NationStates Jolt Archive

Doesn't it just annoy the hell out of you when you don't get an option on political spectrum polls? Americans want to see who votes which way and they just put in the parties rather than proper ideologies. I've seen so many that just go Conservative, Centrist, Liberal.
What the fuck?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y63/Verghastinsel/SOCALIZT.jpg

I made this picture specifically for this thread, and I hope you appreciate the care and attention that has gone into it. Feel free to put it on posters, t-shirts, etc.
I do this for the good of humanity.

Well, there are a lot of Americans here on the forum.

In America, "socialist" has been a dirty word since the Russian Revolution.

And the word "liberal" is misused here. By no stretch of the philosophical imagination could a classical liberal be considered a "liberal" today.

good job, it annoys me too (but i'm used to it by now) :)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y63/Verghastinsel/SOCALIZT.jpg


Yes, it's refreshing to see a socialist who admits he has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of liberty. ;)

I'm forever coming up with ideas for t-shirts. I can't help it. This one's for all you bible belt socialists out there...

'What Would Che Do?'

Oh I hear you loud and clear my dear Verghi!

My eyes get crossed and my poor brain turns to mush at the need of the Americans to bung everyone into theirpigeon holes.

In the last few months I have been called everything from a "consrevative" to a "commi bastard" (With a few others chucked in)

If people actually stopped trying to guess what I and others are, they might be able to pay more attention to what has been said instead of assuming the motives of why it is being said.

I hear you, my good man. I'm fucking tired of it as well.

Yes, it's refreshing to see a socialist who admits he has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of liberty. ;)
Hear hear!

Yes, it's refreshing to see a socialist who admits he has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of liberty. ;)

From an economic point of view: Well, duh. It's pretty hard to say the least to be a socialist while advocating liberal-capitalism.

In the last few months I have been called everything from a "consrevative" [...]

Yeah, it's really annoying when people insulting you can't even spell the insults correctly...

Indeed, and as an anarcho-communist, I find that the political tests tend to be hard to answer effectively at all.

loveitloveitloveit

I love it!

I am so cool. Everybody loves me. If they don't, then I don't care because the state still loves me.

From an economic point of view: Well, duh. It's pretty hard to say the least to be a socialist while advocating liberal-capitalism.

From any point of view.

It's hard to be a socialist while advocating liberty of any real kind... other than what the all-powerful state deems necessary to the creation of The Perfect Society.

From any point of view.

It's hard to be a socialist while advocating liberty of any real kind... other than what the all-powerful state deems necessary to the creation of The Perfect Society.

Eh? Don't make me dip into my sheep pics.

From any point of view.

It's hard to be a socialist while advocating liberty of any real kind... other than what the all-powerful state deems necessary to the creation of The Perfect Society.

Actually, the essence of socialism is liberation from capitalism, not total state regulation. Some forms of socialism use state regulation to fight capitalism, but that is just a means to an ends of getting rid of capitalism, at least in theory. They are not the only kinds of socialism, though.

Historically, many of the strongest supporters of increasing freedom have been socialist. Socialist parties in many nations have lead the world in increasing freedom. As early as 1883, abolishing racial and sexual discrimination was on the agenda of more than a few anarchists.

-snip-

Not to mention that Sweden was the first country with nudity in its movies, as early as the 1950's. They were, and still are, heavily Socialist.

Not to mention that Sweden was the first country with nudity in its movies, as early as the 1950's. They were, and still are, heavily Socialist.
Too bad it took them intil 1995 to get rid of an "Official State Religeon"

Actually, the essence of socialism is liberation from capitalism, not total state regulation. Some forms of socialism use state regulation to fight capitalism, but that is just a means to an ends of getting rid of capitalism, at least in theory. They are not the only kinds of socialism, though.


"Liberation" from capitalism =/= liberty


Historically, many of the strongest supporters of increasing freedom have been socialist. Socialist parties in many nations have lead the world in increasing freedom. As early as 1883, abolishing racial and sexual discrimination was on the agenda of more than a few anarchists.

Yeah, well socialists=/=anarchists.

Not to mention, many of the supporters of HITLER were socialist. Same with Stalin and Mao. I hate to bring all that up again, but then again the original post with it's USSR-wank text in blood red is more than a little reminiscent of those freedom-lovers.

Too bad it took them intil 1995 to get rid of an "Official State Religeon"

Yep. Nobody's perfect, eh?

Santa Barbara,
Have you actually managed to make any posts, anywhere of the forums without trying to tell other posters that they, or their ideals, are some how related to Hitler?

"Liberation" from capitalism =/= liberty



Yeah, well socialists=/=anarchists.

Not to mention, many of the supporters of HITLER were socialist. Same with Stalin and Mao. I hate to bring all that up again, but then again the original post with it's USSR-wank text in blood red is more than a little reminiscent of those freedom-lovers.

It was meant to be funny. I don't know if I could have made it much more obvious for your benefit. I used that font because it looks Russian-ish, and red because it was the chosen colour of the USSR since day one. Communism is a form of socialism, you see. That's why it's relevant.
NAZI = National Socialist. It was what they used for short form, rather than saying National Socialist Party all the time. The evils of the Nazis were comitted not because they were socialists, but because they believed Goebbels propaganda about the Jews. If all that shit hadn't kicked off, and no-one had invaded anyone, Germany would have come away pretty well off ad we'd all be saying what a great guy Hitler was shame about the Parkinson's and the flatulence and the scat fetish.
The bad about Stalin and Mao was that it wasn't actually about the People, or the nation as a whole, it was just about them. They were Autocrats, and didn't put up with free thinking from anybody. They chose to kill off dissenters, though if they'd simply deported them or re-educated them we'd look a lot less harshly on them today.

Capitalism does not have liberty as its aim, but capital.

The former Soviet Union was a state capitalist society, meaning that the state (i.e. the Party) derived most of the benefit from the people's labour. In more traditional capitalist societies, those who possess capital derive most of the benefit from capital and people's labour. But in capitalist societies, each capitalist is prompted to become a monopoly, to eliminate competition, thereby reducing alternatives (hence freedom) to nil. Good examples of such tendencies are present within European cartelisation, the convergence of American (and European) aviation companies, and, first and foremost, Microsoft. Before these examples were those of big oil (Standard, etc.) and the railroads. Either the state can tacitly or overtly support such endeavours (as in Japan with the zaibatsu) or it can promote competition through intervention, as in the United States.

