NationStates Jolt Archive

We haven't had a big left-wing vs. right-wing thread in a while, so I thought that I'd start one. I think I'll start with a definition of socialism.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Sounds good to me.

So I've got a question for the Right Wingers. Capitalism has been proven empirically to produce massive inequalities in wealth and power, unresponsive corporate bureacracies and untold abuses of power on all levels of governance. What reason is their to hold on to the old system without any inquiry into finding a possibly better system? Why must we continue to hold onto the failing system of the past?

Because every system is man made, thus falliable, thus will suffer abuses. Switching from one system of abuse to another is like switching boxers.

Oh boy, this is going to be interesting...

*sits back, watches, makes a batch of popcorn*

So I've got a question for the Right Wingers. Capitalism has been proven empirically to produce massive inequalities in wealth and power, unresponsive corporate bureacracies and untold abuses of power on all levels of governance. What reason is their to hold on to the old system without any inquiry into finding a possibly better system? Why must we continue to hold onto the failing system of the past?
We're not. One would have to be pretty blind to think that we still have the same capitalism that was around in the 19th century.

Plus, the alternative (as in state-owned production, regardless of ideological background) has been shown to fail much more dramatically.

Oh boy, this is going to be interesting...

*sits back, watches, makes a batch of popcorn*

*brings soda*

We're not. One would have to be pretty blind to think that we still have the same capitalism that was around in the 19th century.

Plus, the alternative (as in state-owned production, regardless of ideological background) has been shown to fail much more dramatically.

Well I'm not blind. The world we live into day, though significantly better than the 19th century, is still rife with inequity and abuse by private wealth.

Whoever said the alternative was state-owned production? Couldn't the means of production in society be controlled democratically by workers? That wouldn't be state ownership.

*brings soda*

*grabs a soda, gives Minaris a bag of popcorn*

*grabs a soda, gives Minaris a bag of popcorn*

That much of spectator sport?

That much of spectator sport?

Don't mind us. Continue. :)

*munches*

Well I'm not blind. The world we live into day, though significantly better than the 19th century, is still rife with inequity and abuse by private wealth.
Inequity is human nature, there is little you will be able to do about it. And "abuse" of private wealth (I'd argue that very little could really be classified as abuse)...humans like to own stuff. And the stuff they own they will use as they see fit. Whether you call it capitalism or Anarcho-Syndicalism, you won't be able to change the fact that humans are often selfish beings who value the happiness of themselves and those they know and care about more than the happiness of people they never met.

Whoever said the alternative was state-owned production? Couldn't the means of production in society be controlled democratically by workers? That wouldn't be state ownership.
Well, if you want to. Just don't take anything away from anyone...you won't get to do a revolution. You'll have to move somewhere and start anew - Kibutzim style.

And hope that your kids won't be like the Kibbutzim kids and just walk off because they're sick of that sort of life.

Socialism is simply impractical for a number of reasons. Capitalism produces huge amounts of wealth. If the government were to tap that wealth properly, all the inequalities we know and hate would nearly disappear.
Whoever said the alternative was state-owned production? Couldn't the means of production in society be controlled democratically by workers? That wouldn't be state ownership.
What’s so great about democracy? George Bush was elected democratically. Abortion had to be legalized against the wishes of the majority. The majority of the country was in favor of going to war in Iraq. People are stupid. The last thing I want them doing is hurting the tax generators.

Socialism is simply impractical for a number of reasons. Capitalism produces huge amounts of wealth. If the government were to tap that wealth properly, all the inequalities we know and hate would nearly disappear.
If the world were to accept socialism on a world basis, there would be no need for currency, and there would be no inequality, its just that people have grown to used to the concepts of money and inequality to realize how flawed it could be considered.

What’s so great about democracy? George Bush was elected democratically. Abortion had to be legalized against the wishes of the majority. The majority of the country was in favor of going to war in Iraq. People are stupid. The last thing I want them doing is hurting the tax generators.
Every social idea has its weaknesses, and in general freedom is always better then tyranny. Would you prefer being forced into doing work you don't want, or not being allowed to speak your mind against the government?

*grabs a soda, gives Minaris a bag of popcorn*

*Takes bag. Sips a tall, cold MD:Livewire.*

Let's see, CK... I got Dr. Pepper, Mountain Dew, and Coke. What you want?

If the world were to accept socialism on a world basis, there would be no need for currency, and there would be no inequality, its just that people have grown to used to the concepts of money
and inequality to realize how flawed it could be considered.

How would any kind of economy work without using money?

Every social idea has its weaknesses, and in general freedom is always better then tyranny. Would you prefer being forced into doing work you don't want, or not being allowed to speak your mind against the government?
I was not aware that the two were mutually exclusive.

If the government were to tap that wealth properly, all the inequalities we know and hate would nearly disappear.

What policies would you pursue to accomplish this objective?

There is a middle ground here.

The state shuld own things that the population depend on. Powerplants, education (including univerity lvl), hospitals, road and public transport, water treatment. To name a few.

Things that assosiate with trade and production. Should be privatly owned, regulated and taxed.

How would any kind of economy work without using money?

There would be no need for the economy, goods could be equally distributed on a global scale, and if people wanted more they could grow, ranch, build etc. in there spare time. Besides, I'm against socialism, I just like arguing:)

I was not aware that the two were mutually exclusive.

What do you mean by mutually exclusive?

As with all forms of collectivism, socialism is anathema to me. To me, the only legitimate economic and social system is one of voluntary interactions between individuals based upon the principle of non-aggression. As socialism, through its extension of state powers to regulate, tax and control the actions of sovereign individuals, is inherently violent, it is therefore a violator of the principle of non-aggression. Ergo, I cannot support socialism.

Because every system is man made, thus falliable, thus will suffer abuses. Switching from one system of abuse to another is like switching boxers.

If I'm facing a boxer who has a habit of hitting below the belt I'd like to switch off for a sparing partner who has a habit of stepping on feet or throwing elbows for a little while. Give my balls a break and let some other part take the beating.

How would any kind of economy work without using money?

By abolishing market exchange (for the most part) and replacing it with a mostly propertyless gift economy.

As with all forms of collectivism, socialism is anathema to me. To me, the only legitimate economic and social system is one of voluntary interactions between individuals based upon the principle of non-aggression. As socialism, through its extension of state powers to regulate, tax and control the actions of sovereign individuals, is inherently violent, it is therefore a violator of the principle of non-aggression. Ergo, I cannot support socialism.

You beg the question by assuming capitalist property rights before considering the principle of non-aggression.

I'd consider it to be more along the lines of ending the implicit aggression implied by the statist imposition of property.

Because every system is man made, thus falliable, thus will suffer abuses. Switching from one system of abuse to another is like switching boxers.

Do you universally apply this logic?

Are you, for instance, neutral on the question of totalitarian Stalinism versus liberal democracy with strong Constitutional protections for individual rights?

*Takes bag. Sips a tall, cold MD:Livewire.*

Let's see, CK... I got Dr. Pepper, Mountain Dew, and Coke. What you want?

Dr. Pepper, please. :)

By abolishing market exchange (for the most part) and replacing it with a mostly propertyless gift economy.

Gift economy?

Do you universally apply this logic?

Are you, for instance, neutral on the question of totalitarian Stalinism versus liberal democracy with strong Constitutional protections for individual rights?


He is correct that they all have faults, but you make the more valid point. Some forms of gov't are just better then others. For example, no one wants a corrupt dictatorship that wuz taken by a guerilla group, so that's why they're always getting overthrown.

Gift economy?

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

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

Thanks.

What policies would you pursue to accomplish this objective?
If I was in charge?
We should start with drastic cuts in military funding, only leaving enough to maintain current levels in the air force and pay the promised pensions, and then canceling all benefits except paychecks for future recruits. All new weapons research should be stopped all together. For more funds, we need raise taxes on the wealthiest .1% (based on current net worth, not income) to 75%, and raise the estate tax to 90% for all in that category as well. Taxes should also be raised up to 10% on the top 1% as well. Churches should be taxed.

Every person in the United States (and the world really, but meh for now) should be guaranteed health insurance. If they can’t afford it, the government should pay for all or part of it. Aggressive job education programs need to be pursued in inner city areas and jobs need to be created, artificially through public works if necessary, for every adult citizen. The funds to public education should be spread out evenly among districts and private schools should be banned or extremely restricted, those wealthy enough to attend them being charged equitable funds for public school.

Corporations should be required to sponsor public works projects based on their size and net worth.

It’s a pipe dream, but so is socialism.

*Takes bag. Sips a tall, cold MD:Livewire.*

Let's see, CK... I got Dr. Pepper, Mountain Dew, and Coke. What you want?

A beer, guiness if you got it. Oh and some steak and potaoes :)

You beg the question by assuming capitalist property rights before considering the principle of non-aggression.

I'd consider it to be more along the lines of ending the implicit aggression implied by the statist imposition of property.

Property is a naturally arising relationship between individuals and their material surroundings, as well as being a product of one's life and liberty. Seeing as how individuals, material surroundings, and life and liberty pre-exist the state, this therefore precludes the imposition of property by any state. Rather, property is a result of human action.

If the world were to accept socialism on a world basis, there would be no need for currency, and there would be no inequality, its just that people have grown to used to the concepts of money and inequality to realize how flawed it could be considered.


Every social idea has its weaknesses, and in general freedom is always better then tyranny. Would you prefer being forced into doing work you don't want, or not being allowed to speak your mind against the government?

poeple are being forced into doin work you dont want everywhere basicly.....

It’s a pipe dream, but so is socialism.

It has some socialist elements, especially the corporate public works projects.

You will still maintain the tyranny of the basic statist-capitalist structure, the rule of the owner class and its state bureaucracy allies... but improvements are improvements, even if they are limited in certain crucial ways.

Every significant change was once a "pipe dream"; we will have to see which ones manifest themselves in the future.

For more funds, we need raise taxes on the wealthiest .1% (based on current net worth, not income) to 75%, and raise the estate tax to 90% for all in that category as well.
That's utter and complete bullshit, and you know it is.

That's utter and complete bullshit, and you know it is.

I agree with him screw the corporate class what are they going to do with their money burn it wipe their ass with benjamins eventually you get to a point where more money has no point.

So no it aint bullshit.

If I was in charge?
We should start with drastic cuts in military funding, only leaving enough to maintain current levels in the air force and pay the promised pensions, and then canceling all benefits except paychecks for future recruits. All new weapons research should be stopped all together. For more funds, we need raise taxes on the wealthiest .1% (based on current net worth, not income) to 75%, and raise the estate tax to 90% for all in that category as well. Taxes should also be raised up to 10% on the top 1% as well. Churches should be taxed.

Every person in the United States (and the world really, but meh for now) should be guaranteed health insurance. If they can’t afford it, the government should pay for all or part of it. Aggressive job education programs need to be pursued in inner city areas and jobs need to be created, artificially through public works if necessary, for every adult citizen. The funds to public education should be spread out evenly among districts and private schools should be banned or extremely restricted, those wealthy enough to attend them being charged equitable funds for public school.

Corporations should be required to sponsor public works projects based on their size and net worth.

It’s a pipe dream, but so is socialism.

theres many countries that got that already :rolleyes: think we should demand a little more socialism in our argues hehe

What reason is their to hold on to the old system without any inquiry into finding a possibly better system? Why must we continue to hold onto the failing system of the past?

We had an inquiry. It was called the Soviet Union. It failed miserably.

Property is a naturally arising relationship between individuals and their material surroundings, as well as being a product of one's life and liberty.

Um, no, it isn't.

Please explain to me how anyone would enforce, say, rent in the state of nature.

Seeing as how individuals, material surroundings, and life and liberty pre-exist the state, this therefore precludes the imposition of property by any state. Rather, property is a result of human action.

Using things is the natural result of human action. Wanting to protect my use of things may, in certain limited ways, be a natural result of human action. Protecting someone's exclusive ownership of something she has not even seen, let alone used, can only arise by statist imposition.

WWhoever said the alternative was state-owned production? Couldn't the means of production in society be controlled democratically by workers? That wouldn't be state ownership.

That's called unionism.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public" - Adam Smith

We had an inquiry. It was called the Soviet Union. It failed miserably.

did it?? wouldent agree on you there

also you can never say any ideaology have ever failed by just talking about one state ;) then capitalism has failed so many times lol

did it?? wouldent agree on you there

It COLLAPSED. The workers and peasants who were so precious to the regime revolted against it. It was a disaster.

also you can never say any ideaology have ever failed by just talking about one state ;) then capitalism has failed so many times lol

Well, no, it hasn't. Not because of itself.

[QUOTE=The Potato Factory;11763734]It COLLAPSED. The workers and peasants who were so precious to the regime revolted against it. It was a disaster.

Well, no, it hasn't. Not because of itself.


not what happend in soviet.....
and u mean soviet did?

Please explain to me how anyone would enforce, say, rent in the state of nature.

I let you use my land, because I think there is greater benefit to you doing so than I doing so. You choose to gain permission to use my land because you feel it would yield the greatest marginal benefit. In exchange for using my land, you give me some of the produce. That's rent. If you hold it out on me, I take it by force, which is justified because you committed fraud. If I hold it out on you, you take it by force, which is justified because you committed aggression. It's messy, but it doesn't need a state.

Using things is the natural result of human action. Wanting to protect my use of things may, in certain limited ways, be a natural result of human action. Protecting someone's exclusive ownership of something she has not even seen, let alone used, can only arise by statist imposition.

But in order to use things, you have to have a perception of them first and their relation to you. If you don't, then you can't use them. That's property. And I could be induced to protect someone's things if there were some benefit to it that would create such a voluntary exchange- my security for her gold (or whatever medium of exchange). Again, messy, but no need for a state.

Blah blah blah soviet...

...

What?

...

i do not dare to listen to anything outside myself its so scary with the truth

yea ok to bad :upyours:

Dr. Pepper, please. :)

Here you go.

This is getting kinda good...

*Watches*

I let you use my land, because I think there is greater benefit to you doing so than I doing so. You choose to gain permission to use my land because you feel it would yield the greatest marginal benefit. In exchange for using my land, you give me some of the produce. That's rent. If you hold it out on me, I take it by force, which is justified because you committed fraud. If I hold it out on you, you take it by force, which is justified because you committed aggression. It's messy, but it doesn't need a state.

Well, obviously, if you assume property you will get rent.

Where do you get property? Why is it "your" land? Simply because you altered it with your labor? So what? Why should I care?

