over society. As society's only goal is to control the interactions of the people, it will use all the force that it deems necessary to control your behavior.

Business is an individual's way of handling his own capital. It has no other purpose than to take capital and make more capital. This means that as long as you are helping make capital, the business is not interested in changing you in anyway. Even if you are not making capital, the employer does not seek to change your personal life, as that is a waste of time.

The point is, government is the enforced will of the people that has complete jurisdiction and interest, while an employer is the enforced will of one man that has very, very limited jurisdiction and interest.

Back to the other convo, which particular ocuntries would you define as truly socialist? I suspect Sweden would be an answer, but it actually (up to a point of massive redistribution) endorses private ownership, so doesn't that make it a market economy?

$5 is the minimum figure, I think. It simply isn't worth paying for. I'd rather join a seperate union that would look out for me (the rate itself isn't too bad, as long as i'm getting something for it), if there were one that could cater to my interests. If the IWW can do it, i'd be happy to sign up for that same amount.Oh, I didn't mean a union rate, I meant a pay rate for the baggers. And when I said to check your contract, I meant to check it to see if your manager could actually require you to clean out the freezer. If not, you should file a grievance. You might also want to look up your Labor Law. If you have a National Labor Relations Board*, you may be able to file an Unfair Labor Practice* report against them.

*These are U.S. terms.

I have to agree with the posters who said that ideally, socialism would come from the people. The U.S. already has provisions for establishing a township, a city, and a state. It would be quite easy for said township/city/state to establish its own rate of taxation and implement its own socialist policies. The problem would be for the state to secede, but that's something to worry about a long way from now.

So the overriding ideas are that authority based socialism is a bad idea, meaning a revolution that immediately sets up a socialist government would likely fail.

So, would not everyone agree that a free capitalist system, governed by a laissez faire government that allowed for personal economic choices, be the best way to foster a good socialism?

Those countries might enact certain socialist policies; however, if they censor the media, and crack down on dissent, then they aren't socialist. Another tenet is socialism is equality, or near equality of income. Fidel Castro lives in a palace, his income is hardly on the same level as a Cuban peasant.
What I am saying is that a natural result of socialism tends to be the quashing of dissent, as is borne out by nearly all major socialist countries. Read Hayek's the Road to Serfdom to see why you should change your views. Also, as Hayek points out you say 'near equality of income', which leads to distribution by arbitrary state whim, rather tha if absolute equality were selected, which is nigh on impossible to achieve. Economic planning is always a prerequisite to totalitarian government.

Business is an individual's way of handling his own capital. It has no other purpose than to take capital and make more capital. This means that as long as you are helping make capital, the business is not interested in changing you in anyway. Even if you are not making capital, the employer does not seek to change your personal life, as that is a waste of time.Not at all. If a business believes that having abeard, gaining weight, or having a child out of wedlock hinders their ability to make capital, then they will forbid such things. Forbidding such things is seeking to change said employee's personal life.

Governments may well be after profit but they have a whole range of other lusts. Also, the statistics you have given me are not true, the measurements themselves are warped so I read in a book called Why the Global Market Economy Works by Martin Wolf. It's worth a read if your interested. I can't remember why at present but it's something likecertain key outputs are counted twice. On a normal scale corporations don't enter the top fifty.

How is it "meant" to be then? Those figures are based on revenues of the respective corporations. GM made revenues of $193.5 Billion USD in 2004, according to Wikipedia. This certainly puts them on the scale. (Wow...that's about $570,000 per employee)

If your employer does threaten to withdraw your income, you can find another job. Many arguments here seem to be based on the ides of a monopsonistic buyer of labour.

If only it were so easy. Jobs don't grow on trees for us ordinary folk. It can take many months to get an interview, let alone find an employer willing to take you on.

Hitler's germany and the USSR both planned their economies to the arbitrary whim of the government. the popular myth seems to be that Nazi Germany was the capitalist totalitarianism, which is absolute rubbish. Once again i point to hayek

So the overriding ideas are that authority based socialism is a bad idea, meaning a revolution that immediately sets up a socialist government would likely fail.Yes.


So, would not everyone agree that a free capitalist system, governed by a laissez faire government that allowed for personal economic choices, be the best way to foster a good socialism?Only to provide an example of what not to do, and there are plenty of those already.

How is it "meant" to be then? Those figures are based on revenues of the respective corporations. GM made revenues of $193.5 Billion USD in 2004, according to Wikipedia. This certainly puts them on the scale. (Wow...that's about $570,000 per employee)



If only it were so easy. Jobs don't grow on trees for us ordinary folk. It can take many months to get an interview, let alone find an employer willing to take you on.

As i said try to get the book i mentioned, if not i'll get it and post the details. Also your quote of revenue is somewhat rdidculous as i think the size of a firm must depend on the losses of the firm. Shouldn't it be the value and not hte revenue of the firm?

A liberal, moderately socialist (like what's going on in Europe), democracy.

Back to the other convo, which particular ocuntries would you define as truly socialist? I suspect Sweden would be an answer, but it actually (up to a point of massive redistribution) endorses private ownership, so doesn't that make it a market economy?There aren't any, and haven't been any. This is both a blessing and a curse.

What I am saying is that a natural result of socialism tends to be the quashing of dissent, as is borne out by nearly all major socialist countries. Read Hayek's the Road to Serfdom to see why you should change your views. Also, as Hayek points out you say 'near equality of income', which leads to distribution by arbitrary state whim, rather tha if absolute equality were selected, which is nigh on impossible to achieve. Economic planning is always a prerequisite to totalitarian government.Who said anything about a government, or about arbitrary whims?

Marxism is not a form of government, is a philosophical theory which states that all forms of government will inevitably (or inexorably, as Marx himself says) be overthrown by the low, "proletarian" class, who will in turn set up a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which those who began or participated in the revolution will seize all private property and redistribute it evenly. This will create a temporary state of socialism, which will eventually give way to communism, once the world has been entirely converted to socialism. Communism is the total absence of superiority, where everyone is equal, there is no money, no government, no laws, no form of heirarchy whatsoever.

The biggest problem with Marxism as a theory is that it is entirely dependant upon the changing of the human state of mind to one that will work for the common good of all, and will never be greedy. Yes, that's right, it's based on the assumption that the nature of mankind in and of itself will change.

It's other fatal flaw is that it assumes that the lower class will eventually identify more with their class than with their country, religion, nationality, etc. (which, by the way, will all be abolished in Communism), which is an assumption that only a non-religious political idealist like Marx could have come up with.

And for those Marxists of you ready to jump on me and call me a cynical Raand-ist, capitalist, social Darwinist or any other of those filthy words that apply to people who believe in the totalitarian rule of Money, bite me, because I'm an active socialist.

What I am saying is that a natural result of socialism tends to be the quashing of dissent, as is borne out by nearly all major socialist countries. Read Hayek's the Road to Serfdom to see why you should change your views. Also, as Hayek points out you say 'near equality of income', which leads to distribution by arbitrary state whim, rather tha if absolute equality were selected, which is nigh on impossible to achieve. Economic planning is always a prerequisite to totalitarian government.

There have been plenty of capitalist totalitarian states, too, and ones that try and quash dissent whilst still calling themselves democratic.

i'm not just some conspirator making it up this is actually what i've read. I would probably believe what you have seen if i hadn;t read the book. Give the market a chance and find out about the arguments, in my experience they tend to be right, and i am open in my political viewpoints.

Not at all. If a business believes that having abeard, gaining weight, or having a child out of wedlock hinders their ability to make capital, then they will forbid such things. Forbidding such things is seeking to change said employee's personal life.

If someone's personal lives are infringing on the way they do business, they will ask them to change that characteristic or be fired. There is no physical force involved, and generally these things are established before employment begins.

There have been plenty of capitalist totalitarian states, too, and ones that try and quash dissent whilst still calling themselves democratic.
name one

Only to provide an example of what not to do, and there are plenty of those already.

No, only to provide the people with the economic freedom to establish a socialist society that is not authoritatively based.

name one

Pinochet's Chile

The biggest problem with Marxism as a theory is that it is entirely dependant upon the changing of the human state of mind to one that will work for the common good of all, and will never be greedy. Yes, that's right, it's based on the assumption that the nature of mankind in and of itself will change.Fortunately there are other concepts of socialism aside from Marxism that don't involve such an idea.

Marxism is not a form of government, is a philosophical theory which states that all forms of government will inevitably (or inexorably, as Marx himself says) be overthrown by the low, "proletarian" class, who will in turn set up a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which those who began or participated in the revolution will seize all private property and redistribute it evenly. This will create a temporary state of socialism, which will eventually give way to communism, once the world has been entirely converted to socialism. Communism is the total absence of superiority, where everyone is equal, there is no money, no government, no laws, no form of heirarchy whatsoever.

The biggest problem with Marxism as a theory is that it is entirely dependant upon the changing of the human state of mind to one that will work for the common good of all, and will never be greedy. Yes, that's right, it's based on the assumption that the nature of mankind in and of itself will change.

It's other fatal flaw is that it assumes that the lower class will eventually identify more with their class than with their country, religion, nationality, etc. (which, by the way, will all be abolished in Communism), which is an assumption that only a non-religious political idealist like Marx could have come up with.

And for those Marxists of you ready to jump on me and call me a cynical Raand-ist, capitalist, social Darwinist or any other of those filthy words that apply to people who believe in the totalitarian rule of Money, bite me, because I'm an active socialist.
I don't think Marxism seeks the changing of minds , in fact Marx entirely (and rightly in my view) rejected Mill's psychologism for the idea that society is moulded by socioeconomic forces which human free will can do little to influence.

Pinochet's Chile
to be honest i know next to nothing about Pinochet's Chile so I'll look into it. i'm not sure that it could be labelled totalitarian rather than just authoritarian. I would look at Mao's China Hitler's germany and the USSr as examples of totalitarian states, also places like Turkmenistan. The point remains that there are masses of socialist countries where democracy is something of a joke. e.g. Hussein's Iraq and Libya.

If someone's personal lives are infringing on the way they do business, they will ask them to change that characteristic or be fired. There is no physical force involved, and generally these things are established before employment begins.It isn't necessary to physically threaten anyone in order to coerce them into doing something. While we both agree that holding a gun to someone's head and telling them to do something is indeed coercion, we disagree on the idea that telling someone to work or starve is coercion. I fail to see the difference, in each case if the individual being threatened refuses, they are dead.
Of course, you're welcome to point out that the individual can always find a different employer, but unfortunately, just about every employer is making such a statement. (Unless you favor some sort of basic welfare system, which is a different argument entirely.)

No, only to provide the people with the economic freedom to establish a socialist society that is not authoritatively based.This may be a benefit of free-market capitalism, you do have a point. But there are other ways of doing this, such as actively encouraging people to do so in a regulated capitalist society.

"Marxism is not a form of government, is a philosophical theory which states that all forms of government will inevitably (or inexorably, as Marx himself says) be overthrown by the low, "proletarian" class, who will in turn set up a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which those who began or participated in the revolution will seize all private property and redistribute it evenly."

OK look... I am tired of people using technicalities and saying there can be no communist state, the constitution saying you don't have the freedom to be an atheist, you have to support every single statement of a religious or political leader to belong to a certain group, and all this other crap. The truth is, humanity is not black and white. We're not robots, we have emotions. So will everyone please stop being so technical and act like normal people. Yes, ideally communism leads to anarchy, but anarchy is impossible because leaders will always arise and there's no way to enfore anarchy without creating a state. Yes, ideally communism abolishes money, but communism has never advanced anywhere close to that happening.

Marxism is not a form of government, is a philosophical theory which states that all forms of government will inevitably (or inexorably, as Marx himself says) be overthrown by the low, "proletarian" class, who will in turn set up a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which those who began or participated in the revolution will seize all private property and redistribute it evenly. This will create a temporary state of socialism, which will eventually give way to communism, once the world has been entirely converted to socialism. Communism is the total absence of superiority, where everyone is equal, there is no money, no government, no laws, no form of heirarchy whatsoever.

The biggest problem with Marxism as a theory is that it is entirely dependant upon the changing of the human state of mind to one that will work for the common good of all, and will never be greedy. Yes, that's right, it's based on the assumption that the nature of mankind in and of itself will change.

It's other fatal flaw is that it assumes that the lower class will eventually identify more with their class than with their country, religion, nationality, etc. (which, by the way, will all be abolished in Communism), which is an assumption that only a non-religious political idealist like Marx could have come up with.

And for those Marxists of you ready to jump on me and call me a cynical Raand-ist, capitalist, social Darwinist or any other of those filthy words that apply to retards who belive in the totalitarian rule of Money, bite me, because I'm an active socialist.

Agreed. There is no perfect political doctrine, and Marx's manifesto's fault is that it is, in my opinion, too utopian.

However, it is in now way rendered useless. I have heard Marxism being described as a science. Like any science, one never takes a theory and never builds upon it. Since 1848 we know far more about the nature of societies across the globe. Far more can be achieved by different socialist groups/parties by working together than squabbling over petty arguments over the collapse of the USSR.

to be honest i know next to nothing about Pinochet's Chile so I'll look into it. i'm not sure that it could be labelled totalitarian rather than just authoritarian. I would look at Mao's China Hitler's germany and the USSr as examples of totalitarian states, also places like Turkmenistan. The point remains that there are masses of socialist countries where democracy is something of a joke. e.g. Hussein's Iraq and Libya.You're not seriously mentioning Iraq and Libya examples of socialism, are you?

their are different forms of "socialism". Nazi Germany was run by "national Socialists" and now it has a pathetic coaliton of social and christian democrats.

I'm afraid you know nothing about the political situation in germany.
Germany is leaded by a social democratic party, the SPD, together with the social, NOT socialistic, party buendnis 90/die gruenen (translated: alliance 90 / the greens).
There isn’t a coalition between SPD and CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union; translated: christian democratic union).

A liberal, moderately socialist (like what's going on in Europe), democracy.

Not the UK! We have (mathematically proven) the most unpopular and minority government in British history.

And your poll options are thatcherist, thatcherist or thatcherist. The agony of choice...

Rant over...

You're not seriously mentioning Iraq and Libya examples of socialism, are you?
yes. Both labelled it socialism. So it's their words. What about Mugabe's African Socialism. Also you should have whacked out the Shah of Iran on me as he brought capitalism and authoritarianism. So revision accepted there are authoritarian capitalist states but there has never been a state with total economic planning that has not been totalitatrian it is an absoute prerequisite. Even mild planning can undermine democracy. E.g. in britain we dont have a democracy technically becuae of the existence of the BBC and the consequent lack of free media.

I find that statement to be a little ridiculous, there are many drastic differences between governments and the people. I could get into the fine tuning of good employee management, and how that differs from running a strong government, but that isn't necessary.

Here is the central difference between governments and employers:

The government is society's way of managing itself. It has no other purpose or goal than to manage society. So, through society's power, you are subject to all of the whims of those in power over society. As society's only goal is to control the interactions of the people, it will use all the force that it deems necessary to control your behavior.

Well, I wasn't really referring to specifics. Yes, there are differences in the motivation and structure of such authority. I was speaking more in general terms that when someone is imposing upon you and forcing you to do something or act in a certain way against your will, the principle is the same no matter who it comes from.

Business is an individual's way of handling his own capital. It has no other purpose than to take capital and make more capital. This means that as long as you are helping make capital, the business is not interested in changing you in anyway. Even if you are not making capital, the employer does not seek to change your personal life, as that is a waste of time.

They certainly do, if they percieve it will interfere with them making capital. Their justification for disallowing facial hair and pressuring me to cut my hair short (not gonna happen ;)) is that it "looks messy and turns the customers away". Just a minor example.

The point is, government is the enforced will of the people that has complete jurisdiction and interest, while an employer is the enforced will of one man that has very, very limited jurisdiction and interest.