Socialism is a very broad concept that covers many political and philosophical ideologies, of which many can only see the failed example of the former Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and other such state capitalist/authoritarian societies. There's also social democracy (Sweden is frequently touted as the best example for that) and democratic socialism as well as the usual creeds of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.

I actually approve of this. I've always thought it vaguely pusillanimous that so many in the american left hide behind the misnomer "liberal" when, in fact, they are quite clearly socialists.

Moreover, most of the real self-described socialists I have known, have always been a bag of laughs, whereas the one that call themselves "liberal" are usually humorless and bitter. It's the constant lying I suppose that does that.

In any event, its a perfectly legitimate philosophy, not that I hold to it. And I do miss the old timey socialists with their banners, racism, and sexism. Good stuff.

I actually approve of this. I've always thought it vaguely pusillanimous that so many in the american left hide behind the misnomer "liberal" when, in fact, they are quite clearly socialists.

Moreover, most of the real self-described socialists I have known, have always been a bag of laughs, whereas the one that call themselves "liberal" are usually humorless and bitter. It's the constant lying I suppose that does that.

In any event, its a perfectly legitimate philosophy, not that I hold to it. And I do miss the old timey socialists with their banners, racism, and sexism. Good stuff.

NEWS JUST IN: SPARTANS SAY "SOCIALISM IS FUN".

And I do miss the old timey socialists with their banners, racism, and sexism. Good stuff.
Yes, socialists were/are little different than other people. That's culture for you.

Yes, socialists were/are little different than other people. That's culture for you.

Everyone likes to see tanks on the High Street every now and again.

Yes, socialists were/are little different than other people. That's culture for you.

I've spent many drunken nights with actual hardcore UK socialists - not the pansy American intellectual type - it's good stuff for a variety of reasons. Sadly, the breed seems to be dying out. Fucking american cultural imperialism I should imagine.

Santa Barbara,
Have you actually managed to make any posts, anywhere of the forums without trying to tell other posters that they, or their ideals, are some how related to Hitler?

Tell you what. Why don't you search through my 5,000+ posts, and find me even 1% (500 posts) that tries to tell other posters that they, or their ideals are somehow related to Hitler? Should be easy if I do that so often, so much that you have to ask if I ever DON'T do it. Well? Go on then.

I've spent many drunken nights with actual hardcore UK socialists - not the pansy American intellectual type - it's good stuff for a variety of reasons. Sadly, the breed seems to be dying out. Fucking american cultural imperialism I should imagine.

*coughs and dances*

I do this for the good of humanity.
Sorry, but we're not interested. :p

It was meant to be funny. I don't know if I could have made it much more obvious for your benefit.

You might want to take note that I am not the first one to take you seriously in this thread. Maybe when socialists quit agreeing with 'funny' sentiments like that, it'll actually be "obvious," until then I feel compelled to defend against what seems, and all too often is, ignorant socialist attitudes.

It's kind of like when I made a sarcastic post about outlawing guns, and people missed the sarcasm and actually agreed with the 'arguments' made.

From any point of view.

It's hard to be a socialist while advocating liberty of any real kind... other than what the all-powerful state deems necessary to the creation of The Perfect Society.

No,no,no, Brother Santa Barbara. Collective action organized by an democratically elected executive with a mandate to govern from the people doesn't equal totaltariansm. It just means that the "fiction" of property rights - especially vicarious and absentee ownership and control - will be abolished in order to redress the economic injustices created by a corrupt nepotistic capitalist oligarchy. Or something.

It's about soaking the fat upper-classes it's not stalinism. (Though a few college professors I know could stand a spell of re-education).;)

Doesn't it just annoy the hell out of you when you don't get an option on political spectrum polls? Americans want to see who votes which way and they just put in the parties rather than proper ideologies. I've seen so many that just go Conservative, Centrist, Liberal.

Maybe the problem is that socialism is a political option. It's an economic choice. Hard to be a real socialist, capitalist, or anything else when you can't tell the difference between economics and government.

Not to mention, many of the supporters of HITLER were socialist.
So were most of his opponents. Hitler's allies in the Reichstag, outside the Nazi Party, were capitalist parties who clung to Hitler because they were desparate not to let the socialists into power.

It was meant to be funny. I don't know if I could have made it much more obvious for your benefit. I used that font because it looks Russian-ish, and red because it was the chosen colour of the USSR since day one.
Red was for socialism, before the USSR was even thought up.

Yes, it's refreshing to see a socialist who admits he has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of liberty.
I live how the likes of you always like to use "liberty" as a synonym for "good". As if all things related to liberty are good.

I live how the likes of you always like to use "liberty" as a synonym for "good". As if all things related to liberty are good.

Either objectivist or classic liberal, technically it is true, by those two ideologies, that the preservation liberty is morally good. And the preservation life and property of course.

I live how the likes of you always like to use "liberty" as a synonym for "good". As if all things related to liberty are good.

I don't use liberty as a synonym for good.

For example, I say "It is good that few people take ranting authoritarians seriously," I don't say, "It is liberty that few people take ranting authoritarians seriously."

But to address your implication that liberty is a terrible thing and we should hand all our freedoms over to the state for our own good because people are too stupid to know what's best for them, unless said people work for the government, I agree! Stalin was a great man, and we need socialists to support his legacy here to rid us Americans of our silly notions of "liberty" or "freedom" which hold us back from creating the utopian society in which humanity is reduced to one giant ant colony. ;)

Yeah, well socialists=/=anarchists.

Not to mention, many of the supporters of HITLER were socialist. Same with Stalin and Mao. I hate to bring all that up again, but then again the original post with it's USSR-wank text in blood red is more than a little reminiscent of those freedom-lovers.

Actually anarchism is a form of socialism and the fascists were not socialist. In fact, they were probably the most aggressively anti-socialist people around. Hitler was in no real way a socialist and in fact, he got his start trying to undermine socialists in Germany.