If I force you off land you are using - if I burn your crops and take away your farm - that seems pretty clearly "aggression" to me. If I use the land you fenced in twenty years ago and haven't touched since, it doesn't.

But in order to use things, you have to have a perception of them first and their relation to you. If you don't, then you can't use them. That's property.

No, it isn't property. I use sidewalks all the time; do I own them?

There are lots of relationships we can have with objects that are not based on exclusive right.

And I could be induced to protect someone's things if there were some benefit to it that would create such a voluntary exchange- my security for her gold (or whatever medium of exchange). Again, messy, but no need for a state.

Again, the problem is that there is no reason it would be considered that person's without a state to enforce her legal right to it.

A beer, guiness if you got it. Oh and some steak and potaoes :)

Here.

Odd i had that...

*Eats a Triple Whopper with Bacon and quintuple cheese on it*

yea ok to bad :upyours:

Ye olde English, fucker of thy mother. Doeth thou speaketh it?

Where do you get property? Why is it "your" land? Simply because you altered it with your labor? So what? Why should I care?

It is my land because I claimed it first, and, as a product of my life and liberty, I should be able to take it in compensation. You should care because if you mess with it, I'll screw up your stuff in retaliation.

If I force you off land you are using - if I burn your crops and take away your farm - that seems pretty clearly "aggression" to me. If I use the land you fenced in twenty years ago and haven't touched since, it doesn't.

In either case, compensation is needed for the aggressive acts. The first is, obviously, more egregious, and you should give me back all of my land and everything I lost. In the second, which is less egregious, you should just give me all the produce you made. You cannot just go around and take things when you feel like it.

No, it isn't property. I use sidewalks all the time; do I own them?

No, but the government does. They just happen to permit you to use it.

There are lots of relationships we can have with objects that are not based on exclusive right.

Yes, and we arrive at a tragedy of the commons with them. Exclusive right does not mean no one else, ever, can use them- it just means that the owner can decide how it is used.

Again, the problem is that there is no reason it would be considered that person's without a state to enforce her legal right to it.

You have not proven this at all. It is considered that person's because that person took it, and the other people should respect this because they would not like to have their things taken away from them, both because it's unethical and because it is the likely outcome of the initiation of aggression.

It is my land because I claimed it first, and, as a product of my life and liberty, I should be able to take it in compensation. You should care because if you mess with it, I'll screw up your stuff in retaliation.

That is not natural right, that is mere coercion. You "claimed it," and you'll "screw up" my stuff if I take it.

Which, of course, is my point. Any well-armed thief can claim as much - and, indeed, any thief at all can claim that her goods are the result of her labor as well.

In either case, compensation is needed for the aggressive acts. The first is, obviously, more egregious, and you should give me back all of my land and everything I lost. In the second, which is less egregious, you should just give me all the produce you made. You cannot just go around and take things when you feel like it.

You can - how else can you acquire land - but I cannot?

No, but the government does. They just happen to permit you to use it.

The government does not control my use of it, except within very lax limits - I can't destroy it, I can't obstruct it, in short I can't prevent anyone from using it through my use.

It does not - for the most part - use its "ownership" of sidewalks to exercise power. This is different from, say, government ownership of the means of production, where it takes an active role. This sort of state ownership is not really ownership at all - it is communal right, expressed legally as ownership solely because we have a society where rights over material goods are expressed in terms of ownership.

Yes, and we arrive at a tragedy of the commons with them.

No, we don't. A lack of exclusive ownership does not imply "anything goes," any more than freedom implies the right to murder.

Exclusive right does not mean no one else, ever, can use them- it just means that the owner can decide how it is used.

Yes. So?

You have not proven this at all. It is considered that person's because that person took it, and the other people should respect this because they would not like to have their things taken away from them, both because it's unethical and because it is the likely outcome of the initiation of aggression.

What I "take" is what I possess, not what I own. I can take things I do not own (even legally, what else is rent?), and I can own things I have never taken.

I agree with him screw the corporate class what are they going to do with their money burn it wipe their ass with benjamins eventually you get to a point where more money has no point.
Hahaha.

a) There is no corporate class. Look at the business leaders, the big managers and CEOs today. Those who get the hundred-million-dollar golden parachutes. They weren't rich when they started.
If you're from the US, you might know Dr. Z. Dr. Zetsche is now the head of DaimlerChrysler, he makes millions and millions.
He started maintaining machines in a Mercedes factory.

b) What will they do with their money? How about realise their dreams? Do with it what they want?
Fact is that they get money for doing work. If they didn't have a use for their money, they wouldn't be working to earn more.
Unless of course, you believe you are better than them, and somehow know what they need to spend their money on better than they do.

So no it aint bullshit.
What, so punishing rich people for being rich is a good idea now? Is it really just jealousy here, or do you just lack confidence that you can make it?

That is not natural right, that is mere coercion. You "claimed it," and you'll "screw up" my stuff if I take it.

Which, of course, is my point. Any well-armed thief can claim as much - and, indeed, any thief at all can claim that her goods are the result of her labor as well.

Saying that it's coercion that you cannot take my property from me is like saying it's a violation of my freedom that I cannot go out and murder people at will. I am defending myself from other people who would wish to steal from me.

Also, in the case of the thief, he might be able to argue that (and some libertarians may agree), but I would disagree because it is not voluntary.



You can - how else can you acquire land - but I cannot?

No one else had the land at first, so since I can A.) Mix my labor with it, and B.) Not be dealing with another individual, I can take it. In your case, however, there is already someone who has it, and barging in and trespassing is not a voluntary exchange. Instead of stealing, why not make an equitable exchange with the person to use the land? To do otherwise is not only greedy, but an act of aggression.

The government does not control my use of it, except within very lax limits - I can't destroy it, I can't obstruct it, in short I can't prevent anyone from using it through my use.

Uh, ya, the government does control the use of it. They could barricade it and not have anyone use it (like if there was a murder there, and they needed to gather evidence). And if there was a crowd that took up the space, it would prevent others' use of it. You could also destroy it- I was not aware that sidewalks were made of invincible material.

It does not - for the most part - use its "ownership" of sidewalks to exercise power. This is different from, say, government ownership of the means of production, where it takes an active role. This sort of state ownership is not really ownership at all - it is communal right, expressed legally as ownership solely because we have a society where rights over material goods are expressed in terms of ownership.

There is no such thing as communal rights, because there are only individuals. It is owned by the state, which, eventually, is another group of individuals. They get to decide how to dispose of it, and all that happens is that there is involuntary concentration of power.

No, we don't. A lack of exclusive ownership does not imply "anything goes," any more than freedom implies the right to murder.

Ah, but you're wrong. If it belongs to everyone, everyone can do with it as they please. If the air is a common good, I can pollute it as I wish, and you can't get back at me because no one owns the air that they breathe. Whereas, if we consider the air we breathe a commodity, we can charge polluters with trespass upon our bodies.

Yes. So?

So there are objects that are not commonly owned, but can be used by other people without the tragedy of the commons.

What I "take" is what I possess, not what I own. I can take things I do not own (even legally, what else is rent?), and I can own things I have never taken.

I meant took it first, which can then be voluntarily transferred.

Here you go.

This is getting kinda good...

*Watches*

Thanks. *toasts Minaris*

A beer, guiness if you got it. Oh and some steak and potaoes :)

*hands Strummervile an ice-cold Guiness*

How do you want your steak, rare, medium, or well-done? And what kind of potatoes?

Saying that it's coercion that you cannot take my property from me is like saying it's a violation of my freedom that I cannot go out and murder people at will. I am defending myself from other people who would wish to steal from me.

Circular. You cannot justify property rights with property rights.

Also, in the case of the thief, he might be able to argue that (and some libertarians may agree), but I would disagree because it is not voluntary.

"Voluntary"? When did "voluntary" come into play? Property is never voluntary, if it were it would not be property.

The thief transgresses upon the property of others - property based upon the violation of the freedom of all, and of the property of those preceding the present societies. The thief is transgressing upon theft, but since the theft upon which she is transgressing is old, and supported by armed enforcers, it is designated "legitimate" and her theft "illegitimate." That is merely the will of the state; it has nothing to do with natural right and everything to do with simple power relations.

No one else had the land at first,

Really? Why claim it as property, then, if no one will challenge your use of it? Because you are afraid of others coming? But why does you being first give you the power to deny them use of the land you claim?

so since I can A.) Mix my labor with it, and B.) Not be dealing with another individual, I can take it.

But of course you are dealing with other individuals, because otherwise there would be no point to property.

In your case, however, there is already someone who has it, and barging in and trespassing is not a voluntary exchange.

And taking it in the first place is? Did I choose to renounce my capability to use the land she claims?

Instead of stealing, why not make an equitable exchange with the person to use the land?

Because that is submission, it usurps my autonomy and makes me an instrument of another's will. Exclsuive ownership of material goods makes a mockery of the self-ownership right-libertarians claim to hold dear.

Such an exchange is not "equitable," it has nothing to do with equality. It is an exchange between a thief and a victim of theft; not of legally-designated property but of things far more important - genuine freedom, equality, independence, and self-sufficiency.

Uh, ya, the government does control the use of it. They could barricade it and not have anyone use it (like if there was a murder there, and they needed to gather evidence).

They can gather evidence from areas under private ownership as well, that is a privilege of the state and has nothing to do with ownership.

Do you see the government charging tolls to use sidewalks?

And if there was a crowd that took up the space, it would prevent others' use of it.

Not really, unless they were engaging in active obstruction - and I do not think that is legal.

You could also destroy it- I was not aware that sidewalks were made of invincible material.

It is illegal to destroy it, however. I am capable of theft as well.

There is no such thing as communal rights, because there are only individuals.

Then "rights shared by all individuals in a community," if you prefer. It amounts to the same thing.

It is owned by the state, which, eventually, is another group of individuals. They get to decide how to dispose of it, and all that happens is that there is involuntary concentration of power.

The state does not exercise power over sidewalks, at least not typically, beyond guaranteeing that everyone can use them.

I do not support the existence of states, and in a better society not even the capability to exercise power over sidewalks would exist, but that is beside the point; the point is that we have resources in our society that, in effect if not legally, are not "owned" in the way a landlord owns land or the state owns government buildings.

Ah, but you're wrong. If it belongs to everyone, everyone can do with it as they please. If the air is a common good, I can pollute it as I wish, and you can't get back at me because no one owns the air that they breathe.

This simply does not follow. I can have a right over something that is not a property right; I can have the right to clean air without owning the air.

Whereas, if we consider the air we breathe a commodity, we can charge polluters with trespass upon our bodies.

Pollution is a kind of aggression; that follows simply from the fact that it harms the health of people who have not consented to that harm. There is no need at all to bring property into it.

So there are objects that are not commonly owned, but can be used by other people without the tragedy of the commons.

Yes, the rulers want the service of the ruled, and are willing to pay for what does not belong to them with what also does not belong to them. That is not very reassuring.

I meant took it first, which can then be voluntarily transferred.

This merely privileges the initial usurper over the others; it does not concern itself with the real problem, the existence of usurpation in the first place.

Gift economy?

According to wikipedia, "A gift economy is an economic system in which the prevalent mode of exchange is for goods and services to be given without explicit agreement upon a quid pro quo, or the concept of "a favor for a favor" in the Latin language."

Saying that it's coercion that you cannot take my property from me is like saying it's a violation of my freedom that I cannot go out and murder people at will. I am defending myself from other people who would wish to steal from me.

This still does not answer why someone has the "right" to own the productive means of society. You haven't given a convincing rational for private ownership of the means of production in society. Why should the means of sustaining life and civilization be owned by anyone other than those who provide through their labor the productivity that benefits society?

What this leads us to is the realization that "property is theft," in the words of P.J. Proudhon. The right to own property allows one to obtain the surplus value of the labor of others for one's own selfish ends.

Ah, but you're wrong. If it belongs to everyone, everyone can do with it as they please. If the air is a common good, I can pollute it as I wish, and you can't get back at me because no one owns the air that they breathe. Whereas, if we consider the air we breathe a commodity, we can charge polluters with trespass upon our bodies.

No, it doesn't. In a communal ownership system, one persons rights extend only to the point that anothers begins. Thus you cannot pollute the air without the consent of the people who will be effected by such pollution.

I let you use my land, because I think there is greater benefit to you doing so than I doing so. You choose to gain permission to use my land because you feel it would yield the greatest marginal benefit. In exchange for using my land, you give me some of the produce. That's rent. If you hold it out on me, I take it by force, which is justified because you committed fraud. If I hold it out on you, you take it by force, which is justified because you committed aggression. It's messy, but it doesn't need a state.If I'm capable of exerting force against you if you violate the agreement, then why wouldn't I dispense with the rent entirely and just take the land?

Yes, and we arrive at a tragedy of the commons with them. The 'Tragedy of the Commons' is a myth:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html

That's called unionism.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public" - Adam Smith

Adam Smith was speaking about merchants when he made that statement. He was talking about the tendancy of monopoly in all forms of business. It should also be noted that Adam Smith was opposed to concepts like the corporation and wage labor.

The 'Tragedy of the Commons' is a myth:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html

Err, not so much. The myth lays in how the principle is applied; it inevitably gets thrown at collectivism. However, it was originally directed towards private businesses that had access to resources that are public domain. Since the public has no means of preventing the private sources from abusing such resources, and such abuse is beneficial to the private interest (at least in the short term), it inevitably happens.

Err, not so much. The myth lays in how the principle is applied; it inevitably gets thrown at collectivism. However, it was originally directed towards private businesses that had access to resources that are public domain. Since the public has no means of preventing the private sources from abusing such resources, and such abuse is beneficial to the private interest (at least in the short term), it inevitably happens.In which case it wouldn't be the 'commons'.

This still does not answer why someone has the "right" to own the productive means of society. You haven't given a convincing rational for private ownership of the means of production in society. Why should the means of sustaining life and civilization be owned by anyone other than those who provide through their labor the productivity that benefits society?

Because they had it first. Why should the one who has it second or third person be the one who gets it? The producer is the one who decides how the capital is employed, not the worker. The worker sells his labor to the person, as that is his possession, in exchange for something he values more.

What this leads us to is the realization that "property is theft," in the words of P.J. Proudhon. The right to own property allows one to obtain the surplus value of the labor of others for one's own selfish ends.

He also said "property is freedom", but nevermind that. Also, the labor theory of value is bullshit. The only real theory of value is subjective value. For example, no one in their right mind would buy a painting by me that I worked on for months and months, because I'm an absolutely godawful artist. However, people would probably pay quite a sum for a picture Picasso scribbled on a napkin. Why? Because that is more valuable to them than my crappy painting is. Attempting to defend the labor theory of value by saying that it has to have worth to other peoples does not protect the labor theory but rather negates it in favor of the subjective theory, as it is the value of the consumer that ultimately has say over how much the article is worth.

