NationStates Jolt Archive

Which do you think is better overall, Capitalism, Communism, or Socialism? I would say Socialism because it has the people in-mind.

Capitalism, Communism, or Socialism?

Yes.

Mixed capitalism, idealistically pure capitalism but something would go wrong.

All of the above is based on some sort of capitalism applied to more or less unfree peoples, so no thank you. I prefer participatory economics and syndicalism.

SOCIALISM FOREVER!

Well socialism is essentially a mixed socio-economic system with elements of both socialism and capitalism, while on a transition to communism. It's the period in which the state will remain until the contradictions in society disappear and the state will wither away. Communism is democracy by it's very nature because it's egalitarian nature ensures their is material and opportunistic equality, capitalism on the other hand is the opposite, it is minority rule in which the smaller capitalist elite control the means of production. The key is simple, communism distributes will capitalism concentrates.

Capitalism

Capitalism, it has the people in mind. :p

Better at what?

Better for keeping the masses under your omnipresent reign? Communism.

The one for buying votes? Socialism.

The one that gives the highest potential for success as well as failure? Capitalism.

Well socialism is essentially a mixed socio-economic system with elements of both socialism and capitalism, while on a transition to communism. It's the period in which the state will remain until the contradictions in society disappear and the state will wither away. Communism is democracy by it's very nature because it's egalitarian nature ensures their is material and opportunistic equality, capitalism on the other hand is the opposite, it is minority rule in which the smaller capitalist elite control the means of production. The key is simple, communism distributes will capitalism concentrates.

ROFLMAO!

Communism distributes - LOL. distributes/steals - potata/patato. Though I do agree - socialism is simply one step away from stealing everything from everyone.

Well, the result of Communism in the last century was a series of totalitarian regimes; of Socialism, universal healthcare and other good programs, run mainly in Europe; of Capitalism, mass-production and most of the inventions we use today, but also huge exploitation of workers and the environment.

I'll go with a combination of the latter two with beneficial restrictions on businesses.

It's the period in which the state will remain until the contradictions in society disappear and the state will wither away.

Herein is the most laughable bit of Comrade Marx' theory. Somehow, those who command the power of the state will willingly give that power up.

Capitalism brought us virtually everything good in the world, material, immaterial and otherwise. Plus, socialism is just communism for pussies. So I voted my neolibertarian heart out.

Social Market Economy.

ROFLMAO!

Communism distributes - LOL. distributes/steals - potata/patato. Though I do agree - socialism is simply one step away from stealing everything from everyone.

I'll keep this comment in mind for the next time a neighborhood of independent homeowners is evicted by the state so a private developer can pave over them and build condos.

(bullshit rationalizations about how "those aren't really capitalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scottsman)" will be redirected to :rolleyes: )

Herein is the most laughable bit of Comrade Marx' theory. Somehow, those who command the power of the state will willingly give that power up.
To be fair, he didn't quite see it like that. I mean, feudalism didn't end because the feudal overlords willingly gave up their power, it ended because the economic and material basis for having feudal overlords (ie big castles to hide in etc) was no longer around.

The point is that Marx never actually said how it would come about that the economic and material basis for the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer around.

...feudalism didn't end because the feudal overlords willingly gave up their power, it ended because the economic and material basis for having feudal overlords (ie big castles to hide in etc) was no longer around.


Why hide in castles when one can hide behind tax havens and limited liability?


The point is that Marx never actually said how it would come about that the economic and material basis for the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer around.

What Marx (edit: and his theory actually applied) failed to do was demonstrate that the "socialist" dictatorship of the proletariat would actually work to change the economic and material realities in the first place. As such, he failed to demonstrate that those with the state power would actually ever do what is necessary to eliminate that power.

How the changing economic realities directly translate into the withering of the state is largely irrelevant if the change never occurs to begin with.

Myrthism.

ROFLMAO!

Communism distributes - LOL. distributes/steals - potata/patato. Though I do agree - socialism is simply one step away from stealing everything from everyone.

Your using property rights as an argument against a theory in which property rights have no value?

ROFL

Why hide in castles when one can hide behind tax havens and limited liability?
Huh? Hiding in castle and the feudal lord owning everything was dictated by economic and material reality. Given the level of economic and technological development, that was the best way to organise society. Then technology took away the ability of feudal lords to offer safe havens to their peasants (because cannons could breach castle walls) and at the same time the previously unremarkable traders started making serious cash with overseas trade, building up an alternative power base. Hence the disappearance of feudalism.

The "classes" in Marxism aren't unchanging constructs, which class you belong to depends on your own economic position. And as such, people should be able to switch classes fairly easily. The change from feudalism to capitalism wasn't simply the same guys calling themselves a different name, it was the emergence of a completely new set of strata within society.

That's why I always giggle when people talk about the working class today. In modern Western economies, it doesn't exist anymore. The economic reality of the Industral Revolution that determined what the working class was and who belonged to it just doesn't apply anymore.

What Marx (edit: and his theory actually applied) failed to do was demonstrate that the "socialist" dictatorship of the proletariat would actually work to change the economic and material realities in the first place. As such, he failed to demonstrate that those with the state power would actually ever do what is necessary to eliminate that power.
Agreed.

Screw them all, I'll go for the car!

i totally say capitalism is way better. but everyone has there own opinion and i respect that. its the excact same with political parties everyone likes them or dislikes them for different reasons

Also, you can't argue against a theory, only the practical interpretations of it. And I'd certainly say the economic class still exists more than ever.

I say capitalism because you can advocate any belief in capitalism (as it is usually accompanied by free speech which is possible because the state doesn't control everything.) You can advocate socialism/communism in a capitalist country but the reverse isn't true. (This again is because with economic and civil freedom comes political freedom in most cases.) The only change possible in socialism is revolution. More possible forms of changing government exists in capitalist countries.

Also, you can't argue against a theory, only the practical interpretations of it.
Ahem...explain.

And besides, I'm not sure you really want to defend Marxism on the basis of its practical interpretations.

And I'd certainly say the economic class still exists more than ever.
Well, let's put it this way: if you were born to a poor family in Manchester in 1860, what was your chance to become rich?

And if you were born to a poor family in Manchester today, how would your chance have changed?

Basically there are two things you'd have to provide:
a) a proper description of the classes around today, why they exist and what effect that has on the predictions made by Marxism regarding class conflict
b) an argument on the predictive quality of the classes on people's behaviour, interests and lives. Because if they're not good predictors, they're no more meaningful than hair colour.

How's about the idea of a socially conscious capitalism. I contradiction in terms I admit but if the only outcome of capitalism is not just to make profit then a capitalism run towards the betterment of it's users i.e. the public would allow for all of the benefits of both capitalism and socialism.

Personally the idea of communism is an ideal situation, but then that is where the concept falls flat on it's face and it remains just an ideal that will never happen whilst greed exists.

Hail to the People of The United Socialist States of Uwukaka

And as such, people should be able to switch classes fairly easily.


When a single mother of 6 on food stamps becomes President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POTUS), I'll believe that. Shoot, when a single white middle-class male who attended one of those public state universities becomes President, I'll believe that.


The change from feudalism to capitalism wasn't simply the same guys calling themselves a different name, it was the emergence of a completely new set of strata within society.


Where in one of those strata consistently own and control the power of the state (never mind the economy), while the others do not.


In modern Western economies, it doesn't exist anymore. The economic reality of the Industral Revolution that determined what the working class was and who belonged to it just doesn't apply anymore.


Ah, well, when we carefully sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_%28computer_security%29) the global economy like that, lots of things conveniently disappear.

Your using property rights as an argument against a theory in which property rights have no value?


Property rights have tremendous value in the theory you cite.

Everything belongs exclusively to the state. Everything is controlled exclusively by the state.

Why does exclusive ownership and control suddenly become acceptable with the addition of a red beret?

I'll keep this comment in mind for the next time a neighborhood of independent homeowners is evicted by the state so a private developer can pave over them and build condos.

(bullshit rationalizations about how "those aren't really capitalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scottsman)" will be redirected to :rolleyes: )

If the state takes the land then that is socialism at best -communism at worst. You will note that it was the state which took the land. A capitalist would have to negotiate to purchase it.

You will note that capitalists are strongly in favor of property rights as this episode illustrates;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4639374.stm

The justices who supported the liberal use of eminent domain were, of course, liberals. The conservative, more 'capitalist' justices were all opposed.

Since that time most states have enacted legislation at the state level protecting property from government seizure.

http://eminentdomaininstitute.blogspot.com/

Have fun picking up you straw man.

When a single mother of 6 on food stamps becomes President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POTUS), I'll believe that. Shoot, when a single white middle-class male who attended one of those public state universities becomes President, I'll believe that.
What does the Presidency have to do with it?

The point is that during that turbulent time between the Renaissance and the end of the Industrial Revolution completely new classes emerged, and people fell out and came in all the time. Or, put more generally, your class depends on your economic position and nothing else. Noam Chomsky can't be working class no matter how hard he tries.

Where in one of those strata consistently own and control the power of the state (never mind the economy), while the others do not.
There is an element of hierarchy there, obviously. My point was that it wasn't simply a renaming of existing strata, but the emergence of different strata entirely.

Maybe it was most obvious in the US, because there were no previously established hierarchies, nor a big state through which some could exercise control over others. And during that time and in those conditions social mobility was quite high, a huge proportion of the rich and famous were self-made men. And if that is the case, then where is the predictive power of those strata? If I can't tell anything about you or your future from what "class" you belong to, then what's the worth of the concept?

Ah, well, when we carefully sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_%28software_development%29) the global economy like that, lots of things conveniently disappear.
I'm not denying that people are genuinely without opportunities in the Third World, just like I'm not denying that most were during the Industrial Revolution.

But since we're not in the Third World, we have to deal with the modern economic system we live in. And I contend that in that system, the importance and even the existence of classes in the Marxist sense is extremely limited.

So let me come back to the point you meant to make above: Becoming President is difficult. It used to be much easier, back in the 19th century a self-made man could go on the campaign trail, hold speeches at train stations and win. It's gotten a lot more complicated, huge amounts of money are involved. And unfortunately, the way politics works in the US these days also means that if you don't have a big name you're at a disadvantage.

It was always a process that needed money, but these days money isn't enough. You need backers, access to the right clique of people.

Still, Michael Bloomberg might run. It's a pity he wouldn't win, but he's probably as close to a self-made man as you're gonna find these days.

I say capitalism because you can advocate any belief in capitalism (as it is usually accompanied by free speech which is possible because the state doesn't control everything.)


At least until the private property owner decides to deny me the right to speak on his or her property. Seeing as how such is their "sovereign" "right" and such.


You can advocate socialism/communism in a capitalist country but the reverse isn't true. (This again is because with economic and civil freedom comes political freedom in most cases.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran_Internal_Security_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversive_Activities_Control_Board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency

Like his socialist/communist cousins, the capitalist hasn't exactly got a blemish free history when it comes to political, civil or basically any other kind of rights.


The only change possible in socialism is revolution.


All those social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_democratic_parties) and democratic socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_democratic_socialist_parties_and_organizations) must just be figments of my imagination.

If the state takes the land then that is socialism at best -communism at worst.