I disagree, again. The jurisdiction of an employer varies. If he or she wants you to change something about yourself or impose into your personal life, they have the money that you need, certainly a powerful tool to ensure you go along.

Oh, I didn't mean a union rate, I meant a pay rate for the baggers. And when I said to check your contract, I meant to check it to see if your manager could actually require you to clean out the freezer. If not, you should file a grievance. You might also want to look up your Labor Law. If you have a National Labor Relations Board*, you may be able to file an Unfair Labor Practice* report against them.

*These are U.S. terms.

Oh, I earn about $15 an hour on a casual basis (meaning I won't get more than about 20 hours a week maximum, unless there are extreme circumstances) but it's age-graded. Some of the younger workers forced to do this stuff are on $8 an hour.

I don't actually have a "contract" being a casual worker... but in my terms of employment, I guess it's covered under "miscellaneous cleaning duties", though I always figured that related only to the registers themselves. Meh.

As i said try to get the book i mentioned, if not i'll get it and post the details. Also your quote of revenue is somewhat rdidculous as i think the size of a firm must depend on the losses of the firm. Shouldn't it be the value and not hte revenue of the firm?

No...The budget of a government is calculated the same irrespective of how much debt it has, whether it has a budget deficit, etc. Comparing company revenue and national budgets is fair. Oversimplified, perhaps, but fair. I'll try and track down that book, I think I have heard of it.

Capitalism is an indispensable aspect of the free society and of classical liberalism. It cannot be discarded for the sake of humanity's future. And with that he went for a shower. Back in a bit.

yes. Both labelled it socialism. So it's their words. What about Mugabe's African Socialism. Also you should have whacked out the Shah of Iran on me as he brought capitalism and authoritarianism. So revision accepted there are authoritarian capitalist states but there has never been a state with total economic planning that has not been totalitatrian it is an absoute prerequisite. Even mild planning can undermine democracy. E.g. in britain we dont have a democracy technically becuae of the existence of the BBC and the consequent lack of free media.It doesn't really matter if it's their words or not. If I established a socialist society and called it "a free market utopia," does that mean my society is a free market utopia?

Capitalism is an indispensable aspect of the free society and of classical liberalism. It cannot be discarded for the sake of humanity's future.Capitalism runs contrary to the ideals of a free society. It must be discarded for the sake of humanity's future.

Oh, I earn about $15 an hour on a casual basis (meaning I won't get more than about 20 hours a week maximum, unless there are extreme circumstances) but it's age-graded. Some of the younger workers forced to do this stuff are on $8 an hour.

I don't actually have a "contract" being a casual worker... but in my terms of employment, I guess it's covered under "miscellaneous cleaning duties", though I always figured that related only to the registers themselves. Meh.Oh, interesting. I can't imagine the union making you pay dues, but not offering you protections. (these don't have to be in the form of a contract, but almost always are.) Have you spoken with your store's union steward?

No, only to provide the people with the economic freedom to establish a socialist society that is not authoritatively based.

In essence, you are correct. Capitalism is a brilliant tool for generating wealth. Just not a fair one.

E.g. in britain we dont have a democracy technically becuae of the existence of the BBC and the consequent lack of free media.

Sure you do. The BBC exists alongside a free media system.

It doesn't really matter if it's their words or not. If I established a socialist society and called it "a free market utopia," does that mean my society is a free market utopia?

Capitalism runs contrary to the ideals of a free society. It must be discarded for the sake of humanity's future.
Erm and state economic planning brings freedom does it? Well By my reckoning state planned economies have murdered 3000 people a day up until this point in time and there are no examples of a state planned economy in whijch freedom reigns, and the contrary is true in market economies. Open your eyes to the world around you.

yes. Both labelled it socialism. So it's their words. What about Mugabe's African Socialism. Also you should have whacked out the Shah of Iran on me as he brought capitalism and authoritarianism. So revision accepted there are authoritarian capitalist states but there has never been a state with total economic planning that has not been totalitatrian it is an absoute prerequisite. Even mild planning can undermine democracy. E.g. in britain we dont have a democracy technically becuae of the existence of the BBC and the consequent lack of free media.

The BBC is a good service that runs independant of the government. Is it any less impartial than the Daily Mail? There is no such thing as unbiased media, and the BBC is, out of all of our news outlets, relatively balanced. True, it's a little Labour, but has been for it's entire existence.

Paxman'll grill anyone, lef tor right ;)

Britain's lack of democracy comes from our unaccountable, unrepresentitive and aristocratic government. The monarchy denies us our democratic rights - not the beeb.

In essence, you are correct. Capitalism is a brilliant tool for generating wealth. Just not a fair one.



Sure you do. The BBC exists alongside a free media system.
But the media as a whole has to be free and the BBC counts for what i would guess is the majority of our media and is indeed incredibly biased yb the fact that the government picks the boss.

In order for something to be liberal democratic their MUST be competition among different groups of people. You must be able to incite a peaceful revolution every few years or so. Communism doesn't have this. Instead they're one party rule over the government makes it impossible to vote for someone with a better agenda. This in turn makes participating in government pointless.

Competition in turn forces a said party to better their agenda which in turn creates progress. American Republicans saw that a vast majority of North opposed slavery and they saw that the Democratic party was divided into pro/anti slavery camps....so they ran on an anti-slavery platform to take control of government. With no compertion the government gets lazy and corrupt.

This is why communism would never take place in a diverse area like the USA. One party can’t serve the needs of a diverse population with different beliefs, ideologies, religion, and culture without stepping on someones toes. Communism is anti democratic. Socialism denies a person the right to use their money in the way they see fit. No economic freedom is anti liberalism. Socialist are just a rehatched version of the classic conservativism created by monarchs and the catholic church to fight Adam Smith's liberalism.

I once heard a AARP commercial that stated that “you don’t tear down entire house because the kitchen sink is broken”, it was of course aimed at Bush’s attempt to reform SS. But the same can apply to capitalism as well. Just because a couple of things are working out...doesn’t mean we have to scrap it

Marx wasn't intending communism as a party-run system. It was for the working class to free themselves from the oppression of the aristocrats and eliminating a need for a government. People work for free, get what they need for free. Unfortunately, power-hoarding seems to be in the nature of 20th century humanity. Let's see what the 21st century brings...

The BBC is a good service that runs independant of the government. Is it any less impartial than the Daily Mail? There is no such thing as unbiased media, and the BBC is, out of all of our news outlets, relatively balanced. True, it's a little Labour, but has been for it's entire existence.

Paxman'll grill anyone, lef tor right ;)

Britain's lack of democracy comes from our unaccountable, unrepresentitive and aristocratic government. The monarchy denies us our democratic rights - not the beeb.
The monarchy has little or no political role and the lords i considerably less powerful than the commons. The point is that it is state biased and is by its nature left leaning due to its structure and the fact that the government picks the boss as above.

But the media as a whole has to be free and the BBC counts for what i would guess is the majority of our media and is indeed incredibly biased yb the fact that the government picks the boss.

I've watched BBC a few times. My opinion is that it's far less biased than most commercially run international stations.

But the media as a whole has to be free and the BBC counts for what i would guess is the majority of our media and is indeed incredibly biased yb the fact that the government picks the boss.

The BBC's boss isn't exactly the most influential figure in this context.

The influential figures in this context are the journalists, writers and interviewers, who the chairman has little or no influence over.

Even if it were unfair (which it isn't) it's well worth it for Dead Ringers.

In essence, you are correct. Capitalism is a brilliant tool for generating wealth. Just not a fair one.



Sure you do. The BBC exists alongside a free media system.
ah the social justice brigade. Well how is it unfair. and is it not true that al political philosphies including fascism seek social justice or fairness?

"Marxism is not a form of government, is a philosophical theory which states that all forms of government will inevitably (or inexorably, as Marx himself says) be overthrown by the low, "proletarian" class, who will in turn set up a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which those who began or participated in the revolution will seize all private property and redistribute it evenly."

OK look... I am tired of people using technicalities and saying there can be no communist state, the constitution saying you don't have the freedom to be an atheist, you have to support every single statement of a religious or political leader to belong to a certain group, and all this other crap. The truth is, humanity is not black and white. We're not robots, we have emotions. So will everyone please stop being so technical and act like normal people. Yes, ideally communism leads to anarchy, but anarchy is impossible because leaders will always arise and there's no way to enfore anarchy without creating a state. Yes, ideally communism abolishes money, but communism has never advanced anywhere close to that happening.

what it does abolish is the chance to have a robust economy. hehe

Erm and state economic planning brings freedom does it? Well By my reckoning state planned economies have murdered 3000 people a day up until this point in time and there are no examples of a state planned economy in whijch freedom reigns, and the contrary is true in market economies. Open your eyes to the world around you.Not at all. There are no examples of market economies with democratically-run workplaces.

The BBC's boss isn't exactly the most influential figure in this context.

The influential figures in this context are the journalists, writers and interviewers, who the chairman has little or no influence over.

Even if it were unfair (which it isn't) it's well worth it for Dead Ringers.
The head of the bbc is always someone id viewed as being ridiculously powerful as he selects the journalistrs, writers and interviewers. And paxo is probably a bit left leaning by the way.

Dead Ringers is alright prefer royle Family (granada). You must b able to see the political influence on the BBC . tho most dont realise how leftward it leans.

Not at all. There are no examples of market economies with democratically-run workplaces.
What about John Lewis. Owned by the employees. I think you need to change jobs. Most of your views seem to be based on the fact that you don't like your boss

The monarchy has little or no political role and the lords i considerably less powerful than the commons. The point is that it is state biased and is by its nature left leaning due to its structure and the fact that the government picks the boss as above.

1. The Monarch is our head of state - the most important role in our government!

Elizabeth is the symbol of our nation. If she's such a great symbol, she won't have a problem being elected, will she?

2. The house of lords does have functions, luckily very few, all that could be elected. But since the current house has so few functions - why the hell have it? Why should we have to pay for such an undemocartic chamber that rubberstamps Blair, and represents the aristocracy?

3. Our government is by no menas left-leaning. Blair leads a centre right government, not left. Labour is a CONSERVATIVE party. Even they admit it.

4. And it is not a result of who is in charge of the beeb. There is plenty of other media if you don't like it, watch ITV, or get some wonderfully unbiased Sky and the Mail. There's no right wing bias in those at all.

ah the social justice brigade. Well how is it unfair. and is it not true that al political philosphies including fascism seek social justice or fairness?

Huh? Which fascist thinker advocated fairness in any form?

No, I don't think capitalism advocates fairness at all. Fundamentally, it's anything but. Everyone has the right to start a business, but everyone starts from a different point, making the likelihood to do so for many people very slim...leaving them subservient to those who started ahead of them. I don't see where fair comes into it.

What about John Lewis. Owned by the employees. I think you need to change jobs. Most of your views seem to be based on the fact that you don't like your bossWhile there are technically worker-run cooperatives, they are few and far between. But I do concede the point, I said no examples of democratically run workplaces. I reiterate. There are very very few examples of democratically run workplaces.
And my views are based on the fact that I dislike injustice and unequal, arbitrary distributions of power.

The democratic European socialist nations of Europe like Sweden , Norway and others, can work with diffrent political partys, offering diffrent economic and social points of views, because they concentrate more on offering social services than state ownership of everything.

That's why Norway and Sweden are NOT democratic socialist countries. I'd say they're social democrat, because the capitalist economy is there, although not in a laissez-faire way.

I've seen here that many people think that Europe is full of socialists. But that's actually a small minority as most of the european left doesn't want a socialist economy anymore.

Huh? Which fascist thinker advocated fairness in any form?

No, I don't think capitalism advocates fairness at all. Fundamentally, it's anything but. Everyone has the right to start a business, but everyone starts from a different point, making the likelihood to do so for many people very slim...leaving them subservient to those who started ahead of them. I don't see where fair comes into it.
You are defining fairness on your terms. I wouldn't view socialism as fair and would view capitalism as fair, so what you are saying is basically meaningless.

The head of the bbc is always someone id viewed as being ridiculously powerful as he selects the journalistrs, writers and interviewers. And paxo is probably a bit left leaning by the way.

Dead Ringers is alright prefer royle Family (granada). You must b able to see the political influence on the BBC . tho most dont realise how leftward it leans.

Any political influence on the BBC is not a result of the Boss. Do you really think that after every election all the staff are sacked or sidelined to make way for a new agenda?

And as I said before, there is also plenty of right-wing media in Britain too. All in all, it must then balance out, if its that left wing.

And the BBC pwns! :D

Any political influence on the BBC is not a result of the Boss. Do you really think that after every election all the staff are sacked or sidelined to make way for a new agenda?

And as I said before, there is also plenty of right-wing media in Britain too. All in all, it must then balance out, if its that left wing.

And the BBC pwns! :D
What i'm saying is that as the bbc is too a large degree influenced by the govt and as the number one media source in the UK our democracy does not exist and we don't have a free media.

You are defining fairness on your terms. I wouldn't view socialism as fair and would view capitalism as fair, so what you are saying is basically meaningless.

How would you define capitalism as "fair", then?

I'm interested, because i've heard capitalists proudly admit to being selfish, and admitting that capitalism is unfair.

its not that its left leaning its the state influence which i have a problem with

How would you define capitalism as "fair", then?

I'm interested, because i've heard capitalists proudly admit to being selfish, and admitting that capitalism is unfair.
Whatever i say doesn;t matter but nonetheless the market economy is fair because it gives economic freedom to the individual and distributes power away from central government. It gives eveyr individual the freedom to earn what they want and aspire and makes those at the bottom better off.

But it doesn't matter what i think anyway because fairness on these terms of a synonym for justice is meaningles. A fascist would sya fasicism is fair because the strong aryans triumph. What you want to say about capitalism is alright but don't claim its unfair because it means nowt.

What about John Lewis. Owned by the employees. I think you need to change jobs. Most of your views seem to be based on the fact that you don't like your boss

so they have a management-educated (-level) team there to make the big decisions?

People nowadays are always demanding things from the governements, and Socialist governments are now regarded as "the good guys" because they say yes to anything, even though they are more corrupt than anyone else...
What people need is a good, strong right-winged dictatorship, strict :headbang: but modern (by this I mean not TOTALLY conservative, but liberal as well), NOT :sniper: :mp5: hostile, to put economy and social life back to normal, or better. Have a country be governed by a dictatorship for at least 20 - 30 years, and you will see that the results are pretty good.
I know this for a fact, ;) because I'm from Spain, and I can tell you that the Fascist dictatorship we had for 36 years did us much better than the corrupt, useless Republic we had before it...

so they have a management-educated (-level) team there to make the big decisions?
I don't understand please rephrase. But u highlight an important point that it is impossible to run a business in a non-hierarchic way because different people are good at different things.

I don't understand please rephrase. But u highlight an important point that it is impossible to run a business in a non-hierarchic way because different people are good at different things.While I'm a supporter of direct democracy, representative democracy is still possible in a business, even though it's hierarchal.

Whatever i say doesn;t matter but nonetheless the market economy is fair because it gives economic freedom to the individual and distributes power away from central government. It gives eveyr individual the freedom to earn what they want and aspire and makes those at the bottom better off.

But it doesn't matter what i think anyway because fairness on these terms of a synonym for justice is meaningles. A fascist would sya fasicism is fair because the strong aryans triumph. What you want to say about capitalism is alright but don't claim its unfair because it means nowt.

I wasn't going to bother disagreeing with you...because, like me, you obviously have an opinion that you won't change. I was just curious to hear your perspective. :)

While I'm a supporter of direct democracy, representative democracy is still possible in a business, even though it's hierarchal.
Well i'm certain in most business that leadership consult the underlings. Why employ a less talented person to make a decision for which he is not capable. In developed business (and societies) direct democracies is impracticle.

name one
Authoritarian/totalitarian Capitalist regimes

Pinochet's Chile
South Vietnam
South Korea( 1950-1987)
Taiwan(1949-1985~)
Singapore(1961-1990~)
Indonesia(1948-1997~)
Guatemala
various African states

Its also possible to argue that the USSR, Mao's China and other authoritarian 'socialist' states were actually capitalist and where run like giant monolithic corperations. Instead of workering for a company that owns the means of production. You would work for the state which owns the means of production. A company is run by a CEO and a board of execs, a state capitalist regime is run by a dictator and his advisors. There are other examples that could also argue my point.