Labor, too, also has a subjective value. The laborer trades his labor in for something he values more, and the ultimate price is decided upon by him and his employer. So, in the end, property is freedom.

No, it doesn't. In a communal ownership system, one persons rights extend only to the point that anothers begins. Thus you cannot pollute the air without the consent of the people who will be effected by such pollution.

How is that not a property right? It still has to do with trespass upon the other and what belongs to him- his health, in this case. There is no such thing as "communal ownership", because there is no such thing as a community. There are only individuals. The individual's health does not belong to this "community", but rather to himself.

Circular. You cannot justify property rights with property rights.

I don't see how it's circular. I was saying that there are no absolute freedoms over others, and saying that no form of taking from others what belongs to them is wrong.

"Voluntary"? When did "voluntary" come into play? Property is never voluntary, if it were it would not be property.

The thief transgresses upon the property of others - property based upon the violation of the freedom of all, and of the property of those preceding the present societies. The thief is transgressing upon theft, but since the theft upon which she is transgressing is old, and supported by armed enforcers, it is designated "legitimate" and her theft "illegitimate." That is merely the will of the state; it has nothing to do with natural right and everything to do with simple power relations.

Basically, all this boils down to is the idea that people should be able to take whatever they want from others. It makes the idea that one who works for and receives things from others voluntarily is the same as someone who breaks into a house and starts taking things away. It's rather similar to saying that a gangster shooting old ladies is the moral equivalent of someone shooting that gangster in self-defense. And yes, property is voluntary, because it is at this disposa of the one who has it and can do with it as he will. Rights are not voluntary but rather implicit.

Really? Why claim it as property, then, if no one will challenge your use of it? Because you are afraid of others coming? But why does you being first give you the power to deny them use of the land you claim?

Because the idea of things belonging not to the person who first had them but rather to the second or third is absurd. Property is protection from thieves who would like to abuse others and take what belongs to them without any permission or compensation.

But of course you are dealing with other individuals, because otherwise there would be no point to property.

You seem to be misinterpreting this. Taking the land no one has had before is alright, because you are not robbing anyone of it. Taking the land that another person has is wrong because you are taking what you want without any compensation for the act.

And taking it in the first place is? Did I choose to renounce my capability to use the land she claims?

Again, wanting to take from others for one's own sake without any compensation or permission is what this argument boils down to. You implicitly renounce it because you would not want someone else to come and use what belongs to you.

Because that is submission, it usurps my autonomy and makes me an instrument of another's will. Exclsuive ownership of material goods makes a mockery of the self-ownership right-libertarians claim to hold dear.

No, claiming that it's just fine to go around and take what doesn't belong to you for your own consumption and without any regard for others is what is a mockery of self-ownership that left-"libertarians" claim to hold dear.

Such an exchange is not "equitable," it has nothing to do with equality. It is an exchange between a thief and a victim of theft; not of legally-designated property but of things far more important - genuine freedom, equality, independence, and self-sufficiency.

That's just plain ridiculous. You cannot just go around and take from others what you want from others regardless of their wishes, no matter the reason. This is theft, and true selfishness.

They can gather evidence from areas under private ownership as well, that is a privilege of the state and has nothing to do with ownership.

But they don't need any kind of warrant or the like to go around and start gathering evidence on the public property, unlike with private property.

Do you see the government charging tolls to use sidewalks?

I see them taxing roads, and you may have given them the idea to start charging tolls to use sidewalks. It's always within their power.

Not really, unless they were engaging in active obstruction - and I do not think that is legal.

Yes really, if there was some kind of new Star Wars movie or something and they were camping out. Same thing for roads- ever been in a traffic jam?

It is illegal to destroy it, however.

And why do you think that is?

I am capable of theft as well.

And quite willing to justify it, too.

Then "rights shared by all individuals in a community," if you prefer. It amounts to the same thing.

No, it doesn't. Everyone has the right to life- does that mean that everyone owns each other's life?

The state does not exercise power over sidewalks, at least not typically, beyond guaranteeing that everyone can use them.

But they're the ones that take land from private ownership and build them, and regulate them. It's their sidewalk, and they can do whatever they please with it- they just choose not to.

I do not support the existence of states, and in a better society not even the capability to exercise power over sidewalks would exist, but that is beside the point; the point is that we have resources in our society that, in effect if not legally, are not "owned" in the way a landlord owns land or the state owns government buildings.

I understand that, and they should be privately owned. Like air, for instance, so that people could take polluters to court for making emissions, instead of having all of these regulations etc. that just benefit the bigger companies and government bureaucrats.

This simply does not follow. I can have a right over something that is not a property right; I can have the right to clean air without owning the air.

No, you can't, because if you have the right over that clean air you must own that clean air. You may not buy the clean air (but rather homestead it), but you still own it. That's why people can't just go and pollute it.

Pollution is a kind of aggression; that follows simply from the fact that it harms the health of people who have not consented to that harm. There is no need at all to bring property into it.

But at its heart it IS a property concern, because you homestead that air that goes into your lungs. With that, you can say that the companies are trespassing against you and must cease or compensate you.

Yes, the rulers want the service of the ruled, and are willing to pay for what does not belong to them with what also does not belong to them. That is not very reassuring.

It does not have anything to do with being "ruled"- it's voluntary exchange. The two parties are exchanging what they have for something which they feel is more valuable to them. It makes everyone better off.

This merely privileges the initial usurper over the others; it does not concern itself with the real problem, the existence of usurpation in the first place.

It is not usurpation, it is the result of one's life and liberty. One cannot usurp that which rightly belongs to oneself. Therefore, there is no usurpation in the first place of which to speak, which solves the problem since there isn't one.

Edit:

If I'm capable of exerting force against you if you violate the agreement, then why wouldn't I dispense with the rent entirely and just take the land?

If not because you're a good person who wouldn't go around attacking people, then because of uncertainty. You may or may not be successful in your attempts of violence, and there's a chance you may get wounded or killed. The safest route is to believe me and give me my rent.

The 'Tragedy of the Commons' is a myth:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html

http://www.mises.org/story/865

If I might have a go.
So I've got a question for the Right Wingers. Capitalism has been proven empirically to produce massive inequalities in wealth and power, unresponsive corporate bureacracies and untold abuses of power on all levels of governance. What reason is their to hold on to the old system without any inquiry into finding a possibly better system? Why must we continue to hold onto the failing system of the past?
First of all, my typical response to this would be to ask why inequalities in wealth and power are bad, because I'd like some sort of basis for the original attack on capitalism. But I don't particularly want to go there, today (though I reserve the right to do so later if this doesn't work out).

The problems occur when we strive for a hybrid system. Judging a capitalist system based on inequalities in power is absurd. Here's why.

Collectivism is based on democratic power. The majority governs how society is run. Each member is subservient to the group.

Capitalism eschews the group. Each member is a free individual, and the will of the group is irrelevant. By allowing the majority to have some measure of control over societies rules, you open society both to inequitable forced redistribution (taxation), plus corrupt manipulation of the system (bribes, lobbying). Functional capitalism requires a fixed and immutable system of rules to govern it.

In short, you can't have an economic system that grants power to individuals if your political system is subservient to the majority. Individual freedom is incompatible with majority rule.

If not because you're a good person who wouldn't go around attacking people, then because of uncertainty. You may or may not be successful in your attempts of violence, and there's a chance you may get wounded or killed. The safest route is to believe me and give me my rent.There's also a chance that you won't live up to your end of the bargain; I see no reason why trusting you is inherently safer.

http://www.mises.org/story/865The link I posted already refutes this, however one thing in this was particularly stupid:

Put briefly, when individuals are not owners of resources, they are not able to assess their value; Really? When I see the can of beans at the store, I can't assess its value to me and determine if it's worth the price being asked for it?

Because they had it first. Why should the one who has it second or third person be the one who gets it? The producer is the one who decides how the capital is employed, not the worker. The worker sells his labor to the person, as that is his possession, in exchange for something he values more.

In most cases, they inherited their source of wealth from their parents. The world belongs to the living. There is no justification for the right of private property, especially in America. Everything that is in America was stolen, or is the product of such stolen land, from the original users, the American Indians. Why does the capitalist have the right to make other human beings his wage slaves? What justification is there for that.

He also said "property is freedom", but nevermind that. Also, the labor theory of value is bullshit. The only real theory of value is subjective value. For example, no one in their right mind would buy a painting by me that I worked on for months and months, because I'm an absolutely godawful artist. However, people would probably pay quite a sum for a picture Picasso scribbled on a napkin. Why? Because that is more valuable to them than my crappy painting is. Attempting to defend the labor theory of value by saying that it has to have worth to other peoples does not protect the labor theory but rather negates it in favor of the subjective theory, as it is the value of the consumer that ultimately has say over how much the article is worth.

Proudhon said "property is freedom" in the context that it is freedom for property owners to control their fellow man. Your trying to compare the LTV to the STV, which is like comparing the "value" of a commodity to the price it is sold for. LTV only states that the value of a commodity to society as a whole is determined by the amount of labor required to create it. STV states that individuals will pay whatever price they rationally deem nescesary to obtain a commodity.

Labor, too, also has a subjective value. The laborer trades his labor in for something he values more, and the ultimate price is decided upon by him and his employer. So, in the end, property is freedom.

No one doubts that labor has a subjective value. But it also has an objective value. Because of this, property owners are able to make a profit off of the labor of their wage slaves. Once again, property is only freedom for the property owner.

How is that not a property right? It still has to do with trespass upon the other and what belongs to him- his health, in this case. There is no such thing as "communal ownership", because there is no such thing as a community. There are only individuals. The individual's health does not belong to this "community", but rather to himself.

You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that both communities and individuals can exist. Individuals are members of communities, as such, communities can collectively own and control the means of production. The community also has a responsiblity to not infringe upon the rights of its members, because under the principle of free association (which left libertarians champion) the individual has the right to leave the community.

I don't see how it's circular. I was saying that there are no absolute freedoms over others, and saying that no form of taking from others what belongs to them is wrong.

The point is that it never really belonged to them.

Basically, all this boils down to is the idea that people should be able to take whatever they want from others. It makes the idea that one who works for and receives things from others voluntarily is the same as someone who breaks into a house and starts taking things away. It's rather similar to saying that a gangster shooting old ladies is the moral equivalent of someone shooting that gangster in self-defense. And yes, property is voluntary, because it is at this disposa of the one who has it and can do with it as he will. Rights are not voluntary but rather implicit.

This coming from someone who sanctions the "right" of the property owner to control the value of a worker's labor and use it for his/her own betterment.

Because the idea of things belonging not to the person who first had them but rather to the second or third is absurd. Property is protection from thieves who would like to abuse others and take what belongs to them without any permission or compensation.

The means of production in society does not belong to the first person to capitalize on its existence; it should belong to the community as a whole. The right of one individual cannot held to be higher then the rights of any other. Thus the property owner should not have the sanction to control the means of society's well being.

Again, wanting to take from others for one's own sake without any compensation or permission is what this argument boils down to. You implicitly renounce it because you would not want someone else to come and use what belongs to you.

The minority do not have a right to control the means of survival for the majority.

No, claiming that it's just fine to go around and take what doesn't belong to you for your own consumption and without any regard for others is what is a mockery of self-ownership that left-"libertarians" claim to hold dear.

Left-libertarians do not subscribe to the ridiculous notion of "self-ownership." Once again, you are missing the issue. The minority does not have the right to control the means of life.

That's just plain ridiculous. You cannot just go around and take from others what you want from others regardless of their wishes, no matter the reason. This is theft, and true selfishness.

And yet the property owner has the "right" to the value of the worker's labor. The property owner has the "right" to pay workers a substandard wage and is indeed applauded for doing so. That is by definition theft and selfishness. In Adam Smith's words, "the vile maxim of the masters of the world...all for ourselves and nothing for other people."

It does not have anything to do with being "ruled"- it's voluntary exchange. The two parties are exchanging what they have for something which they feel is more valuable to them. It makes everyone better off.

What about the work or starve relationship between the worker and his employer? Is that fair? Are the two parties on the same footing? Is the worker really better off by selling the right to his person for money to live?

No, he/she is not. This a clear example of the coercive nature of capitalist economic systems. More of the vile maxim.

If I might have a go.

First of all, my typical response to this would be to ask why inequalities in wealth and power are bad, because I'd like some sort of basis for the original attack on capitalism. But I don't particularly want to go there, today (though I reserve the right to do so later if this doesn't work out).

The problems occur when we strive for a hybrid system. Judging a capitalist system based on inequalities in power is absurd. Here's why.

Collectivism is based on democratic power. The majority governs how society is run. Each member is subservient to the group.

Capitalism eschews the group. Each member is a free individual, and the will of the group is irrelevant. By allowing the majority to have some measure of control over societies rules, you open society both to inequitable forced redistribution (taxation), plus corrupt manipulation of the system (bribes, lobbying). Functional capitalism requires a fixed and immutable system of rules to govern it.

In short, you can't have an economic system that grants power to individuals if your political system is subservient to the majority. Individual freedom is incompatible with majority rule.

We've been over the why inequality is bad debate before. Let's not go into it again.

Capitalism eschews the group in favor of some individuals: property owners. Unless one is one of the owners of the means of produciton, one is not a free individual. At that point, one only has the right to sell their labor for whatever going rate they can get it. More often than not, such transaction is permanently debilitating. Capitalism breaks everyone down into two categories. There are the slave owners/pimps at the top, and then their are the wage slaves/wage prostitutes at the bottom.

Bottom line: Individual freedom is incompatible with any system based on heirarchal relationships of power.

Fascinating arguments about the very concepts of property, communities and the individual. Brilliant quoting of Adam Smith and excellent job to both sides here in presenting your views intelligently.

If I might be able to propose a different concept of socialism (my own)...

The groundwork.

-Labor produces goods and wealth.
-The management organizes the wealth produced by labor.
-Working eight hours over a machine and working eight hours at a desk can both be exhausting and necessary labor.
-State control of all economy, industry and/or agriculture is inefficient, bureaucratic and un-democratic.
-Democracy extends beyond the selection of leaders.
-Regulations and organization are necessary for a proper, orderly and effective functioning of the economy, industry and agriculture.

The vision.