:rolleyes:

(I told you I would)

I changed my account to this one because I wanted to do a real-life country. Anyways...Capitalism has its focus on the capital (money), socialism is the-middle-of-the-road, and Communism focuses on the Commune (people).

Like his socialist/communist cousins, the capitalist hasn't exactly got a blemish free history when it comes to political, civil or basically any other kind of rights.
Methinks your problem is with Republican Conservatism moreso than with Capitalism.

The thing is: People who called themselves socialists committed crimes in the name of socialism. People who called themselves capitalists committed crimes in the name of the nation/the people/religion/"freedom" - not capitalism.

Maybe it was most obvious in the US, because there were no previously established hierarchies, nor a big state through which some could exercise control over others.


How far back in U.S. history are we going here? Based on your description ("nor a big state") I Assume we are going back far enough that I can think of lots of "others" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Slaveshipposter.jpg) who would disagree with that assessment.

The political and economic power gained by the United States, thanks in major part to the labor of the "others," during this time is a not-insignificant contribution to its present position.


And during that time and in those conditions social mobility was quite high, a huge proportion of the rich and famous were self-made men.


Again, assuming I am accurately guessing which "that time" you're talking about, the rich and famous were made in the blood and labor of the "others," as described above. Not exactly "self" made.


But since we're not in the Third World, we have to deal with the modern economic system we live in.


The modern economic system includes the Third World, does it not? When "we" need to manufacture shit for dirt cheap and no workers' right, it sure as hell is.


It was always a process that needed money, but these days money isn't enough. You need backers, access to the right clique of people.


In other words, one needs to be a member of the correct class. There is more to "class" than just economic positioning.

Well, let's put it this way: if you were born to a poor family in Manchester in 1860, what was your chance to become rich?

And if you were born to a poor family in Manchester today, how would your chance have changed?



The definition of RICH is the variable you neglect. Is it owning a home? Owning a home with more than 2000 square feet? With a pool? Owning more than one car? Attending college? Food on the table every day? Virtually unlimited selection of fruits, vegetables and meats? Having dental care? leisure time for travel? Retirement? All of these are things were very unlikely and for the 'wealthy' in 1860 yet are common place today. Wealth has become so much more common as to become the standard. If, according to you - the poor could become rich then everyone would be rich. And, by your standards of 1860 - everyone pretty much IS rich. Viva Capitalism!

* 38 percent of the persons whom the Census Bureau identifies as "poor" own their own homes with a median value of $39,200.

* 62 percent of those "poor" households own a car; 14 percent own two or more cars.

* Nearly half of those "poor" households have air-conditioning; 31 percent have microwave ovens.

* Nationwide, some 22,000 "poor" households have heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis.


The chances of a poor person becoming 'rich' on a current comparative scale is presently about 1%. However - the chance of them escaping poverty is just over 50%. Those are pretty good odds.

Interestingly enough - the chances of a person BORN into wealth STAYING wealthy is about 30%. That is a MUCH more disconcerting statistic. What happened to the wealth of the other 70%!?? Apparently keeping it is not nearly as easy as it sounds.

:rolleyes:

(I told you I would)

makes you look even more foolish. You should really learn the difference between public and private entities. It really is the whole point of this discussion. :rolleyes: - backatcha

Property rights have tremendous value in the theory you cite.

Everything belongs exclusively to the state. Everything is controlled exclusively by the state.

Why does exclusive ownership and control suddenly become acceptable with the addition of a red beret?

Well if your talking about socialism in particular the state was the representative body of the populace, I spose you could call it the popular delegate, Soviet actually means 'Workers council' if you didn't know. Of course in practise this didn't always go to plan as the representative body often developed interests exclusive to itself and not of the whole, the whole 'apparachik curse', that this of course happens even today, representative democracies today hardly ever genuinely represent their constituencies and act as the delegate of 'popular sovereignty', this isn't so much a valid criticism of Marx as it is of history and politics in general.

The difference of course between the 'democracy' the Greeks developed and Marxism is that Marx extended democracy from politics to economics, the idea of bridging the gap between political and material equality. The Greeks more than anyone had a separation of personal and political (Athens in particular), even if Plato argued against this. It was the imposition of liberalism that Marx believed allowed the bourgeois to keep their wealth monopoly while keeping the commons happy by giving them political democracy while not giving economic democracy. Marx of course believed that the contradiction in society between liberalism and democracy (even to the extent laughable attempt to have a 'liberal democracy') that it needed to be remedied by giving material equality.

The key of course is in having 'Socialism from Below' so that devolved democratic workplaces that are the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity. I myself support the idea 'recallable delegate' socialism.

Methinks your problem is with Republican Conservatism moreso than with Capitalism.


I'm assuming that Conservative Republicanism includes capitalism as a general part of the ideology.


People who called themselves capitalists committed crimes in the name of the nation/the people/religion/"freedom" - not capitalism.


The claims made (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12960549&postcount=23) were:

1. "You can advocate any belief in capitalism"
2. "You can advocate socialism/communism in a capitalist country"

I provided historical examples where these were simply not the case.

The capitalist can commit crimes in the name of the fluorescent bunny living on the dark side of the moon. Such is still completely irrelevant to the historical fact that a capitalist political system has placed severe restrictions on political belief and expression, contrary to the claims of the poster to which I originally replied.

makes you look even more foolish.


I'm simply waiting for an argument that isn't a logical fallacy.

Private owners of private property operating in a for-profit market economic system (that is, capitalists) are perfectly capable of calling for, and benefiting from, activities that you claim only exist under socialism/communism. Clearly your claim is wrong.

As an ideology? Communism as Marx defines it. When one considers that, having been raised in a communist paradigm, one would have no trace of individualism, the lifestyle offered by pure communism has great allure.

As a practical model in which to live? Capitalism. Socialism is abhorrent ("The British people have never held socialism in their hearts"), inducing mediocrity and apathy. By contrast, though capitalism may well be wracked with inequalities, my being upon the right side of said inequalities leads me not to gove a toss.

-snip-


1. You can't be evicted off public property (i.e. street corners, sidewalk)
2. Like I said, in most capitalist countries there is Free Speech and because there is private corporations you can get funding. Not so much in Communist/Socialist states
3. Because everything is ownded by the state it is more/less impossible to get funding for a real opposition party. Keep in mind true democratic socailists socialist democrats advocate direct representation or are mis-labeled. IMHO

As an ideology? Communism as Marx defines it. When one considers that, having been raised in a communist paradigm, one would have no trace of individualism, the lifestyle offered by pure communism has great allure.

As a practical model in which to live? Capitalism. Socialism is abhorrent ("The British people have never held socialism in their hearts"), inducing mediocrity and apathy. By contrast, though capitalism may well be wracked with inequalities, my being upon the right side of said inequalities leads me not to gove a toss.
That pretty much voids your argument, the fact you are in a minority does not justify such.

I spose you could call it the popular delegate, Soviet actually means 'Workers council' if you didn't know.


I did know.


...this isn't so much a valid criticism of Marx as it is of history and politics in general.


Of course it is. Marx posited that the proletariats dictatorship of the state could handle things. Clearly he was wrong.

Theory is great stuff, it really is. But eventually it needs to work in practice, or it's just a bunch of talk.

I'll keep this comment in mind for the next time a neighborhood of independent homeowners is evicted by the state so a private developer can pave over them and build condos.

(bullshit rationalizations about how "those aren't really capitalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scottsman)" will be redirected to :rolleyes: )

You're right, that's how capitalism has turned out in practice. To take a look at how communism has turned out, look up a guy named Joseph Stalin.

The fact is that ideally neither of these situations will occur: neither the enslavement of the individual to larger corporations, nor the enslavement of the individual to the state. Yet in practice, absolutely "pure" capitalism and communism end up like this. Rather than spending time arguing through no-true-scotsman and Adam-Smith-said, I prefer to advocate a healthy mixture of free market with socialised necessities, much like the welfare-state model (just with a more discriminating welfare system that is less open to abuse, and maybe a stronger military, but that's another debate.)

More specifically: Practically everything but essential services will be regulated by the free market; essential services will be regulated by the government. Not that I regard the government as any more trustworthy than private corporations, but let's face it, governments are elected (in my ideal model) whereas CEOs are not. Governments have to serve their constituents while corporations have to serve their customers; but the constituents can kick out a governmental official they don't like, whereas customers can't kick out a corporate official they don't like (unless they can convince his/her superiors that a breach of company policy and/or federal law has been committed). In addition, in my personal experience corporations have been more likely to overcharge, cut corners, and generally do anything for profits. (On the other hand, government services have been rather shoddy, especially on the local level, so maybe this isn't such a good idea after all.)

That pretty much voids your argument, the fact you are in a minority does not justify such.

It does for me. I like my comfortable lifestyle, I dislike ill mannered. ill spoken, crude yobbos, hence I see no reason to compromise my comfort for the sake of others.

capatilism

How far back in U.S. history are we going here? Based on your description ("nor a big state") I Assume we are going back far enough that I can think of lots of "others" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Slaveshipposter.jpg) who would disagree with that assessment.
That picture is pretty sick, I'd just like to say that on the side.

I was actually thinking the big railway tycoons and people who struck it big in the Gold Rush.

But anyways, my US example wasn't meant to somehow pretend that there were never economic classes in America. It was meant to show that the end of the economic conditions on which feudalism was based led to the emergence of completely new and different strata within society, the membership of which could differ quite severely from the memberships of the previously existing strata. The US just happened to be a place where there weren't any established noble families which managed to jump from feudal power to industrial power, but instead intelligence, hard work and I suppose a certain ruthlessness determined what classes some people ended up in.

Most of which is quite irrelevant to the situation today, because as was pointed out most rich families don't actually stay rich, and the clans of those self-made men from back then don't exist anymore. Nor are the economic and material conditions in the US today the same as they were in the 19th century.

The modern economic system includes the Third World, does it not? When "we" need to manufacture shit for dirt cheap and no workers' right, it sure as hell is.
The Third World produces nothing anyone needs, that's why it's so poor. China isn't the third world.

In other words, one needs to be a member of the correct class. There is more to "class" than just economic positioning.
Not in the Marxist sense there isn't.

I'm assuming that Conservative Republicanism includes capitalism as a general part of the ideology.
Well, alongside protectionism and immigration controls, among other things. Hardly representative.

For example, I would call myself a free-market libertarian, ie a capitalist. And I think that conservatives are a bigger danger to my livelihood than socialists.

Such is still completely irrelevant to the historical fact that a capitalist political system has placed severe restrictions on political belief and expression, contrary to the claims of the poster to which I originally replied.
Fair enough. Though capitalism is an economic system, not a political one. The less money and politics are connected, the better.

Though that's rather impossible to achieve, so it's probably best to just minimise the effect politics can have on people's lives by minimising the extent of the state.

1. You can't be evicted off public property (i.e. street corners, sidewalk)
2. Like I said, in most capitalist countries there is Free Speech and because there is private corporations you can get funding. Not so much in Communist/Socialist states
3. Because everything is ownded by the state it is more/less impossible to get funding for a real opposition party. Keep in mind true democratic socailists socialist democrats advocate direct representation or are mis-labeled. IMHO

You should read my big post above.