Socialists and communists see the democratic political structure as a negating factor to the inherent oppression that comes along with those ideologies. Of course they completely ignore that democracy is not, by any means, a safeguard from oppression. They are forced to assume, like many who espouse inconsistent morality, that majority will is sufficient justification for oppression.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, in which the 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%
-Thomas Jefferson

When are people going to understand that so called "democratic socialism" is every bit as evil as laissez-faire capitalism.

Given that the people in democratic socialist states have a higher quality of life than the people in laissez-faire capitalist states, I'm going to disagree.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, in which the 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%
-Thomas Jefferson
My favourite metaphor is
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner.

It isn't necessary to physically threaten anyone in order to coerce them into doing something. While we both agree that holding a gun to someone's head and telling them to do something is indeed coercion, we disagree on the idea that telling someone to work or starve is coercion. I fail to see the difference, in each case if the individual being threatened refuses, they are dead.

How many people have you known that have starved in between jobs?

And you really fail to see the difference between losing a job and being executed?

Of course, you're welcome to point out that the individual can always find a different employer, but unfortunately, just about every employer is making such a statement. (Unless you favor some sort of basic welfare system, which is a different argument entirely.)

Making what statement?

This may be a benefit of free-market capitalism, you do have a point. But there are other ways of doing this, such as actively encouraging people to do so in a regulated capitalist society.

The regulation is authority based, so you have a vague line where regulated capitalism ends and a controlled economy starts.

various African states

This one is a big problem. Western countries actively push for capitalistic economies by subsidizing them. They don't, however, seem to care about authoritarian regimes.

People nowadays are always demanding things from the governements, and Socialist governments are now regarded as "the good guys" because they say yes to anything, even though they are more corrupt than anyone else...

What people need is a good, strong right-winged dictatorship, strict but modern (by this I mean not TOTALLY conservative, but liberal as well), NOT hostile, to put economy and social life back to normal, or better.

Have a country be governed by a dictatorship for at least 20 - 30 years, and you will see that the results are pretty good.

I know this for a fact, because I'm from Spain, and I can tell you that the Fascist dictatorship we had for 36 years did us much better than the corrupt, useless Republic we had before it...

A completely benign benevolent dictatorship is indeed the perfect form of
government.

It's really what the collectivist craves, and describes, but certainly can't say
out loud. (the perfect dictatorship of the proletariat or 'strong-man')

It's also what the individualist craves, and describes, but can't say out loud
either for fear of being confused with the collectivist and hung as
collectivists are always hung. (the perfect dictatorship of MONEY and free
trade)

But nobody likes to invest too much power in "somebody else", and so, this
particular ideal is never achieved.

How many people have you known that have starved in between jobs?None, since I live in a country that has welfare. Without welfare, though, and plenty would.


And you really fail to see the difference between losing a job and being executed?No, that wasn't quite it. There is no difference between the threat of starving to death (in a society where there is abundant food) and the threat of being executed, though, as in both cases a person is being threatened with death. Simply losing a job doesn't mean that someone will starve to death. As I said, welfare states exist, but without them, it's a good possibility.


Making what statement?"Work for me or starve."


The regulation is authority based, so you have a vague line where regulated capitalism ends and a controlled economy starts.Perhaps. Of course, I don't really see any form of laissez faire capitalism staying as laissez faire capitalism, and would instead become mercantilism/corporatism, which would be worse.

None, since I live in a country that has welfare. Without welfare, though, and plenty would.

No, that wasn't quite it. There is no difference between the threat of starving to death (in a society where there is abundant food) and the threat of being executed, though, as in both cases a person is being threatened with death. Simply losing a job doesn't mean that someone will starve to death. As I said, welfare states exist, but without them, it's a good possibility.

OK, if we assume a zero growth economy, with no employee turnover and no or extremely limited charitable donation, it is very feasible that someone with no marketable skills would be at the mercy of his employer and starve.

"Work for me or starve."

By all reasonable standards, they are saying "Work for me, or find someone else to work for." This isn't slave labor, and I know you are hellbent communist enough to really think it is.

Now for those who do think that, the fact is that we all must work to sustain our own life, no matter what societal system we are engaged in, and especially in the lack of one. The system we have now is based on a high level of specialization, where one performs one job that they can manage a high efficiency in, instead of working in multiple jobs defined by self-sustinence that they can only manage low efficiency. Now there is nothing stopping someone from building a shelter out in the woods and living on his own, but specialization is a reasonable choice for everyone, as it allows them to produce more labor for society, and recieve more reward for their labor.

Perhaps. Of course, I don't really see any form of laissez faire capitalism staying as laissez faire capitalism, and would instead become mercantilism/corporatism, which would be worse.

Just as I don't see any anarcho-communism staying anarchic, and would instead become an authoritarian government with those in power dictating the roles of everyone else. In both cases, the key is responsible government.

I once heard a AARP commercial that stated that “you don’t tear down entire house because the kitchen sink is broken”, it was of course aimed at Bush’s attempt to reform SS. But the same can apply to capitalism as well. Just because a couple of things are working out...doesn’t mean we have to scrap it

Most, if not all, socialists argue that capitalism is rotten to the core, though. For us, it is more a case of tearing down a gingerbread house that has gotten moldy.

I disagree. Rule by your employer is no different to rule by government.

That's why you can just quit your job

That's why you can just quit your job

Yep, and spend several months with no income while looking for a new one. Marvellous. I've already explained why that isn't always an option.

(I'm not entitled to any unemployment benefits; I am too young)

OK, if we assume a zero growth economy, with no employee turnover and no or extremely limited charitable donation, it is very feasible that someone with no marketable skills would be at the mercy of his employer and starve.Or there could even be a recession.

By all reasonable standards, they are saying "Work for me, or find someone else to work for." This isn't slave labor, and I know you are hellbent communist enough to really think it is.[/qupte]And the last part: "If you don't find someone else to work for, you'll starve."

[QUOTE=Vittos Ordination]
Now for those who do think that, the fact is that we all must work to sustain our own life, no matter what societal system we are engaged in, and especially in the lack of one. The system we have now is based on a high level of specialization, where one performs one job that they can manage a high efficiency in, instead of working in multiple jobs defined by self-sustinence that they can only manage low efficiency. Now there is nothing stopping someone from building a shelter out in the woods and living on his own, but specialization is a reasonable choice for everyone, as it allows them to produce more labor for society, and recieve more reward for their labor.Yes, and another thing about our current society is that it requires a level of unemployment in order to sustain itself. So there will be people who need to work in order to live, and can't do so due to unemployment.



Just as I don't see any anarcho-communism staying anarchic, and would instead become an authoritarian government with those in power dictating the roles of everyone else. In both cases, the key is responsible government.When you say "those" in power, are you referring to elected delegates, who can be recalled at any time? Or perhaps the chair of a particular meeting? I suppose also that someone, in theory, could have so many good ideas that people become used to following them. But with direct democracy, (aside from the delegate and chair that I mentioned earlier) there aren't people who have power over others.

That's why you can just quit your jobNo one says that a dictatorship isn't a dictatorship just because it allows its citizens to emigrate.

And the last part: "If you don't find someone else to work for, you'll starve."

It always returns to the question, "Do you think that those that can more than support themselves are indebted to those who cannot support themselves?" I say that you can morally say yes to that question, but imposing your morality through government is a heinous act. I truly consider socialism to be evil.

When you say "those" in power, are you referring to elected delegates, who can be recalled at any time? Or perhaps the chair of a particular meeting? I suppose also that someone, in theory, could have so many good ideas that people become used to following them. But with direct democracy, (aside from the delegate and chair that I mentioned earlier) there aren't people who have power over others.

Those with political, social, or economic power. Even if power is held by a majority of like-minded individuals, instead of a powerful few, they will work to enforce legislation that is beneficial to themselves. So you must have authoritarian measures to stop them, or allow them to establish their own authoritarian measures.

Unless you want to assume perfect altruism.

It always returns to the question, "Do you think that those that can more than support themselves are indebted to those who cannot support themselves?" I say that you can morally say yes to that question, but imposing your morality through government is a heinous act. I truly consider socialism to be evil. I disagree. The reason for this is that because without the existence of society, everyone would be subsistence hunting/fishing/food gathering. There wouldn't be any businesses, or movie theaters, or governments, or any of the fun things that society provides. Therefore, due to the very fact that society exists, it has the right (yes, the right) to impose any amount of taxation that it wants, provided that the amount of taxation doesn't exceed that amount that someone could be making if they were subsistence food gathering. (Thanks to Anarchy El for this idea.) So while it's fine to argue that society should not exercise its right to taxation, or should exercise it less, it is not evil for society to impose taxation.


Those with political, social, or economic power. Even if power is held by a majority of like-minded individuals, instead of a powerful few, they will work to enforce legislation that is beneficial to themselves. So you must have authoritarian measures to stop them, or allow them to establish their own authoritarian measures.

Unless you want to assume perfect altruism.I suppose a Constitution that nobody is allowed to violate might be considered an authoritarian measure designed to stop the majority from doing whatever it wants. Of course, this would depend on the amount of restrictions that a particular Constitution has, but there could theoretically be a whole bunch of restrictions on what the majority can and cannot do. While the majority does have more power than the minority, the whole of society trumps the majority.

What people need is a good, strong right-winged dictatorship, strict :headbang: but modern (by this I mean not TOTALLY conservative, but liberal as well), NOT :sniper: :mp5: hostile, to put economy and social life back to normal, or better. Have a country be governed by a dictatorship for at least 20 - 30 years, and you will see that the results are pretty good.
I know this for a fact, ;) because I'm from Spain, and I can tell you that the Fascist dictatorship we had for 36 years did us much better than the corrupt, useless Republic we had before it...


OK spanish boy (or girl)... I see that you'd rather compare Franco's dictatorship to the previous republic, instead of comparing Franco to the present spanish democracy, because you know it would be pointless as no-one doubts that the present regime is MUCH better than Franco's.

You say dictatorship would put economic and social life back to normal :eek: . I say, first, your concept of "normal" or "better" is outdated; second, you should know that Portugal had a fascist dictatorship for 48 years and it was no good, as it totally ruined our economy.

I disagree. The reason for this is that because without the existence of society, everyone would be subsistence hunting/fishing/food gathering. There wouldn't be any businesses, or movie theaters, or governments, or any of the fun things that society provides. Therefore, due to the very fact that society exists, it has the right (yes, the right) to impose any amount of taxation that it wants, provided that the amount of taxation doesn't exceed that amount that someone could be making if they were subsistence food gathering. (Thanks to Anarchy El for this idea.) So while it's fine to argue that society should not exercise its right to taxation, or should exercise it less, it is not evil for society to impose taxation.

Society does not have any rights. Let us make that distinction first. Society can only act through the rights of the individuals that comprise it. The first and foremost error in reason made by socialists is assuming that society is something separate and or greater than the sum of the individuals that comprise it.

With that out of the way, let me say that I have no problem with taxation and have expressed no problem with taxation. You seemed to imply that employers are obligated to keep all workers employed (as if the two groups are separate and distinct). To this I commented that the argument always comes down to whether you think the haves are indebted to the have-nots.

Now I agree that we need to pay taxes to fund the government, at least as government is structured now, that is simple reasoning. However, to assume that we should be altruistic is a very complicated morality, and any imposition of morality by any authority is evil.

I suppose a Constitution that nobody is allowed to violate might be considered an authoritarian measure designed to stop the majority from doing whatever it wants. Of course, this would depend on the amount of restrictions that a particular Constitution has, but there could theoretically be a whole bunch of restrictions on what the majority can and cannot do. While the majority does have more power than the minority, the whole of society trumps the majority.

No, the majority is denied the right to oppress the minority because the individual trumps society.

The left and the democratic European Union nations governments are also very supportive of President Dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba for life.


Thats not a good thing, although it was funny when Castro slipped....

Society does not have any rights. Let us make that distinction first. Society can only act through the rights of the individuals that comprise it. The first and foremost error in reason made by socialists is assuming that society is something separate and or greater than the sum of the individuals that comprise it.Society is something greater than the sum of the individuals that comprise it. When an individual agrees to abide by the laws of society even if he doesn't agree with them, he is conceding to something greater than himself.

With that out of the way, let me say that I have no problem with taxation and have expressed no problem with taxation. You seemed to imply that employers are obligated to keep all workers employed (as if the two groups are separate and distinct). To this I commented that the argument always comes down to whether you think the haves are indebted to the have-nots.Ah, I see. I don't suppose you've ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair? It contains an interesting response to your question. Mine is different. Employers aren't obligated to keep all workers employed, society is. If that means restructuring the very nature of employment, then so be it.


Now I agree that we need to pay taxes to fund the government, at least as government is structured now, that is simple reasoning. However, to assume that we should be altruistic is a very complicated morality, and any imposition of morality by any authority is evil.You don't have to be altruistic to live in society, you simply have to pay the amount of tax that society requires.


No, the majority is denied the right to oppress the minority because the individual trumps society.If society doesn't have the moral authority to enforce its laws, then what's the point of passing them?

I'm not a Marxist, but I am a radical socialist of the sort most would call "communist," so here's something of an answer to the original post's question.

The traditional stances adopted by, say, rational Trotskyist parties has been to form a vanguard for the revolution while trying to reduce the suffering workers endure in their day-to-day lives. This makes sense to me, at least from the perspective of purely revolutionary socialism.

I like Hugo Chavez's economic policy. It has definitely not been socialist, but it has been anti-neoliberal, which is progress. It is, to some degree, putting the welfare of human beings before private profit, and to me that is the major point of socialism, anyway. He has not gone far enough, but then again his hands are tied by a Venezuelan elite and an imperial power intent upon destroying his government and the movement that propels it.

As Europe has shown, in a capitalist world social democracy on a national level simply cannot survive forever, and must either become truly socialist or abandon social democracy. Unfortunately Western Europe has chosen the latter option, and Eastern Europe was never really given the choice, instead choosing between the renamed Stalinist parties and their neoliberal alternatives.

Social democracy, nevertheless, is the best tendency of the capitalist system, capable of effectively reducing its inherent injustices. It combines this with political democracy and individual rights, aspects which should be supported regardless of what economic system is adopted. It is also a system where it is quite possible to reach socialism evolutionarily, without the chaotic and violent process of the revolution.

"Marxists, up until the revolution? Which form of government would be best?"

Marxism? How utterly quaint!

To answer your question: any form of government that didn't include any aspect of Marxism! :D

Society is something greater than the sum of the individuals that comprise it. When an individual agrees to abide by the laws of society even if he doesn't agree with them, he is conceding to something greater than himself.

He is conceding to the political rights of the other individuals who make up the society.

Ah, I see. I don't suppose you've ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair? It contains an interesting response to your question. Mine is different. Employers aren't obligated to keep all workers employed, society is. If that means restructuring the very nature of employment, then so be it.

No, I have not read The Jungle.

You are once again separating society with those who compose the society, and you cannot do that. Government will maintain its obligation to keep everyone employed by taking the wages for those who would have been unemployed from those who would not have employed them. So no matter how you make the distinction, the morality behind it is that those who have the means to employ should employ everyone, including those who do not have the means to contribute. You are simply trying to enforce your moral view of society on to everyone through political action.

You don't have to be altruistic to live in society, you simply have to pay the amount of tax that society requires.

This is government policy which has one purporse, to force altruistic behavior through threat of violence. I see it as no different from forcing religious behavior through threat of violence.