-Break up ownership of the vast majority of companies into either 100% worker-owned and voted cooperatives, where every full employee has an equal stake and say in the place where they work.
-Break up other companies into 100% worker-voted companies managed by worker's councils.
-Nationalize a small handful of key industries to provide substantial government revenue.
-Establish universal healthcare and education (preschool-college) along with wisely-managed social services focusing on productivity and employment.
-Create a National Development plan to target tariffs, taxation policies and subsidies to places where they are needed to boost the standard of living, quality of life and employment rates.
-Force the government to conform to strong transparency, balanced budget and anti-corruption controls, including many independent of the government.
-Focus on environmentalism, labor standards and economic development with regards to a foreign trade policy.
-Set up a national banking system, economic development bonds and other means to bring in government revenue without excessively raising taxes.
-Rebalance taxation to foster economic mobility and work incentive within a progressive system.

How's that for a different concept of socialism? It's founded on basic principles and methods that have already been successfully implemented (in many cases).

Find me a political party in the United States that is willing to advocate something like that while still being centrist on social and foreign policy issues, and you may have a new member in me.

By the way, this smashes open concepts of classism by emphasizing that eight hours of labor for a company equals eight hours of labor for a company, end of argument.

As far as property issues go: air, water, land and other basics like that should not be exclusively owned. They belong to the human community. What right does anyone have to claim that something vastly more ancient and useful than they are belongs exclusively to them?

Copyright issues should be resolved by setting a monetary limit on how much a work can earn for the creator before it hits public domain. That would be an end to both the starving artists argument and the art is for everyone argument. Both are valid. Besides, creators can still make money through their works even after the copyright has expired.

Inheritance should also be limited by a flat roof. As one NS issue put it, you should be allowed to inherit the family farm, not the three oil wells and the helicopter pad.

The vision.

-Break up ownership of the vast majority of companies into either 100% worker-owned and voted collectives, where every full employee has an equal stake and say in the place where they work.
-Break up other companies into 100% worker-voted companies managed by worker's councils.
-Nationalize a small handful of key industries to provide substantial government revenue.
-Establish universal healthcare and education (preschool-college) along with wisely-managed social services focusing on productivity and employment.
-Create a National Development plan to target tariffs, taxation policies and subsidies to places where they are needed to boost the standard of living, quality of life and employment rates.
-Force the government to conform to strong transparency, balanced budget and anti-corruption controls, including many independent of the government.
-Focus on environmentalism, labor standards and economic development with regards to a foreign trade policy.
-Set up a national banking system, economic development bonds and other means to bring in government revenue without excessively raising taxes.
-Rebalance taxation to foster economic mobility and work incentive within a progressive system.

How's that for a different concept of socialism? It's founded on basic principles and methods that have already been successfully implemented (in many cases).

Find me a political party in the United States that is willing to advocate something like that while still being centrist on social and foreign policy issues, and you may have a new member in me.

Interesting idea. It fits about half way between libertarian socialism and democratic socialism. Definitely feasible. Certainly a good transitory system from capitalism to libertarian socialism.

I can't direct you to a political party without knowing what you consider to be centrism on social and foreign policy. Economically, the vision held by the Socialist Party USA is very similar to what you laid out, but they also tend towards left-wing activism on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. They are most definitely anti-militaristic. You should check them out though, and decide for yourself whethere or not they stand close enought to what you stand to. The link to their page is in my sig. Check it out, you might be suprised.

I am quite familiar with the SP USA. Although I certainly respect them for their fight against capitalism and I respect you as a comrade in that regard, I do not support their anti-militarism. I am too hawkish to fit in with them.

I am in favor of gay marriage rights but against abortion and several other leftist social views, so that is another issue. Besides, I have never been able to get a clear answer as to whether the SP USA actually opposes capitalism or would simply reform it in the style of the Europeans. I actually oppose capitalism at its base, unlike the European socialists on the whole.

I do not support libertarian socialism, despite being a socialist with an ever-so-mild libertarian bent on social issues. I believe in a considerably-sized government as a necessity for my vision of socialism and am not a syndicalist or a transitionalist. Although in the distant future it may be feasible to abolish the wage system and all systems of ownership, I do not believe I will ever support that in my lifetime. I do not foresee any time before a religious end of the earth when anarchy will be a feasible or even correct concept.

Thank you for the information, though. It is certainly appreciated. Peace be with you.

Well, your welcome. As far as I know of, the SP USA stays as far away from reformism as possible. They seem to be more of the socialism from below kind of people. However, supporting them doesn't require that you automatically agree with them on every issue. The SP USA views political battles as a means to bring attention to their activist struggles, with the hopes of creating a truly revolutionary party of the working class. A noble ambition, but its a long way off.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Sounds good to me.

So I've got a question for the Right Wingers. Capitalism has been proven empirically to produce massive inequalities in wealth and power,
Wrong, but even if it does wrt wealth--so what? As for power--that comes from a government.


unresponsive corporate bureacracies
No, that happens when you have the protection of a government, i.e. mercantilism.


and untold abuses of power on all levels of governance.
Sounds like a problem of government to me.


What reason is their to hold on to the old system without any inquiry into finding a possibly better system? Why must we continue to hold onto the failing system of the past?
Because socialism cannot account for human action. Socialism cannot account for scarcity. Socialism cannot account for wants. Socialism cannot account for values. In short--socialism is a miserable failure which leads only to tyranny and misery.

And please--do learn the difference between mercantilism/interventionism and capitalism. It'll help. Thanks much.

Because socialism cannot account for human action. Socialism cannot account for scarcity. Socialism cannot account for wants. Socialism cannot account for values. In short--socialism is a miserable failure which leads only to tyranny and misery.

And please--do learn the difference between mercantilism/interventionism and capitalism. It'll help. Thanks much.
Agreed on all accounts. He sounds like a ranting teen most of the time more than someone debating.

By abolishing market exchange (for the most part) and replacing it with a mostly propertyless gift economy.
But gifts are bad, according to the socialists. They hate that someone wealthy can leave money to heirs in a will. They see inheritance (a gift) as bad. Thus, all gifts MUST be bad, lest they be hypocrites.

Capitalism eschews the group in favor of some individuals: property owners. Unless one is one of the owners of the means of produciton, one is not a free individual. At that point, one only has the right to sell their labor for whatever going rate they can get it. More often than not, such transaction is permanently debilitating. Capitalism breaks everyone down into two categories. There are the slave owners/pimps at the top, and then their are the wage slaves/wage prostitutes at the bottom.
Other than being empty phrases, the terms "slave owner" and "wage slave" are so badly taken out of context here that it isn't even worth using them. If I am a slave in capitalism, I am a bloody happy slave! Oh wait, maybe I am not a slave at all...

Because socialism cannot account for human action. Socialism cannot account for scarcity. Socialism cannot account for wants. Socialism cannot account for values. In short--socialism is a miserable failure which leads only to tyranny and misery.

And please--do learn the difference between mercantilism/interventionism and capitalism. It'll help. Thanks much.

You're still around. Haven't seen you in a while. We've already been over the corporate mercantism vs. capitalism argument. Is a whole lot fucking easier to write "capitalism" than corporate mercantilism, and whole lot more people know what I'm talking about then.

If you had ever read anymore about socialism than the failure of bureaucratic collectivism, you might have more of inkling on why socialism doesn't lead to tyranny and misery--but your stuck in the Cold War mentality of socialism=bureaucratic collectivism. That mindset has the same validity as 2+2=5.

I think we should agree to disagree, because neither of us has budged on our views. However, we do reach common ground on two things: corporatism and religious fanaticism. There are some great threads on the forum about the latter.

The SP USA views political battles as a means to bring attention to their activist struggles, with the hopes of creating a truly revolutionary party of the working class. A noble ambition, but its a long way off.

Yeah, it is noble. I feel that if only some of these third parties would get tough on security and military issues (at least no farther left than the left-wing of the Democratic Party formally, with plenty of room for dissent) and weren't as, no offense, knee-jerk on social issues, they could have a serious shot. People are disillusioned with the Demicans and Republicrats now. If third parties would run candidates at the local and state levels, build up experienced leaders with somewhat moderated views and build up a voter base, they could have a real chance. I'd be all for that.

You're still around. Haven't seen you in a while. We've already been over the corporate mercantism vs. capitalism argument. Is a whole lot fucking easier to write "capitalism" than corporate mercantilism, and whole lot more people know what I'm talking about then.


Corporatism (essentially corporate mercantilism). Wow. So easy to say, and this way we avoid seeming like idiots who don't know what Capitalism means.


If you had ever read anymore about socialism than the failure of bureaucratic collectivism, you might have more of inkling on why socialism doesn't lead to tyranny and misery--but your stuck in the Cold War mentality of socialism=bureaucratic collectivism. That mindset has the same validity as 2+2=5.
Theoretical socialism is prone to even more critiques than its actual forms. It is full of logical inconsistencies.

Corporatism (essentially corporate mercantilism). Wow. So easy to say, and this way we avoid seeming like idiots who don't know what Capitalism means.

Corporatism is when private power and government power are in bed together. Mercantislism is when private power has made government its bitch. Not the same thing.

Theoretical socialism is prone to even more critiques than its actual forms. It is full of logical inconsistencies.

Like what? That it tramples on your precious concept of property rights?

Corporatism is when private power and government power are in bed together. Mercantislism is when private power has made government its bitch. Not the same thing.
For all practical purposes, it is though. Most "capitalist" societies are corporatist. So it's not only more accurate, it's more relevant too.

Like what? That it tramples on your precious concept of property rights?
Like how, for instance, one calculates a "fair wage" arbitrarily, without the market to aid calculation, given that a "fair wage" is a convention arising from the free market. Much of it is empty rhetoric. Like how "from each according to their ability, each according to their needs" would somehow magically wipe out inequality, when in fact it is based on the fact that humans are not equal. Marxism is a post-scarcity ideology - otherwise it is simply dealing with the wrong species.

You're still around. Haven't seen you in a while. We've already been over the corporate mercantism vs. capitalism argument.
And you didn't learn anything, did you? I don't give a damn if you think it's easier to write "capitalism" than "corporate mercantilism"--they are two distinctly different things. It's like saying "I'm going to get a Coke" when you get a Pepsi because Coke is 1 syllable vs. Pepsi's 2.

Use the correct term or don't post; it's that simple. Don't go about misrepresenting a concept just because you're jealous of anyone who has a penny more than you do.


If you had ever read anymore about socialism than the failure of bureaucratic collectivism,
That's all there is.


you might have more of inkling on why socialism doesn't lead to tyranny and misery
It never doesn't.

I accept your capitulation, though.

We haven't had a big left-wing vs. right-wing thread in a while, so I thought that I'd start one. I think I'll start with a definition of socialism.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Sounds good to me.

So I've got a question for the Right Wingers. Capitalism has been proven empirically to produce massive inequalities in wealth and power, unresponsive corporate bureacracies and untold abuses of power on all levels of governance. What reason is their to hold on to the old system without any inquiry into finding a possibly better system? Why must we continue to hold onto the failing system of the past?

What is equality, anyway? Well, for one thing, it doesn't exist. Fight it if you want, the truth is, society--as capitalism has "empirically proven"--is best served if there exist "massive inequalities in wealth and power." I guess it all boils down to whether you prefer being nobody together (equality, in its quintessential form) or somebody alone. But we can be equals! We can be happy, living with exactly the same amount of money as Fred and Jack and Jane, with exactly the same house, the same number of toilet paper rolls! With equality comes the destruction of the individual. Equality doesn't exist, and it won't. Ever. So, if not already obvious, capitalism is and will (hopefully) always be the system of the future. Socialism has failed. It cannot succeed, or we will witness the breakdown of everything in the social order--which cannot, conceivably, happen.

Aha, found it. Relevant quote by the man Thomas Jefferson himself:

"It is a singular anxiety which some people have that we should all think alike. Would the world be more beautiful were all our faces alike? were our tempers, our talents, our tastes, our forms, our wishes, aversions and pursuits cast exactly in the same mould? If no varieties existed in the animal, vegetable or mineral creation, but all moved strictly uniform, catholic and orthodox, what a world of physical and moral monotony would it be. These are the absurdities into which those run who usurp the throne of God, and dictate to Him what He should have done. May they with all their metaphysical riddles appear before that tribunal with as clean hands and hearts as you and I shall. There, suspended in the scales of eternal justice, faith and works will show their worth by their weight."

What is equality, anyway? Well, for one thing, it doesn't exist. Fight it if you want, the truth is, society--as capitalism has "empirically proven"--is best served if there exist "massive inequalities in wealth and power."

Any social order for which that is true is a vile, disgusting social order that should be overthrown.

We can be happy, living with exactly the same amount of money as Fred and Jack and Jane, with exactly the same house, the same number of toilet paper rolls!

This is a straw man.

Aha, found it. Relevant quote by the man Thomas Jefferson himself:

"It is a singular anxiety which some people have that we should all think alike. Would the world be more beautiful were all our faces alike? were our tempers, our talents, our tastes, our forms, our wishes, aversions and pursuits cast exactly in the same mould? If no varieties existed in the animal, vegetable or mineral creation, but all moved strictly uniform, catholic and orthodox, what a world of physical and moral monotony would it be. These are the absurdities into which those run who usurp the throne of God, and dictate to Him what He should have done. May they with all their metaphysical riddles appear before that tribunal with as clean hands and hearts as you and I shall. There, suspended in the scales of eternal justice, faith and works will show their worth by their weight."

People being equal is not the same thing as people being alike.

the only thing worse than the current welfare state the United States has would be socialism.

i fail to see why someone would want to trade liberty for punitive taxes and fewer choices.

Any system which fails to reward effort or achievement is always going to result in failure. If you remove any motivation for the individual, everyone will end up sitting on their arses and expecting the less intelligent to provide for them.

We haven't had a big left-wing vs. right-wing thread in a while, so I thought that I'd start one. I think I'll start with a definition of socialism.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Sounds good to me.

So I've got a question for the Right Wingers. Capitalism has been proven empirically to produce massive inequalities in wealth and power, unresponsive corporate bureacracies and untold abuses of power on all levels of governance. What reason is their to hold on to the old system without any inquiry into finding a possibly better system? Why must we continue to hold onto the failing system of the past?



Once again, ill disambigulate.....*sigh*

Inequalities: As with a free market, you have too get out and work for yourself. Its based on personal responsibility and initiative. I honestly dont knoiw how you can call yourself a libertarian and not know this. This "social inequality" is a result of those who worked harded, and those who did not work hard, too get where they are.