Again, you are just playing off Red Scare kinda talking points yet your posts have little, if any, credibility.

You say that 'communist' states have no free speech, well lets start with 'communist', no 'state' is communist because if they were they wouldn't be a state, more like maybe a loose collection of communes and worker councils. If your referring to socialism, that is states in transition from capitalism to communism, then the 'state' for a limited time will act as delegate to popular rule, the 'representative' of workers if you will.

Secondly, because the state is delegate of the people, it is true democracy, ie majority rule, and not oligarchy-political/capitalist-economic (minority) rule. Sure, states often develop their own interests in representative democracies and themselves become minorities, but that doesn't detract from democratic(communist) theory, it just points to Marx's teachings on recallable delegates and more accountable representation for the workers/people, and the need for dissolving the state asap and entering communes for people to rule themselves on the principle of consumption.

So if you disagree with a society in which the people as a equal whole own the products of consumption, sure then say so, but don't challenge theory unless you can back it up. If your talking about media or even resources more generally, these would be distributed proportionate to numbers, e.g for media mass organizations would get resources progressively depending on the amount of members they hold, that principle would be applied to the society as a whole. Communism is the true application of egalitarian democracy as embodied in the principle of 'one person=one value'.

1. You can't be evicted off public property (i.e. street corners, sidewalk)


Nonsense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A_Look_At_The_Life_Of_Prison.jpg). I was sitting at the public bus stop one time, minding my own business, and was almost so evicted myself (a case of mistaken identity)


2. Like I said, in most capitalist countries there is Free Speech and because there is private corporations you can get funding. Not so much in Communist/Socialist states


So, how come you get to selectively exclude unfavorable cases, but all of the instances of the opposing ideology must fall into the same camp, despite the plethora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#Democratic_socialism_today) of examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) of communists and socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scottsboro_Boys) alike championing civil and political rights?

(please excuse the excessive bolding; I'm just running under the assumption that it's the trick to making the selective approach to reality described above work)


3.Keep in mind true democratic socailists socialist democrats advocate direct representation or are mis-labeled. IMHO

They are labeled correctly. Authoritiarians and Americans with no understanding of history are the one's who are confused. Socialism has a rich tradition of anti-state ideology (more typically under the name "anarchism") which everyone seems to have forgot once that Marx shit came along.

I did know.



Of course it is. Marx posited that the proletariats dictatorship of the state could handle things. Clearly he was wrong.

Theory is great stuff, it really is. But eventually it needs to work in practice, or it's just a bunch of talk.

Actually Marx writes very little about the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and his writings went more to socio-economic and philosophy than estimates of practical application in the future, I am sure if Marx could have read the future he would have written alot more about that kinda practical stuff, but unfortunately he was only human and the high expectation of him should be somewhat lowered, his theory is sound however for it's time, it's just up to us to interpret or apply it correctly in time.

I myself however do see social democracy, especially in Scandinavia, as a good example of interpretation(dare I say revision) of Marx.

You're right, that's how capitalism has turned out in practice. To take a look at how communism has turned out, look up a guy named Joseph Stalin.


Preaching to the choir, pal. :D

Yeah of course, I remember how Suharto, Pinochet, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. were so nice about the communists spreading their views! They even gave them front row seats to torture chambers and execution rooms!
Don't forget Satan. I'm sure Satan is capitalist too!

Actually Marx writes very little about the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat,


Irrelevant, because...


...it's just up to us to interpret or apply it correctly in time.


...it still fails.

I do like socialism, but communism is good if you like beets and waiting in line for shoelaces.

Opposition, because you cannot correctly respond in full to the entirety of my posts I will not bother with you as you can offer nothing conclusive.

Syndicalism.

Preaching to the choir, pal. :D

I wrote that post when yours was the most recent one..... then abandoned my computer and forgot about it until a few minutes ago. Thus, I had no opportunity to acquaint myself more intimately with your views. Whoops. ;_;

I was actually thinking the big railway tycoons and people who struck it big in the Gold Rush.


Ah, now we can start talking about wars of Manifest Destiny and annexation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War), including the masses of people run off their ranches and other property by "self-made" squatters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gold_rush) in the new states of Texas, California, and elsewhere so they could become today's "illegal" immigrant day laborers and other "others."


...but instead intelligence, hard work and I suppose a certain ruthlessness determined what classes some people ended up in.


Healthy doses of war and other expansionist state intervention don't hurt either. I suppose it takes intelligence and hard work to accomplish both.

Again, I don't dispute that new strata in society were created. I simply note that those strata at the top immediately began using their position in the same way the top always has.


The Third World produces nothing anyone needs, that's why it's so poor.


Except cheap outsourced labor. Which, yes, is exactly why it is so poor.



Not in the Marxist sense there isn't.


Marx was an idiot. So what?


Well, alongside protectionism and immigration controls, among other things. Hardly representative. For example, I would call myself a free-market libertarian,


Well, judging from electoral results here in the US of A, I'd say that the free-market libertarians are hardly representative of the general capitalist population. The largest and wealthiest private property market economic system on earth seems perfectly happy with war, protectionism, and immigration controls.


And I think that conservatives are a bigger danger to my livelihood than socialists.


We agree. Except that this is why I quit being a free-market libertarian.


Though capitalism is an economic system, not a political one.


Someone should inform the lobbyists and such.


...so it's probably best to just minimise the effect politics can have on people's lives by minimising the extent of the state.

As soon as this becomes part of the general capitalist political agenda (i.e. free-market libertarians start getting more than 2% of the vote) let me know.

I wrote that post when yours was the most recent one..... then abandoned my computer and forgot about it until a few minutes ago. Thus, I had no opportunity to acquaint myself more intimately with your views. Whoops. ;_;

Of course. Thus the ---> :D


:D

Opposition, because you cannot correctly respond in full to the entirety of my posts I will not bother with you as you can offer nothing conclusive.

Correctly respond? So if I just blindly agree with you, you'll keep talking? Please pardon my dissent, Comrade ;)

At any rate, the history of Marxist theory put into practice has already responded. My posts are so short because, really, there isn't much else to say.

I started a fun discussion. FYI: I restarted because I wanted to have a more realistic nation based on a real-life nation. :p

Seriously, this discussion is going great. I voted but to make sure I didn't turn things unbalanced I vote for neither but I still go for socialist.

Here is a chart for people who need this to be simplified: Capitalism focuses on capital (money), Socialism is a middle-of-the-road but has slightly simular ideals to Communism, and Communism focuses on commune (people).

Whatever nets me the most profit materialistically or monetarily.

i really think the best thing over all would be to not be such fanatical idiots about any of them. probably the worst thing were doing is drawing the lines between any of them and using them as an excuse for throwing things at each other.

no hierarchy is inheirently bennificial, not even, especially not even, economic ones. infrastructure demands social organization and comfort zone demands infrastructure. but social organization does NOT demand hierarchy.

i think they all have potiential, if we just use that potential to its best advantage WITHOUT drawing these fanatical and arbitrary lines between them.

i also think that maybe, if we don't stop with that nonsense of doing so, that we really could end up destroying ourselves as a species. so the hell with this petty haggling over the superficialities of idiology.

keeping each other from starving and freezing and to provide infrastructure is why we all got togather back in flint knives and bear skin days in the first place to begin with. and that's still the only GOOD reason for having ANY government in ANY form.

=^^=
.../\...

Sometimes, moderation in most things. Capitalism, not too fanatical.

Whatever nets me the most profit materialistically or monetarily.

Though I can identify with this. :p

The single most benevolent product of the human race. If you were to kill humanity now and skim over the entire history thereof, capitalism would be the closest thing you could attribute as the 'purpose' of the entire affair. It is brilliant.

The single most benevolent product of the human race. If you were to kill humanity now and skim over the entire history thereof, capitalism would be the closest thing you could attribute as the 'purpose' of the entire affair. It is brilliant.The sort of capitalism we've practised since the end of WWII, is the single most lethal activity humanity has ever engaged in throughout the history of our species, and just to add insult to injury, it is devastating our resources (thus undermining future growth) and destroying the biosphere (thus undermining future growth).

If this purpose you speak of, is the systematic infliction of harm upon every lifeform on the planet, then you are indeed right, though it is nothing a nuclear holocaust couldn't do far better and quicker.

Capitalism is great.

A purely capitalistic state is like evolution, it is survival of the fittest.
Communism is like creationism, a omnipotent body (well, the government) creates and distributes all goods and services.
Socialism, to differing degrees, is like intelligent design, with a powerful body that interferes with the laws of nature from time to time.

That doesn't really answer the question, but I thought it was an interesting analogy. I would have to say "capitalism with socialist tendencies" (something in between 1890s United States and 2000s Sweden).

Just looking at the results thus far, since when has NSG been more Capitalist than communist/socialist over 40% claim to be capitalist. Not long ago capitalist would have been a negligable amout on the reults table, and now they are almost equal... This cant be a a shift to capitalism can it? Or is that the socialist nations are dying off, and the capitalist one staying on...

Capitalism.

Just looking at the results thus far, since when has NSG been more Capitalist than communist/socialist over 40% claim to be capitalist. Not long ago capitalist would have been a negligable amout on the reults table, and now they are almost equal... This cant be a a shift to capitalism can it? Or is that the socialist nations are dying off, and the capitalist one staying on...

Nah, the capitalists just had the money to pay for the votes. :D

Capitalism is great if you are the owner of a major company. It is a system where your sole concern is making the most money for the least cost and economic growth. An example of being a good capitalist is if you bought a new car this year you buy 2 new cars next year. Capitalism is why now in the United States many companies are outsourcing to places like China, Mexico, India, etc.. Many of the people who support capitalism are actually being screwed by capitalism because they've been fooled to believe capitalism means freedom. It is true that there are those freak accidents where someone comes from the lowest rung of society and makes it but you have more chance of winning the lottery or being eaten by a shark.

I'm simply waiting for an argument that isn't a logical fallacy.

Private owners of private property operating in a for-profit market economic system (that is, capitalists) are perfectly capable of calling for, and benefiting from, activities that you claim only exist under socialism/communism. Clearly your claim is wrong.

Ahhh - now I see your point - why didn't you say so in the beginning?

So you are basing your entire postulation on one observed example? One which is quite controversial... Not to mention that the party in the US most similar to socialists are the ones who support it while the one most similar to the capitalists oppose it?

Meanwhile - if the government is going to hand me money I would be a fool to return it. Same for land. It does not matter if it belonged to someone else - ALL wealth the government comes into possession of belonged to someone else...

The sort of capitalism we've practised since the end of WWII, is the single most lethal activity humanity has ever engaged in throughout the history of our species, and just to add insult to injury, it is devastating our resources (thus undermining future growth) and destroying the biosphere (thus undermining future growth).

If this purpose you speak of, is the systematic infliction of harm upon every lifeform on the planet, then you are indeed right, though it is nothing a nuclear holocaust couldn't do far better and quicker.

Actually, I think WWII was the single most lethal activity humanity has every engaged in (70 million is a big number to beat).
Although I agree we have been devastating our resources, I don't believe this is specific to capitalism, but to human greed and impatience.