No,no,no, Brother Santa Barbara. Collective action organized by an democratically elected executive with a mandate to govern from the people doesn't equal totaltariansm. It just means that the "fiction" of property rights - especially vicarious and absentee ownership and control - will be abolished in order to redress the economic injustices created by a corrupt nepotistic capitalist oligarchy. Or something.

It's about soaking the fat upper-classes it's not stalinism. (Though a few college professors I know could stand a spell of re-education).;)
So, the will of the majority should override the will of the individual? Why? Because the state says so?

You know what, I think I’m going to go make a thread bitching about how libertarianism is generally left off of the political spectrum, and then say that I was only joking when people address the point.
Oh wait, even I’m not that big of an asshole.

I blanked there for a sec - I thought the thread wuz called 'SPECIALISTS of General! Hear Me!'. Isn't that special?

From any point of view.

It's hard to be a socialist while advocating liberty of any real kind... other than what the all-powerful state deems necessary to the creation of The Perfect Society.

Hey, you still have the freedom of private thought.

I mean, sure the government has ultimate say over where you live, where you work, and what possessions you own, and you can't do much to change that, but you still have a right to be damn pissed about it.

So, the will of the majority should override the will of the individual? Why? Because the state says so?
No, because it is better that fewer people suffer, than many people suffer. Basic utilitarianism, my friend.

No, because it is better that fewer people suffer, than many people suffer. Basic utilitarianism, my friend.

It is best that noone suffers but for their own actions.

That is the only way society can be truly just.

No, because it is better that fewer people suffer, than many people suffer. Basic utilitarianism, my friend.
Utilitarianism is one of the most useless philosophies I can think of. Happiness is the purpose of virtue, not its standard.

But to address your implication that liberty is a terrible thing and we should hand all our freedoms over to the state for our own good because people are too stupid to know what's best for them, unless said people work for the government, I agree! Stalin was a great man, and we need socialists to support his legacy here to rid us Americans of our silly notions of "liberty" or "freedom" which hold us back from creating the utopian society in which humanity is reduced to one giant ant colony. ;)
I know that this is somewhere between straw-man and trolling. I just don't know which it is closer to.

I know that this is somewhere between straw-man and trolling. I just don't know which it is closer to.

Well I figured it was in the same category as "I live how the likes of you always like to use "liberty" as a synonym for "good". As if all things related to liberty are good."

Only more entertaining. :shrug: :D

Come on Barbara, you're smarter than that.

Totalitarian Socialism is never a good thing, and we Socialists and Communists here, as well as all over the world, hardly advocate it. Stalin was a demented fuck who killed millions of his own people, and cursed his country on his deathbed.

Most of us advocate the form of Socialism that has very little-to-none government intervention in personal affairs. That usually falls under Communism.

Most of us advocate the form of Socialism that has very little-to-none government intervention in personal affairs. That usually falls under Communism.

Economic decisions are a personal affair. Our entire lives are governed by our economic decisions, if we allow government to make our economic decisions, we allow government to govern our personal lives.

Economic decisions are a personal affair. Our entire lives are governed by our economic decisions, if we allow government to make our economic decisions, we allow government to govern our personal lives.

It's not really how you think it is. It's pay based on your labor, rather than how the market's doing. Now, in Anarcho-Communism, there isn't any money... It's a whole other monster.

The sort of Socialism you're thinking of is the state-sponsored Capitalism that was used by the Soviets. Something that is nothing short of terrible.

Come on Barbara, you're smarter than that.

Totalitarian Socialism is never a good thing, and we Socialists and Communists here, as well as all over the world, hardly advocate it. Stalin was a demented fuck who killed millions of his own people, and cursed his country on his deathbed.

Most of us advocate the form of Socialism that has very little-to-none government intervention in personal affairs. That usually falls under Communism.
And the problem we have with Socialism is that its proponents have had to turn to such authoritarian measures to see to it that its goals were acheived. Also, saying your government would have "little-to-no" intervention in our personal lives is an empty promise at best, as you will likely be required to redistribute my wealth. It puzzles me ceaselessly as to why you always insist on only seeing half the picture. By making my life a means to your end [i.e. by putting me to work for the benefit of others] I'd say you're "interfering" quite a bit more than you'd ever be willing to believe.

It's not really how you think it is. It's pay based on your labor, rather than how the market's doing. Now, in Anarcho-Communism, there isn't any money... It's a whole other monster.

The sort of Socialism you're thinking of is the state-sponsored Capitalism that was used by the Soviets. Something that is nothing short of terrible.

Well I am referring to all forms of government enforced altruism, although the different forms of socialism and communism do vary in degree.

Any socialist policy, by its nature, takes an economic decision away from one person, and gives it to another. And government enforced communism, as communism must be (capitalism will erode an anarchic communism from within), goes to the point where the government has final say on all of your economic decisions. So while I will agree that it varies in degree, socialism sole purpose is to impose on our personal lives.

It's not really how you think it is. It's pay based on your labor, rather than how the market's doing.

"How the market is doing" IS pay based on labor.


The sort of Socialism you're thinking of is the state-sponsored Capitalism that was used by the Soviets. Something that is nothing short of terrible.

No, it's state-sponsored socialism. WTF is with this latest tactic of trying to say Stalin, the USSR, Chairman Mao and Hitler were all capitalists? Because their societies still had capital? Bah. I think it's just because you define "capitalism" as "evil," so naturally it follows that you can only attribute historical evil to capitalism. Blame capitalism!

Actually anarchism is a form of socialism and the fascists were not socialist. In fact, they were probably the most aggressively anti-socialist people around. Hitler was in no real way a socialist and in fact, he got his start trying to undermine socialists in Germany.

Way I see it, they were all socialists fighting with each other. And is that "no real way a socialist" a no-true-scotsman fallacy? Kind of like how the USSR wasn't TRUE communism, therefore communism is a perfect idealogy and we can just blame the whole mess on - of course - capitalism?

And the problem we have with Socialism is that its proponents have had to turn to such authoritarian measures to see to it that its goals were acheived. Also, saying your government would have "little-to-no" intervention in our personal lives is an empty promise at best, as you will likely be required to redistribute my wealth. It puzzles me ceaselessly as to why you always insist on only seeing half the picture. By making my life a means to your end [i.e. by putting me to work for the benefit of others] I'd say you're "interfering" quite a bit more than you'd ever be willing to believe.