Unresponsive corporate buracracies:

Unresponsive too what? Federal regulation? Name on major bussiness that completely ignores federal regualtion. Name one.

Are you saying capitalism is the "old system"? We were founded on individual responsibility and freedom. I honestly dont see how this is failing in any way, in modern america...I dont think socialism would be a better system. But then again im a right leaning libertarian...

Like what? That it tramples on your precious concept of property rights?

No, once again I really dont think your a libertarian at all. In the sense of, the basic libertarian beleif is that life, liberty and property, are automatic rights too every citizen, and individuals should be able too defend these rights, in any way shape or form. Face it- your socialist, not libertarian. There on the opposite sides of the spectrum buddy.

We haven't had a big left-wing vs. right-wing thread in a while, so I thought that I'd start one. I think I'll start with a definition of socialism.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Sounds good to me.

So I've got a question for the Right Wingers. Capitalism has been proven empirically to produce massive inequalities in wealth and power, unresponsive corporate bureacracies and untold abuses of power on all levels of governance. What reason is their to hold on to the old system without any inquiry into finding a possibly better system? Why must we continue to hold onto the failing system of the past?

Did the American Heritage dictionary provide the historical description of capitalism as well as the definition of socialism?

I daresay that if those were the only things which capitalism provided we would have changed systems long ago.

Liberty EKB;11770149']the only thing worse than the current welfare state the United States has would be socialism.

i fail to see why someone would want to trade liberty for punitive taxes and fewer choices.Socialism maximizes liberty.

Any system which fails to reward effort or achievement is always going to result in failure. If you remove any motivation for the individual, everyone will end up sitting on their arses and expecting the less intelligent to provide for them.We're not talking about a system which refuses to reward effort or achievement. Fortunately, money isn't the only way in which someone can be rewarded.

No, once again I really dont think your a libertarian at all. In the sense of, the basic libertarian beleif is that life, liberty and property, are automatic rights too every citizen, and individuals should be able too defend these rights, in any way shape or form. Face it- your socialist, not libertarian. There on the opposite sides of the spectrum buddy.No, that is the right-wing libertarian belief. It's entirely possible to be both a socialist and a libertarian.

*brings soda*

*Busts out five hundred bottles of Great Lakes Breweries Elliot Ness!*

Think of the advantages.Free medical care etc.
But we must also not forget that germany was under socialist rule.to have a sucessful socialist goverment there must at least be some democracy.I've thought of a goverment system in which some things are free such as medical care but other stuff is not.

Any social order for which that is true is a vile, disgusting social order that should be overthrown.

It is true in all social orders. Society needs people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. Equality is the destruction of the individual.


This is a straw man.

What an astute observation, Einstein! Here, have a cookie.


People being equal is not the same thing as people being alike.

On the social order, equality begets similarity. If you want economic equality, prepare for societal and, consequently, universal similarity. If you want to be nobody together, then that's your prerogative.

It is true in all social orders. Society needs people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. Equality is the destruction of the individual.
Not really, what society needs is people who are willing to go out on a limb, and risk everything, that they might be rewarded tenfold for their efforts.

On the social order, equality begets similarity. If you want economic equality, prepare for societal and, consequently, universal similarity. If you want to be nobody together, then that's your prerogative.

Don't forget stagnation.

Not really, what society needs is people who are willing to go out on a limb, and risk everything, that they might be rewarded tenfold for their efforts.

Absolutely. And with motivation, desire, and action, together, we have created an unequal society that is representative of the best in mankind. Why bring everyone down to the same level--and discourage personal achievement, which ultimately benefits the collective society more than the actions of an unmotivated multitude?

Don't forget stagnation.

Precisely. Socially and economically.

Absolutely. And with motivation, desire, and action, together, we have created an unequal society that is representative of the best in mankind. Why bring everyone down to the same level--and discourage personal achievement, which ultimately benefits the collective society more than the actions of an unmotivated multitude?
They're supposed to feel some sort of mystical duty to work hard and do their best. I don't really know how this is the case, but it is.



Precisely. Socially and economically.

My current example is Cuba, which was once the wealthiest country in Latin America, and had higher Human Development Statistics than nations in Western Europe. Since Castro came to power the Cuban economy has barely changed since the 1950's. There are nearly exactly the same numbers of cars, newspapers, televisions and radios, all while every other country in Latin America has made tremendous gains in all of these areas. Cuba is a time capsule, showing us what life was like in that country in 1959.

I'm an ideallistic fool. I'd rather have a government that makes sure its citizens are well-fed and with jobs than lassiez-faire economics.


I might not have spelled that right.

Not really, what society needs is people who are willing to go out on a limb, and risk everything, that they might be rewarded tenfold for their efforts.Financial rewards aren't the only possible rewards.

We've been over the why inequality is bad debate before. Let's not go into it again.

Capitalism eschews the group in favor of some individuals: property owners. Unless one is one of the owners of the means of produciton, one is not a free individual. At that point, one only has the right to sell their labor for whatever going rate they can get it. More often than not, such transaction is permanently debilitating. Capitalism breaks everyone down into two categories. There are the slave owners/pimps at the top, and then their are the wage slaves/wage prostitutes at the bottom.

Bottom line: Individual freedom is incompatible with any system based on heirarchal relationships of power.

But anyone can become a property owner. UNder socialism, the minority is necessarily oppressed.

Financial rewards aren't the only possible rewards.
And no one claimes they are. Even right-wing economists allow for non-monetary compensation, but for ease of comparison everything gets converted into monetary units so we can measure them.

Socialism doesn't grant me the freedom to work really hard for a few years and the live in comfort ever after.

And no one claimes they are. Even right-wing economists allow for non-monetary compensation, but for ease of comparison everything gets converted into monetary units so we can measure them.He claimed that socialism didn't reward people for working hard, I pointed out that simply because they didn't receive extra money doesn't mean that they aren't being rewarded.

Socialism doesn't grant me the freedom to work really hard for a few years and the live in comfort ever after.Nor should such a freedom be created.

He claimed that socialism didn't reward people for working hard, I pointed out that simply because they didn't receive extra money doesn't mean that they aren't being rewarded.

Nor should such a freedom be created.
But it's the life I want. Isn't socialism about letting people live the lives they want? Or are you trying to make people live the lives you want them to lead? That would make your position a lot less sympathetic.

Socialism doesn't reward people for working hard because they're not permitted to benefit from the fruits of their own labour more than anyone else does.

But it's the life I want. Isn't socialism about letting people live the lives they want? Or are you trying to make people live the lives you want them to lead? That would make your position a lot less sympathetic.Being able to live the life you want is only one criteria. Certainly you can think of instances of people wanting to live lives that they shouldn't be able to.

Socialism doesn't reward people for working hard because they're not permitted to benefit from the fruits of their own labour more than anyone else does.Again, not all benefits are monetary.

Again, not all benefits are monetary.
Well then, what benefits do socialists receive for working hard?

To be an effective incentive, this would have to be a benefit that's universally valued.

Being able to live the life you want is only one criteria. Certainly you can think of instances of people wanting to live lives that they shouldn't be able to.
A list of your criteria would be really informative, here.

And I don't like to make normative claims. If the basis for your socialism is normative, it cannot persuade a reasonable person.

Well then, what benefits do socialist's receive for working hard?

To be an effective incentive, this would have to be a benefit that's universally valued.There aren't any benefits that are universally valued. The benefit that someone would receive would depend on what they're working for. For instance, someone might receive more respect for working hard, others might enjoy working hard, and receive the benefit of doing something they enjoy.

A list of your criteria would be really informative, here.

And I don't like to make normative claims. If the basis for your socialism is normative, it cannot persuade a reasonable person.Criteria about what socialism would entail, or criteria about what kinds of lives people shouldn't be allowed to live?

There aren't any benefits that are universally valued. The benefit that someone would receive would depend on what they're working for. For instance, someone might receive more respect for working hard, others might enjoy working hard, and receive the benefit of doing something they enjoy.
That's why capitalism works. Survival is universally valued.

Under your system, there's no incentive for me to work hard. Seriously, "respect"? That's your best argument?

So shoot for my system, where working hard is rewarded with greater pay for yourself and all of your co-workers equally. Everyone has a stake in my vision of socialism, so the incentive certainly exists.

So shoot for my system, where working hard is rewarded with greater pay for yourself and all of your co-workers equally. Everyone has a stake in my vision of socialism, so the incentive certainly exists.

Ha! And where is this collective incentive coming from? If you reward just your coworkers, then you're creating a system where groups of people are necessarily unequal in their status. If you reward everyone, to say nothing of the moral, social, and economic impossibility, because of one man's work, what further incentive does that man receive when his efforts are given the same reward as one who does half or none of the work? We are human beings, with emotions, desires, separate wills--with an inherent desire for self-preservation. Socialism is fundamentally flawed from its inception, unless you can eliminate what makes us human. You want socialism? Run a computer program. Every mindless 1 and 0 that makes that program run is the only instance of the dehumanization required to exist solely for the purpose of the task, and the ends. There's your socialism.

As opposed to the current system, where the incentive is to work for your boss's retirement fund, not knowing if you'll have one, or if you'll have healthcare, education, or even a job in a year.

At least under socialism every job is valued as necessary for the functioning of the group. After all, the rich can't make anything with their money. You need machinists for that. The workers have more power by sitting down than management ever could with all the paper money in the world.

In most cases, they inherited their source of wealth from their parents. The world belongs to the living. There is no justification for the right of private property, especially in America.
Prove it.


Everything that is in America was stolen, or is the product of such stolen land, from the original users, the American Indians.
Prove it.


Why does the capitalist have the right to make other human beings his wage slaves?
Prove that there is such a thing.


Proudhon said "property is freedom" in the context that it is freedom for property owners to control their fellow man.
You control yourself, which is your property.


No one doubts that labor has a subjective value. But it also has an objective value. Because of this, property owners are able to make a profit off of the labor of their wage slaves.
No such thing exists (wage slaves)


You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that both communities and individuals can exist.
Communities cannot exist without individuals.


This coming from someone who sanctions the "right" of the property owner to control the value of a worker's labor and use it for his/her own betterment.
Why must you always trot out the refuted-to-death labor theory of value?


The means of production in society does not belong to the first person to capitalize on its existence; it should belong to the community as a whole.
Prove it WITHOUT relying on the refuted-to-death labor theory of value.


The right of one individual cannot held to be higher then the rights of any other. Thus the property owner should not have the sanction to control the means of society's well being.
They don't. Whatever gives you the idiotic notion that they do?



The minority do not have a right to control the means of survival for the majority.
They don't. Whatever gives you the idiotic notion that they do?


Left-libertarians do not subscribe to the ridiculous notion of "self-ownership."
Then they have no concept of morality, either.


Once again, you are missing the issue. The minority does not have the right to control the means of life.
Whatever gives you the idiotic notion that such happens?


And yet the property owner has the "right" to the value of the worker's labor.
The property owner is the one who owns the items.


The property owner has the "right" to pay workers a substandard wage
Against what standard do you make that claim?


What about the work or starve relationship between the worker and his employer?
You mean the one where if the worker doesn't work, the employer starves?

No, once again I really dont think your a libertarian at all. In the sense of, the basic libertarian beleif is that life, liberty and property, are automatic rights too every citizen, and individuals should be able too defend these rights, in any way shape or form. Face it- your socialist, not libertarian. There on the opposite sides of the spectrum buddy.

Once again, I'm a Libertarian Socialist! It wasn't until the 1970s that libertarian mean anything right wing. In europe, libertarianism is considered synonymous with most forms of socialism. I've never denied being a socialist, in fact I bear the distinction proudly.

So shoot for my system, where working hard is rewarded with greater pay for yourself and all of your co-workers equally. Everyone has a stake in my vision of socialism, so the incentive certainly exists.
That's a free-rider problem waiting to happen.

Since the marginal benefit or cost to me based on working or not is so small, the rational thing for me to do is to work as little as possible.
As opposed to the current system, where the incentive is to work for your boss's retirement fund, not knowing if you'll have one, or if you'll have healthcare, education, or even a job in a year.
Then you did a lousy job of negotiating your compensation.
At least under socialism every job is valued as necessary for the functioning of the group. After all, the rich can't make anything with their money. You need machinists for that. The workers have more power by sitting down than management ever could with all the paper money in the world.
Right. Both sides of the transaction have considerable power, because each has something the other needs. That's why there isn't a large power gap between the two. Capitalists NEED workers.

Prove it.

Open your fucking eyes, and crawl out of that ideological cave called "anarcho" capitalism, and go take a good long look at what life is like for most people in the world.

Prove it.

European colonialist had no right to claim sovereignty of the Americas, which they did. Ever heard of a little thing called colonialism? Thats when a foreign nation conquers a country, massacres its inhabitants, and claims the resources as its own. It has happened time and time again.

Prove that there is such a thing.

If I work for another person, who owns productive property, which I do not, then I am dependent on he/she for survival. I work for his/her benefit. I have no rights in any area that conflicts with my employer's self interest. My employer has an almost absolute right to command me what to do. Thus, I have no free will any longer, I can work, or starve.

You control yourself, which is your property.

You cannot seperate the subjective and objective of human existence. People are not objects which can be bought or sold. If the notion of self ownership is held to be true, then I must sell my self to pay for a debt, thus becoming a slave.

No such thing exists (wage slaves)

Once again, crawl out of your ivory tower.

Communities cannot exist without individuals.

Thus the community must represent the will of the resident individuals; individuals have the right to leave any community they wish to.

Why must you always trot out the refuted-to-death labor theory of value?

It has not been refuted to death. There has never been any convincing argument to warrant its refutation.

Prove it WITHOUT relying on the refuted-to-death labor theory of value.

Its not been refuted.

They don't. Whatever gives you the idiotic notion that they do?

Yes, they do. The means of production: everything that is required for society to continue to exist, is owned by private individuals.

They don't. Whatever gives you the idiotic notion that they do?

If the means of society's existence is controlled by a small number of private individuals, which it is, (What the fuck do you think a corporation is?) then this minority is granted license to have control of the majority.

Then they have no concept of morality, either.

Can't you make an argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks? Just because our concept of morality is different than yours doesn't mean it isn't valid or doesn't exist.

The property owner is the one who owns the items.

The minority has no right to own productive property to the detriment of the majority.

Against what standard do you make that claim?

If you paid attention to society, you would know just how many people work too hard for too little pay. Come down off of your ivory tower, and take a good hard look at what really goes on down here.

You mean the one where if the worker doesn't work, the employer starves?