A purely capitalistic state is like evolution, it is survival of the fittest.
Communism is like creationism, a omnipotent body (well, the government) creates and distributes all goods and services.
Socialism, to differing degrees, is like intelligent design, with a powerful body that interferes with the laws of nature from time to time.Your analogies fail because 'fit' doesn't mean 'best at exploiting'. It's about adaptability and staying power, nothing more.

If you wanted to use that analogy in a way that works, you'd have to call all three ID, since they're all variations of capitalism and all necessitates infinite resources, an invulnerable biosphere and cruelty on a scale that makes our history of genocides look pleasant.

Of course, anti-authoritarians have a few different ideas for sustainable economic systems, but we seem to be excluded from the above categories.Just looking at the results thus far, since when has NSG been more Capitalist than communist/socialist over 40% claim to be capitalist. Not long ago capitalist would have been a negligable amout on the reults table, and now they are almost equal... This cant be a a shift to capitalism can it? Or is that the socialist nations are dying off, and the capitalist one staying on...It's probably a combination of two things.
1. Most people, socialists included, are capitalists.
2. It's summer & all the non-capitalists are out playing in the local chemical spill.

Although I agree we have been devastating our resources, I don't believe this is specific to capitalism, but to human greed and impatience.
Exactly. It's not like the Soviets were particularly kind to the environment, and in theory at least the efficiency inherent in a free market system would maximise the benefit you get for any given amount of environmental destruction.

You forgot fascism, a system with an economic system that is decidedly distinct from the three you listed.

But, for me, capitalism. Works mighty fine.

Ahhh - now I see your point - why didn't you say so in the beginning?


I did :D


So you are basing your entire postulation on one observed example? One which is quite controversial...


Well, I could cite general lobbying, protectionism, bailouts/subsidies, corporate welfare, favorable legislation (enabling things like tax havens, or the entire legal concept of the corporate "entity" and such), and any number of other things as further examples of "Private owners of private property operating in a for-profit market economic system (that is, capitalists)...calling for, and benefiting from, activities that you claim only exist under socialism/communism."


Not to mention that the party in the US most similar to socialists are the ones who support it while the one most similar to the capitalists oppose it?


Are you really sure about that?


Meanwhile - if the government is going to hand me money I would be a fool to return it. Same for land. It does not matter if it belonged to someone else - ALL wealth the government comes into possession of belonged to someone else...


Well, I had gotten the impression from a previous (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12960415&postcount=10) post that you were opposed to "stealing." I had assumed that this would include prohibiting being the recipient of stolen property.

So, it's more like "socialism is stealing and wrong...but as long as we're doing it..." **holds hands out*** ?

Ende lego qe capitli'mo. Ande quies i' con sa shufa der comuri'mo. Si no' paece i' palante con l'ecoromía, ain qe deja' l'ompresario' curra' libemente

Of course, I choose capitalism. We go nowhere with comunnism. If we want that economy provides, we must let businessman to work free

Communism, in the truest sense of the word. Not the state capitalist party dictatorship like in the Soviet Union, but what communism was supposed to mean: a stateless, classless society built around decentralized direct democracy, cooperative economics and distribution according to need.

Exactly. It's not like the Soviets were particularly kind to the environment, and in theory at least the efficiency inherent in a free market system would maximise the benefit you get for any given amount of environmental destruction.How is state controlled capitalism different from corporate controlled capitalism? - Apart from the colour of the masters' suits and the gibberish on their name tags.

How is state controlled capitalism different from corporate controlled capitalism? - Apart from the colour of the masters' suits and the gibberish on their name tags.
That precisely the reason people say capitalism destroys the environment should not exist in state socialism.

Think about it: the reason people say capitalism destroys the environment is because individual greed gets people to take resources to a greater extent than is optimal. A central authority that takes care of resource use should be able to take a rational look at the environmental resources available, and because it is the only party that can take away from those resources, it should be able to take a socially optimal amount.

It doesn't, which was my point. There is no evidence that centrally controlled distribution mechanisms have been making better decisions regarding environmental resources than individual decision-makers within a free system. In fact, in the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Bloc there was little awareness of environmental issues, plus the state didn't have to pay for any part of land it destroyed. As a result, the damage done by Soviet industry and agriculture was a lot worse than that caused by similar Western industries.

And before you start with esoteric theories, keep in mind that any commune-based system in which resources are common "property" still has to make "collective" decisions about the use of environmental resources. There is no reason to believe that myopia and selfishness won't lead to exactly the same overuse as under the Soviet-style regime.

And before you start with esoteric theories, keep in mind that any commune-based system in which resources are common "property" still has to make "collective" decisions about the use of environmental resources. There is no reason to believe that myopia and selfishness won't lead to exactly the same overuse as under the Soviet-style regime.

I am not so naive as to make that claim. However, a communal system of decision making under an anarcho-communist system has one decided advantage: it is not tied to a market system. Capitalist markets literally force individual businesses to grow or die. All of these independent actions taken together, along with the natural willingness of the market to externalize environmental costs, leads directly to environmental degradation.

The market has no choice but to expand. Collectives do have that choice. An anarcho-communist economy can exist at a state of zero growth beyond population increase, a capitalist system cannot.

That precisely the reason people say capitalism destroys the environment should not exist in state socialism.

Think about it: the reason people say capitalism destroys the environment is because individual greed gets people to take resources to a greater extent than is optimal. A central authority that takes care of resource use should be able to take a rational look at the environmental resources available, and because it is the only party that can take away from those resources, it should be able to take a socially optimal amount.

It doesn't, which was my point.Ah, I believe we had the same point them. So why pretend there's any difference? There is no evidence that centrally controlled distribution mechanisms have been making better decisions regarding environmental resources than individual decision-makers within a free system. In fact, in the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Bloc there was little awareness of environmental issues, plus the state didn't have to pay for any part of land it destroyed. As a result, the damage done by Soviet industry and agriculture was a lot worse than that caused by similar Western industries.I see we're on the same page, albeit perhaps in different books.

Perhaps unlike you, I don't see a problem with individual greed. The reason I don't see a problem, is because it's relatively uncomplicated to construct an economic model where individual greed doesn't translate to influence on a transaction. And that, incidentally, is why I can't accept any model based on capitalism, from ANCAP'ery to Fascism and Communism.

In my opinion, everyone affected by a transaction should have influence on that transaction, according to how strongly they're affected by it. Since it's painfully obvious to everyone not immediately gratified by resource exploitation, human or non-human, and devastation of the biosphere, it's unreasonable to expect that a system that allows people influence in accordance to how strongly they're affected, can be used to exploit resources or devastate the biosphere. And the added benefit, of course, is that such a system doesn't ass-rape the autonomy of the individual, because money has no bearing on power and influence. And before you start with esoteric theories, keep in mind that any commune-based system in which resources are common "property" still has to make "collective" decisions about the use of environmental resources. There is no reason to believe that myopia and selfishness won't lead to exactly the same overuse as under the Soviet-style regime.Only as long as you're talking about some type of capitalist system, where remuneration is awarded for cheating others, rather than your work. And again, that's precisely why I keep saying all three options in this poll are the same damn thing and suck equal amounts of ass.

Well, I could cite general lobbying, protectionism, bailouts/subsidies, corporate welfare, favorable legislation (enabling things like tax havens, or the entire legal concept of the corporate "entity" and such), and any number of other things as further examples of "Private owners of private property operating in a for-profit market economic system (that is, capitalists)...calling for, and benefiting from, activities that you claim only exist under socialism/communism."
lobbying=not communist/socialist
protectionism=not communist/socialist
corporate welfare=stupid - but not socialist or communist (no ownership)
favorable legislation - shouldn't it ALL be favorable?
tax havens=not c/s
corporations= not c/s
your argumet=empty. Unless you want to begin with the premise that the US is the ultimate manifestation of pure capitalism you have many holes in your argument. If you admint that then you have only one :)


Are you really sure about that?
Take a look for yourself;
-AGAINST-
William H. Rehnquist
Justices Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor

-FOR-
John Paul Stevens
Anthony M. Kennedy
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
David H. Souter


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1676503

And I LOVE this; http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html



Well, I had gotten the impression from a previous (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12960415&postcount=10) post that you were opposed to "stealing." I had assumed that this would include prohibiting being the recipient of stolen property. [/quote
Of course I am opposed to stealing. I also have a life philosophy - if someone wants to give you something valueable for free and they have authority to do so (authority =/= right) - take it. It is a terrible contradiction to live with!
[QUOTE=The Loyal Opposition;12963414]
So, it's more like "socialism is stealing and wrong...but as long as we're doing it..." **holds hands out*** ?
Be foolish not to.

Anarchism.

Any political economic system assigned to it undermines a truly free society.

I say capitalism is the best of the three. Of course none of them are perfect, but capitalism is better than socialism or communism, because socialism and communism distribute wealth equally among the people, and if I know that whether I work or not I'll still get a share of wealth equal to that of any other person, then I have no reason to go out and get a job or do any work, but instead sit back and let Uncle Sam hand everything to me on a silver platter. Therefore, socialist and communist economies produce far less goods and services and have a much lower GDP because producing goods and services means working, and in a socialist or communist economic system, the government pays people NOT to work, therefore the nation is poorer than it would be under capitalism.

Communism, in the truest sense of the word. Not the state capitalist party dictatorship like in the Soviet Union, but what communism was supposed to mean: a stateless, classless society built around decentralized direct democracy, cooperative economics and distribution according to need.

The term 'state capitalism' remains one of the most bizarre pieces of doublethink that the left currently embraces. It's facetious and incorrect, an attempt to blame the failures of your own ideologies on the other guys.

Just looking at the results thus far, since when has NSG been more Capitalist than communist/socialist over 40% claim to be capitalist. Not long ago capitalist would have been a negligable amout on the reults table, and now they are almost equal... This cant be a a shift to capitalism can it? Or is that the socialist nations are dying off, and the capitalist one staying on...

Most people seem to be still stuck on the "NS is full of nazis and communists" wheel, I notice. Personally, I haven't seen a nazi in ages, and the communists are about evenly matched with the capitalists these days. Well, meh.

The term 'state capitalism' remains one of the most bizarre pieces of doublethink that the left currently embraces. It's facetious and incorrect, an attempt to blame the failures of your own ideologies on the other guys.

From this post, I gather that you hold the existence of any state at all to be a manifestation of fascism? (After all, communism and socialism in their ideal forms are stateless as well; and 'state communism' and 'state capitalism' are virtually identical.)

From this post, I gather that you hold the existence of any state at all to be a manifestation of fascism? (After all, communism and socialism in their ideal forms are stateless as well; and 'state communism' and 'state capitalism' are virtually identical.)

Not so much that as an insistence on efficient, descriptive and objective classification of political concepts. I feel that the appelation of the term 'state capitalist' to the Soviet Union is not only incorrect, but those who do so apply it with a lack of honest objectivity. If anything, 'state capitalist' would be best applied to the Keynesian policies of the NATO countries throughout the Cold War.

Rather, 'Soviet Socialism,' '[insert leader here]-ism' or 'Totalitarian Socialism' would seem to be clearer, more descriptive and truer.

It's an issue of clarity and objectivity in taxonomy, I would say.