If society doesn't have the moral authority to enforce its laws, then what's the point of passing them?

The point of passing laws is for government to act as an equal beneficiary to all people. The imposition of moral behavior will obviously create a situation where government is helping one person, and taking from another.

He is conceding to the political rights of the other individuals who make up the society.Fine, then, but either way he is giving up some part of his individualism. For the wishes of (the other individuals in) society.


You are once again separating society with those who compose the society, and you cannot do that. Government will maintain its obligation to keep everyone employed by taking the wages for those who would have been unemployed from those who would not have employed them. So no matter how you make the distinction, the morality behind it is that those who have the means to employ should employ everyone, including those who do not have the means to contribute. You are simply trying to enforce your moral view of society on to everyone through political action.That's one way for the government to keep everyone employed. There are others, such as if the government employs the unemployed, or if the government employs everyone.


This is government policy which has one purporse, to force altruistic behavior through threat of violence. I see it as no different from forcing religious behavior through threat of violence.Governments are allowed to enact policies which benefit the societies that they run. In some cases, this may mean building roads. In some cases, this may mean training an army. And in some cases, this may mean feeding the poor. Feeding the poor could very easily be looked at as a crime prevention tactic, as crime is higher in societies with greater divisions of wealth between groups of individuals than it is in societies with more equalized wealth between groups of individuals.


The point of passing laws is for government to act as an equal beneficiary to all people. The imposition of moral behavior will obviously create a situation where government is helping one person, and taking from another.How is the government being an equal beneficiary to all people when it passes laws (or creates a system) that benefit some people more than others?

I'm not a Marxist, but I am a radical socialist of the sort most would call "communist," so here's something of an answer to the original post's question.

The traditional stances adopted by, say, rational Trotskyist parties has been to form a vanguard for the revolution while trying to reduce the suffering workers endure in their day-to-day lives. This makes sense to me, at least from the perspective of purely revolutionary socialism.

I like Hugo Chavez's economic policy. It has definitely not been socialist, but it has been anti-neoliberal, which is progress. It is, to some degree, putting the welfare of human beings before private profit, and to me that is the major point of socialism, anyway. He has not gone far enough, but then again his hands are tied by a Venezuelan elite and an imperial power intent upon destroying his government and the movement that propels it.

As Europe has shown, in a capitalist world social democracy on a national level simply cannot survive forever, and must either become truly socialist or abandon social democracy. Unfortunately Western Europe has chosen the latter option, and Eastern Europe was never really given the choice, instead choosing between the renamed Stalinist parties and their neoliberal alternatives.

Social democracy, nevertheless, is the best tendency of the capitalist system, capable of effectively reducing its inherent injustices. It combines this with political democracy and individual rights, aspects which should be supported regardless of what economic system is adopted. It is also a system where it is quite possible to reach socialism evolutionarily, without the chaotic and violent process of the revolution.
You must be one of the few people on earth that can't see that Chavez is an absolute lunatic. Doesn't his economic policy amount to state worship as does all socilaist planning? What do you mean by neoliberal. What's the difference between a neoliberal and a classical liberal of the C19th.

Fine, then, but either way he is giving up some part of his individualism. For the wishes of (the other individuals in) society.

Yes, we as individuals give up some of our rights in order to peacefully coexist with the other individuals that compose the society. If we, as individuals, did not give up our rights, society would not exist.

So maybe society does equal the sum of the rights that its members give up.

Whatever society is, it cannot possibly be more than what the individuals make it.

That's one way for the government to keep everyone employed. There are others, such as if the government employs the unemployed, or if the government employs everyone.

There is no other way to employ the unemployed, than to take from those who are rightfully employed.

Unemployed individuals are only unemployed because it is not profitable to employ them, so for government to employ the unemployed, they will be losing money, meaning that government must acquire more of the wages of those who are operating at a profit.

Governments are allowed to enact policies which benefit the societies that they run. In some cases, this may mean building roads. In some cases, this may mean training an army. And in some cases, this may mean feeding the poor. Feeding the poor could very easily be looked at as a crime prevention tactic, as crime is higher in societies with greater divisions of wealth between groups of individuals than it is in societies with more equalized wealth between groups of individuals.

Government can enact any policy that those with political power deem beneficial, but that is far from moral justification.

It will require much more than food to correct the crime problem of the US, it would require a complete revamping of goverment and society, it would take the imposition of altruistic behavior.

How is the government being an equal beneficiary to all people when it passes laws (or creates a system) that benefit some people more than others?

It isn't, that was my point. Socialism gives special treatment to those who have done the least to benefit society.

Yes, we as individuals give up some of our rights in order to peacefully coexist with the other individuals that compose the society. If we, as individuals, did not give up our rights, society would not exist.

So maybe society does equal the sum of the rights that its members give up.

Whatever society is, it cannot possibly be more than what the individuals make it.Perhaps you're right. But either way, with a society you have an individual yielding to something greater than him or herself. That something greater would be a collection of individuals.


There is no other way to employ the unemployed, than to take from those who are rightfully employed.

Unemployed individuals are only unemployed because it is not profitable to employ them, so for government to employ the unemployed, they will be losing money, meaning that government must acquire more of the wages of those who are operating at a profit.So then an ideal society in one that makes conditions so that everyone can be employed profitably.


Government can enact any policy that those with political power deem beneficial, but that is far from moral justification.Not in and of itself, no. But let's get to the point: what is your definition of a policy that is morally justified? Examples of something might help, but I'd like a general definition.


It will require much more than food to correct the crime problem of the US, it would require a complete revamping of goverment and society, it would take the imposition of altruistic behavior.Not really. The vast majority of crime is caused by need. Take away need, and you take away the vast majority of crime.


It isn't, that was my point. Socialism gives special treatment to those who have done the least to benefit society.Capitalism gives special treatment to those who have more money to purchase things. The more things you have, the more protection from theft you have. The more land you have, the more you can walk around without being on "private property."

Perhaps you're right. But either way, with a society you have an individual yielding to something greater than him or herself. That something greater would be a collection of individuals.

The social contract is not exactly a set document, so we will have difficulty in setting definite terms and conditions to it. But the only justified social contract, in my opinion, is one where individual right are upheld up to the threshhold where they inflict on the rights of another individual. So the person is not yielding to anyone or anything, but meeting an equal compromise with whatever individual or group he is presently interacting with.

Nothing is greater than the individual, but no individual is greater than any other individual.

So then an ideal society in one that makes conditions so that everyone can be employed profitably.

An ideal economy would be one where everyone is employed, yet no labor is taken by force.

Not in and of itself, no. But let's get to the point: what is your definition of a policy that is morally justified? Examples of something might help, but I'd like a general definition.

Policy that has universal utility and cannot be freely administered by the citizens.

Not really. The vast majority of crime is caused by need. Take away need, and you take away the vast majority of crime.

People "need" a lot more than food. I will freely admit that crime is generally caused by economic disadvantage, but this disadvantage extends much farther than basic living requirements. I have not heard of too many fast food places that had their freezers robbed at gunpoint.

Capitalism gives special treatment to those who have more money to purchase things. The more things you have, the more protection from theft you have. The more land you have, the more you can walk around without being on "private property."

All property is treated likewise regardless who the owner is.

The social contract is not exactly a set document, so we will have difficulty in setting definite terms and conditions to it. But the only justified social contract, in my opinion, is one where individual right are upheld up to the threshhold where they inflict on the rights of another individual. So the person is not yielding to anyone or anything, but meeting an equal compromise with whatever individual or group he is presently interacting with.Ah, I get it. I don't really have a problem with your definition of a justified social contract. I think our conundrum is determining which policies infringe on another individual's rights.


Nothing is greater than the individual, but no individual is greater than any other individual.Wouldn't two individuals be greater than one individual, and if not, why not?


An ideal economy would be one where everyone is employed, yet no labor is taken by force.Ah, force. Interesting that you didn't say coercion. ;)


Policy that has universal utility and cannot be freely administered by the citizens.I can see using such policy as a framework, but that type of policy can't adapt itself to the needs of citizens in a particular place, so more specific policy is needed on top of it.


People "need" a lot more than food. I will freely admit that crime is generally caused by economic disadvantage, but this disadvantage extends much farther than basic living requirements. I have not heard of too many fast food places that had their freezers robbed at gunpoint.If we had equality of income, everyone would have more than just basic living requirements.


All property is treated likewise regardless who the owner is.Not at all. If someone robs a bank (so-called "Blue Collar Crime"), they would get a much higher prison sentence than if someone robbed an equal amount from a pension fund (so-called "White Collar Crime").

Ah, I get it. I don't really have a problem with your definition of a justified social contract. I think our conundrum is determining which policies infringe on another individual's rights.

Yes, I agree. Here is how I see it:

You believe that people if allowed to be economically free, will work to dominate their fellow man. In that sense, you see a capitalistic system of competition as inherently immoral.

I, on the other hand, believe that even if people end up in submissive economic positions (which I actually think is unlikely to happen, due to the level of advancement society has reached), it is justified as long as the position is freely arrived at. In that sense, I see any socialist system that intends to equalize people through limited freedom as inherently immoral.

So let us try to gain some consistency. Would you not say that, in many social situations, individuals can find themselves in socially submissive positions? Preachers, for example, wield a great deal of social power, which can be used to manipulate people. Great speakers and writers can fool people into accepting corrupt ideas. Do you propose that, for the betterment and protection of those in our society, that we limit the social rights of those who may manipulate society or may be manipulated? Should freedom of speech or religion be limited if it is used to bring people into submissive positions?

Wouldn't two individuals be greater than one individual, and if not, why not?

Yes and no. Yes, in the idea that the two can use each of their rights to the furtherment of the same goal. Two votes are greater than one vote, for example. No, in that plurality does not convey extra rights. Policy cannot be justified through utilitarianism, in order to ensure that the majority cannot oppress or even eliminate the minority.

Ah, force. Interesting that you didn't say coercion. ;)

The words are interchangeable, so if I say force you can take it out and insert coercion.

I can see using such policy as a framework, but that type of policy can't adapt itself to the needs of citizens in a particular place, so more specific policy is needed on top of it.

That is why you decentralize policy making as much as possible. I bet you agree with me on that.

If we had equality of income, everyone would have more than just basic living requirements.

That is an economic assumption that I don't think either of us are qualified to make, especially since "basic living requirements" is a completely subjective term.

Not at all. If someone robs a bank (so-called "Blue Collar Crime"), they would get a much higher prison sentence than if someone robbed an equal amount from a pension fund (so-called "White Collar Crime").

In a moral capitalism, all theft is treated equally, no matter what. Any theft is a undermining of property rights, which is the central aspect of capitalism, and must not be tolerated at all.

So I will agree with you that what you have said is true and unjust.

Yes, I agree. Here is how I see it:

You believe that people if allowed to be economically free, will work to dominate their fellow man. In that sense, you see a capitalistic system of competition as inherently immoral.Yes, I'm with you so far.


I, on the other hand, believe that even if people end up in submissive economic positions (which I actually think is unlikely to happen, due to the level of advancement society has reached), it is justified as long as the position is freely arrived at. Is the level of advancement that you refer to meaning a complex capitalist economy, or more referring to a basic sense of charity that our society has that it probably didn't have a couple hundred years ago?

In that sense, I see any socialist system that intends to equalize people through limited freedom as inherently immoral.I can see how you might feel that socialism limits freedom, however I view it as maximizing freedom.

So let us try to gain some consistency. Would you not say that, in many social situations, individuals can find themselves in socially submissive positions? Yes, I would say that.

Preachers, for example, wield a great deal of social power, which can be used to manipulate people. Great speakers and writers can fool people into accepting corrupt ideas. Do you propose that, for the betterment and protection of those in our society, that we limit the social rights of those who may manipulate society or may be manipulated? Should freedom of speech or religion be limited if it is used to bring people into submissive positions?No. Such people should be treated as experts and their advice either taken or rejected as such. While they might have power, there is the option of rejecting their ideas. On the other hand, in a capitalist system there isn't the option of rejecting money. (Which is the root of the economic submission that you referred to.)

Yes and no. Yes, in the idea that the two can use each of their rights to the furtherment of the same goal. Two votes are greater than one vote, for example. No, in that plurality does not convey extra rights. Policy cannot be justified through utilitarianism, in order to ensure that the majority cannot oppress or even eliminate the minority.Would you agree that with general policy making (and not the type of policy making designed to oppress or eliminate a minority) that it is best to use a majority rule system? Or do you propose that some other system is more fair?


The words are interchangeable, so if I say force you can take it out and insert coercion.In some cases. I was viewing force as something done physically, i.e. the threat of physical harm. On the other hand, it is entirely possible to coerce somebody to do something without physically harming them.


That is why you decentralize policy making as much as possible. I bet you agree with me on that.Yes, agreed.


That is an economic assumption that I don't think either of us are qualified to make, especially since "basic living requirements" is a completely subjective term.I have to concede that, also, on the same grounds, that it is subjective.


In a moral capitalism, all theft is treated equally, no matter what. Any theft is a undermining of property rights, which is the central aspect of capitalism, and must not be tolerated at all.

So I will agree with you that what you have said is true and unjust.
Can you realistically conceive of the idea of a moral capitalism in our world?

I have one other question, which you might have answered before in another thread. You have said that people should have the right to universal healthcare. Why is this something you wish to interfere in the market to achieve, and is it your only exception to letting the market do as it will?

Is the level of advancement that you refer to meaning a complex capitalist economy, or more referring to a basic sense of charity that our society has that it probably didn't have a couple hundred years ago?

Our society has come to a threshhold where the line between employee and employer is nearly invisible. We have unions that have higher priced lawyers than employers. We have middle class workers who own shares of ownership in corporations. At this point, to assume that someone will end up economically submissive, when they have so many routes to pursue would have an extremely limited faith in humanity.

I can see how you might feel that socialism limits freedom, however I view it as maximizing freedom.

Do you feel that, under socialism:

1. government will have an undue influence on determining the value of your labor?

2. government will have undue influence on determining what your labor is used on?

3. government will have complete control over how much you are compensated for your labor?

4. government will have undue influence on the amount of labor you provide to society?

If you answered "no" to any of these, explain why. If you answered "yes" explain why that is maximum freedom.

No. Such people should be treated as experts and their advice either taken or rejected as such. While they might have power, there is the option of rejecting their ideas. On the other hand, in a capitalist system there isn't the option of rejecting money. (Which is the root of the economic submission that you referred to.)

You would treat people of high social status as experts, yet businessmen of high economic status as criminals, I say there is no difference between the two.

And it is easier to disengage from the economy than it is to disengage from society.

Would you agree that with general policy making (and not the type of policy making designed to oppress or eliminate a minority) that it is best to use a majority rule system? Or do you propose that some other system is more fair?

Majority rule to elect representatives who are bound to act within the constitutional bounds of government.

Can you realistically conceive of the idea of a moral capitalism in our world?

As with all ideologies, concessions must be made for acceptance to occur. That is why it is impossible to escape socialistic legislation.

I have one other question, which you might have answered before in another thread. You have said that people should have the right to universal healthcare. Why is this something you wish to interfere in the market to achieve, and is it your only exception to letting the market do as it will?

First off, I don't see healthcare as a right. It is a service, and to assume that a person has the right to a particular service that they cannot provide themselves is contradictory to my definition of a right. Also if you assume the individual does have a right to recieve the service, you negate the rights of the provider.

Now, I do believe that the government should provide for healthcare through a voucher system. I do not support the market because of its efficiency (that is an added bonus), I support it for the morality of it. People should have the freedom to make their own economic decisions.

The nature of healthcare, combining the inherent necessity of it and the limited access to it due to profit margins, causes it to be a an unfree market that may still be extremely profitable, but at the expense of the consumer.

Where'd ya go, Jello?

Sorry, I missed a day, but I'm back.