You're trying to blame the victim. The property owner, more often than not, can always find another worker. The worker has a very hard time finding another employer, who will inevitably treat him/her the same way the last did with little variation.

And you didn't learn anything, did you? I don't give a damn if you think it's easier to write "capitalism" than "corporate mercantilism"--they are two distinctly different things. It's like saying "I'm going to get a Coke" when you get a Pepsi because Coke is 1 syllable vs. Pepsi's 2.

Use the correct term or don't post; it's that simple. Don't go about misrepresenting a concept just because you're jealous of anyone who has a penny more than you do.

I really don't think life would be any better under completely laissez-faire capitalism than it is under corporate mercantilism. In fact, I think it would be considerable worse. The history of the past 200 years shows the less regulated it is, the more unstable it becomes. Anytime the economy has tried to make a transition to laissez-faire, there have been massive recessions, even collapses.

Look at Pinochet's Chile, or late 19th Century America. When the mercantilist protections were removed, the economy turned into a roller coaster. And every time it fluctuated, thousands of people were permanently thrown off the roller coaster, and dashed on the rocks of poverty below.

Pinochet's Chile was vastly superior to what preceded it, and is largely responsible for the relative luxury Chile now enjoys.

meh
obviously capitalism is morally wrong
maybe a diluted european socialism is best. if you lived in the south east UK, you might agree too.

yay post #100

obviously capitalism is morally wrong
Not the most persuasive argument I've ever heard.

Even if I agreed (which I don't), I see no reason why it would be relevant.

ok its wrong because by definition it involves exploitation. i mentioned it because it is one of the big alternatives to socialism. but as i said, euro-capitalist-socialism. the way forward.
give me a break i have been awake for like 20 hours.

ok its wrong because by definition it involves exploitation. i mentioned it because it is one of the big alternatives to socialism. but as i said, euro-capitalist-socialism. the way forward.
give me a break i have been awake for like 20 hours.
No excuse for sloppy reasoning.

Now, does capitalism necessarily require exploitation? Not every exchange in a free market is exploitative. And second, is exploitation necessarily a bad thing?

is exploitation necessarily a bad thing?

in what way is it not? don't get me wrong, i think moderate capitalism is the best thing we have right now, i wouldnt change it. but there are dowsides i.e. that it involves exploitation.

and my reasoning can be as sloppy as i like because of....global warming

In europe, libertarianism is considered synonymous with most forms of socialism.
Not really.

In Europe, socialism is synonymous with...all the beautiful things it brought to Europe. Like the Stasi.

And the word 'liberal (http://wahlkampf.fdp.de/files/363/fdp-chances_of_freedom.pdf)' is usually used for right-wing libertarians, because that's the original meaning of the word.

in what way is it not?
You can't prove a negative.

The rational default position is that exploitation is a value-neutral term. If you want to argue that it isn't, you need to support that.

Once again, I'm a Libertarian Socialist!
Yet that is self-contradictory.

Yet that is self-contradictory.

It is.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Synonomous with capitalism.

So I've got a question for the Right Wingers. State capitalism, cartelization, and liberal corporatism has been proven empirically to produce massive inequalities in wealth and power, unresponsive corporate bureacracies and untold abuses of power on all levels of governance. What reason is their to hold on to the old system without any inquiry into finding a possibly better system? Why must we continue to hold onto the failing system of the past?

Fixed this for you.

Open your fucking eyes, and crawl out of that ideological cave called "anarcho" capitalism, and go take a good long look at what life is like for most people in the world.
I'm waiting for your proof. Provide it. Now.


European colonialist had no right to claim sovereignty of the Americas, which they did.
Why not?


Ever heard of a little thing called colonialism?
Yes. I'm waiting for your proof, still.


If I work for another person, who owns productive property, which I do not, then I am dependent on he/she for survival.
There are no other employers? You cannot work for yourself?

Damn, you're not thinking this through, are you?


I work for his/her benefit.
And not yours? Wow--you haven't thought this through at all.


I have no rights in any area that conflicts with my employer's self interest.
Is it your company?


My employer has an almost absolute right to command me what to do.
Prove it.


You cannot seperate the subjective and objective of human existence.
And that means......?


People are not objects which can be bought or sold. If the notion of self ownership is held to be true, then I must sell my self to pay for a debt, thus becoming a slave.
You could if you wanted to. It's your life. Now how the person collects is up for grabs.

Now then, if you do not own yourself, upon what basis have you for morality?



Once again, crawl out of your ivory tower.
Once again, provide the proof.


Thus the community must represent the will of the resident individuals; individuals have the right to leave any community they wish to.
And no group of individuals may initiate force against others, which is why socialism is heinous.


It has not been refuted to death.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh please, little one. The LTV has been refuted for a long, long time.



Yes, they do.
No they don't.


The means of production: everything that is required for society to continue to exist, is owned by private individuals.
Wrong. There are many resources which are owned by governments.


If the means of society's existence is controlled by a small number of private individuals,
Which it isn't.


Can't you make an argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks?
I haven't.


Just because our concept of morality is different than yours doesn't mean it isn't valid or doesn't exist.
It actually does.


The minority has no right to own productive property to the detriment of the majority
Prove that there would be a detriment.


If you paid attention to society, you would know just how many people work too hard for too little pay.
You say that as if I don't know what it's like to be poor, O Ye Who Has No Concept Of Reality.


You're trying to blame the victim.
Not in the least.


The property owner, more often than not, can always find another worker.
Does a specific worker have the right to that specific job?

Come down out of your pie-in-the-sky fairy-tale and look at the problems of socialism, for they are myriad.

Fixed this for you.

How do you expect to avoid that?

I really don't think life would be any better under completely laissez-faire capitalism than it is under corporate mercantilism. In fact, I think it would be considerable worse. The history of the past 200 years shows the less regulated it is, the more unstable it becomes.
Wrong. It shows that the MORE regulated something is, the MORE unstable it becomes.


Anytime the economy has tried to make a transition to laissez-faire, there have been massive recessions, even collapses.
Wrong. Most of the recessions/depressions have been because of governments tinkering with the money supply in some manner.


Look at Pinochet's Chile, or late 19th Century America. When the mercantilist protections were removed, the economy turned into a roller coaster.
Actually, when mercantilist crap was removed in the US, the standard of living rose dramatically and kept rising. There was no roller coaster. As for Chile--a military dictatorship isn't a good example for you.

You need to seriously brush up on your history, bubba.

I´m not a right-wing spokeperson...and I do believe that the disparity between rich and poor is huge now more than ever...all because of the economic system the majority of the world has chosen....but I still do not think it is a good idea to resign our liberties for a system that claims equality for the people, were the leaders themeselves swim in a pool of hypocrite wealth- I think that the best way out would be to fusion the best of this two sistems...a democratic-socialist system.... Do not forget that there´s no perfect system..but it all should evolve according to the way humanity chooses....

We haven't had a big left-wing vs. right-wing thread in a while, so I thought that I'd start one. I think I'll start with a definition of socialism.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Sounds good to me.

So I've got a question for the Right Wingers. Capitalism has been proven empirically to produce massive inequalities in wealth and power, unresponsive corporate bureacracies and untold abuses of power on all levels of governance. What reason is their to hold on to the old system without any inquiry into finding a possibly better system? Why must we continue to hold onto the failing system of the past?

why must we hold on to a system that has always failed, such as communism, which is basically the same thing as socialism? communism only sounds good to ignorant people. and i may be ignorant, but not about communists. damn communists.

As for Chile--a military dictatorship isn't a good example for you.

It isn't, but while we're on the subject:

"Between 1970 and 1990 Chile changed dramatically. In 1970, when Eduardo Frei transferred the presidency to Salvador Allende, Chile had enjoyed six years as the beneficiary of worldwide prosperity and record prices for its copper exports. Chile was the second largest recipient of foreign aid per capita. Yet only half the homes in the country had inside bathrooms. In 1990, after Pinochet — despite 16 years as an international pariah and the target of trade boycotts, disinvestment and foreign aid cutoffs — about nine out of ten Chilean homes had them.

After Frei, 82.2 babies per thousand died in infancy. After Pinochet, that figure fell to 17. Reduced infant mortality plus better nutrition and sanitation increased life expectancy from 63.6 years in 1970 to 71.8 in 1990. In 1973 the Chilean government had 650,000 employees. By 1989 the Chilean people had only 157,871 central government employees to support and to obey. By 1992 polls showed that people of all classes rated their satisfaction with bureaucracy as 5.2 out of 7."

Angelo Codevilla Foreign Affairs (November/December 1993 issue)


So much for Pinochet's policies "hurting the poor" as leftists often claim.

It has not been refuted to death. There has never been any convincing argument to warrant its refutation.

Explain the value of art.

Explain the value of 8-tracks cassettes.

Seriously, the Labor Theory of Value doesn't hold any weight anymore.

Seriously, the Labor Theory of Value doesn't hold any weight anymore.

"Anymore?"

It never did to begin with.

That's why capitalism works. Survival is universally valued.Except of course, for the fact that capitalism doesn't guarantee that someone who works will make enough to survive. Socialism does.

Under your system, there's no incentive for me to work hard. Seriously, "respect"? That's your best argument?No, the better argument is doing something that you enjoy. That should be a requirement of any system, and not a luxury.

Except of course, for the fact that capitalism doesn't guarantee that someone who works will make enough to survive. Socialism does.
Life makes no guarantees. You should do well to remember that.


No, the better argument is doing something that you enjoy. That should be a requirement of any system, and not a luxury.
Then you desire to overturn reality, and you have the mentality of a spoiled brat. "But I don't WANNA do that--I don't like it waaaaah waaaah waaaah." THAT is precisely the attitude you display when you make such statements. Sometimes we have to do things we don't like--it's just part of reality. Seeking to FORCE the situation so that everyone is doing something s/he enjoys will naturally and necessarily cause the opposite. And that is precisely what socialism/communism does.

Life makes no guarantees. You should do well to remember that.Certainly; there could not be enough food for everyone, but that would not be the fault of the system. Since that is the case, I considered such things to be irrelevant when discussing the merits of different systems.

Then you desire to overturn reality, and you have the mentality of a spoiled brat. "But I don't WANNA do that--I don't like it waaaaah waaaah waaaah." THAT is precisely the attitude you display when you make such statements. Sometimes we have to do things we don't like--it's just part of reality. Seeking to FORCE the situation so that everyone is doing something s/he enjoys will naturally and necessarily cause the opposite. And that is precisely what socialism/communism does.I agree that we sometimes have to do things we don't like, however this doesn't mean that it must be the case that we must do things we don't like for a living.
In addition, you're welcome to prove that trying to get everyone to do what they like will 'naturally and necessarily cause the opposite.'

Certainly; there could not be enough food for everyone, but that would not be the fault of the system. Since that is the case, I considered such things to be irrelevant when discussing the merits of different systems.
But you cannot, since your system hinges upon the very notion that scarcity doesn't exist.


I agree that we sometimes have to do things we don't like, however this doesn't mean that it must be the case that we must do things we don't like for a living.
No, but it also doesn't mean that we should force others to provide a job that we like. You ARE making that claim, you know.


In addition, you're welcome to prove that trying to get everyone to do what they like will 'naturally and necessarily cause the opposite.'
It is an historical inevitability, he says with no small bit of wry irony.

"Anymore?"

It never did to begin with.

Unless you consider that probably the three most influential economic figures, Smith, Ricardo, and Marx all subscribed to it.

I would consider myself pretty left wing, but I don't really understand how anyone can consider anarchism a viable alternative to present capatalism. Earlier someone posted a link to an anarchist site about shepherds sharing a common field, but wouldn't a more relevant example for the modern world be a magic ATM machine that gives you however much money you ask for? Regardless of the philisophical morality of property, isn't the modern world just far to complex and interconnected to depend on informal altruism to work?

But you cannot, since your system hinges upon the very notion that scarcity doesn't exist.No, it does not hinge upon the idea that scarcity doesn't exist.

No, but it also doesn't mean that we should force others to provide a job that we like. You ARE making that claim, you know.No, I'm saying that the system should be geared towards people having jobs they like. No force needed, as presumably everyone within the system would also want jobs that they like, and therefore would work to make it so everyone has a job they like.

It is an historical inevitability, he says with no small bit of wry irony.When has it been tried?

I would consider myself pretty left wing, but I don't really understand how anyone can consider anarchism a viable alternative to present capatalism. Earlier someone posted a link to an anarchist site about shepherds sharing a common field, but wouldn't a more relevant example for the modern world be a magic ATM machine that gives you however much money you ask for? Regardless of the philisophical morality of property, isn't the modern world just far to complex and interconnected to depend on informal altruism to work?No, as the field doesn't have an infinite amount of resources contained within it.

No, it does not hinge upon the idea that scarcity doesn't exist.
Of course it does. One of the hidden premises of socialism is that scarcity doesn't exist at all, so there's no reason for anything to have value beyond the labor put into something.


No, I'm saying that the system should be geared towards people having jobs they like.
That can only be done via force.


When has it been tried?
Oh please--don't tell me you're one of those apologists who believes (iow: uses a no true scotsman) that socialism has never been tried.

Of course it does. One of the hidden premises of socialism is that scarcity doesn't exist at all, so there's no reason for anything to have value beyond the labor put into something.One of the premises of certain forms of socialism is that this is the case, however a lack of scarcity is not intrinsic to socialism.

That can only be done via force.Really? People voluntarily agreeing to do something can only be done via force?

Oh please--don't tell me you're one of those apologists who believes (iow: uses a no true scotsman) that socialism has never been tried.Socialism has been tried, however the particular forms of socialism that were tried were not geared towards finding people jobs that they liked, which is what we were discussing.

So I've got a question for the Right Wingers. Capitalism has been proven empirically to produce massive inequalities in wealth and power,
Define power. Under a capitalist system inequality of wealth is viewed as desireable where it is not brought about by some means of force like theft or assault (those better at managing money get more of it to manage).

unresponsive corporate bureacracies
The markets destroys such things. Just look at what happened to the British nationalised industries post-privatisation.

and untold abuses of power on all levels of governance.
What you are describing is 'the status-quo', not capitalism. Under a true capitalist system the government would have no power except to punish criminals and defend the country against foreign invaders. Socialism is a system that seeks to give the state (or an approximation thereof) almost complete power over peoples' lives - there was a lot more of this in the USSR than there was even under European and American pseudo-capitalist systems.

What reason is their to hold on to the old system without any inquiry into finding a possibly better system?
Of course one must examine the possibilities. However, most sane people would agree that socialism has been examined quite enough since 1900 and the untold deaths it has caused should not be revisited.