The term 'state capitalism' remains one of the most bizarre pieces of doublethink that the left currently embraces. It's facetious and incorrect, an attempt to blame the failures of your own ideologies on the other guys.

It fits if one understand what they mean by the term. Basically if one looks at the criticisms of capitalists and the behavior of the leaders of commumist countries then one can say the two act the same way. Basically if one capitalist enterprise was able to get a monopoly on all capital and the use of force it'd behave like a Soviet state. People who use the term are generally marxists who don't think the commies really had a dictatorship of the proletariat and/or anarcho-communists.

I think Capitalism works the best. Without imposed government regulations like subsidies, price floors and ceilings, and special taxes, goods would be produced in correlation to the population's need (and, by extension, willingness to pay for said products). Furthermore, capitalism promotes productivity (and thus an increase in the overall quality of life) by rewarding citizens who provide goods or services desired by the general populace. It is a beautifully self-regulating system (if market failures can be avoided): when a needed product is scarce, the rise in its price encourages more production of said product, encouraging competition (which then reduces the price--leaving the populace not only with more of what they want, but the ability to more easily obtain it).

Now, I know that some folks will say: "AHA! You said "if market failures can be avoided" which actually implies the necessity for a socialist system rather than a capitalist one!" But I disagree with such a conceptualization of the differences between a capitalist and socialist system. In an ideal capitalist society, market failures (like monopolies and externalities) would be recognized as such (rather than being attributed to oppressive corporate greed or strong-arm bully businesses and the entire concept of private ownership and employment) and dealt with accordingly.

The market has no choice but to expand. Collectives do have that choice. An anarcho-communist economy can exist at a state of zero growth beyond population increase, a capitalist system cannot.
In theory, I think you're right. A commune could decide not to improve its material position.

But I don't think people can. And people are what the commune is made of. If there's the morning meeting of the commune, and someone proposes that instead of having one washing machine for everyone they could have two, and they wouldn't have to stand in line anymore to get their clothes washed...do you really think people are going to vote against it because it would require a few more resources or a little more water?

In the late 60s and the early 70s Germany went through a troublesome time when economic difficulties and cultural changes came together with a clash of generations as teenagers got into power struggles with their parents, who had lived through the Nazi era. It was complicated, but the equivalent of the anti-war movement and the "hippies" in the US were the "'68 Generation" in Germany. There was a lot less new age zen stuff, and a lot more hardcore politics in there.

I just read a great article about the attempt of this generation to break out of the concept of the family and instead live in communes. You can find it here (http://www.spiegel.de/spiegelspecial/0,1518,498436,00.html), but unfortunately it's in German and you might have to use Babelfish. Suffice to say, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommune_1#Reactions) is how it ended.

Just because something is a commune, people don't stop being people. It's too easy to forget that.

Perhaps unlike you, I don't see a problem with individual greed.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm an incredibly greedy person, and insofar as greed is defined as the desire to improve one's material position, I think greed is the reason humanity has survived this long and our lives are so much easier than those of our ancestors.

In my opinion, everyone affected by a transaction should have influence on that transaction, according to how strongly they're affected by it.
Sounds great, but you're going to have to explain exactly how this would work.

Well, I could cite general lobbying, protectionism, bailouts/subsidies, corporate welfare, favorable legislation (enabling things like tax havens, or the entire legal concept of the corporate "entity" and such), and any number of other things as further examples of "Private owners of private property operating in a for-profit market economic system (that is, capitalists)...calling for, and benefiting from, activities that you claim only exist under socialism/communism."

lobbying=not communist/socialist /capitalist
protectionism=not communist/socialist/capitalist
corporate welfare=stupid - but not socialist or communist (no ownership) or capitalist
favorable legislation - shouldn't it ALL be favorable?
tax havens=not c/s/c
corporations= not c/s but certainly capitalist.
your argument=empty... Unless you want to begin with the premise that the US is the ultimate manifestation of pure capitalism you have many holes in your argument. If you do admit that then you have only one :)

The US and many other nations certinly are capitalist - but as we've seen with Canada, Japan and Sweden there are varying degrees of capitalism. The common theme is that capitalistic societies have been and will continue to be the most successful.
Are you really sure about that?

Take a look for yourself;
-AGAINST-
William H. Rehnquist
Justices Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor

-FOR-
John Paul Stevens
Anthony M. Kennedy
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
David H. Souter


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1676503

And I LOVE this; http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html



Well, I had gotten the impression from a previous (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12960415&postcount=10) post that you were opposed to "stealing." I had assumed that this would include prohibiting being the recipient of stolen property.
Of course I am opposed to stealing. I also have a life philosophy - if someone wants to give you something valueable for free and they have authority to do so (authority =/= right) - take it. It is a terrible contradiction to live with!

Be foolish not to.

The term 'state capitalism' remains one of the most bizarre pieces of doublethink that the left currently embraces. It's facetious and incorrect, an attempt to blame the failures of your own ideologies on the other guys.Much like market capitalism? The only difference is there's a handful more 'planners' in the sort of market capitalism practised on this planet, past and present. Then again, the monolithic PARTY wasn't always in total agreement with itself so the difference is, at most, cosmetic.

You might also want to reconsider what 'the left' is. The majority of us have never been proponents of pure state capitalism, and quite a few of us have never been proponents of any form of capitalism. And of this last chunk, quite a few were systematically hunted down and killed because of it. 'The left' is not some big, scary hivemind.Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm an incredibly greedy person, and insofar as greed is defined as the desire to improve one's material position, I think greed is the reason humanity has survived this long and our lives are so much easier than those of our ancestors.I think it's equal parts greed and empathy. The US and very, very religious orthodox communities may be the exception, but on the whole, I think it's reasonable to say it's a truism that peoples who have no wealth and have no way of getting it, will rather fight (and as a rule, die) their circumstances than each other to get the wealth.Sounds great, but you're going to have to explain exactly how this would work.I think any system of participatory economy will work, but to be more concrete, I suggest you check out ParEcon. Rather than trying to explain a fundamentally different economic system in a forum post, though, I think I'll just point you at some useful online info. Here's a book I liked (http://www.zmag.org/books/quiet.htm) and here's a collection (http://www.parecon.org/) of articles, rants and a couple of books

Rather than trying to explain a fundamentally different economic system in a forum post, though, I think I'll just point you at some useful online info. Here's a book I liked (http://www.zmag.org/books/quiet.htm)...
But that one doesn't answer my questions. It tells me why the market is horrible and everything I learned and observed is really invalid.

What it doesn't tell me is what an alternative would actually look like in the real world.

...and here's a collection (http://www.parecon.org/) of articles, rants and a couple of books.
It's a big website, and while I've tried in the past, I've never been able to actually find the answers that I'm looking for.

Say I want to have a Ferrari. What happens? What do I have to do to get one? What do other people have to do? Why are they doing it?

It's not that I'm against Parecon. I don't think it fits me personally and I would prefer to move away into a capitalist society if it were to be introduced, but I'm not hostile to it as I am to state-based socialism. It's just that no one has actually ever been able to explain to me what my life would be like under Parecon.

It's like in Kommune 1...great in theory, in practice it failed because everyone wanted to sleep with the hot chick and because they couldn't get a washing plan set up. It's those sort of practical considerations that would worry me if I were a proponent of Parecon.

Capitalism, beyond any doubt.

lobbying=not communist/socialist /capitalist
protectionism=not communist/socialist/capitalist
corporate welfare=stupid - but not socialist or communist (no ownership) or capitalist
tax havens=not c/s/c


...but there are a whole mess of capitalists who do it anyway.
...but there are a whole mess of capitalists who demand it anyway
...but there are a whole mess of capitalists who demand and benefit from it anyway.
...but there are a whole mess of capitalists who demand and benefit from them anyway.

Breathing isn't a specifically capitalist concept either, but that doesn't change the fact that a whole mess of capitalists do it anyway.


your argument=empty... Unless you want to begin with the premise that the US is the ultimate manifestation of pure capitalism...


I don't begin with that premise. The United States does.


Of course I am opposed to stealing.


Except when you directly benefit from it, apparently. That's a moral position if ever I saw one. At least, I can't see how that position distinguishes you (I presume a capitalist) from the average statist socialist.

Breathing isn't a specifically capitalist/economic concept either, but that doesn't change the fact that a whole mess of capitalists do it anyway.




Aha. Finally proof that capitalism is evil, eh? :p

I feel that the appelation of the term 'state capitalist' to the Soviet Union is not only incorrect, but those who do so apply it with a lack of honest objectivity. If anything, 'state capitalist' would be best applied to the Keynesian policies of the NATO countries throughout the Cold War.

Rather, 'Soviet Socialism,' '[insert leader here]-ism' or 'Totalitarian Socialism' would seem to be clearer, more descriptive and truer.

Socialists who refuse to recognize the existence of authoritarian/state socialism annoy me about the same as capitalists who refuse to recognize the existence of authoritarian/state capitalism.

"I'm free by definition, comrade/stockholder!"

Like hell.

Aha. Finally proof that capitalism is evil, eh? :p

All that extra CO2 melting the ice caps.

Anarchism.

Any political economic system assigned to it undermines a truly free society.

Explain. It's been my understanding that Anarchism has always had a very specific political economic system assigned to it (at the very least anti-capitalist). At least, one would think that where a trade involves two or more people, the desire for, and utility of, common and standard rules is going to make a political economic assignment of some sort inevitable.

All that extra CO2 melting the ice caps.

Right, right. So long as we ignore that communist/socialist governments allow the same, and often greater, levels of pollution than capitalist ones, eh? ;)

Right, right. So long as we ignore that communist/socialist governments allow the same, and often greater, levels of pollution than capitalist ones, eh? ;)

The government of The Loyal Opposition distributes standard issue technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebreather) for all of its citizens' breathing needs.

Maximum respiration, minimum ice meltage.

And at taxpayer expense, too! **maniacal laughter**

The government of The Loyal Opposition distributes standard issue technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebreather) for all of its citizens' breathing needs.

Maximum respiration, minimum ice meltage.

And at taxpayer expense, too! **maniacal laughter**

Aha. Practical. :)

The main thing with capitalism is that it creates abstract wealth, it does not create real wealth. Even on an ethical level one must take offense to a system which requires one to create wealth with the lowest possible regard to labor and then sell it at the highest price to maximize profit and bound to fall more and more into a few peoples hands, therefore by it's logic it tends to structurally impoverish people. But Socialism isn't just against the issue of capitalism and poverty, it's also trying to fulfill people in terms of their ethical, ascetic and contemplative aspects. As John Ruskin once said, 'You have to put valuable in the hands of the valiant', you have to match virtue to real material goods, the valid criticism of capitalism is it's fundamental lack of virtue in gift-giving and human compassion. Socialism is not just about this impersonal scientific economic theory, Marxism is, but socialism is about engaging with people, it's about enabling and liberating, and the antithesis of that is exploiting people, which is why it's wrong. Crime is a failure of relationships between the individual and the victim, unless you are people orientated in your political approach then your inevitably going to be dissatisfied with one political approach or another, or indeed any political theory. Socialism is about trying to deliver activity in our imperfect world of ours, it's not going to make the world perfect but it is progressive to that objective.