Eh? Not even...

1: That's because all these states were run by power-hungry despots. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jong Il... See where this is going? Rather than wanting freedom for everyone, they wanted freedom for themselves, not to mention the fact that they wanted to live like kings. Mao's a sad story, because in the beginning, he was good.

2: The only redistribution of wealth in Communism is tax, and we already have taxes in our Capitalist countries. Of course, as I said, Anarcho-Communism is completely different, as there isn't any money (it's kind of difficult to explain, but it takes a very long cycle and process to achieve).

3: Why would such a government have any interest in your personal affairs? It's not like it would be a Soviet/Chinese/Cuban/Vietnamese/North Korean regime. In my country, the government would stay out of people's affairs completely. It's about giving everyone an equal opportunity to do what they want to do, whatever that may be. It's not about trying to build some super nation and take over the world, where only a select few will live lives worth living.

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/strawman.jpg

No further words are necessary.

Eh? Not even...

1: That's because all these states were run by power-hungry despots. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jong Il... See where this is going? Rather than wanting freedom for everyone, they wanted freedom for themselves, not to mention the fact that they wanted to live like kings. Mao's a sad story, because in the beginning, he was good.
See, now most people would probably be disturbed if they could read this many names; all of these men just happened to have a lot of common philosophical ideas about people and how they should interact. Regardless of how they 'perverted' them, their well-known philosophical roots are all found in the works of Marx or some other Communist or pseudocommunist bonehead. This isn't a straw man at all, so you can take that scarecrow and stick it where the sun don't shine.


2: The only redistribution of wealth in Communism is tax, and we already have taxes in our Capitalist countries. Of course, as I said, Anarcho-Communism is completely different, as there isn't any money (it's kind of difficult to explain, but it takes a very long cycle and process to achieve).
The elimination of money would be a ridiculous step backwards in terms of economical progress. There's a reason we left the barter system in the dust centuries ago; and just because you might some day do something crazy like get rid of money doesn't mean you've gotten rid of the value on which money rests; you're merely attaching it to another premium or commodity; be it resources or [frighteningly enough] labor. If labor is your currency, you have no choice but to traffic in slavery.

Secondly, if you're going to pull out that "There's never been a true socialist nation" argument out on me, I'm going to flip the tables 'round and tell you there hasn't been a pure capitalist one either; the presence of an income tax alone prevents this.

3: Why would such a government have any interest in your personal affairs? It's not like it would be a Soviet/Chinese/Cuban/Vietnamese/North Korean regime. In my country, the government would stay out of people's affairs completely. It's about giving everyone an equal opportunity to do what they want to do, whatever that may be. It's not about trying to build some super nation and take over the world, where only a select few will live lives worth living.

Yes, and as I already pointed out, taking people's money and giving them to someone else sort of isnt exactly "staying out of people's affiars. It is, in fact, interfering in a rather big way. People complain about a cigarette taking 7 minutes of your life away, but the Government takes 25% of it away while I'm on the clock. Fuck that.

Interestingly, you put a lot of effort into answering the first sentance of my last post, and none to speak of into answering the remaining three, which were actually more important. Care to explain why?

Yep. Nobody's perfect, eh?
I'm from America. I know this well! LOL:D

See, now most people would probably be disturbed if they could read this many names; all of these men just happened to have a lot of common philosophical ideas about people and how they should interact. Regardless of how they 'perverted' them, their well-known philosophical roots are all found in the works of Marx or some other Communist or pseudocommunist bonehead. This isn't a straw man at all, so you can take that scarecrow and stick it where the sun don't shine.

That's just the problem, though. They based everything on a book of guidelines. Marxists are always a bit touched.

The elimination of money would be a ridiculous step backwards in terms of economical progress. There's a reason we left the barter system in the dust centuries ago; and just because you might some day do something crazy like get rid of money doesn't mean you've gotten rid of the value on which money rests; you're merely attaching it to another premium or commodity; be it resources or [frighteningly enough] labor. If labor is your currency, you have no choice but to traffic in slavery.

Well, it's not a barter system. It's very complicated... Could take pages to explain, but it requires all the stages of an economy. Yes, Capitalism is in it.

Secondly, if you're going to pull out that "There's never been a true socialist nation" argument out on me, I'm going to flip the tables 'round and tell you there hasn't been a pure capitalist one either; the presence of an income tax alone prevents this.

Well, both are true. I'm definitely not denying your argument.

Yes, and as I already pointed out, taking people's money and giving them to someone else sort of isnt exactly "staying out of people's affiars. It is, in fact, interfering in a rather big way. People complain about a cigarette taking 7 minutes of your life away, but the Government takes 25% of it away while I'm on the clock. Fuck that.

Like I said: It's not staying completely out of people's affairs. In any Communist system aside from Anarcho-Communism, tax is (sadly) necessary. In any state that has money, it's pretty much necessary, as not everyone has the ability to work.

Interestingly, you put a lot of effort into answering the first sentance of my last post, and none to speak of into answering the remaining three, which were actually more important. Care to explain why?

Heh, I really didn't think about it too much. I thought I'd answered the first two well enough as it was.

What are you guys on about?! No real socialist nations?! There's plenty of them. The entire scandinavian area is chuck full of them. Every successful nation on the globe right now, relies on socialism to some extent.

You sound rediculous...

Of course there's no pure capitalist nations on the planet. During the industrial revolution, people managed to get rid of the utterly despicable upperclasses to a large extent, and secure themselves some basic rights. Every rightwing nut from here to hell have been dying to get rid of those socialist ideas ever since, but noone with half a brain gives a shit about the nutters. Who'd want to devolve their country back into some feudalist/monopolist crap with slave wages & company owned people?!

Socialists aren't necessarily interested in governing people at all. I'm regularly accused of being a socialist (though few socialists like me in real life), but I am dead against having any state at all. I see no point in it.
Most of our nations have managed to rid ourselves of despotism as an accepted form of government (yes, yes, I know the US could be considered one, but they aren't every nation modern nation on earth).
Why not take a hint from our success, and do away with government?

Potaria are you talking about participatury economics? :thumbsup:

-snip-

Well, speaking for myself, I'm on about there never having been a true Communist "state", which is true.