Our society has come to a threshhold where the line between employee and employer is nearly invisible. We have unions that have higher priced lawyers than employers. We have middle class workers who own shares of ownership in corporations. At this point, to assume that someone will end up economically submissive, when they have so many routes to pursue would have an extremely limited faith in humanity.It is true that in some cases unions do have higher priced lawyers than employers do, but the power of unions is decreasing for various reasons, the main one being fewer members. Some of this is the unions' fault, but a lot of it are policies designed to weaken unions, either from government or from managers.
As far as stocks go, I would put them in the same category as many business owners - the only people who should profit from a company are the people who work there, in my opinion. I would also argue that, yes, there are many in the middle class who own stocks, but they are consistently outvoted by the rich shareholders who own most of the stocks. I will avoid talking about (stock) speculation and recessions/depressions, except to note that there is a correlation.

[Vittos Ordination=QUOTE]
Do you feel that, under socialism:

1. government will have an undue influence on determining the value of your labor?

2. government will have undue influence on determining what your labor is used on?

3. government will have complete control over how much you are compensated for your labor?

4. government will have undue influence on the amount of labor you provide to society?

If you answered "no" to any of these, explain why. If you answered "yes" explain why that is maximum freedom.[/quote]In answer to your first question, I do believe that the government or society will have an influence in determining the value of my labor. I don't believe that said influence is undue, though. Socialists might alter this slightly, but I believe that everyone should receive equal compensation for their labor. Now, the common response to this is "you mean doctors should get paid as much as janitors?" and I would have to say yes to that. The reason for that is that both jobs are important. In fact, without janitors, a doctor isn't going to be a doctor effectively unless he takes on the role of a janitor for a period of time (cleans his own operating room.) No job in society would be there if society deemed it unimportant. The lines for entertainers are blurred, but it could be argued that people need to be entertained - look at the things that people do when bored that are dangerous to themselves or to others.
For question number two, again, I believe that there will be influence. I think that people will be able to choose their careers. I think that almost definitely someone will be able to come up with something to do for a living that society needs but also that they enjoy, and want to do. Of course, society may say that they need more farmers. However, I don't believe that anyone would be forced to be farmers. Someone might feel pressured into becoming a farmer in order to keep society afloat, but I think most likely what would happen is that most of the people in society would be farmers for a couple hours a week, so that the workload is spread out throughout society. Ideally people would do only one job in order to specialize in that job, but occasionally it may be necessary for people do other jobs temporarily.
Compensation I addressed already. Yes, there will be control over how I am compensated for my labor, but there will be control over how everyone else is, also. Control wouldn't be complete, though.
There will also be influence on how much labor I provide to society - everyone will work the same amount of hours (except for possible exceptions which I won't get into because this is already really long.)
I don't feel that that limits freedom, however. In capitalist societies, access to most goods and services is limited by money. If you don't have enough money, you don't have access to the goods and services. Now, a person might reply that simply having the potential to access the goods and services means freedom, and that all a person needs is money, but I disagree. I mean, what if access was limited by something other than money. How about religion? If there was a societal decree that said that only Christians had access to certain goods and services, a Muslim wouldn't have access. Of course, the Muslim could simply convert. But is that freedom? In the society I propose, everyone would have an equal amount of access to everything.

You would treat people of high social status as experts, yet businessmen of high economic status as criminals, I say there is no difference between the two.I wouldn't say that people of high economic status are criminals. They have a lot to offer society. As far as the high social status goes, the people who have high social status went to school and acquired knowledge. I think having enough knowledge makes someone an expert. However, not everyone with high economic status has earned it. Of course, there are many who did, and perhaps they could be viewed as experts in the society.


And it is easier to disengage from the economy than it is to disengage from society.Well, I suppose that there are, in theory, homeless people who never beg for money and sleep in shelters or in cardboard boxes all of their lives, but how long do they last? And the ones who do beg for money are still participating in the economy.


Majority rule to elect representatives who are bound to act within the constitutional bounds of government.Agreed, except I favor direct democracy as opposed to representative democracy.


As with all ideologies, concessions must be made for acceptance to occur. That is why it is impossible to escape socialistic legislation.Interesting, and worthy of further pondering.


First off, I don't see healthcare as a right. It is a service, and to assume that a person has the right to a particular service that they cannot provide themselves is contradictory to my definition of a right. Also if you assume the individual does have a right to recieve the service, you negate the rights of the provider.Ah, I misunderstood.


Now, I do believe that the government should provide for healthcare through a voucher system. I do not support the market because of its efficiency (that is an added bonus), I support it for the morality of it. People should have the freedom to make their own economic decisions.

The nature of healthcare, combining the inherent necessity of it and the limited access to it due to profit margins, causes it to be a an unfree market that may still be extremely profitable, but at the expense of the consumer.Why shouldn't the government provide for other necessities through a voucher system, i.e. food, clothing, and shelter? With the current high cost of housing, there is a huge profit margin made for either a property seller or an owner of rental property. (Though I hear that bubble's supposed to burst, but we'll see.)

Hey, Vitto, where'd you go?

If you get a day off, so do I.

It is true that in some cases unions do have higher priced lawyers than employers do, but the power of unions is decreasing for various reasons, the main one being fewer members. Some of this is the unions' fault, but a lot of it are policies designed to weaken unions, either from government or from managers.
As far as stocks go, I would put them in the same category as many business owners - the only people who should profit from a company are the people who work there, in my opinion. I would also argue that, yes, there are many in the middle class who own stocks, but they are consistently outvoted by the rich shareholders who own most of the stocks. I will avoid talking about (stock) speculation and recessions/depressions, except to note that there is a correlation.

But my point is, as the economy grows, and economic interaction becomes more and more pervasive, the line between employer and employee becomes non-existent, and this idea of a working class being oppressed by capitalists becomes more and more untenable.

In answer to your first question, I do believe that the government or society will have an influence in determining the value of my labor. I don't believe that said influence is undue, though. Socialists might alter this slightly, but I believe that everyone should receive equal compensation for their labor. Now, the common response to this is "you mean doctors should get paid as much as janitors?" and I would have to say yes to that. The reason for that is that both jobs are important. In fact, without janitors, a doctor isn't going to be a doctor effectively unless he takes on the role of a janitor for a period of time (cleans his own operating room.) No job in society would be there if society deemed it unimportant. The lines for entertainers are blurred, but it could be argued that people need to be entertained - look at the things that people do when bored that are dangerous to themselves or to others.

Learn to clean a toilet and learn to be a perform brain surgery and tell me which requires more labor. The fact is, all forms of labor require differing levels of specialisation, which requires differing levels of labor to achieve. If we don't account for specialisation, we are taking labor without proper compensation.

For question number two, again, I believe that there will be influence. I think that people will be able to choose their careers. I think that almost definitely someone will be able to come up with something to do for a living that society needs but also that they enjoy, and want to do. Of course, society may say that they need more farmers. However, I don't believe that anyone would be forced to be farmers. Someone might feel pressured into becoming a farmer in order to keep society afloat, but I think most likely what would happen is that most of the people in society would be farmers for a couple hours a week, so that the workload is spread out throughout society. Ideally people would do only one job in order to specialize in that job, but occasionally it may be necessary for people do other jobs temporarily.

You have a factory, one supervisor, twenty workers. Who chooses the supervisor and who chooses the others?

There will also be influence on how much labor I provide to society - everyone will work the same amount of hours (except for possible exceptions which I won't get into because this is already really long.)

You want to raise a garden and sell vegetables in a little stand in your spare time. Will you be allowed to?

I don't feel that that limits freedom, however. In capitalist societies, access to most goods and services is limited by money. If you don't have enough money, you don't have access to the goods and services. Now, a person might reply that simply having the potential to access the goods and services means freedom, and that all a person needs is money, but I disagree. I mean, what if access was limited by something other than money. How about religion? If there was a societal decree that said that only Christians had access to certain goods and services, a Muslim wouldn't have access. Of course, the Muslim could simply convert. But is that freedom? In the society I propose, everyone would have an equal amount of access to everything.

You cannot compare money to religion. I could only imagine this argument working when talking about people who have a moral objection to green paper, otherwise everyone has free and easy access to economic markets and money.

I wouldn't say that people of high economic status are criminals. They have a lot to offer society. As far as the high social status goes, the people who have high social status went to school and acquired knowledge. I think having enough knowledge makes someone an expert. However, not everyone with high economic status has earned it. Of course, there are many who did, and perhaps they could be viewed as experts in the society.

Criminals get punished with diminished rights because they unfairly take from other people.

According to communism, people of high economic status get punished with diminished rights because they unfairly take from other people.

So, communism equates high economic status with criminal activity.

Well, I suppose that there are, in theory, homeless people who never beg for money and sleep in shelters or in cardboard boxes all of their lives, but how long do they last? And the ones who do beg for money are still participating in the economy.

Yes, it would be extremely difficult to withdraw from society in an urban setting, but I was referring to more rural settings.

Agreed, except I favor direct democracy as opposed to representative democracy.

Direct democracy, unless governed by strict limitations, will always result in mob rule. For example, if goods and services are valued by a democratic process, how do we know that certain utilizable goods will be completely taken off the market when a majority deems them unnecessary, or maybe even immoral.

Why shouldn't the government provide for other necessities through a voucher system, i.e. food, clothing, and shelter? With the current high cost of housing, there is a huge profit margin made for either a property seller or an owner of rental property. (Though I hear that bubble's supposed to burst, but we'll see.)

Because those economic decisions are freely made within the private markets.

democracy

But my point is, as the economy grows, and economic interaction becomes more and more pervasive, the line between employer and employee becomes non-existent, and this idea of a working class being oppressed by capitalists becomes more and more untenable.I disagree.The line between employee and employer seems to blur occasionally. Marx allowed for this in his theories, he called them the petit-bourgeoisie. In this case, instead of simply talking about small business owners, we are also talking about small amounts of stock ownership. Either way, the petit-bourgeoisie will be phased out as soon as the bourgeoisie have the government pass laws that make it more and more difficult to be a petit-bourgeoisie.

Learn to clean a toilet and learn to be a perform brain surgery and tell me which requires more labor. The fact is, all forms of labor require differing levels of specialisation, which requires differing levels of labor to achieve. If we don't account for specialisation, we are taking labor without proper compensation.The ability for a person to do what they want for a living is proper compensation. If society is set up in such a way that everyone can do what they want for a living, they will feel much more rewarded than they would be if they were simply given a higher wage. Take the example of auto workers. Many auto workers hate their jobs. They dread going to work, they can't stand it. But what do a lot of them do when they get home from work? They work on their cars, as a hobby, and not just maintenance mechanics. Why is this? Could it be that the satisfaction of a job well done outweighs the satisfaction from being paid a certain amount?

You have a factory, one supervisor, twenty workers. Who chooses the supervisor and who chooses the others?Well, what I'd assume would happen is that the 21 employees (the supervisor and the 20 workers) get together and collectively make decisions on what should happen. If it so happens that most of the workers don't feel like collectively making decisions, and just want to take orders, then they can elect a supervisor.

You want to raise a garden and sell vegetables in a little stand in your spare time. Will you be allowed to?You could raise a garden, and you could eat the vegetables, or give them away. But selling them doesn't work, as it violates the principle of owning something which you don't use. That's how I see it. I can see some people not feeling this way, as there can potentially be an infinite number of vegetables. Since there would be no potential limit, vegetables might be unregulated. Land, on the other hand, would have to be regulated, as there is a limited amount.

You cannot compare money to religion. I could only imagine this argument working when talking about people who have a moral objection to green paper, otherwise everyone has free and easy access to economic markets and money.I made the comparison because some people have limited access to goods and services due to lack of wealth. I used religion in place of wealth, for this reason: that while it may be difficult to change the amount of wealth that you have, it can potentially be done. The same with religion: while it might be difficult to change your religion, it can be done. So I see no difference between restricting access to people based upon wealth and based upon religion, because after all, a person can always accumulate more wealth, and a person can always change their religion. Why is it acceptable for society to restrict access to people with one changeable characteristic, but unacceptable for society to restrict access based upon another changeable characteristic?


Criminals get punished with diminished rights because they unfairly take from other people.

According to communism, people of high economic status get punished with diminished rights because they unfairly take from other people.

So, communism equates high economic status with criminal activity.Communism seeks to equalize rights. So the only way that people of high economic status would be punished with diminished rights is if they have more rights than people of low economic status.

Yes, it would be extremely difficult to withdraw from society in an urban setting, but I was referring to more rural settings.One could easily withdraw from society in a rural setting, but one can't withdraw from the market - after all, they need to be able to purchase the land that they're living on. (The difficulty of withdrawing from society was your argument, I was arguing that it's difficult to withdraw from the market.)

Direct democracy, unless governed by strict limitations, will always result in mob rule. For example, if goods and services are valued by a democratic process, how do we know that certain utilizable goods will be completely taken off the market when a majority deems them unnecessary, or maybe even immoral.I agree that direct democracy needs to be governed by strict limitations, but I believe that representative democracy needs to be governed by even stricter limitations. The process that representatives use to make decisions involves fewer people than in direct democracy, so you need to win fewer representatives over to your side. Also, if representatives are greedy, corrupt, ignorant, etc., then that will be felt more so than if the general population is greedy, etc., because decisions in a representative democracy would be made more quickly.


Because those economic decisions are freely made within the private markets.But you don't believe that health care decisions are freely made?

This looke like a post by a suitably col guy. So I'm just here too say that we need people at Anarchist Army my region. We fight hte oppressive UN in a silent revolution. We need voices. We need fighters who are willing to fight nationstates.We have 4 times been told off for perfectly legal actions by the ntionsates mods. All of which when later checked up in the rules are actually allowed. The moderators of nationstates are wrecking max barrys game.

Anarchist Army, Viva le revolution

This looke like a post by a suitably col guy. So I'm just here too say that we need people at Anarchist Army my region. We fight hte oppressive UN in a silent revolution. We need voices. We need fighters who are willing to fight nationstates.We have 4 times been told off for perfectly legal actions by the ntionsates mods. All of which when later checked up in the rules are actually allowed. The moderators of nationstates are wrecking max barrys game.

Anarchist Army, Viva le revolution Four mods good, two mods bad.

I disagree.The line between employee and employer seems to blur occasionally. Marx allowed for this in his theories, he called them the petit-bourgeoisie. In this case, instead of simply talking about small business owners, we are also talking about small amounts of stock ownership. Either way, the petit-bourgeoisie will be phased out as soon as the bourgeoisie have the government pass laws that make it more and more difficult to be a petit-bourgeoisie.

In other words, Marx was right about there being a middle class, but completely wrong about the future role it would play in society, because the middle class will grow within a free market economy.

As far as the bourgeoisie passing laws to make it more and more difficult on the petit-bourgeoisie, why do you think America has socialist policies. Welfare in America serves to buy votes for politicians, who turn around and subsidise big business and offer key regulatory positions to bureaucrats and lobbyists. John Q. Public doesn't care that he is losing control over the government because he is getting a $400 tax refund at the end of the year.

The fact is, government will always be corrupt, and the more tools government gets, the more corrupt it gets, cause more people want to buy in. So when you introduce socialism, you give government one more place where they can buy votes and sell out our interests.

I would also like to point out that you are upset at the idea that the wealthy is trying to pass laws to eliminate the middle class, yet you are trying to pass laws that eliminate both the wealthy and the middle class. I am just trying to avoid any economic class passing laws against any other.

The ability for a person to do what they want for a living is proper compensation. If society is set up in such a way that everyone can do what they want for a living, they will feel much more rewarded than they would be if they were simply given a higher wage. Take the example of auto workers. Many auto workers hate their jobs. They dread going to work, they can't stand it. But what do a lot of them do when they get home from work? They work on their cars, as a hobby, and not just maintenance mechanics. Why is this? Could it be that the satisfaction of a job well done outweighs the satisfaction from being paid a certain amount?

Why does the mechanic go to work, and not just work on his own car all day? Wage compensation.