Why must we continue to hold onto the failing system of the past?
This second question is based on two flawed assumptions:

1) Capitalism is failing.

In reality, nothing could be further from the case. The world is the most prosperous it has ever been, and the more capitalist countries more so than the socialist countries (both old and new).

2) Anything that is old is inherently flawed.

Democracy is pretty old. Should we abolish it? Breathing is older still. It is fallicious to claim that simply because something is old, it is therefore bad.

One of the premises of certain forms of socialism is that this is the case,
All forms, you mean.


however a lack of scarcity is not intrinsic to socialism.
Yes it is. Socialism denies scarcity. If it didn't, then you'd have property rights.


Really? People voluntarily agreeing to do something can only be done via force?
That's what the socialists say.


Socialism has been tried, however the particular forms of socialism that were tried were not geared towards finding people jobs that they liked, which is what we were discussing.
Oh but they were.

my father came from a working class family. he was kicked out at 16,
now he owns his own company. he was destined to move upwards in class.
my mother is a scienctist. she fills a very functunal role in society. so she moved in class.
so i'm in favour of capitalism.
people who work hard, get more.
of course there is going to be corruption along the way. it is true with every system. thats why it is important for the people to stay educated and keep an eye on thier politicians. also strick punishments for policians who break the rules.

All forms, you mean.No, some forms.

Yes it is. Socialism denies scarcity. If it didn't, then you'd have property rights.No. Property rights in a condition of scarcity are patently absurd, as the concept that an individual should have exclusive use of something scarce (other than foodstuffs) is ridiculous. The only time a person should retain exclusive use is in a condition of post-scarcity.

That's what the socialists say.No. People agreeing to do something that they want to do is vastly different than people agreeing to do something because you're paying them to do it.

Oh but they were.Prove it.

No, some forms.
All forms.


No. Property rights in a condition of scarcity are patently absurd,
Prove it.


as the concept that an individual should have exclusive use of something scarce (other than foodstuffs) is ridiculous.
Prove it.


No. People agreeing to do something that they want to do is vastly different than people agreeing to do something because you're paying them to do it.
And how do they all just agree to it?


Prove it.
Just look at the nanny states of the UK back in the day, Sweden, and the Worker's Paradise of the USSR. Oh, I know that you will balk at that, but such is life for the communist apologist that you are.

Socialism maximizes liberty.

No, that is the right-wing libertarian belief. It's entirely possible to be both a socialist and a libertarian.

*dies of laughter*

All forms.Prove it.

Prove it.

Prove it.These go back to why someone should be able to use something exclusively, which we are discussing in the other thread. I merely wanted to point out that such a concept is particularly absurd in a state of scarcity.

And how do they all just agree to it?They talk over what they're capable of doing, what they would like to do for a living, and what they would like to see produced that they can't themselves. The rest proceeds according to the typical ways people agree to things.
Naturally, someone who isn't especially concerned with doing something they enjoy for a living might not agree to this, and they are welcome not to, and they can leave. However, since doing what they enjoy is important to a lot of people, it stands to reason that at least some of them will be able to come to an agreement.

Just look at the nanny states of the UK back in the day, Sweden, and the Worker's Paradise of the USSR. Oh, I know that you will balk at that, but such is life for the communist apologist that you are.I don't apologize for the crimes of Stalin, I will, of course, point out the fact that none of those places were stateless, classless societies with worker control of the means of production, and therefore weren't communist.

*dies of laughter*Are you laughing at the idea that removing pseudoliberties increases the total liberty of a populace, or the fact that the first person known to call himself a libertarian was an anarcho-communist, and the right co-opted the term for themselves?

Prove it.
Already have.


These go back to why someone should be able to use something exclusively, which we are discussing in the other thread. I merely wanted to point out that such a concept is particularly absurd in a state of scarcity.
You can attempt to point it out all you like; that won't make it true.


They talk over what they're capable of doing, what they would like to do for a living, and what they would like to see produced that they can't themselves.
And since their desires will exceed what is available, not everyone will be happy.



I don't apologize for the crimes of Stalin, I will, of course, point out the fact that none of those places were stateless, classless societies with worker control of the means of production, and therefore weren't communist.
No True Scotsman fallacy. You commit it every time.


Are you laughing at the idea that removing pseudoliberties increases the total liberty of a populace, or the fact that the first person known to call himself a libertarian was an anarcho-communist, and the right co-opted the term for themselves?
Except that calling an "anarcho-communist" (a self-contradictory label) a "libertarian" is yet another example of self-contradictory nonsense.

And since their desires will exceed what is available, not everyone will be happy.I didn't say that they would be happy, I said that they would be doing a job that they enjoy doing.

No True Scotsman fallacy. You commit it every time. No. If Quality X is intrinsic to Thing A, then by definition something without Quality X cannot be Thing A. Since being a stateless, classless society with worker control is intrinsic to communism, a nation cannot be communist without fulfilling these characteristics.

Except that calling an "anarcho-communist" (a self-contradictory label) a "libertarian" is yet another example of self-contradictory nonsense.Since anarchy, libertarianism, and communism all maximize liberty, it is more redundant than anything else.

Well, the "property-is-theft" discussion might get somewhere if we start a little thought experiment:

Imagine 2 little children sitting in an empty room with one apple lying in the middle of the room. I think you can also imagine that, after some time, both get quite hungry. What happens next is clear, both want the apple, but neather one nor the other can have the hole apple. Abstract speaking: their to wills form plans that are exclusive, one child´s freedom is necessarly on the extend of the other one´s. What could happen afterwards?

a) The dogma: One child could claim that it`s his apple, because he saw the apple first, because god wants him to own the apple, because he is the leader of the revolutionary party or whatever, and the other child might be stupid enough to believe it. Any "natural form of property" argument heads that way.

b) Force: one child claims that it´s his apple, but the dogma doesn´t work. Uses of force may be combined with dogmatic excuses, for example claiming that you "just defend your property".

c) Cooperation: Both children solve the problem diplomatically, in a way that both share the equal amount of freedom. For example, both get 1/2 of the apple.

Problem with the cooperation-solution: Noone is perfect, neither are the diplomatic solutions. Maybe both children eat their half of the apple and try to plant a apple tree. Both work hard to get their tree growing, but only one child´s tree grows, and there is no indication that the child without a tree did anything worse than the child with the tree. Then the old diplomatic solution that guaranteed equality suddenly appears to give one child a higher amount of material freedom without any moral reason for that.

What get´s proven by this is:
1. No form of property is natural. Any form of property limits the freedom of one person and gives more freedom to others. Therefore the question of property is basically a question of power. Current forms of property basically rely on ancient conquests and conflicts and are therefore questionable.
2. It doesn´t matter if there´s private or collective property, what matters is what we get out of it. If a private property system gives people the same amount of freedoms a collective property system does, the question is irrelevant.
3. Those societys can be considered most free where the power (material and political) is distributed most equally. If one has more power than others, the others are oppressed. Huge material inequalitys are a sure sign of oppression.
4. Even though a tendency towards Anarchy (by which I mean a society with the biggest amount of freedom and equality for each individual possible) is what one has to work for, in my eyes, a state of "perfect anarchy" is impossible, instead, concepts and ideas have to be permanently revised to better society, to gradually come closer to the libertarian socialist vision. That´s what Kropotkin and Landauer called "permanent revolution".

Rightwing Libertarianism in my eyes does not abolish the state, it privatizes it. By claiming that high concentration of power is not bad when it calls itself a corporation instead of a state, it contradicts the anarchist oppinion that any form of power monopolization, may it be politically or economically, is bad (this was almost a Rudolf Rocker quote, if I weren´t to lazy to look things up).

The reason why we should hold on to capitalism is because it is the only system to be proven to work. Socialism forces people to stay poor and will never allow them to better themselves. It is human nature that makes us want to do better than the guy next to us. The hole idea of a world where everybody is equal and nobody starves is exactly that, just an idea. It could never work on the large scale. I AM a strong supporter of capitalism because it offers something that socialism doesn't and that is, FREEDOM. Remember the government is a servant of the people, NOT the supporter of the people. Socialism causes people to become to dependant on the government and lose all forms of self reliance. Why would you work if everything you need is being paid for you. Your healthcare, your house, and your food are all given to you by the government. This enables the government to become to big and in return oppress and rape its people. The populace must never lose that very important trate of self reliance, and the ability to function and servive without the assistance of the machine we call the government.

Problem with the cooperation-solution: Noone is perfect, neither are the diplomatic solutions. Maybe both children eat their half of the apple and try to plant a apple tree. Both work hard to get their tree growing, but only one child´s tree grows, and there is no indication that the child without a tree did anything worse than the child with the tree. Then the old diplomatic solution that guaranteed equality suddenly appears to give one child a higher amount of material freedom without any moral reason for that.

Trees, of course, do not die or grow without reason, and you cannot deny that the productive tree is the sole product of a single child's labor.

Here is where we have a moral connundrum, does human dignity state that the person should be able to use all he labors to produce (as an extension of him/herself), or does human dignity state that a person should have the support of others?


1. No form of property is natural. Any form of property limits the freedom of one person and gives more freedom to others. Therefore the question of property is basically a question of power. Current forms of property basically rely on ancient conquests and conflicts and are therefore questionable.

This portion is largely true, but the bolded sentence is a non-sequitor, and is irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't make any statement towards whether property is natural, and our entire system of rights is a trade-off of freedoms.

If one has more power than others, the others are oppressed. Huge material inequalitys are a sure sign of oppression.

You are going to have explain this to me.

Rightwing Libertarianism in my eyes does not abolish the state, it privatizes it. By claiming that high concentration of power is not bad when it calls itself a corporation instead of a state, it contradicts the anarchist oppinion that any form of power monopolization, may it be politically or economically, is bad (this was almost a Rudolf Rocker quote, if I weren´t to lazy to look things up).

Left wing libertarianism collectivises the state, at least privatization establishes a contractarian approach to it.

I didn't say that they would be happy, I said that they would be doing a job that they enjoy doing.
If they enjoy it, they are happy. QED.


No.
Yes. Every single time, you always commit the No True Scotsman fallacy. Communism does not require a stateless, classeless society. In fact, it requires a state and classes, since it creates the classes of the Loyal Party Members and the Rest Of The Populace. Therefore, you commit the No True Scotsman fallacy.


Since anarchy, libertarianism, and communism all maximize liberty,
Only the first two do. Communism denies liberty, as it is collectivism, which denies the individual rights.

Well, the "property-is-theft" discussion might get somewhere if we start a little thought experiment:

Imagine 2 little children sitting in an empty room with one apple lying in the middle of the room. I think you can also imagine that, after some time, both get quite hungry. What happens next is clear, both want the apple, but neather one nor the other can have the hole apple. Abstract speaking: their to wills form plans that are exclusive, one child´s freedom is necessarly on the extend of the other one´s. What could happen afterwards?

a) The dogma: One child could claim that it`s his apple, because he saw the apple first, because god wants him to own the apple, because he is the leader of the revolutionary party or whatever, and the other child might be stupid enough to believe it. Any "natural form of property" argument heads that way.

b) Force: one child claims that it´s his apple, but the dogma doesn´t work. Uses of force may be combined with dogmatic excuses, for example claiming that you "just defend your property".

c) Cooperation: Both children solve the problem diplomatically, in a way that both share the equal amount of freedom. For example, both get 1/2 of the apple.

Problem with the cooperation-solution: Noone is perfect, neither are the diplomatic solutions. Maybe both children eat their half of the apple and try to plant a apple tree. Both work hard to get their tree growing, but only one child´s tree grows, and there is no indication that the child without a tree did anything worse than the child with the tree. Then the old diplomatic solution that guaranteed equality suddenly appears to give one child a higher amount of material freedom without any moral reason for that.

What get´s proven by this is:
1. No form of property is natural. Any form of property limits the freedom of one person and gives more freedom to others.
No it doesn't. That only works if you assume people have the intrinsic right to everything, which means that no one has the right to anything, which means that no one can do anything, which means we all die.

If they enjoy it, they are happy. QED.They may enjoy their work, but this doesn't mean they will be happy overall.

Yes. Every single time, you always commit the No True Scotsman fallacy. Communism does not require a stateless, classeless society. In fact, it requires a state and classes, since it creates the classes of the Loyal Party Members and the Rest Of The Populace. Therefore, you commit the No True Scotsman fallacy.Nope. Communism isn't defined by 'the Loyal Party Members and the Rest of the Populace'; the existence of such things directly contradicts the definition of what communism is.

Only the first two do. Communism denies liberty, as it is collectivism, which denies the individual rights.Collectivism doesn't deny any rights that an individual actually has.

They may enjoy their work, but this doesn't mean they will be happy overall.
Goalpost shifting.


Nope.
Yes.


Communism isn't defined by 'the Loyal Party Members and the Rest of the Populace'; the existence of such things directly contradicts the definition of what communism is.
No, it doesn't, Mr. No True Scotsman.


Collectivism doesn't deny any rights that an individual actually has.
It is a mindset which denies that an individual has rights, period.

Goalpost shifting.You shifted the goalposts when you brought up happiness.

No, it doesn't, Mr. No True Scotsman.Yes, it does, Mr. Unable to Comprehend Political Definitions and also Unable to Use Fallacies Correctly.

It is a mindset which denies that an individual has rights, period.The lack of property rights does not imply the lack of individual rights.

You shifted the goalposts when you brought up happiness.
I wasn't the one who originally brought happiness up--YOU WERE, as I recall.


Yes, it does,
No, it doesn't. Mr. Creates Political Definitions Ad Hoc And Who Always Uses The No True Scotsman Fallacy.


The lack of property rights does not imply the lack of individual rights.
Yes it does, for you cannot have one without the other. You cannot have an rational basis for individual rights without the property right of self-ownership. All you can do is have something irrational, which of course is no better than none at all. In fact, it's about identical.

I wasn't the one who originally brought happiness up--YOU WERE, as I recall.Nope, I brought up simply enjoyment of work; you changed it to happy.

No, it doesn't. Mr. Creates Political Definitions Ad Hoc And Who Always Uses The No True Scotsman Fallacy.So then you can name and quote a socialist/communist political theorist who defined socialism/communism as "'the Loyal Party Members and the Rest of the Populace'?

Yes it does, for you cannot have one without the other. You cannot have an rational basis for individual rights without the property right of self-ownership. All you can do is have something irrational, which of course is no better than none at all. In fact, it's about identical.We're talking about this in the other thread, I'll address it there.