Why not take a hint from our success, and do away with government?
Unless Katrina comes and steals the show...

EDIT: By the way, I made a thread (perhaps prematurely, seeing the direction in which this one evolved) about communism etc
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449405

Well, speaking for myself, I'm on about there never having been a true Communist "state", which is true.
Ok, point conceded. It's a concept like capitalism. It can either be controlled to a degree where it's no longer functional, or it can run it's course & make the country a living hell for the population.

Those "looks good on paper" ideas are always popular...

Bah! :mad: Where are the old timey socialists, from when it was shamelessly authoritarian. It's all become so middle class.

Ok, point conceded. It's a concept like capitalism. It can either be controlled to a degree where it's no longer functional, or it can run it's course & make the country a living hell for the population.

Those "looks good on paper" ideas are always popular...

It just has to be tried to see if it works...

...Though I doubt pure Capitalism would be pretty. We all know what happened in the late 19th century, during America's "Guilded Age", the closest anything's ever been to true Capitalism.

Unless Katrina comes and steals the show...

EDIT: By the way, I made a thread (perhaps prematurely, seeing the direction in which this one evolved) about communism etc
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449405
Hehe, I'll look at it. However, how would Katrina be an argument against dissolving government? A functional city district could have made an enormous difference, yet the government prevented all sensible action untill it was far, far too late. In my book that makes Katrina a wonderful argument for kicking the government into the ocean & point & laugh while you watch them drown.

Bah! :mad: Where are the old timey socialists, from when it was shamelessly authoritarian. It's all become so middle class.

Class? Don't get started on class, man. I've only made $30 in the last eight years. I know that I'm still a high school student, but I'm just saying what my situation is.

Class? Don't get started on class, man. I've only made $30 in the last eight years. I know that I'm still a high school student, but I'm just saying what my situation is.

I am just saying, all this "liberty" business and "government not getting involved" doesn't sound like proper socialism to me. Collective action, that's what it's about. Once the parasitic owner class, and their lapdogs, no longer control the economy there will be no need to produce surplusses, and their will be plenty for all. But only under a government strong and willing enough to enforce it.

Political freedom, Brother Potaria, is the only thing that matters. The rest of this stuff like "rights" and "freedoms" is irrelevant in the on-going class struggle.

I am just saying, all this "liberty" business and "government not getting involved" doesn't sound like proper socialism to me. Collective action, that's what it's about. Once the parasitic owner class, and their lapdogs, no longer control the economy there will be no need to produce surplusses, and their will be plenty for all. But only under a government strong and willing enough to enforce it.

Political freedom, Brother Potaria, is the only thing that matters. The rest of this stuff like "rights" and "freedoms" is irrelevant in the on-going class struggle.

Kidding, right? My joke detector's off, as it's late and I'm tired.

Kidding, right? My joke detector's off, as it's late and I'm tired.

Yah, I'm kidding. There are people who believe that though. (At least there were).

It just has to be tried to see if it works...

...Though I doubt pure Capitalism would be pretty. We all know what happened in the late 19th century, during America's "Guilded Age", the closest anything's ever been to true Capitalism.

Like I said... Communism is a fucked concept as well, because just like representative democracy & capitalism, it introduces an elite. Unlike in r. democracy (though just like in pure capitalism), the elite it introduces have almost no limitations to their powers.
..When we can't even manage to make our democracies work, because the elites WE elect are too fucking incompetent & corrupt, how can anyone get the inane idea that it would work better if we give those bastards near-limitless power to push us around.
And if that's a good idea, why not just go with monarchies?

Pure capitalism would probably cause civil war in a modern western country. It's too unfair & too unrestricted. Economically speaking, it would be like reintroducing slavery. Execpt a lot of the slaves would probably be treated even worse, as it's cheaper not to feed people.
It would be pure hell. But like I said, I doubt it would last 5 minutes without causing civil war/revolution.

Speaking as a euroliberal...

Alright, let's say we abolish the engine of violence that is the state and the laws that it imposes on us. There's no more state. I want jellybeans. There are no more factories that make any. Obviously, since there are no more exploitative financial institutions either, it's impossible for me to borrow money to have one built. Indeed, let's say the entire concept of money has been abolished and we're back to a civilized barter economy. No jellybeans for me. So I have to come up with something simpler.

Let's say I grow bored of my ideal Platonic republic of five thousand earth-tilling heroes of the working class and start bartering for goods and services. It's in my mind to make deals with my fellows until I can rack up a profit and start suggesting we organise under my leadership and make more goods. My motive is profit and creature comforts. In the long run, the principle of economic equality is obviously theatened. Now, let's assume the utopia actually lives up to the peaceful and nonviolent principles we've heard so much about.

Who, in the genuine communist utopia of academic rhetoric, stops me from becoming an usurer and how?

Hmm. Good question. But why would anyone advocate a return to the stoneage? Simply doing away with capitalism doesn't have to mean you're interested in production capabilities, structure, management or future level of research & education. None of those things are inherently connected with governments or capitalism.

Also, simply removing government doesn't rule out a capitalist approach. Not that it would be a good idea or would work for very long, but theoretically, those things are not connected at all.

Hehe, I'll look at it. However, how would Katrina be an argument against dissolving government? A functional city district could have made an enormous difference, yet the government prevented all sensible action untill it was far, far too late. In my book that makes Katrina a wonderful argument for kicking the government into the ocean & point & laugh while you watch them drown.
But how would a functional city district even exist without a government? Even assuming public transport would be provided...would all roads be toll roads?
How many poor black New Orleansians would've been able to use them to get out?

Who would've done the warning? Some private enterprise which sells the info to someone - only to find itself out of profit because of word of mouth?

And who would've eventually brought an end to the violent anarchy that we all watched on TV for a few days?

Hmm. Good question. But why would anyone advocate a return to the stoneage? Simply doing away with capitalism doesn't have to mean you're interested in production capabilities, structure, management or future level of research & education. None of those things are inherently connected with governments or capitalism.

Also, simply removing government doesn't rule out a capitalist approach. Not that it would be a good idea or would work for very long, but theoretically, those things are not connected at all.