Aha. Practical. :)

With rising sea levels, it's best to Be Prepared.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Indiana_Jones_and_the_Cross_of_Coronado.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Indiana_Jones_and_the_Cross_of_Coronado.jpg)

The main thing with capitalism is that it creates abstract wealth, it does not create real wealth...
Hehe, you think of a new main thing with capitalism every day. I'm starting to admire your creativity, really.

Anyways, if you can come up with a better system in reality, I'm all ears. Until then, I direct you towards the same link to Kommune 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommune_1#Reactions) I gave before. Lots of idealistic young people who thought along exactly the same lines you posted, and who didn't get anywhere because they were still just people and not saints.

Much like market capitalism? The only difference is there's a handful more 'planners' in the sort of market capitalism practised on this planet, past and present. Then again, the monolithic PARTY wasn't always in total agreement with itself so the difference is, at most, cosmetic.


While viewed from far enough away, anything will look identical, the level at which you're viewing market capitalism and the Soviet system is absolutely absurd. They are two totally different things, and the differences between them are not merely a matter of scale.

It fits if one understand what they mean by the term. Basically if one looks at the criticisms of capitalists and the behavior of the leaders of commumist countries then one can say the two act the same way. Basically if one capitalist enterprise was able to get a monopoly on all capital and the use of force it'd behave like a Soviet state. People who use the term are generally marxists who don't think the commies really had a dictatorship of the proletariat and/or anarcho-communists.

That sounds like an awful lot of insular thinking, then.

Communism All The Way!

I dislike all of them but i dislike capitalism less then the others.

In theory, I think you're right. A commune could decide not to improve its material position.

But I don't think people can. And people are what the commune is made of. If there's the morning meeting of the commune, and someone proposes that instead of having one washing machine for everyone they could have two, and they wouldn't have to stand in line anymore to get their clothes washed...do you really think people are going to vote against it because it would require a few more resources or a little more water?

In the late 60s and the early 70s Germany went through a troublesome time when economic difficulties and cultural changes came together with a clash of generations as teenagers got into power struggles with their parents, who had lived through the Nazi era. It was complicated, but the equivalent of the anti-war movement and the "hippies" in the US were the "'68 Generation" in Germany. There was a lot less new age zen stuff, and a lot more hardcore politics in there.

I just read a great article about the attempt of this generation to break out of the concept of the family and instead live in communes. You can find it here (http://www.spiegel.de/spiegelspecial/0,1518,498436,00.html), but unfortunately it's in German and you might have to use Babelfish. Suffice to say, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommune_1#Reactions) is how it ended.

Just because something is a commune, people don't stop being people. It's too easy to forget that.

Quite obviously, the choice is left to individual people. I think it is great you are familiar with past commune movements, because it will help me illustrate my point about individual choice.

The funny thing about behavioral choices is that they are in part determined by both our past experiences and our past choices. Choices we make in the past affect how we will react in the future. Human behavior is decidedly adaptable. Organic societies held onto strongly communal notions in both social and economic relations for millenia. In the evolution of human society, these communal notions survived and even flourished with the development of horticulture. They survived the rise of organized religion, and even the birth of the embryonic state. It literally took centuries of dedicated social engineering by the new power elites in society to effectively break up organic society. Even still, it wasn't until the rise of modern capitalism that the last of the communal notions of organic societies was undone. Murray Bookchin's book The Ecology of Freedom takes a detailed analysis of this social evolution, citing a mountain of anthropological evidence.

The people who entered the communes in Germany made a very definite choice to engage in communal means of living. However, they were not prepared for that drastic change in the social matrix.

They were socialized in the nuclear family, and the capitalist notions of society had very deeply colonized their minds. So, in a sense, even though they believed very strongly in communalism, subconsciously they still had a very capitalist way of looking at the world. Trying to live a communist lifestyle with a capitalist mindset and behavioral norms is a recipe for failure. This is why nearly all past communal experiments have in the end failed, even if they communards had the material wherewithal to support their experiment. The only notable exception is the Israeli Kibbutzim movement, but even it was eventually brought down by being forced to embed itself in a capitalist exterior social matrix.

What important insights this gives me is that any future revolutionary movement that is dedicated on collectivist economics must first revolutionize the thinking of its participants before it can begin the social revolution. A significant number of people, perhaps even a majority, must have already restructured their own behavior before the road to an ecological society can be traveled.

I'd prefer for humans to gain sufficiently intelligence that they wouldn't need any system to force them to do what is actually in their best interests.

...but there are a whole mess of
Breathing isn't a specifically capitalist concept either, but that doesn't change the fact that a whole mess of capitalists do it anyway.
So what is your point? That you agree with me?


I don't begin with that premise. The United States does.
really? Prove it.


Except when you directly benefit from it, apparently. That's a moral position if ever I saw one. At least, I can't see how that position distinguishes you (I presume a capitalist) from the average statist socialist.

Supporting something is not the same as benefiting from it. I benefit from plenty of things which I do not morally support and would do away with had I the ability. For example - I do not support the death penalty yet I benefit from the US legal system. I would be quite foolish to assume custodianship of the prisoners on death row...

Supporting something is not the same as benefiting from it. I benefit from plenty of things which I do not morally support and would do away with had I the ability.

Yes, but we're not talking about a passive sort of benefit. Having to stand and watch people be executed via the death penalty when I oppose the death penalty is one thing. Pointing a finger and saying "stealing is bad" while grasping with the other saying "gimmie gimmie" is another thing entirely.

Your stated position on "stealing" sounds more to me like saying "I oppose the death penalty" while you personally throw the switch. **zap**

They were socialized in the nuclear family, and the capitalist notions of society had very deeply colonized their minds. So, in a sense, even though they believed very strongly in communalism, subconsciously they still had a very capitalist way of looking at the world.
Oooh, it's a good thing none of them is reading that right now. They'd either punch you or sue you for plagiarism. :p

What you're saying is pretty much exactly what was their program. They took it extremely seriously, and I don't think it was lack of commitment or a wrong view of the world that made the communes fail. It's a pity that every half-decent article about the political and ideological side of the German student movement I've found is in German. There were a bunch of great ones when recently new evidence was uncovered on an RAF assassination operation.

Suffice to say that these people were probably more serious and honest about what they were doing than Bookchin himself.

The only notable exception is the Israeli Kibbutzim movement, but even it was eventually brought down by being forced to embed itself in a capitalist exterior social matrix.
Though you can't neglect the fact that as soon as there wasn't a clear external threat, the grandchildren of the original settlers preferred the outside world to the "you own nothing, we own everything, even your kids" world of the Kibbutz.

What it doesn't tell me is what an alternative would actually look like in the real world.

Say I want to have a Ferrari. What happens? What do I have to do to get one? What do other people have to do? Why are they doing it?It does, actually. Or, it tries to outline one way to organise it in practise. Just skip the bits about capitalism. You can find a few different takes on the particulars in other books, and in a small horde of the articles I linked to. This, (http://www.parecon.org/lookingforward/toc.htm) this (http://www.zmag.org/books/polpar.htm) and this (http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm) tries to examine it in some detail and might be worth a look. Again, just skip the bits you're not interested in. It's a bit much to expect me to outline the 'front end' of a participatory economic system in a forum post, especially when other people have already written books on the topic ;) Actually, I think WWII was the single most lethal activity humanity has every engaged in (70 million is a big number to beat).Try 10+ million child deaths (not infants) annually since the end of WWII, caused by nothing more than resource deprivation - which is caused by and maintained through capitalism. Think genocide X was evil? Well, compared to our economic hegemony it was fluffy fucking bunnies and puppy dogs. Although I agree we have been devastating our resources, I don't believe this is specific to capitalism, but to human greed and impatience.I think you're just trying to absolve yourself of responsility. But hey, it's not like we know the people we kill, so no need to lose sleep over it, yeh?

Yes, but we're not talking about a passive sort of benefit. Having to stand and watch people be executed via the death penalty when I oppose the death penalty is one thing. Pointing a finger and saying "stealing is bad" while grasping with the other saying "gimmie gimmie" is another thing entirely.

Your stated position on "stealing" sounds more to me like saying "I oppose the death penalty" while you personally throw the switch. **zap**

No - it is not. I have not once said that I think that it is good for the government to give me free stuff. Nor do I solicit or even endorse it. That they do anyway I will not refuse. I have been consistent in this position. You'll have to try harder than that to put words in my mouth.

capitalism, because, socialism and communism are very similar, both stemming from collectivism, capitalism in its true definition implies democracy (to assure individual rights, aswell as rights of ownership) where as communism and socialism are in essence slavery. The 'freedom' communists talk about is not the generally accepted meaning of freedom, they believe it to mean freedom from economic need, where as the freedom individualist, libertarians and capitalist mean is the freedom from coercion. how can collectivism ensure freedom, it suggest you are 'free', yet you organised and dictated by forces out of your control. Government dictates your life, but when is a none democratic government ever omnipotent, how can a government allocate every resource better than the free market. Communism and socialism inevitably lead to fascism, Communist USSR under stalin, and of course nazi germany (hitler was the leader of the national socialist and workers party).
Capitalist societies advance faster than other, becasue when you are free to endevor, even if you get it wrong, society learns, whereas an economy under central dictatorship is less likely to.
remember the free market does require government regulation, to prevent monopolies (trusts), and a strong yet even hand law which assure protection of property, what makes most people fear the free market is that they will be subject to one dominant firm inside the law which abuses its power, even though this is very unlikely (in the last 20 years the market concentration of the largest 500 companies is 25% of what is was, and this has happened since economic liberalisation and globalisation.
although i would like to point out that we dont live in a true capitalist society, because certain negative externalitises should be costed, i.e. pollution, through a global carbon trading scheme, which is the only way to control C02 production.
Still dont believe me read F A Hayeks "The Road to Serfdom"

It does, actually. Or, it tries to outline one way to organise it in practise.
Yeah, boring things. Like work councils (I don't know how they can claim they're equitable...have they never been in a council themselves?).

All I can gather is that if I want a Ferrari, nothing I can do can increase my chances of "having" one. I can't work what I'm good at, because I have to keep switching jobs. I can't work at what pays well, because nothing does.

Nor does it say how there would be a Ferrari. It's an incredibly complex engineering feat to design and construct such a car. It requires skill and dedication. How can anyone devote their lives to creating a Ferrari if they're required to work as a garbageman as well? How can the guy go to engineering school, spend thousands of manhours on blueprints and then somehow manage to create a factory to build the thing? There's no reward in it for him, no way of feeding his family. Afterall, being a miner would pay better, despite the output being worth much less.

But even if he somehow overcame all these problems, wouldn't his expertise and devotion make him a natural leader? Isn't it his project? How can that be reconciled with a worker's council full of people who don't know or don't care?

And even if that could be solved too...producing a Ferrari still needs more resources, more skills and more effort. What if the wage level in the economy is so equitable (read: low) that no one could afford a Ferrari once its finished?

Now, you might just answer "well, what do you need a Ferrari for anyways". But the Ferrari is just an example. You'd find exactly the same problem with any great new feat of anything. I'm not even saying that without money as a motivator no one would invent anything - I'm saying that this sick need to tie everyone to the lowest denominator makes it impossible to spend the time and effort on something new.