So then you can name and quote a socialist/communist political theorist who defined socialism/communism as "'the Loyal Party Members and the Rest of the Populace'?

Lenin?

Lenin?It's conceivable, but I'm not certain. Certainly the USSR did fit that definition, but that doesn't mean that that was what his definition of what Communism is.

It's conceivable, but I'm not certain. Certainly the USSR did fit that definition, but that doesn't mean that that was what his definition of what Communism is.

Even in Leninist theory, once real Communism is achieved the dictatorship of the proletariat is ended and there is no longer any party.

But there is still a distinction in the socialist stage; you are supposed to be in the process of smashing the bourgeoisie, and thus you need a centralized leadership.

Even in Leninist theory, once real Communism is achieved the dictatorship of the proletariat is ended and there is no longer any party.

But there is still a distinction in the socialist stage; you are supposed to be in the process of smashing the bourgeoisie, and thus you need a centralized leadership.Agreed on the first. For the socialist, though, if the leadership undertakes an action that hinders the smashing of the bourgeiosie, would that not nullify any claim of socialism?

Explain the value of art.

Explain the value of 8-tracks cassettes.

Seriously, the Labor Theory of Value doesn't hold any weight anymore.

You obviously don't understand LTV. LTV states that value of widely desired commodities is proportional to the sum total of all the labor required to create it. Art is not a widely desired commodity, and often is not treated as a commodity. The same with 8-track cassettes. A minority values them, but most people do not.

The implications of LTV is what has put it on the neo-liberal chopping block, not any lack of scientific basis. If LTV is held to be true, then any form of propertarian economics is exploitive (this means state capitalism, corporate mercantilism, corporatism as well as laissez faire). If it is widely considered refuted, (which it is not. show me a valid refutation), then economists can continue the myth that any form of propertarian economics is "fair."

Economics is not a value free field. Most economists are beholden to the sources of private power. Thus there is an institutional bias in economics against anything that could potentially harm profits.

Define power. Under a capitalist system inequality of wealth is viewed as desireable where it is not brought about by some means of force like theft or assault (those better at managing money get more of it to manage).

Inequality creates coercion, and the means to force those with less power into bondage. Under any propertarian system, wealth=power. Massive wealth inequalities allow private bodies to reign completely unaccountable to the majority.

The markets destroys such things. Just look at what happened to the British nationalised industries post-privatisation.

Apparently you've never been to customer service at Walmart, or seen someone trie to get an insurance company to pay out on a claim.

What you are describing is 'the status-quo', not capitalism. Under a true capitalist system the government would have no power except to punish criminals and defend the country against foreign invaders. Socialism is a system that seeks to give the state (or an approximation thereof) almost complete power over peoples' lives - there was a lot more of this in the USSR than there was even under European and American pseudo-capitalist systems.

Thus you would prefer the privatized state of laissez faire capitalism. What you fail to realize is that the management of a private corporation is identical to Stalinist Russia. Socialism is not Stalinist bureaucratic collectivism. Socialism is based around ending rule by property, and allow workers to control the means of production is society.


Of course one must examine the possibilities. However, most sane people would agree that socialism has been examined quite enough since 1900 and the untold deaths it has caused should not be revisited.

Once again, what occured in Russia is not socialism. Socialism is not based around changing one set of rulers for another. It is based around ending hierarchal rule and ensuring participatory democracy. No sane socialist would argue that Stalinist Russia is a socialist state. Bureaucratic collectivism denies the central tenet of socialism: worker control of the means of production.

This second question is based on two flawed assumptions:

1) Capitalism is failing.

In reality, nothing could be further from the case. The world is the most prosperous it has ever been, and the more capitalist countries more so than the socialist countries (both old and new).

2) Anything that is old is inherently flawed.

Democracy is pretty old. Should we abolish it? Breathing is older still. It is fallicious to claim that simply because something is old, it is therefore bad.

No one doubts that propertarian economics have benifited some people. What is true, and is largely ignored by apologists, is that any and all forms of propertarian economics (the status quo as well as theoretical laissez faire) only benefit those who own property. Some workers will gain success. Most will not. Tell your prosperity argument to the millions of unemployed, homeless and destitute in America. See what they have to say about that.

I never assumed that anything old is inherently flawed. I argued that it was fallacious to deny the possibility of change.

You obviously don't understand LTV. LTV states that value of widely desired commodities is proportional to the sum total of all the labor required to create it. Art is not a widely desired commodity, and often is not treated as a commodity. The same with 8-track cassettes. A minority values them, but most people do not.

I understand the LTV, and I understand that you are saying exceptions to the LTV do not reduce its validity.

The problem is that the Subjective Theory of Value accounts for ALL values, not just a portion. Even by using "widely desirable" as a qualifier you render the LTV subservient to the Subjective Theory, which is where it belongs, as cost of production does have a direct relation to price.

The implications of LTV is what has put it on the neo-liberal chopping block, not any lack of scientific basis. If LTV is held to be true, then any form of propertarian economics is exploitive (this means state capitalism, corporate mercantilism, corporatism as well as laissez faire). If it is widely considered refuted, (which it is not. show me a valid refutation), then economists can continue the myth that any form of propertarian economics is "fair."

The percieved implications of the LTV are what cause the left to cling to it in the face of numerous exceptions and dramatically better theories.

And even if we accepted the LTV to be true, we have to rely on economic principles that have no mathematical backing or empirical evidence to assume that exploitation exists.

The proponents of the LTV assume exploitation and mold economic theory to explain it.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_3.pdf

Economics is not a value free field. Most economists are beholden to the sources of private power. Thus there is an institutional bias in economics against anything that could potentially harm profits.
To quote BAAWAKnights, prove it. Prove that the economists who refuted it had vested interests in doing so.

To quote BAAWAKnights, prove it. Prove that the economists who refuted it had vested interests in doing so.

Everyone knows that the Austrian School of Economics has been getting money from big business from day one.

What most people don't know is that Eugen von Bohm Bawerk was a co-founder of Halliburton and a close personal friend of Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie.

Everyone knows that the Austrian School of Economics has been getting money from big business from day one.
Maybe it funds them because it likes its theoretical works rather than them being on some corporate pay roll? All schools of economics receive funding from some source or another, including ones left of the spectrum. Stigmatising the AS for it is a double standard.

What most people don't know is that Eugen von Bohm Bawerk was a co-founder of Halliburton and a close personal friend of Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie.
I'm not familiar with American institutions nor with the role of Carnegie. What was Haliburton exactly, and what is Carnegie known for?
Ford, besides being an entrepreneur, was a socialist, no?

Nope, I brought up simply enjoyment of work; you changed it to happy.
Not that I recall.


So then you can name and quote a socialist/communist political theorist who defined socialism/communism as "'the Loyal Party Members and the Rest of the Populace'?
All of the ones who put communism into practice, as that is the only way to do it on anything more than a tiny scale. Of course, if you want a tiny scale, you run into the problem of, as David Ramsay Steele points out, low output autarky. Which puts people smack-dab back into the way life was back in feudal times (y'know--those times that communists love to compare capitalists to).

You obviously don't understand LTV. LTV states that value of widely desired commodities is proportional to the sum total of all the labor required to create it.
Wrong. It states that the value is SOLELY the amount of labor put into it.


Art is not a widely desired commodity, and often is not treated as a commodity. The same with 8-track cassettes. A minority values them, but most people do not.
Yet because they are valued and traded, they are a commodity.


The implications of LTV is what has put it on the neo-liberal chopping block, not any lack of scientific basis.
No, it's a lack of scientific basis. It in no way can come to grips with why diamonds are more valuable than water. The LTV does not even include marginal utility!


Economics is not a value free field.
Actually, it is. Economics does not tell people what values to hold, merely that people hold values.


Most economists are beholden to the sources of private power. Thus there is an institutional bias in economics against anything that could potentially harm profits.
Nice poisoning the well fallacy.

Maybe it funds them because it likes its theoretical works rather than them being on some corporate pay roll? All schools of economics receive funding from some source or another, including ones left of the spectrum. Stigmatising the AS for it is a double standard.


I'm not familiar with American institutions nor with the role of Carnegie. What was Haliburton exactly, and what is Carnegie known for?
Ford, besides being an entrepreneur, was a socialist, no?

That was all sarcasm. Carnegie was probably the biggest industrialist of the guilded age.

Inequality creates coercion,
No it doesn't.


and the means to force those with less power into bondage. Under any propertarian system, wealth=power.
Prove it.


Apparently you've never been to customer service at Walmart, or seen someone trie to get an insurance company to pay out on a claim.
I've done both. I've had great experiences. In fact, I got Wal-Mart to refund my money on a game that I opened, which was contrary to their policy at the time.


Thus you would prefer the privatized state of laissez faire capitalism. What you fail to realize is that the management of a private corporation is identical to Stalinist Russia.
What you fail to realize is that the management of a private corporation is utterly different from Stalinist USSR.

See--I can just gainsay you when you make idiotic claims.


Socialism is not Stalinist bureaucratic collectivism.
It becomes that.


Once again, what occured in Russia is not socialism.
Why do you socialist/communist apologists always trot out the No True Scotsman fallacy?



No one doubts that propertarian economics have benifited some people. What is true, and is largely ignored by apologists, is that any and all forms of propertarian economics (the status quo as well as theoretical laissez faire) only benefit those who own property.
Prove it.


Some workers will gain success. Most will not. Tell your prosperity argument to the millions of unemployed, homeless and destitute in America. See what they have to say about that.
Most are that way due to either government handouts, a lack of desire, governmental meddling in the economy, or a combination thereof.

That was all sarcasm. Carnegie was probably the biggest industrialist of the guilded age.
And one of the biggest philanthropists, as hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of libraries around the country (including one in a little town I used to live) attest.

And one of the biggest philanthropists, as hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of libraries around the country (including one in a little town I used to live) attest.
Yes, the name is familiar with me - I thought he was something of this sort.

That was all sarcasm. Carnegie was probably the biggest industrialist of the guilded age.
I see - it seemed as though you were being serious. :) I'm used to people attacking the AS on here.

And one of the biggest philanthropists, as hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of libraries around the country (including one in a little town I used to live) attest.

That is very true, but he still represents the evils of capitalism to all those who don't really understand capitalism or the history of American political economy.

Not that I recall.Sure you did:

Me: No, the better argument is doing something that you enjoy. That should be a requirement of any system, and not a luxury.
[/snip irrelevance, which contains no reference to happiness on either of our parts.]
You: And how do they all just agree to it?
Me: They talk over what they're capable of doing, what they would like to do for a living, and what they would like to see produced that they can't themselves. The rest proceeds according to the typical ways people agree to things.
You: And since their desires will exceed what is available, not everyone will be happy.

All of the ones who put communism into practice, as that is the only way to do it on anything more than a tiny scale. Of course, if you want a tiny scale, you run into the problem of, as David Ramsay Steele points out, low output autarky. Which puts people smack-dab back into the way life was back in feudal times (y'know--those times that communists love to compare capitalists to).Communism is defined by the end result, not the process one takes to achieve it.

That is very true, but he still represents the evils of capitalism to all those who don't really understand capitalism or the history of American political economy.Well, yeah, hiring someone to manage your company who hires people to kill your striking employees would do that.

Okay, it´s time for thought experiment 2:

Let us imagine we would have the perfect economic system (which is, as I said earlier, impossible, because nothing is perfect, but hey, let´s pretend). Let us just see the economic system as a black box, we don´t know how it works, but we know that:

- every individual has the chance to work as much as it wants and gets rewarded proportional to the amount of work it does
- the system is able to avoid both the tragedy of the commons (which is actually rather a tragedy of the free-for-all, as it has been said earlier) and the prisoner´s dilemma (a problem which is quite common in capitalist societies)
- every individual has the right to use its reward in any systematically allowed way (in a Capitalist society it might be illegal to use your money to plan a bank robbery, in Socialist societys it is impossible to become a factory owner), with no restrictions based on race, gender or whatever

What would we imagine the society, that garantees these equal chances to it´s members, to look like?

social inequalities: might occur, in the way of "I´d rather not work to get another TV" vs. "Two Ferraris aint enough". But: If everybody was able to regulate his in- and output of work into the societys economy, and would get the reward proportional to it, noone would starve, or live beyond the poverty line if he was able to do something about it. And noone is able to do three hundred times the amount of work the others do. Therefore a small difference between those working hard and those rather using their freetime is to expect, but no huge differences.
worktime: surely, if this black box-economy works perfect, everybody will do some work, cause everybody wants something to eat. some would prefer to work more, some would like to work less, but both unemployment and cruel worktimes not allowing you to have any freetime would occur.
worktime in relation to income: Those working more would get more, those working less would get less. Maybe some work would get more money for being better for society, some would get less, but again, no huge differences to be expected.
Individual Consumption: Differences in taste and cultural background make people consume different things.

Now let´s compare the above with what we see in Capitalist societies:

social inequalities: huge, with the tendency to increase, people starving, homeless, beyond poverty line
worktime: unemployment + huge differences
worktime-income-relation: Is there any? Only if you compare incomes of people of the same social status. Comparison on a larger scale shows the following rule: Rich people get more, poor get less.
Individual Consumption: While different taste is still allowed to some extent (although endangered because of trends dictated by mass media, hypes and a tendency towards conformism), cultural backgrounds fade away.

Result: Capitalism is far away from being a good economic system QED

Therefore we can say that there is the necessity to look for a better economic system to replace Capitalism. Central Planning failed, too, therefore we´ve got Parecon and other post-Syndicalist theories, social and socialist market systems and Guild-Socialism left to be tried out on a large scale.

Communism is defined by the end result, not the process one takes to achieve it.

Even if the process ends up killing everyone involved? :confused:

Even if the process ends up killing everyone involved? :confused:Theoretically, yes, a few people could kill everyone else and wind up with a stateless, classless society with worker control of the means of production. Communists, however tend to, if not always, reject this idea for various subjective reasons.

Theoretically, yes, a few people could kill everyone else and wind up with a stateless, classless society with worker control of the means of production. Communists, however tend to, if not always, reject this idea for various subjective reasons.
I would imagine for reasons of expedience too - such a notion would never catch on with an electorate, no matter what its predisposition.

I would imagine for reasons of expedience too - such a notion would never catch on with an electorate, no matter what its predisposition.Right. Additionally, most, if not all, communists view communism as extending human rights, which is why they support it, and therefore widescale genocide would be contradictory.

capitalism is the scourge of the earth! Red or dead! (see how refreshingly one-sided I can be?:) )