The problem - the way I see it, and my take on this is admittedly rather narrow - is that modern production methods, financial devices, education systems and the like all entail a great degree of contractual organisation. If property belongs to everyone, then logically everyone has an equal access to material goods. If I and a hundred of my pals should prefer to waltz into a public factory and take off with all the computers (say, for some other projects), who is to stop us? The factory manager?

He can't appeal to the law because nobody enforces one; he can merely appeal to our good natures. But nothing says we can't keep our priorities and go do something else with all the tools he has, just as it's impossible for me to actually make sure I can hold on to any of the tools I'd need. Similarly, how would practical socialism settle the problem of everyday violence? Segregation? Theft wouldn't be a meaningful concept, obviously, but the ability for one person to initiate force on another person might still have to be harnessed somehow for the society to function. How do we do this without an organised, legitimized violence engine? How do we maintain absolute economic equality without some sort of planning agency to maintain it, plan for it, and enforce it?

But how would a functional city district even exist without a government? Even assuming public transport would be provided...would all roads be toll roads?
How many poor black New Orleansians would've been able to use them to get out?

Who would've done the warning? Some private enterprise which sells the info to someone - only to find itself out of profit because of word of mouth?

And who would've eventually brought an end to the violent anarchy that we all watched on TV for a few days?
Your perspective on this is distorted. You make the assumption that I advocate something similar to Libertarians. I don't. As I've already stated, I have no illusions that such a thing could work at all. If that had been the situation, I bet there'd have been a civil war in New Orleans long before Katrina hit. Who'd put up with shit like that if there was no government to force people under threat of violence & incarceration? I sure as hell wouldn't.

So who & why would roads be maintained? Simple. If you put people in charge of running their own community, one of two things will necessarily happen. Either everything will break down completely & people will relocate.

Or people will work together to ensure common objectives are achived.

Take away all forms of government with a snap of your fingers is probably not a good idea. I can imagine all sorts of factions who'd do their damndest to force other people into an alternative system of government & that would both defeat the purpose of getting rid of the current one, and most likely result in miserable living conditions for the people in general.

I'm basically a huge fan of direct democracy, or anarchism if you prefer. Such a thing can't be achived in 5 minutes flat, because it's a huge change from how stuff currently works. Collective ownership of stuff like education facilities, public transportation, infrastructure & private group ownership of companies isn't simply something you just do. It's something you have to work towards over a long period.

Unlike communism & capitalism, these ideas have never been tried on a large scale without the people involved being invaded & slaughtered by the powers that be, so there's no definite answer to whether it would work over a longer period. But every time is has been tried, it's worked fine untill invaders started killing people.

It's a huge concept to try & convey in a post on a messageboard, so instead of trying, I'll let you use google instead.

If New Orleans had been a functioning directly democratic/anarchistic community, the people there would have held common responsibility for averting natural disasters. A national undermining of the wetlands areas would not have been possible, as the community wouldn't have stood to gain anything from it, for example.
A rational community would also have strenghtened public transportation, as it's both easier, cheaper, safer and has less detrimental effects on the local environment. I highly doubt a relatively poor community would be interested in throwing more money out the window than absolutely necessary.

You also seem to subscribe to the 100% local American idea that all media must be privately run, and thus only function in accordance to capitalism. Almost every nation on the planet today realizes this is detrimental to their society, because such news might not be reliable, and might not be widely available. It's a very, very poor way of maintaining a coherrent society, especially if the public is supposed to have an informed opinion on what goes on.

In a direct democratic society, at least one major news outlet would be publicly maintained. It's not something such a community would be able to avoid, as it would be the only way to adequetly inform the community of what is going on, and thus enabling them to participate in the decision making process.

Such a society could, by the way, easily function with a bastardized version of capitalism, as a company owned by the actual workforce, instead of an invester group, is every bit as competitive as the current versions. Truely, in a real capitalist society, such a business model is far more desirable than the corporate mostrocities we have now, as such companies would actually be forced to take care of the workforce - which is what all the libertarian numbskulls thinks would automatically happen if you just take away all legislation under current conditions.

Oh, and what gives you the impression that corporate-created, state-sanctioned poverty would be desirable for a community? Poor people are a burden for everyone but the richest 5% of the population, and it's not all that attractive to the poor people themselves.
If you take away corporate power & give that power to the entire community instead, there'll be no incitament to have widespread poverty. What would be the point? Either the direct democracy would tear itself apart fighting against itself to maintain poverty levels, or they'd invest in solving the problem.
When the health service comes knocking at council meetings to demand increased funding to deal with the poor health of poor people, you can either solve the problem of poverty, or refuse the poor people healthcare. If everyone has an equal say in that decision, guess what will happen.

I have seen direct democracy work in many, many small communities, and I've never seen any of the problems of stagnation & indecision that so many people say is the natural consequence. The majority of these communities have involved less than 1000 people, but they have involved people who for a large part don't know eachother & don't have a lot in common. And it's still been by far the most effective way of acting in unity I've ever witnessed.

Same thing for some of the anarchist initiatives that have been tried throughout modern history. The model have worked flawlessly, untill forign powers bomb the living shit out of the poor sods. Forign powers usually means America using a puppet, so I don't think that would be much of a problem inside the US. But I may be underestimating how paranoid the powers that be are.

-snip-
I underestimated you!
I thought you were one of those US Teenies who reckon they can shock their parents by pretending to be anarcho-capitalists...:D

Well, I'm not going to say much about this, other than direct democracy (ie small meetings of relatively small groups deciding together) isn't fully representative by default either.
There are people who will be dominated in discussions quite naturally, simply because they aren't as loud and vulgar. I've seen that happen plenty of times at our Student Union (not in the US sense, an actual Labour Union for students).

I underestimated you!
I thought you were one of those US Teenies who reckon they can shock their parents by pretending to be anarcho-capitalists...:D

Well, I'm not going to say much about this, other than direct democracy (ie small meetings of relatively small groups deciding together) isn't fully representative by default either.
There are people who will be dominated in discussions quite naturally, simply because they aren't as loud and vulgar. I've seen that happen plenty of times at our Student Union (not in the US sense, an actual Labour Union for students).
I've seen plenty of the same, fortunately these things always seems to even themselves out. I've never witnessed such communities where reasonable arguments didn't win out in the end. Also, I've never seen apathy cause any damage to the process. The non-vocal people tend to actively unite behind someone who they agree with, and as such they're still part of the process & retain their influence.