If Parecon were to be introduced today, and by a miracle we'd still be doing it in 50 years (more likely the need to use pay as an incentive would just have returned us to capitalism), we'd still be driving pretty much exactly the same cars we drive today. With a lot of luck and brainwashing Parecon might be able to keep the level of production at the modern level. But it cannot increase it. Any effort to do something special would be smothered by a blanket of mediocrity.

Maybe some people don't mind, but many do. They might consider themselves worthwhile human beings with a lot of potential and the abilities to fulfill their dreams. One cannot be oneself and be required to be equal to everyone else. You can't chain someone to the wishes of other people and still maintain their existence as an individual.

None of the above. Humanity doesn't need money, nor society. The natural state is the most beneficial for mankind, because it takes no toll on the enviroment, and natural selection has a better chance at refining the species.
As Theodore Kaczynski said in "Industrial Society and it's Future", the industrial revolution and it's results have caused social and psycological suffering in the First World, and physical suffering in the Third World.

Of course, I know that it's impossible for humanity to leave behind television and iPods and technology in general, which is why I'm a libertarian. Basically, I'm an anarchist who doesn't belive in the perfectability of man.

Try 10+ million child deaths (not infants) annually since the end of WWII, caused by nothing more than resource deprivation - which is caused by and maintained through capitalism. Think genocide X was evil? Well, compared to our economic hegemony it was fluffy fucking bunnies and puppy dogs.

Hardly. Blaming all famine and starvation deaths on capitalism is not only false, but knowing the history of famine, strange.

Oooh, it's a good thing none of them is reading that right now. They'd either punch you or sue you for plagiarism. :p

What you're saying is pretty much exactly what was their program. They took it extremely seriously, and I don't think it was lack of commitment or a wrong view of the world that made the communes fail. It's a pity that every half-decent article about the political and ideological side of the German student movement I've found is in German. There were a bunch of great ones when recently new evidence was uncovered on an RAF assassination operation.

Suffice to say that these people were probably more serious and honest about what they were doing than Bookchin himself.

Ultimately, it didn't matter how serious and honest about they were about their communal project. I don't doubt that they were extremely serious about it. However, not only did they have a set of mental barriers to overcome, they had a list of other barriers to a successful communal experiment: lack of material wherewithal, social isolation, government repression, and a number of people within the movement that undermined the group dynamic with drugs etc.

My point that I am trying to drive home is that human nature is not an inherent barrier to communalism. It is sufficiently diverse to allow a wide variety of human behavior and human societies, ranging from the highly collectivist to the highly egoistic. What determines how a society behaves and functions is ultimately more of the socialization process than external environment or an innate human nature.

Though you can't neglect the fact that as soon as there wasn't a clear external threat, the grandchildren of the original settlers preferred the outside world to the "you own nothing, we own everything, even your kids" world of the Kibbutz.

Granted. Part of that problem stemmed from the religious orientation of the Kibbutzim. Another problem that I find interesting is the effect the Kibbutz's socialization process had on the young members.

I snipped this straight from the wiki article on the Kibbutz. I think you'll find this interesting. "Aversion to sex was not part of the kibbutz ideology, in fact, teenaged boys and girls were not segregated at night in Children's Societies, yet many visitors to kibbutzim were amazed at how conservative the communities tended to be. In Children of the Dream, Bruno Bettelheim quoted a kibbutz friend, "at a time when the American girls preen themselves, and try to show off as much as possible sexually, our girls cover themselves up and refuse to wear clothing that might show their breasts or in any other fashion be revealing." Kibbutz divorce rates were and are extremely low.
Unfortunately, from the point of view of the adults in the community, marriage rates among communally raised children were equally low. This conservatism on the part of kibbutz children has been attributed to the Westermarck effect – a form of reverse sexual imprinting that causes children raised together from an early age to reject each other as potential partners, even where they are not blood relatives."

Hardly. Blaming all famine and starvation deaths on capitalism is not only false, but knowing the history of famine, strange.

Absoultely. It is almost completely to do with over population and corrupt african governments, the west have just exploited this, not caused it.

Absoultely. It is almost completely to do with over population and corrupt african governments, the west have just exploited this, not caused it.

Don't forget poorly planned and thought out government policies. Mao's Four Pests Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_sparrow_campaign) was an integral element in the death of thirty million Chinese over two or three years. Quite the impressive death toll, if I must say so myself.

Don't forget poorly planned and thought out government policies. Mao's Four Pests Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_sparrow_campaign) was an integral element in the death of thirty million Chinese over two or three years. Quite the impressive death toll, if I must say so myself.

Heh, I read it was because there were no sparrows to eat the worms, so the worms went on to fuck up agriculture somehow (not locusts).

Heh, I read it was because there were no sparrows to eat the worms, so the worms went on to fuck up agriculture somehow (not locusts).

Wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't all of the above.

My point that I am trying to drive home is that human nature is not an inherent barrier to communalism. It is sufficiently diverse to allow a wide variety of human behavior and human societies, ranging from the highly collectivist to the highly egoistic. What determines how a society behaves and functions is ultimately more of the socialization process than external environment or an innate human nature.
You're probably right in that it is more of a socialisation thing. But I don't think it is exclusively, in other words you cannot create a different sort of human being through education. It's been tried.

Again in German, but this (http://www.zeit.de/2007/27/PS-Jungen-M-dchen) is a neat article about the work of radical feminists in the 70s and 80s who thought that most bad things in the world are due to the gender divide. So they tried to bring up children in a completely gender-neutral environment...again they were very serious about it. They kept logbooks, made sure the kids stay away from institutions that do convey gender roles of some sort and so on.

They still ended up wearing pink and playing with dolls, much to the horror of their mothers.

I imagine that the need to prove one's individuality is such an innate part of human nature. Granted, there are more ways to be an individual than to become richer than others, but all of them involve trying to outshine one another on some level. Even in a commune true equality can't be reached, and if it was it would make the people in the commune unhappy.

But having a person in the commune who is better at activity X immediately starts to lead to economic specialisation...

Which do you think is better overall, Capitalism, Communism, or Socialism? I would say Socialism because it has the people in-mind.

None of them work, history has shown that many times over.
What you want is a good combination of the three, and then trust your luck.

That sounds like an awful lot of insular thinking, then.

Perhaps, but the similiarity between monopoly capitalists and and the Communist Party is there. I also never said I agreed with it.

Try 10+ million child deaths (not infants) annually since the end of WWII, caused by nothing more than resource deprivation - which is caused by and maintained through capitalism.

So like...

Stalin's purges + farm collectivizing, Mao's Great Leap Backwards and Cultural Revolution, and Pol Pot being Pol Pot mean nothing due to capitalism killing babies?

As Theodore Kaczynski said in "Industrial Society and it's Future", the industrial revolution and it's results have caused social and psycological suffering in the First World, and physical suffering in the Third World.

Shortly before he went on to blow up a few dozen people a year with mail-order bombs.

Personally, I'm inclined to treat anyone who does that kind of thing as "absolutely batshit insane", and therefore take their ideas as the products of a deranged mind. (Then again, I have a lot more fun when I'm out expeditioning in nature without most of modern technology, but that's probably because within the world of modern technology I have work and pressures, which create stress. As I recall, work and pressures existed even before the Industrial Revolution.)

Explain. It's been my understanding that Anarchism has always had a very specific political economic system assigned to it (at the very least anti-capitalist).

Any attempt by an anarchist to prescribe the economic or political structures within an anarchistic society undermines their own anarchism.

Anarchism properly defended is a statement of individual resistance against authority, how the individual should act in order to maximize his or her freedom, maximize the exertion of his or her own will. Therefore, we can certainly study historical trends, document how certain structures have risen to subjugate the individual, and most importantly instill a sense of rebellion against these structures, but once we advocate new social structures, we simply feed the statist tradition.

The anarchist should be satisfied with whatever properties emerge from within a society of free individuals.

At least, one would think that where a trade involves two or more people, the desire for, and utility of, common and standard rules is going to make a political economic assignment of some sort inevitable.

Of course it will be inevitable that social norms prevail, but counter to the ardent ansocs and ancaps, they are emergent, not prescribed.

Part of that problem stemmed from the religious orientation of the Kibbutzim.

The "religion is the opiate of the masses" orientation?

Yeah, there were and are religiously-oriented Kibbutzim... but generally speaking the Kibbutz Movement was very secular.

So it's 86 for blues and 86 for the red-pink coalition (combined). Just a few more votes for $$$ and we'll outweigh even the 'other/neither' column together with the reds and the pinks. *throws a few more workers into the ever grinding gears of capitalist exploitation* ... pinkos just don't grease death machines like they used to...

but all of them involve trying to outshine one another on some level.

But without wealth, this need not be a matter of "better"/"worse"... simply of "different."

(Not that there aren't other means of generating inequality... but they are not comprehensive either.)

But having a person in the commune who is better at activity X immediately starts to lead to economic specialisation...

As well as alienation from other individuals involved in the commune. No one likes to be in the room with someone who is smarter, harder working or better looking than they are. It makes people feel uncomfortable, oftentimes to the point of minor hostility.

But without wealth, this need not be a matter of "better"/"worse"... simply of "different."
Well, say you're a great artist drawing pretty pictures. In that case you wouldn't simply want to be different, you'd want to be the best.

Or being the best kisser. Or the best chef. Or the best football player.

But even if you disagreed, it would still be specialisation to some extent. If you lived in the commune and one guy was a better chef than everybody else, you'd be mad to rotate the cooking duties, not least because everyone wants tasty food. So you end up with one guy the designated chef...

Well, say you're a great artist drawing pretty pictures. In that case you wouldn't simply want to be different, you'd want to be the best.

So?

I want to be the best artist... my friend wants to be the best wrestler... my other friend wants to be the best history expert...

Variety. Not inequality.

If you lived in the commune and one guy was a better chef than everybody else, you'd be mad to rotate the cooking duties, not least because everyone wants tasty food.

And the chef wants to do the same thing, again and again and again?

Fine. Let him.

But if he wants special privileges for it... we'll pass, thanks.

No one likes to be in the room with someone who is smarter, harder working or better looking than they are.

If that were true, we would all be anti-social.

The anarchist should be satisfied with whatever properties emerge from within a society of free individuals

What if I were to argue that certain economic and political structures necessarily subjugate the individual--that is to say, are necessarily incompatible with a society of free individuals?

If that were true, we would all be anti-social.

Hardly.

While there are exceptions (finding a mate is the most notable one, the other ones tend to be compensatory psychological issues) there is a strong human tendency to group up with people who are similar to ourselves. People who share similar interests and similar goals come to be our circle of friends, and we tend to stick inside this element.

Just look at the stratification of society. This is a function of precisely this mechanism.

there is a strong human tendency to group up with people who are similar to ourselves.

Yes, but not "exactly the same" either.

For the record... several of my friends work harder than me and most of them are better-looking. Strangely enough, I have no problem being in the same room with them anyway.

Just look at the stratification of society. This is a function of precisely this mechanism.

No, this is an entirely different mechanism.

"Stratification" implies inequality. "Group[ing]" merely implies difference.

As well as alienation from other individuals involved in the commune. No one likes to be in the room with someone who is smarter, harder working or better looking than they are. It makes people feel uncomfortable, oftentimes to the point of minor hostility.