In the modern economy, a man takes his labor and specializes it through training. This gives his labor added value on the market, so that when he trades it in he recieves higher compensation. So the cycle goes like this, man adds value to his labor through specialization, he then gives the labor to the market for wage compensation.

Now if you are wanting to take out the wage compensation, you must even out the cycle a bit. This means you are going to have to force the worker to relinquish his labor, or you are going to have to eliminate the specialization and have everyone in society work directly in their own interest, meaning that they will perform all labor that they would need to survive. Either way you are completely devaluing the aggregate labor and deflating the economy by astronomical amounts.

Well, what I'd assume would happen is that the 21 employees (the supervisor and the 20 workers) get together and collectively make decisions on what should happen. If it so happens that most of the workers don't feel like collectively making decisions, and just want to take orders, then they can elect a supervisor.

The democratic system is far too inefficient to manage day to day decision making. The first problem is vote taking. How does a company find the time to take votes on the day to day operations of a business, how do they administer such a process? The next problem is effectiveness. We have both agreed that people are myopic, even the most successful ones. I think we can also agree that at least a decent portion of the public is unqualified to make management and financial decisions, that is one of the big problems most communists have with capitalists.

So you are asking a myopic group of people, who are underqualified to manage a business, to inform themselves enough to make the correct decisions to manage the company, all the while performing their job.

You could raise a garden, and you could eat the vegetables, or give them away. But selling them doesn't work, as it violates the principle of owning something which you don't use. That's how I see it. I can see some people not feeling this way, as there can potentially be an infinite number of vegetables. Since there would be no potential limit, vegetables might be unregulated. Land, on the other hand, would have to be regulated, as there is a limited amount.

Would the government be justified in acquiring your vegetables, or even more, removing you from your home? Both are dependent on the land, which belongs to government.

I made the comparison because some people have limited access to goods and services due to lack of wealth. I used religion in place of wealth, for this reason: that while it may be difficult to change the amount of wealth that you have, it can potentially be done. The same with religion: while it might be difficult to change your religion, it can be done. So I see no difference between restricting access to people based upon wealth and based upon religion, because after all, a person can always accumulate more wealth, and a person can always change their religion. Why is it acceptable for society to restrict access to people with one changeable characteristic, but unacceptable for society to restrict access based upon another changeable characteristic?

Religion is not a valuable commodity, money is. Money represents labor, money represents what utility you provide to society.

This argument is a stretch of ridiculous proportions.

Communism seeks to equalize rights. So the only way that people of high economic status would be punished with diminished rights is if they have more rights than people of low economic status.

You are taking away the property rights of the wealthy, you are taking away the labor rights of those with the potential to be wealthy.

One could easily withdraw from society in a rural setting, but one can't withdraw from the market - after all, they need to be able to purchase the land that they're living on. (The difficulty of withdrawing from society was your argument, I was arguing that it's difficult to withdraw from the market.)

Land ownership does make it very difficult to withdraw from the economy.

I agree that direct democracy needs to be governed by strict limitations, but I believe that representative democracy needs to be governed by even stricter limitations. The process that representatives use to make decisions involves fewer people than in direct democracy, so you need to win fewer representatives over to your side. Also, if representatives are greedy, corrupt, ignorant, etc., then that will be felt more so than if the general population is greedy, etc., because decisions in a representative democracy would be made more quickly.

I say that representatives can be better versed in and bound to the constitutional limitations than the general public.

But you don't believe that health care decisions are freely made?

I don't think so, there is a specific necessity that leads to a lack of substitute options. For example, a man needing heart surgery cannot opt for a more available or cheaper substitute service, and he is generally only give 2-3 options as to where to recieve the service. There is a level of necessity and a lack of options that limits the freedom of the consumer.

Although that could be due to government regulations also, I'm not an expert on healthcare.

In other words, Marx was right about there being a middle class, but completely wrong about the future role it would play in society, because the middle class will grow within a free market economy.

As far as the bourgeoisie passing laws to make it more and more difficult on the petit-bourgeoisie, why do you think America has socialist policies. Welfare in America serves to buy votes for politicians, who turn around and subsidise big business and offer key regulatory positions to bureaucrats and lobbyists. John Q. Public doesn't care that he is losing control over the government because he is getting a $400 tax refund at the end of the year.The reason for America's socialist policies can be found in the theories of Lenin. Lenin speculated that as Communism becomes more popular in the industrialized nations, the governments of those nations will have to introduce welfare in order to placate and pacify the people.


The fact is, government will always be corrupt, and the more tools government gets, the more corrupt it gets, cause more people want to buy in. So when you introduce socialism, you give government one more place where they can buy votes and sell out our interests.Perhaps your interests don't lie in socialism, but most people's interests do. Furthermore, I believe in the principle of direct democracy - I am against concentrations of power.


I would also like to point out that you are upset at the idea that the wealthy is trying to pass laws to eliminate the middle class, yet you are trying to pass laws that eliminate both the wealthy and the middle class. I am just trying to avoid any economic class passing laws against any other.Not at all. I am trying to pass laws that eliminate both the wealthy and the poor. Of course, I may be using a different definition (in this case) than you are.


Why does the mechanic go to work, and not just work on his own car all day? Wage compensation.Because if he does that, he'll starve to death. So there should be the best of both worlds: the ability to do what you want as a career, to feel valued and appreciated in the work that you do, and to have enough to live comfortably.


In the modern economy, a man takes his labor and specializes it through training. This gives his labor added value on the market, so that when he trades it in he recieves higher compensation. So the cycle goes like this, man adds value to his labor through specialization, he then gives the labor to the market for wage compensation.Or, in the type of economy I'm proposing: a man takes his labor and realizes that with further training, we will be able to do it better. If he does it better, society will appreciate him more. Society will also provide him with the ability to further his training. Or, perhaps, the man wants to and would feel better about his work if he enters a new career. So society provides him for this training, as well.


Now if you are wanting to take out the wage compensation, you must even out the cycle a bit. This means you are going to have to force the worker to relinquish his labor, or you are going to have to eliminate the specialization and have everyone in society work directly in their own interest, meaning that they will perform all labor that they would need to survive. Either way you are completely devaluing the aggregate labor and deflating the economy by astronomical amounts.No, people will want to specialize because people will want to do different things as careers. If the only way for them to be able to do different things as careers is to receive more training, then they will do so.


The democratic system is far too inefficient to manage day to day decision making. The first problem is vote taking. How does a company find the time to take votes on the day to day operations of a business, how do they administer such a process? The next problem is effectiveness. We have both agreed that people are myopic, even the most successful ones. I think we can also agree that at least a decent portion of the public is unqualified to make management and financial decisions, that is one of the big problems most communists have with capitalists.

So you are asking a myopic group of people, who are underqualified to manage a business, to inform themselves enough to make the correct decisions to manage the company, all the while performing their job.
If a representative democratic system can make so many decisions regarding the running of an entire country, then surely a directly democratic system can make the decisions regarding something as small as a business. I don't think it would be necessary to take votes on all day-to-day matters, either. If some of the same work gets done every day, a vote could be taken to tell the people who do that work to continue doing what they're doing until further notice. There are other ways of speeding up the democratic process, as well.


Would the government be justified in acquiring your vegetables, or even more, removing you from your home? Both are dependent on the land, which belongs to government.No, land ownership, as well as everything else, would be based upon use. The worst that would happen is that you would be expelled from society. Either you would be allowed to keep the land that you're using, or you will be offered a tract of land farther away and asked to move there. Naturally, there will be people who will not want to enter society, and will choose to subsistence farm/fish/gather food. They should have the option of doing so.


Religion is not a valuable commodity, money is. Money represents labor, money represents what utility you provide to society.

This argument is a stretch of ridiculous proportions.What if society decides that it values the labor of people of a certain religion more than the labor of people from another religion? Is this acceptable, even if the labor of the two religions is equal?

(And people sell religion all the time...lol.)



You are taking away the property rights of the wealthy, you are taking away the labor rights of those with the potential to be wealthy.The "right" to be wealthy for those people with potential isn't going to do any good for the people who don't have the potential to be wealthy. In essence, it's as though the people who don't have the potential to be wealthy also don't have the right to be wealthy.


I say that representatives can be better versed in and bound to the constitutional limitations than the general public.Why is that? Did you say why in another post, and if so, which one?


I don't think so, there is a specific necessity that leads to a lack of substitute options. For example, a man needing heart surgery cannot opt for a more available or cheaper substitute service, and he is generally only give 2-3 options as to where to recieve the service. There is a level of necessity and a lack of options that limits the freedom of the consumer.

Although that could be due to government regulations also, I'm not an expert on healthcare.Neither am I. I just wondered if there was something that might correlate to other issues.

The answer to the initial question is simple: a Marxist would view that government as best which best allows the inherent contradictions of capitalism to develop so that they can then lead to their logical conclusion. As such, any true Marxist is probably going to vote Libertarian or Republican.

The reason for America's socialist policies can be found in the theories of Lenin. Lenin speculated that as Communism becomes more popular in the industrialized nations, the governments of those nations will have to introduce welfare in order to placate and pacify the people.

Communism has not been popular in the US, tax breaks for yourself have always been popular. Since the majority of voters are middle class and low income, the politicians buy votes by pleasing them with wealth redistribution. Unfortunately, happy people are inactive people, so they use this complacency to unfairly benefit big business as well. Socialism is being used as a political tool in the US.

Perhaps your interests don't lie in socialism, but most people's interests do. Furthermore, I believe in the principle of direct democracy - I am against concentrations of power.

I don't see how that deals with corruption.

And direct democracy is just as corruptable as any other system, maybe even moreso. It combines government power with moral justification. That is a horrible combination.

Not at all. I am trying to pass laws that eliminate both the wealthy and the poor. Of course, I may be using a different definition (in this case) than you are.

Since poverty is subjective, I consider maintaining everyone at the society defined minimum as making everyone poor.

Because if he does that, he'll starve to death. So there should be the best of both worlds: the ability to do what you want as a career, to feel valued and appreciated in the work that you do, and to have enough to live comfortably.

Ok, wage compensation, fear of starvation, you say tomato, I say tomato (pronounce the second tomato differently from the first.)

So what motivates the mechanic to stop working on his own car and to work on others if he loses the wages or the fear of starvation?

Or, in the type of economy I'm proposing: a man takes his labor and realizes that with further training, we will be able to do it better. If he does it better, society will appreciate him more. Society will also provide him with the ability to further his training. Or, perhaps, the man wants to and would feel better about his work if he enters a new career. So society provides him for this training, as well.

Major problems:

1. Training is very much available without the need for society. A mechanic can learn about cars by taking apart his own.

2. How does society realize that one person deserves further training? It is quite possible that people in certain fields may only provide a service to a remote portion of the community. If a town has 15 mechanics and they each service about 5% of the cars in the community a year, how can the community possibly democratically judge on their competency?

3. How does the society find equilibrium between labor supply and demand. Obviously there will be many more people who want to be artists and doctors than will be necessary, and there will be far fewer who want to be janitors and contruction workers than necessary.

No, people will want to specialize because people will want to do different things as careers. If the only way for them to be able to do different things as careers is to receive more training, then they will do so.

Why would people have careers when they could just have hobbies?

It's the same question, why does the mechanic use his specialized labor on other's cars, when he can build the coolest car in history.

If a representative democratic system can make so many decisions regarding the running of an entire country, then surely a directly democratic system can make the decisions regarding something as small as a business. I don't think it would be necessary to take votes on all day-to-day matters, either. If some of the same work gets done every day, a vote could be taken to tell the people who do that work to continue doing what they're doing until further notice. There are other ways of speeding up the democratic process, as well.

How many times do you vote a day? Month? Year? Our government runs on a hierarchical system.

If day-to-day decision making was not required, certainly there wouldn't be supervisors in our economy. Or are the capitalists keeping management around because they want to make sure they don't starve?

No, land ownership, as well as everything else, would be based upon use. The worst that would happen is that you would be expelled from society. Either you would be allowed to keep the land that you're using, or you will be offered a tract of land farther away and asked to move there. Naturally, there will be people who will not want to enter society, and will choose to subsistence farm/fish/gather food. They should have the option of doing so.

If someone uses the land to a higher and better use than another, do they recieve priority to claiming the land?

Can people buy and sell their goods outside of society?

What if society decides that it values the labor of people of a certain religion more than the labor of people from another religion? Is this acceptable, even if the labor of the two religions is equal?

Society meaning government? No, it is not acceptable. Society meaning the individuals who comprise it? Yes, it is acceptable. Its all about freedom.

But you do realize that, using your analogy, you just asked:

"What if society decides that it values the labor of people of a certain labor (or money) more than the labor of people from another labor (or money)? Is this acceptable, even if the labor of the two labors (or moneys) is equal?

Now, disregarding the absurdity of this question, labor and money only come in pretty much one single type.

(And people sell religion all the time...lol.)

Eternal salvation does fetch a high price.

The "right" to be wealthy for those people with potential isn't going to do any good for the people who don't have the potential to be wealthy. In essence, it's as though the people who don't have the potential to be wealthy also don't have the right to be wealthy.

There is no "right" to be wealthy. There is a right to possess your own labor, and that is what I am talking about. All individuals should have a right to their own body, and labor is an extension of that right. When you deny the individual with a great deal of labor utility the fruits of his labor, you deny him the right to his own body. So you are taking away his rights for your own moral reasons.

Why is that? Did you say why in another post, and if so, which one?

Who would know the law of the land better, those chosen for their knowledge of the law and given a position where their only duty is to carry out the law, or a mass of people whose have no reason to follow the law?

Neither am I. I just wondered if there was something that might correlate to other issues.

Haha, I maintained consistency.

Communism has not been popular in the US, tax breaks for yourself have always been popular. Since the majority of voters are middle class and low income, the politicians buy votes by pleasing them with wealth redistribution. Unfortunately, happy people are inactive people, so they use this complacency to unfairly benefit big business as well. Socialism is being used as a political tool in the US.Communism was popular in the 1930s. Shortly thereafter, the welfare state was introduced. Coincidence?


I don't see how that deals with corruption.

And direct democracy is just as corruptable as any other system, maybe even moreso. It combines government power with moral justification. That is a horrible combination.Well, I suppose that society could intentionally vote for things for bad reasons, but I believe that people should have the right to make stupid mistakes.


Since poverty is subjective, I consider maintaining everyone at the society defined minimum as making everyone poor.Well, then maintaining everyone at the society defined maximum means making everyone rich.


Ok, wage compensation, fear of starvation, you say tomato, I say tomato (pronounce the second tomato differently from the first.)

So what motivates the mechanic to stop working on his own car and to work on others if he loses the wages or the fear of starvation?Where is he going to get the parts for his car if society, or some segment of it doesn't provide them for him? Will he mine his own ore and melt it down in his own smelter?


Major problems:

1. Training is very much available without the need for society. A mechanic can learn about cars by taking apart his own.True, but how would the mechanic learn about cars other than his own? Most of the people who are into cars enjoy learning everything they can about them.


2. How does society realize that one person deserves further training? It is quite possible that people in certain fields may only provide a service to a remote portion of the community. If a town has 15 mechanics and they each service about 5% of the cars in the community a year, how can the community possibly democratically judge on their competency?Well, the first step is for the workers who want the extra training to state that they want the extra training - it wouldn't do any good to try to train people who don't. Secondly, unless there is a shortage of people who can do the training, there doesn't need to be any limit on the number of people who can get the training. If there is a shortage of available trainers, then the people who want the training can take turns, with the order of the turns they take decided randomly (perhaps by lottery.)