Small communities are vastly different from communities of millions. There's only some very limited comarisons that can be drawn. That's why I explicitly stated the size of the working examples I've seen. I didn't want to give you the wrong impression.

Unfortunately, stuff like the anarchist communes didn't last very long, because they were indirectly spawning massive dissent in other countries. They did, however, work as per the intention, and nearly lasted long enough to impliment true anarchism. Quite unlike the communist failures. Pitty freedom is so hated & feared by capitalist societies.

Oh, and I quite agree with you about the communism thing. USSR was in no way an example of communism. It was, however, a damn good example of why the transition period in the communist model, is hopelessly flawed.

However, there's a reasonable argument against anarchism in the post you made, and pretty much the only one I agree with. Direct democracy very easily - perhaps even naturally - devolves because of apathy. I'm not quite agnostic about this, as from what I've seen, this will not happen on a broard enough scale to result in representatives... But it is a tricky question, and the only way to ever know for certain is to try it.

Still, that's not really an argument against trying it on for size, as what we'd be left with would just be another representative democracy, and thus no different from what we already have.

I have to go to work, so I really only have the time right now to respond to the one actual point in Potaria's decidedly evasive response in last night's political skirmish:

Like I said: It's not staying completely out of people's affairs. In any Communist system aside from Anarcho-Communism, tax is (sadly) necessary. In any state that has money, it's pretty much necessary, as not everyone has the ability to work.
Hm, funny. Previously, you had posted this:

In my country, the government would stay out of people's affairs completely.
Are you an Anachro-Communist? I'm always trying to figure out what you people are calling yourselves this week; since every time I attack an ideology it seems my opponent doesn't belong in it.

I have to go to work, so I really only have the time right now to respond to the one actual point in Potaria's decidedly evasive response in last night's political skirmish:


Hm, funny. Previously, you had posted this:


Are you an Anachro-Communist? I'm always trying to figure out what you people are calling yourselves this week; since every time I attack an ideology it seems my opponent doesn't belong in it.

Yes, I am. I'm just defending Communism as a whole.

Oh, and I quite agree with you about the communism thing. USSR was in no way an example of communism. It was, however, a damn good example of why the transition period in the communist model, is hopelessly flawed.

Well, the problem with all these countries is that they never had the Capitalist system before they began the transition. Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea... None. Russia didn't even have a middle class when the revolution started.

See, the countries that did try to implement Communism did it far too quickly, and for all the wrong reasons.

I would contend that even an fairly free socialist society requires at least two specialized, privileged classes - the planners and the police - and a system of common laws, enforceable by force if necessary. That is, I would reject Marx's contention that a communist society could do without a class division and a state engine.

Of course, if there's some sort of mystical spiritual awakening of all humanity into agreeing perfectly with each others' moral views and production priorities... but I don't believe that is feasible.

<snip>About direct democracy.

Well said. I couldn't have said it any better, myself. *weeps tears of joy*

I would contend that even an fairly free socialist society requires at least two specialized, privileged classes - the planners and the police - and a system of common laws, enforceable by force if necessary. That is, I would reject Marx's contention that a communist society could do without a class division and a state engine.Couldn't everyone in that communist society simply be trained to use guns/weapons? This would also help to solve the problem of the army.

Couldn't everyone in that communist society simply be trained to use guns/weapons? This would also help to solve the problem of the army.

Heck, yeah, I'd be happy to shoot at anyone who tried to enforce the society's decisions on me... me and every other citizen who didn't agree with the ethical principles or some particularly bad decisions made by that whole system.

Heck, yeah, I'd be happy to shoot at anyone who tried to enforce the society's decisions on me... me and every other citizen who didn't agree with the ethical principles or some particularly bad decisions made by that whole system.If you don't agree to abide by the decision of society, then why would you remain a part of that society?

The problem - the way I see it, and my take on this is admittedly rather narrow - is that modern production methods, financial devices, education systems and the like all entail a great degree of contractual organisation. If property belongs to everyone, then logically everyone has an equal access to material goods. If I and a hundred of my pals should prefer to waltz into a public factory and take off with all the computers (say, for some other projects), who is to stop us? The factory manager?

He can't appeal to the law because nobody enforces one; he can merely appeal to our good natures. But nothing says we can't keep our priorities and go do something else with all the tools he has, just as it's impossible for me to actually make sure I can hold on to any of the tools I'd need. Similarly, how would practical socialism settle the problem of everyday violence? Segregation? Theft wouldn't be a meaningful concept, obviously, but the ability for one person to initiate force on another person might still have to be harnessed somehow for the society to function. How do we do this without an organised, legitimized violence engine? How do we maintain absolute economic equality without some sort of planning agency to maintain it, plan for it, and enforce it?
I'm sorry I missed your post until now.

You suffer the basic misconception that anarchy equals chaos. It doesn't. It's just like the US red scare - make it sound like a horrible hell where everyone suffers and noone can achieve anything, so people will ignore anything said about it.

You also assume that there's only one idea of how to handle this. There are litterally hundreds. Google is your friend.

Anyway, in a society without a leader, why would it be desirable for you to appropriate something that you have voluntarily agreed to give to someone else? In your household, you manage your day to day life by compromising with the needs of the rest of the individuals in your family.
Let's say you've bought a computer for your son & you need it for something. What do you do? Do you simply walk in and take it from him? It would be perfectly legal for you to do so, and regardless of how badly your son wants or needs to use the computer, he'll be completely unable to prevent you from doing it.
And yet, I doubt that's the approach you'd take.

PErhaps you'd instead confront him with your need to use a computer. Appealing to his intellect, there's no reason to think he wouldn't help you move the computer to your office & help you move it back when you're done with it.

Unless he needs to use it as well. In that case, you will either have to reach a compromise both of you can live with, or you'll have go out & buy another one. In an anarchist society, the neat thing is that you can ask an entire society to help you with your endevour, so even if you need a few hundred computers, there's no reason to attack & disrupt a company (which you'd also be relying on, so it's stealing from yourself you're talking about), because there's no reason the computers have to come from a particular place.

You have an objective, and you can achieve it much more easily by expressing that objective.

The law & order aspect is more complicated. Much more complicated. In the interest of not wearing out my keyboard, please ask Google. Otherwise ask again, I can give you some book references & point you to a few sites (I accidentially lost my bookmarks the other day, otherwise I would've given you some url's already).

If you don't agree to abide by the decision of society, then why would you remain a part of that society?
That's the beauty of it. There's nothing to stop you from breaking away from such a community & start your own.

I'm sorry I missed your post until now.

You suffer the basic misconception that anarchy equals chaos.

Anyway, in a society without a leader, why would it be desirable for you to appropriate something that you have voluntarily agreed to give to someone else? In your household, you manage your day to day life by compromising with the needs of the rest of the individuals in your family.

I do believe anarchy could not be a stable social condition. I'm still at a loss about how economic equality would come to pass instead of a kind of a proto-capitalist barter economy where people form small cliques and defend their material gains by force, create private little societies with private law, and then go fight or trade with some other gangs.

Who decides what is produced, how it's produced and who gets what? How does individual consumption get regulated so as to make sure nobody has more than their fellows? Is peer pressure the only thing that keeps me from becoming an economic middleman for fun and profit? Why would I do anything difficult or dangerous without greater compensation, when I get pretty much the same material benefit out of doing unimportant or easy things?

The specialisation of labour required for any intricate society virtually ensures that some skills will be more useful and more in demand, while some other skills are abundant and more easy to come by for any given project.

Will there be a managerial class? What keeps the managerial class from dominating others with their experience or expertise? How do we propose to keep the vast diseconomies of scale inherent in planning a very large society in check? Who co-ordinates production between regions?

If you don't agree to abide by the decision of society, then why would you remain a part of that society?

An excellent point. Of course, this happening on a wider scale would likely lead to the rise of capitalist or proto-capitalist contract-compensation economies where people like me could keep a hold of all of their relative economic input and trade it quid pro quo for goods and services. Anarcho-socialism would inevitably have to deal with a kind of anarcho-capitalism existing side by side with it.

An excellent point. Of course, this happening on a wider scale would likely lead to the rise of capitalist or proto-capitalist contract-compensation economies where people like me could keep a hold of all of their relative economic input and trade it quid pro quo for goods and services. Anarcho-socialism would inevitably have to deal with a kind of anarcho-capitalism existing side by side with it.Oh, I agree. But why would someone work in anarcho-capitalism when they would most likely be compensated more in anarcho-socialism?

Oh, I agree. But why would someone work in anarcho-capitalism when they would most likely be compensated more in anarcho-socialism?

Heh - that's somewhat debatable, I should think.

To wrap up my "contribution" on this and some other anarchism threads, I do believe much of the problems I have with collective ownership boil down to simple personal ethics (as most politics is wont to do). I'm not too happy with the idea of a village meeting - the burliest peer leader, the cleverest orator, the inevitable priest or mystic - socially coercing me to participate in this or that role, or making unlimited use of my economic output without me being able to negotiate compensation freely. I do wish to be a part of a democratic system, but I should prefer one where I can enjoy the relative security, convenience and predictability of private ownership. Accumulating material goods and a high material standard of living are a priority to me - thus it's in my interests to back a system where I can enforce certain arbitrary but important personal rights and personal immunities by the use of a violence engine. Minarchy appeals to my sensibilities and interests more than anarchy. A regulated, monetary, capitalist system of economic organisation is far more preferable to me than any local anarchosyndicalist utopia. The morals and sensibilities of the many would, I think, chain and contain me even more in the latter than they now do in the former.

Obviously, the theoretical possibility of an anarchic society working is there; indeed, there is no reason why such a social system could not be brought into existence. This is true particularly for small, techonologically unsophisticated communities, where diseconomies of scale and the problems of industrial planning are minimized. But, as a believer in the Iron Law of Oligarchy, I see much of agrarian village politics and "propriety" moralism in the concept. From my point of view this is worrying, even detrimental to liberty. The kind of countryside ethic where an appeal to the mob constitutes politics and where the worth of an individual is tied to his agreement with the local factoy council - so to speak - is somewhat abhorrent to me; I far prefer the relative independence, variety, multiculturalism and commercial bustle of the urban world. So it is to some degree a matter of perspective and preference.

As a largely internationalist, relativist, irreligious kind of person I'm sympathetic to ideas of limited or nonexistent government. I also understand and appreciate that anarchists don't necessarily entertain a naïve conception of humanity, that the argument is more along the lines that human beings could rationally organise themselves, should they choose, in such and such manner. Still, I don't think that an anarchist society could be brought into existence without recourse to means completely antithetical to it and certainly don't believe any group doing the bringing, so to speak, could lay down the authority and power it has tasted in doing so.

Just a few short comments..

Decisions under such a system can only be carried out (at least when concerning you) in unity. Your numero uno worry seems to be that people will gang up on you & force you to submit to their decisions. That's not the way it works. If you don't want to submit & you can't be pursuaded, then that's the end of it.

That being the case, the rest of your arguments, execpt for the one about the size of the communities, is pretty much invalidated. In fact, a highly specialized & technologically advanced community will have a much easier time of it than a non-advanced one will.

There's no doubt that anarchy is best suited for smaller communities, of perhaps under ½-1 million in size. However, one of the natural mechanism in the system is that it splits itself up in smaller, more coherrent communities untill a managable size is reached.

Just a few short comments..

Decisions under such a system can only be carried out (at least when concerning you) in unity. Your numero uno worry seems to be that people will gang up on you & force you to submit to their decisions. That's not the way it works. If you don't want to submit & you can't be pursuaded, then that's the end of it.

First it sounded like a Polish Parliament system, but then I realized what that might mean.

Essentially, you're saying that I'll be able to accumulate material goods merely by saying I won't relinquish them and negotiate my own wages quid pro quo with individual producers? And, logically, I'll then be able to organise some people to produce a lot of things, opting collectively to exchange that product for the best relative price? And then negotiate a greater compensation than is afforded to mere workers on the logic that I'm the planner and organiser? That, I think, would ultimately blur the line between anarchosocialism and anarchocapitalism - which is not a bad thing, I should think!

Err. I should retire from this thread, for real. I'm being unreasonably stubborn here. :D