3. How does the society find equilibrium between labor supply and demand. Obviously there will be many more people who want to be artists and doctors than will be necessary, and there will be far fewer who want to be janitors and contruction workers than necessary.I can see this perhaps becoming a problem. As far as entertainers go, their object is to entertain, so they could conceivably be judged on how well they do that. Society could also encourage people to take up certain professions by saying things like "wow, I'd be so happy with someone if they'd get the training and do this job" to no one in particular. As far as the undesirable jobs go, such as being a janitor, if no one can be convinced to become janitors then either one of two things happens: either everyone cleans their own toilets, or they take turns once every six months or so cleaning toilets for a day.


Why would people have careers when they could just have hobbies?

It's the same question, why does the mechanic use his specialized labor on other's cars, when he can build the coolest car in history.Same reason, society will not provide the mechanic with car parts if he doesn't use his skills as a mechanic.


How many times do you vote a day? Month? Year? Our government runs on a hierarchical system.I don't vote often, but our government representatives do.


If day-to-day decision making was not required, certainly there wouldn't be supervisors in our economy. Or are the capitalists keeping management around because they want to make sure they don't starve?Capitalists keep management around because if the workers in a company collectively made decisions, then the workers would most likely be entitled to more money, almost definitely more than the capitalists pay the managers.


If someone uses the land to a higher and better use than another, do they recieve priority to claiming the land?No, the first person to start to use the land has priority on it (if it isn't society's land). However, people will be expected to allow other people to use their land if the second person's use of the land doesn't contradict the use of the first person's land.


Can people buy and sell their goods outside of society?Well, if society doesn't allow them to do so inside of society, then they wouldn't be allowed to outside of society, either. But if society does allow them to sell their goods inside of society, then they will be allowed to do so outside of society. After all, society will be selling goods to other societies, if only to get raw materials. (Society would be as self-sufficient as possible.)


Society meaning government? No, it is not acceptable. Society meaning the individuals who comprise it? Yes, it is acceptable. Its all about freedom.I thought you said there was no difference between the total amount of individuals in society and the society itself. So there would be no difference between society as in government and society as in the collection of individuals who comprise it.


But you do realize that, using your analogy, you just asked:

"What if society decides that it values the labor of people of a certain labor (or money) more than the labor of people from another labor (or money)? Is this acceptable, even if the labor of the two labors (or moneys) is equal?

Now, disregarding the absurdity of this question, labor and money only come in pretty much one single type.Well, I was trying to compare religion and wealth, and you were being obstinate, so that was the only way. :P


Eternal salvation does fetch a high price.Sure does.


There is no "right" to be wealthy. There is a right to possess your own labor, and that is what I am talking about. All individuals should have a right to their own body, and labor is an extension of that right. When you deny the individual with a great deal of labor utility the fruits of his labor, you deny him the right to his own body. So you are taking away his rights for your own moral reasons.The only way that the individual would be able to do the particular type of labor that he does is if society exists. Society is, perhaps, a utility that one might use for various reasons. Utility companies charge whatever fees they want to for the use of their services.


Who would know the law of the land better, those chosen for their knowledge of the law and given a position where their only duty is to carry out the law, or a mass of people whose have no reason to follow the law?It depends on what the consequences of not following the law would be.


Haha, I maintained consistency.Yes, at least in that line of questioning. I did forget to ask, though: one of the reasons you said healthcare should be vouchered is because of the huge profit margin. What percentage of a profit margin is too high?

Notes how any intelligent debate directed to the left or right specifically, suddenly develops into a left/right argument.

Any to go back to the origional question, a radical left (or right, I suppose) needs both a political party front and a social organisation (like trade unions or revolutionaries), to work.

Doubles the chance of success :D

The answer to the initial question is simple: a Marxist would view that government as best which best allows the inherent contradictions of capitalism to develop so that they can then lead to their logical conclusion. As such, any true Marxist is probably going to vote Libertarian or Republican.I don't know about Libertarian. Libertarians are opposed to government intervention in the economy, whereas Marx postulated that corporations would appeal to government to intervene in their favor. So a Marxist might vote for a Corporatist/Mercantilist party (the Republicans), but not Libertarian.

Bump.

Since our discussion has fallen into the trap where one thinks that communism is economically and politically infeasible, and one disagrees, I would rather just put the kabash to it.

I will address this though.

Yes, at least in that line of questioning. I did forget to ask, though: one of the reasons you said healthcare should be vouchered is because of the huge profit margin. What percentage of a profit margin is too high?

I don't know why I said huge profit margin, that isn't what I meant. No profit is too high, as long as there is no fraud involved.

My point is that healthcare is so expensive to provide on an individual basis, that the economies of scale of it would force the healthcare industry to use one facility to serve massive amounts of people. This means that the consumers will have very limited choices in their healthcare service, meaning a less free market.

Since our discussion has fallen into the trap where one thinks that communism is economically and politically infeasible, and one disagrees, I would rather just put the kabash to it.Fair enough, though I shall look forward to doing battle with you on other fronts.


I don't know why I said huge profit margin, that isn't what I meant. No profit is too high, as long as there is no fraud involved.

My point is that healthcare is so expensive to provide on an individual basis, that the economies of scale of it would force the healthcare industry to use one facility to serve massive amounts of people. This means that the consumers will have very limited choices in their healthcare service, meaning a less free market.Ah, I see. I could enter a whole other line of questioning with this, but I'll save it for another time. But I can't find a problem with the second part of the statement.

Ah, I see. I could enter a whole other line of questioning with this, but I'll save it for another time. But I can't find a problem with the second part of the statement.

Ask away. As long as we don't get into a communism will/won't work debate.

Ask away. As long as we don't get into a communism will/won't work debate.Okay. Hypothetically speaking, how many healthcare providers would there have to be before you considered there to be enough competition between them for the free market to work?

Okay. Hypothetically speaking, how many healthcare providers would there have to be before you considered there to be enough competition between them for the free market to work?

I really don't have the data or knowledge to provide an answer to that. I suppose it would have to do with measuring how efficiently the healthcare market was finding equilibrium.

If it could be shown that healthcare providers were not taking advantage of arbitrage (free money) on the market, I would not support government intervention.

I really don't have the data or knowledge to provide an answer to that. I suppose it would have to do with measuring how efficiently the healthcare market was finding equilibrium.

If it could be shown that healthcare providers were not taking advantage of arbitrage (free money) on the market, I would not support government intervention.Ah, I see. I was just wondering, because the question I asked could also apply to other things. Such as "how many employers would there need to be in order for there to be assurance that everyone was making the choice to be employed based upon free market principles?" or "how many governments would there have to be in order to ensure that people have enough choices to decide which country they'd want to live in?" (I saw something to that effect mentioned earlier in the thread.)

Edit: and what exactly do you mean by "free money"?

Ah, I see. I was just wondering, because the question I asked could also apply to other things. Such as "how many employers would there need to be in order for there to be assurance that everyone was making the choice to be employed based upon free market principles?" or "how many governments would there have to be in order to ensure that people have enough choices to decide which country they'd want to live in?" (I saw something to that effect mentioned earlier in the thread.)

With employers, I am rather resigned to the belief that there will an unemployed, but it is my hope that that portion remains small, and that those with marketable skills will have ample opportunity to find employment, the consumer base kind of demands that they do.

The question of governments operating on a free market system is an interesting one, but one that I believe is pointless in the end.

Edit: and what exactly do you mean by "free money"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage

Arbitrage is risk free money, meaning that the market is not finding equilibrium in its pricing and a person can take advantage of this price difference between markets and make free money.

If the prices on the healthcare market are artificially high, the healthcare provider can make money simply because of unfair prices, as opposed to providing a valuable service.

With employers, I am rather resigned to the belief that there will an unemployed, but it is my hope that that portion remains small, and that those with marketable skills will have ample opportunity to find employment, the consumer base kind of demands that they do.Ah, I see. Do you support the idea of labor unions? The reason that I ask here is because if unemployment is low, people would be more likely to organize for higher wages.


The question of governments operating on a free market system is an interesting one, but one that I believe is pointless in the end.I wasn't referring to that specifically. It was more along the lines of governments enacting policies with the aim of attracting people to move to those countries - and also at which point we would no longer have to worry about governments enacting certain policies provided they allowed their citizens to emigrate.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage

Arbitrage is risk free money, meaning that the market is not finding equilibrium in its pricing and a person can take advantage of this price difference between markets and make free money.

If the prices on the healthcare market are artificially high, the healthcare provider can make money simply because of unfair prices, as opposed to providing a valuable service.
Ah, I get it. So then you believe that health care is an exception - I mean that it is one of the few places where prices are artificially high, and not related to the value of the service provided? Also, do you not believe that it contradicts what you said earlier, that no profit can be too high as long as no fraud is involved?

Ah, I see. Do you support the idea of labor unions? The reason that I ask here is because if unemployment is low, people would be more likely to organize for higher wages.

Workers should get all of the same economic rights as their employers, so I support giving workers full legal right to protect and further their economic position. I am not a free marketeer because I think it helps out the very successful, I am a free marketeer because I think it helps out everyone.

I wasn't referring to that specifically. It was more along the lines of governments enacting policies with the aim of attracting people to move to those countries - and also at which point we would no longer have to worry about governments enacting certain policies provided they allowed their citizens to emigrate.

Well, that is sort of what I meant. Citizens are treated as consumers and are attracted to a better service offered by governments. I think that the global labor market, in other words immigration, should be completely openned up as well. Let those countries who offer the greatest benefits recieve the rewards, and let those people who want to find the greatest benefits find them.

The trouble is that governments hold way to much power to provide for a free market, I can't imagine a large socialist government existing in a completely free global economy. I can't see authoritarian capitalist governments existing on a free global economy. When you have authoritarian governments immigration problems will always arise.

Ah, I get it. So then you believe that health care is an exception - I mean that it is one of the few places where prices are artificially high, and not related to the value of the service provided? Also, do you not believe that it contradicts what you said earlier, that no profit can be too high as long as no fraud is involved?

It does sort of contradict what I said earlier. But my point is that no freely arrived at profit is morally wrong. Arbitrage, when not occuring due to routine inefficiencies in the market, can be considered a form of fraud or theft, as the person in the perpetrating it would be using their position to gain more capital than the service they are providing merits.

Workers should get all of the same economic rights as their employers, so I support giving workers full legal right to protect and further their economic position. I am not a free marketeer because I think it helps out the very successful, I am a free marketeer because I think it helps out everyone.Fair enough. Do you agree with labor unions even when they try to set prices?


Well, that is sort of what I meant. Citizens are treated as consumers and are attracted to a better service offered by governments. I think that the global labor market, in other words immigration, should be completely openned up as well. Let those countries who offer the greatest benefits recieve the rewards, and let those people who want to find the greatest benefits find them.

The trouble is that governments hold way to much power to provide for a free market, I can't imagine a large socialist government existing in a completely free global economy. I can't see authoritarian capitalist governments existing on a free global economy. When you have authoritarian governments immigration problems will always arise.That's true. I was just thinking that it strikes me as odd the idea that we should worry about undemocratic governments, but not worry about undemocratic businesses. Someone posted earlier that the difference was that there were more businesses.


It does sort of contradict what I said earlier. But my point is that no freely arrived at profit is morally wrong. Arbitrage, when not occuring due to routine inefficiencies in the market, can be considered a form of fraud or theft, as the person in the perpetrating it would be using their position to gain more capital than the service they are providing merits.Ah, so does that mean you're against monopolies, as well? Or just certain ones?

Fair enough. Do you agree with labor unions even when they try to set prices?

As long as they don't use violence or scare tactics to do it.

That's true. I was just thinking that it strikes me as odd the idea that we should worry about undemocratic governments, but not worry about undemocratic businesses. Someone posted earlier that the difference was that there were more businesses.

What do you mean by "undemocratic businesses?"

Ah, so does that mean you're against monopolies, as well? Or just certain ones?

I have no problem with monopolies that arise through direct competition. As long as the business receives capital approximately equal to the utility they provide to society, which the free market maintains, profit is completely moral.

As long as they don't use violence or scare tactics to do it.Fair enough.


What do you mean by "undemocratic businesses?"Oh. That gets back to the thing we were talking about before - employees electing their bosses.


I have no problem with monopolies that arise through direct competition. As long as the business receives capital approximately equal to the utility they provide to society, which the free market maintains, profit is completely moral.I suppose also that one could make an exception for monopolies that don't provide necessary goods or services. Health care is necessary, so that would be an exception to that.

Oh. That gets back to the thing we were talking about before - employees electing their bosses.

Here is the difference. Government offers a service to the people and works for the people, so the people deserve the right to choose the government. In a business, the workers offer a service to the employer so the employer deserves the right to choose his workers.

Now if you are talking strictly about bosses, there have been corporations that have taken worker input into their selections, and have seen some success in having a highly motivated, highly trained workforce.

I suppose also that one could make an exception for monopolies that don't provide necessary goods or services. Health care is necessary, so that would be an exception to that.

Yes, the necessity of healthcare weighs in on my ideas. However, it is not the defining factor.

Food, for example, is necessary, but there is such a diverse and pervasive market for food, that competing and substitute products are readily available. This is due to the fact that a large array of businesses from small to large, can maintain a suitable profit margin. Meanwhile, only the largest healthcare providers can turn a profit.

Here is the difference. Government offers a service to the people and works for the people, so the people deserve the right to choose the government. In a business, the workers offer a service to the employer so the employer deserves the right to choose his workers.I suppose that's one way of seeing it.


Now if you are talking strictly about bosses, there have been corporations that have taken worker input into their selections, and have seen some success in having a highly motivated, highly trained workforce.Sorta goes back to what I was saying about being able to make decisions motivating people, eh?


Yes, the necessity of healthcare weighs in on my ideas. However, it is not the defining factor.

Food, for example, is necessary, but there is such a diverse and pervasive market for food, that competing and substitute products are readily available. This is due to the fact that a large array of businesses from small to large, can maintain a suitable profit margin. Meanwhile, only the largest healthcare providers can turn a profit.Interesting. How about the media? Should information be a commodity?

Sorta goes back to what I was saying about being able to make decisions motivating people, eh?

I will definitely agree with you that being able to make one's own economic decisions will motivate a worker. Its one of the central themes that I bring up when I am discussing capitalism. Its the reason capitalism creates an economic juggernaut.

Now within a business, I have no problem if the workforce is autonomous and working on their own projects and define the path of the business. In many high tech fields and financial fields, where expertise is at a key, that is the norm.

But when you get down to the lower working class, the inefficiencies of democracy would negate the bonus of a motivated workforce.

Interesting. How about the media? Should information be a commodity?

That is a very interesting question. We are getting to a place where information access is becoming free, but mass media does pose problems.

Government intervention in the media, however, is most often a bad idea, and I think you can agree with that.

I will definitely agree with you that being able to make one's own economic decisions will motivate a worker. Its one of the central themes that I bring up when I am discussing capitalism. Its the reason capitalism creates an economic juggernaut.

Now within a business, I have no problem if the workforce is autonomous and working on their own projects and define the path of the business. In many high tech fields and financial fields, where expertise is at a key, that is the norm. Interesting.


But when you get down to the lower working class, the inefficiencies of democracy would negate the bonus of a motivated workforce.I suppose when you have manufacturing, you already have a better product (unless the consumer likes handmade things) so the only way to make the workforce better is to make them go faster, and there's only so fast a person can go, which might not make up for the inefficiencies of democracy. So, using your criteria, that makes sense.


That is a very interesting question. We are getting to a place where information access is becoming free, but mass media does pose problems.

Government intervention in the media, however, is most often a bad idea, and I think you can agree with that.
I agree that government-run media is a bad idea. There could, however, be a requirement that all media must be non-profit. Not PBS-style non-profit. They could have ads and/or charge a fee to access the media. Any additional money brought in from ads and access fees that isn't used to pay for printing/broadcasting and to pay the regular journalists could be used to pay for more extensive, in depth investigations.

Interesting.

I suppose when you have manufacturing, you already have a better product (unless the consumer likes handmade things) so the only way to make the workforce better is to make them go faster, and there's only so fast a person can go, which might not make up for the inefficiencies of democracy. So, using your criteria, that makes sense.

Also, a business is largely run by a democratic system already, just through the consumers. The owners and managers are bound by the wants and needs of the consumers, and the consumers provide them with goals and requirements through the demand that they have for products.

And the consumers are voting 24/7.

I agree that government-run media is a bad idea. There could, however, be a requirement that all media must be non-profit. Not PBS-style non-profit. They could have ads and/or charge a fee to access the media. Any additional money brought in from ads and access fees that isn't used to pay for printing/broadcasting and to pay the regular journalists could be used to pay for more extensive, in depth investigations.

That could work, I don't know, it has to do with whether poor and biased news is driven by profit or by ideology. Does Fox News provide conservative news because it makes them money, or do those running it truly believe what they put on the air.

Another trouble is, individuals will not start media corporations if they are no allowed to make a profit. So if you want to eliminate profit from media, it will have to be state run.

Also, a business is largely run by a democratic system already, just through the consumers. The owners and managers are bound by the wants and needs of the consumers, and the consumers provide them with goals and requirements through the demand that they have for products.

And the consumers are voting 24/7.The problem with simply leaving it up to the consumers is that consumers want varying, oftentimes contradicting things from their products. They want their products to be cheap, and they want them to be made well, and they want the people who are making them to be making them under roughly the same conditions that they themselves would want to work under. Why should a consumer have to choose only one of those things?


That could work, I don't know, it has to do with whether poor and biased news is driven by profit or by ideology. Does Fox News provide conservative news because it makes them money, or do those running it truly believe what they put on the air.Probably a bit of both. But that brings me to the other question...


Another trouble is, individuals will not start media corporations if they are no allowed to make a profit. So if you want to eliminate profit from media, it will have to be state run.If people have a message that they want people to hear, then they will want people to hear it whether or not they make a profit from it. I believe that this will allow more messages, not fewer, to get out there since the motivation to dominate the airwaves (for more profit) will no longer be there.

The problem with simply leaving it up to the consumers is that consumers want varying, oftentimes contradicting things from their products. They want their products to be cheap, and they want them to be made well, and they want the people who are making them to be making them under roughly the same conditions that they themselves would want to work under. Why should a consumer have to choose only one of those things?

Those are mutually exclusive things to ask for. However, a consumer will have to address all of those problems regardless of what economic or financial model is used.

Probably a bit of both. But that brings me to the other question...

If people have a message that they want people to hear, then they will want people to hear it whether or not they make a profit from it. I believe that this will allow more messages, not fewer, to get out there since the motivation to dominate the airwaves (for more profit) will no longer be there.

I hate the idea of people motivated by partisan and ideological ideas controlling the media.

But it is not operating expenses that I am worried about, it is start up costs. Starting a media outlet requires a massive initial investment, and without future profits, I don't see it happening.

on topic:

Enlightened Dictatorship. :)

What about Sparta's system? Does it seem to people to be applicable and valid today?

Those are mutually exclusive things to ask for. However, a consumer will have to address all of those problems regardless of what economic or financial model is used.Not necessarily. For instance, if there are laws prohibiting sweatshops, and also laws against importing items made in sweatshops, the consumer won't have to consider buying something made in a sweatshop.


I hate the idea of people motivated by partisan and ideological ideas controlling the media.

But it is not operating expenses that I am worried about, it is start up costs. Starting a media outlet requires a massive initial investment, and without future profits, I don't see it happening.Ideally, the media would be completely unpartisan. However, let's face it, all media has a bias. Since we have to face this, it's best that media outlets put their biases up front, instead of pretending that they're not biased.

Start up costs were something I hadn't thought about. Perhaps interest-free loans provided by either government or some type of charity-like system might work?

What about Sparta's system? Does it seem to people to be applicable and valid today?Was Sparta's system similar to Athenian democracy? If so, then that's pretty much what I advocate, except that everyone be allowed to vote (and of course there'd be no slaves.)

Sparta, a geniocracy!? I can't imagine anything worse.

What we need in Australia is a dictatorship. We're already 96% a fascist dictatorship here anyway... all we need now is for the people to wake up to the fact and overthrow it! I'll willingly matyr myself in a spectacular show-trial and execution to do that.

The real problem with trying to develope a communist or socialist utopia is that you cannot base it on anything that people have already tried. Especially in the case of communism. Any joe-shmoe high school student knows communism has never actually existed, the same way in which democracy has never actually existed. The United Stats is a constitutional republic, and U.S.S.R was a communist dictatorship, which really defeats the whole purpose. To have perfect communism you need to gather togethor a group a people who are entirely self-motivated. They have no need for money or personal posessions as we know them. I guess a commune would be a step in the right direction. Communism cannot be forced on an unwilling population. The reason soviet Russia failed was because the workers lacked motivation to improve and develope new ideas. The governement also controlled supply and demand. Almost no consumer products were produced. There wasn't anything nice for you to go "buy." There will always be lazy people in the population. They will screw the whole system. Governemnt needs to be completely democratic. Another thing that's not feasible, unless we can improve our communications technology. Image this, if you will, a system with bi-weekly elections. The ability to contact your representative at any time, day or night, as long as they are in office. very deep and localised representation. More evenly ditributed power between "local," "state," and "national" government. If you don't like the way things are run yourself. Its so local that everyone probabely knows who you are anyway. No need for big, expensive campaigns that only the rich can afford. All we need is better communications tech.

<snip>.Well said.

thanks

To have perfect communism you need to gather togethor a group a people who are entirely self-motivated. They have no need for money or personal posessions as we know them. I guess a commune would be a step in the right direction. Communism cannot be forced on an unwilling population. The reason soviet Russia failed was because the workers lacked motivation to improve and develope new ideas. The governement also controlled supply and demand. Almost no consumer products were produced. There wasn't anything nice for you to go "buy." There will always be lazy people in the population. They will screw the whole system.

You have just explained why communistic theorizing is completely pointless.

All of those requirements, a self-motivated community whose citizens do not desire money or personal possessions will create a communist society within a capitalist society. Like you said, you cannot force communism on the unwilling, and the only thing to do is let it develop out of capitalism freely.

Communists are so sure that society is advancing towards that point, I don't see why they are fighting so hard against capitalists, who are really just trying to give you the economic freedom to develop communes.

Not necessarily. For instance, if there are laws prohibiting sweatshops, and also laws against importing items made in sweatshops, the consumer won't have to consider buying something made in a sweatshop.

That is true, but I would consider that part of the consideration to be the absolute least important. The people don't really care that much if other people have worse working conditions than themselves. They feel sympathy, but not enough for them to stop buying Nike.

Ideally, the media would be completely unpartisan. However, let's face it, all media has a bias. Since we have to face this, it's best that media outlets put their biases up front, instead of pretending that they're not biased.

One thing that profits do for a society is eliminating biases. Generally those who are running the most successful business have a drive for profit that outweighs their biases.

Start up costs were something I hadn't thought about. Perhaps interest-free loans provided by either government or some type of charity-like system might work?

Possibly, systems like this tend to have a way of working themselves out, it is just a matter of deciding whether it is a good idea and making sure that the participants don't corrupt it.

That is true, but I would consider that part of the consideration to be the absolute least important. The people don't really care that much if other people have worse working conditions than themselves. They feel sympathy, but not enough for them to stop buying Nike.In some cases, that is true. If it is ultimately true, then certainly there's no harm is at least having the clothing provide the name of the factory it's made in, so those people who care about that sort of thing can find out information on it.


One thing that profits do for a society is eliminating biases. Generally those who are running the most successful business have a drive for profit that outweighs their biases.There are exceptions to this (you did say "generally" after all.) To keep this to the media point, in this case wouldn't the media simply tell people what they want to hear, or perhaps tell people about the most popular viewpoint?

Possibly, systems like this tend to have a way of working themselves out, it is just a matter of deciding whether it is a good idea and making sure that the participants don't corrupt it.Perhaps, but of course there wouldn't be something like this to consider unless you remove the profit motive, which would provide the opportunity for more media outlets to start up.

Stalinism would definitely be the best form of socialism to take. It was the most successful and the only reason it supposedly "failed" is because others quit on it. In reality, they failed Stalinism.

Disclaimer: I've not yet read the rest of this thread (and I usually read the whole thing, but it's too many pages).

It will ALWAYS fail, at least on a country wide scale because there will always be people who view on what any type of Govt should be.

Now in all fairness I do believe that Socialism can work, but only under certain conditions:
1) It must run on a small scale community or region at the largest.
2) All people under the system MUST be in agreement with the purposes of that particular community/region.
3) Those NOT in agreement must be allowed to leave.

The biggest problem with past Socialist/Communist systems is that they want to keep the people there even if they don't agree with the system. If you force someone to stay, they will not want to work to thier fullest and thus you then have to resort to force in order to get the most out of them. Only when people WANT to work together for the good of all will it work.

Now in all fairness I do believe that Socialism can work, but only under certain conditions:
1) It must run on a small scale community or region at the largest.
2) All people under the system MUST be in agreement with the purposes of that particular community/region.
3) Those NOT in agreement must be allowed to leave.

The biggest problem with past Socialist/Communist systems is that they want to keep the people there even if they don't agree with the system. If you force someone to stay, they will not want to work to thier fullest and thus you then have to resort to force in order to get the most out of them. Only when people WANT to work together for the good of all will it work.
I agree with most of this. The only exception that I have is perhaps the definition of "region", and the last sentence. It isn't necessary for people to want to work together for the good of all, it is only necessary for people to want to work together.

Actually, the employer can fire any employee for little to no reason, depending on where you live.

The employee can also "fire" the employer by leaving and going to someone else who will respect him and pay him what he believes are fair wages for his services.

Now if a worker has not bothered to "invest" in himself and develop marketable skills then he has little to bargan with and must take the "poor" jobs.

I invested the time and effort to get my Class A CDL (tractor trailers). Now I can earn more than if I didn't. I'm also investing time to learn computers. I will be highly marketable. AND in essence I didn't spend a lot of money to do it. I served in the military and got the GI Bill plus I wnet to work for a trucking compnay that trained me in exchange for a year of working for them. Barter Baby! Best system there is period!

Another tenet is socialism is equality, or near equality of income.

hmmm...

If I work twice as hard as you I should get twice as much as you. That's fair. But since socialism says we should get equal income then socialism isn't fair. We have equality but not fairness.

hmmm...

If I work twice as hard as you I should get twice as much as you. That's fair. But since socialism says we should get equal income then socialism isn't fair. We have equality but not fairness.
Not quite true. In communism everyone is payed equal. In socialism you still have a divided pay scale. The Doctors would still get payed much more then a garbage man. The better you do your job the higher you get payed. In a factory you would get payed your salary, if you work hard you could get a bonus and any profit is shared equally.

In a communist society money is pretty much useless and people would do there jobs for things other then money.

ah the social justice brigade. Well how is it unfair. and is it not true that al political philosphies including fascism seek social justice or fairness?
You know what the problem with "fair" is? Everyone has a different concept of what "fair" is. Oh there are plenty of over laps, but I'm willing to bet that given enough time, questions, and subjects, any two give people will have something where their definitions of fair are not the same. The more people you put together to more diffrences in "fairness" you get.

Marxists, up until the revolution? Which form of government would be best? .

A monarchy, probably a feudal one, since most fairy-tales involve a monarchy and a castle.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, in which the 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%
-Thomas Jefferson
Amen, Brother!

In some cases, that is true. If it is ultimately true, then certainly there's no harm is at least having the clothing provide the name of the factory it's made in, so those people who care about that sort of thing can find out information on it.

It would be difficult and probably unnecessary to have all of the information about the clothings manufacture provided in store, but I certainly support forcing businesses to be completely open about much of their actions.

There are exceptions to this (you did say "generally" after all.) To keep this to the media point, in this case wouldn't the media simply tell people what they want to hear, or perhaps tell people about the most popular viewpoint?

Yes, generally. But considering there a many different viewpoints that are commonly held enough to be broadcast, there should be at least some differing viewpoints. And there will be discerning consumers that will judge media on their reputation for being unbiased.

But no matter what, and I think you will agree with this, it is best to have the consumers decide what product is released, as opposed to the producers, especially in the media.

Perhaps, but of course there wouldn't be something like this to consider unless you remove the profit motive, which would provide the opportunity for more media outlets to start up.

And since the profit motive makes the media responsive to their viewers, it provides a little check against rampant corruption in the media.

It would be difficult and probably unnecessary to have all of the information about the clothings manufacture provided in store, but I certainly support forcing businesses to be completely open about much of their actions.Good, so we're agreed, here at least.

Yes, generally. But considering there a many different viewpoints that are commonly held enough to be broadcast, there should be at least some differing viewpoints. And there will be discerning consumers that will judge media on their reputation for being unbiased.

But no matter what, and I think you will agree with this, it is best to have the consumers decide what product is released, as opposed to the producers, especially in the media.I certainly think that there should be a lot of consumer input as to what gets broadcast. I also think that media does need to be as balanced as possible. Unfortunately, what often happens when we speak of balance in media, especially in a debate portion, is that one side has a really good expert, and then they pick a misinformed, poor debater to debate the other side. I think perhaps even the consumer could become involved, by taking polls that determine who they would wish to debate their side (naturally they shouldn't get to pick who debates the other side.)
Ultimately, though, I probably wouldn't be so concerned with having the media producers decide what gets broadcast if there wasn't so much fluff and yellow journalism out there. The lack of a profit incentive would greatly reduce fluff and yellow journalism, hopefully leading to better, more accurate media.


And since the profit motive makes the media responsive to their viewers, it provides a little check against rampant corruption in the media.Do you believe that having a little check against media corruption is worth the price - namely the majority of the news being fluff or sensationalistic? Or both?

I certainly think that there should be a lot of consumer input as to what gets broadcast. I also think that media does need to be as balanced as possible. Unfortunately, what often happens when we speak of balance in media, especially in a debate portion, is that one side has a really good expert, and then they pick a misinformed, poor debater to debate the other side. I think perhaps even the consumer could become involved, by taking polls that determine who they would wish to debate their side (naturally they shouldn't get to pick who debates the other side.)
Ultimately, though, I probably wouldn't be so concerned with having the media producers decide what gets broadcast if there wasn't so much fluff and yellow journalism out there. The lack of a profit incentive would greatly reduce fluff and yellow journalism, hopefully leading to better, more accurate media.

Do you believe that having a little check against media corruption is worth the price - namely the majority of the news being fluff or sensationalistic? Or both?

I don't know, if fluff and sensationalism is what the consumer wants, I would say that they should be free to get it. I don't want someone to tell me what to watch or read.

A question though, how does your plan for the media pertain to entertainment, because I consider much of news today to be entertainment.

I don't know, if fluff and sensationalism is what the consumer wants, I would say that they should be free to get it. I don't want someone to tell me what to watch or read.

A question though, how does your plan for the media pertain to entertainment, because I consider much of news today to be entertainment.
I agree that there is a place for fluff and entertainment, but that that type of media should be kept separate from media that is supposed to be "hard hitting." Let there be tabloids, but let's not have tabloid journalism when it comes to politics.

I agree that there is a place for fluff and entertainment, but that that type of media should be kept separate from media that is supposed to be "hard hitting." Let there be tabloids, but let's not have tabloid journalism when it comes to politics.

I agree with much of what you want out of media, but still disagree with your plan.

There have been a lot of people who thought they knew what was best for society, and maybe some of them were right, but as soon as they used government to impose it, everything started going to hell.

I agree with much of what you want out of media, but still disagree with your plan.

There have been a lot of people who thought they knew what was best for society, and maybe some of them were right, but as soon as they used government to impose it, everything started going to hell.I don't see how government is imposing anything, other than banning profit in media. Certainly I wouldn't have the government edit media content to make sure that there is no fluff mixed in with the serious media. But I think my idea would create an even bigger outlet for both types of media.