I beg to disagree. It is a sad, small person who cannot admire someone's talents without feeling hostility. I would argue that most 'natural leaders' are perceived to be smarter, harder working, and/or better looking than average. By definition, natural leaders tend to become praised and popular, not shunned and alienated.

And the chef wants to do the same thing, again and again and again?

Fine. Let him.

But if he wants special privileges for it... we'll pass, thanks.

Wouldn't "not having to do other tasks for the commune" count as special privileges?

Either the chef is working primarily as a chef, thus specialising, putting off his communal duties, and gaining the special privilege of only having to do one thing (that there may not necessarily be a communal need for, and might involve less work than that which others undertake) or the chef is only sometimes a chef, and thus--considering his talent--the communal system is denying everyone in the community an increase in their standard of living in order to prevent one man from obtaining special privileges.

1) What incentive is there to do business if you cannot gain profit? If there is no business, how can we have nice things?

2) If there is no centralised control, how can needed services exist? For instance, do you think enough people will be a doctor or teacher, for instance, just for duty's sake and not for something in return? If so, what about more boring, less needed but useful organisations, such as Internet regulation or car manufacturing?

3) If there is centralised control, which industry will be and wont be nationalised? Will we be able to have the same goods as today, but from national industries rather then private businesses and corporations?

Wouldn't "not having to do other tasks for the commune" count as special privileges?

Possibly. It depends on the character of the economic scheme the commune uses.

It wouldn't be if everyone were permitted to focus on specific tasks if they so chose.

or the chef is only sometimes a chef, and thus--considering his talent--the communal system is denying everyone in the community an increase in their standard of living in order to prevent one man from obtaining special privileges.

First, if there may not be any communal need for a chef, why would this involve an increase in standard of living? Sounds like unproductive labor to me.

Second, and more importantly, phrased as you put it there, of course it appears absurd that not privileging "one man" is worth a decrease in a standard of living. In fact, however, such a privileging would ensure that it would not be "one man." It would mean that everyone else who has an exclusive skill could hold the community hostage, similarly demanding to the privileged--and result in the same system of mutual exploitation, economic compulsion, and wealth and power stratification that the system was implemented to prevent in the first place.

1) What incentive is there to do business if you cannot gain profit?

Do you do everything in your life because someone pays you to?

2) If there is no centralised control, how can needed services exist? For instance, do you think enough people will be a doctor or teacher, for instance, just for duty's sake and not for something in return?

No.

I think "enough" people will become doctors and teachers for a variety of non-monetary incentives... among them duty, but also fulfillment, enjoyment, and other goods.

If so, what about more boring,

If the task is intrinsically and necessarily boring, it should be rotated, so that no one is bored out of their minds.

If the task is boring to some but not to others (and I think most "boring" tasks fit under this category), the ones who aren't bored should do it.

And most "boring" tasks can be made less boring.

Do you do everything in your life because someone pays you to?


I wouldn't do business, I don't see any duty to be a business man or investor or anything like that in the majority of businesses except essential services. Even then I probably wouldn't do very lengthy stressful hospital hours (for example) for nothing.


No.

I think "enough" people will become doctors and teachers for a variety of non-monetary incentives... among them duty, but also fulfillment, enjoyment, and other goods.


Well this is where we disagree.


If the task is intrinsically and necessarily boring, it should be rotated, so that no one is bored out of their minds.

If the task is boring to some but not to others (and I think most "boring" tasks fit under this category), the ones who aren't bored should do it.

And most "boring" tasks can be made less boring.

I'm sure that most jobs are boring for everyone if they don't feel rewarded by it. So why would they want to start something boring in the first place?

Who would want to be the best garbage man? You'd end up with nobody wanting to be garbage man - so you'd have to assign that job to someone who does not want it = forced labor.... power to the slaves!

I wouldn't do business,

You are not the only being who exists either.

I'm sure that most jobs are boring for everyone if they don't feel rewarded by it.

Yes... rewarded by the job itself.

When we are rewarded by the monetary remuneration instead--when, indeed, the general quality of productive activity is such that the only condition under which we will take it is monetary remuneration--we have reason to expect that most labor will be boring.

When, instead, we have a society where people are free to choose the jobs that are the most meaningful, fulfilling, or interesting, we have reason to expect that most labor will be anything but boring. Especially labor society has an interest in promoting.

So why would they want to start something boring in the first place?

Clarify, please.

I think "enough" people will become doctors and teachers for a variety of non-monetary incentives... among them duty, but also fulfillment, enjoyment, and other goods.

LOL!! Foolish claim. I challenge you. If there are plenty of "non-monetary" motives then you should have no trouble hiring a physician to work for you for minimum wage. Go ahead - run the help wanted ad. - Expect to be lonely. I double-dog dare you.

Yet you won't - because you know your argument has no merit.


If the task is intrinsically and necessarily boring, it should be rotated, so that no one is bored out of their minds.
Like picking cotton. That definitely should be rotated. It worked so well before!

If the task is boring to some but not to others (and I think most "boring" tasks fit under this category), the ones who aren't bored should do it.
Like picking cotton! Some people really like picking cotton! They just need to be reminded on occasion.

[\quote]
And most "boring" tasks can be made less boring.[/QUOTE]
Nah - most people will opt to write the next great novel. Sure -- it may take a few years or so - but won't society be so much better as a result! Meanwhile the rest of us can pick cotton!

so you'd have to assign that job to someone who does not want it

Like capitalism does routinely by threatening people with economic misery?

I'm too tired now, i'll reply tommorow.

It would mean that everyone else who has an exclusive skill could hold the community hostage, similarly demanding to the privileged--and result in the same system of mutual exploitation, economic compulsion, and wealth and power stratification that the system was implemented to prevent in the first place.
Bingo!

So people better get used to gruel and microwave dinner. Let the French master chef clean the table afterwards.

LOL!! Foolish claim. I challenge you. If there are plenty of "non-monetary" motives then you should have no trouble hiring a physician to work for you for minimum wage. Go ahead - run the help wanted ad. - Expect to be lonely. I double-dog dare you.

I already explained to you in the last thread you presented this challenge why it was one that missed the point.

I don't like repeating myself. At least not to the same people in response to the same points.

Like picking cotton. That definitely should be rotated.

Rather than a class of desperate people being hired for miserable wages to do it? Absolutely.

Make people work for what they consume... instead of being able to outsource the hard work to people easily vulnerable to exploitation.

It worked so well before!

As you so helpfully point out, class systems handle undesired labor far worse than communism ever could.

Nah - most people will opt to write the next great novel.

Lots of people don't even like writing... and of the rest, most of them will never be content if that's all they do.

I quite agree with this oppinion:

" Better at what?

Better for keeping the masses under your omnipresent reign? Communism.

The one for buying votes? Socialism.

The one that gives the highest potential for success as well as failure? Capitalism. "

However, I choose Capitalism because, as it says above, it gives at least a chance for success. The system that rules my country (Argentina) is in the way to Socialism, and the Goverment is buying votes by giving money to poor people (No kidding, it's in today's newspapers)....

Let the French master chef clean the table afterwards.

Some people actually enjoy cooking.

When, instead, we have a society where people are free to choose the jobs that are the most meaningful, fulfilling, or interesting, we have reason to expect that most labor will be anything but boring. Especially labor society has an interest in promoting.

I'm afraid that without either the authoritarian enforcement of a centralized power or the incentives and disincentives of market forces, the system you describe would have shortages of certain occupations and surpluses of others. And once you start forcing people to do jobs they don't like, you can't keep saying that the job is its own reward.

Without capitalism most septic system specialists would have to be unhappy slaves of the government (or we could keep reducing technological distribution [and by extension the standard of living] until such unpleasant occupations are made unnecessary).

I already explained to you in the last thread you presented this challenge why it was one that missed the point.

I don't like repeating myself. At least not to the same people in response to the same points.


That is what we call a cop out. Not only did you failt to address it - you completely lost. You demonstrated that there is no merit whatsoever to your point. No physician will work for minimum wage to assist ordinary patients because the financial incentive is not adequate. MEANING - the financial incentive IS the most meritorious part of employment for all respectable physicians. You lose. period.


Lots of people don't even like writing... and of the rest, most of them will never be content if that's all they do.

Exactly. And in a communist society we can make them do productive stuff like pick cotton, collect refuse, or any of these things
(http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/dirtyjobs/dirtyjobs.html) - because - like it or not - we'll make them productive members of a workers utopia! Maybe you'll be one of the lucky ones - in charge of worker production. Your job would be worker productivity and moral. You'll get the typical tools of the trade - you know - whips. Chains. noose...

Some people actually enjoy cooking.
True, though the more pressing question is whether many actually enjoy gruel and microwave dinner.

You lose. period.

Whatever.

And once you start forcing people to do jobs they don't like, you can't keep saying that the job is its own reward.

Indeed I cannot.

The pressing question for socialists (at least from my ideological angle) is: does this matter? And how much?

(Certainly we would not make anyone "slaves of the government"... but would we offer monetary "incentives"? Would we use economic compulsion--the typical capitalist method of threatening the denial of economic goods--to get people to do their share of the unpleasant tasks? Would we arrange a society where people competed for some other good besides wealth that similarly had a monopolistic power over people's life choices--which, for what it's worth, is probably much more plausible than most ardent capitalist ideologues suppose?)

My view is that it does, and that it matters immensely... but the only way to fix it (without consequences more egregious than the original problem) is to combine "perfect" communist anarchy with radical social changes in other areas.

(or we could keep reducing technological distribution [and by extension the standard of living] until such unpleasant occupations are made unnecessary).

Or you could attempt to find ways to minimize the unpleasantness of the task. Or you could use technology to minimize the need.

But in the end, yes, certain elements of our standard of living will have to be forgone.

True, though the more pressing question is whether many actually enjoy gruel and microwave dinner.

In Florida we call them "bachelors"! :)

But in the end, yes, certain elements of our standard of living will have to be forgone.

Like agriculture.... :rolleyes:

Like agriculture.... :rolleyes:

What? I thought you won? Leave the poor loser alone and bask in your victory.

What? I thought you won? Leave the poor loser alone and bask in your victory.

I need SPF 30 victory lotion!

True, though the more pressing question is whether many actually enjoy gruel and microwave dinner.

My girlfriend's roommates seem to be amongst said group...

Like capitalism does routinely by threatening people with economic misery?

Capitalism, in its disincentive to not be productive, is merely recognizing the compulsion of nature that production must occur if an individual is to survive.

I need SPF 30 victory lotion!

To quote Tommy "The Nightmare" Smith: Pollution is a metaphor for evolution. We made it baby!

Certainly we would not make anyone "slaves of the government"... but would we offer monetary "incentives"? Would we use economic compulsion--the typical capitalist method of threatening the denial of economic goods--to get people to do their share of the unpleasant tasks?


I guess our difference of opinion comes down to how we view capitalism. I perceive it as a system where you are rewarded in relation to how much you help people; one simply can't get ahead in a capitalist system without giving people what they want. You seem to see it as compulsion of labor and denial of goods and benefits (which I guess is how I see the system you are defending).

I guess our difference of opinion comes down to how we view capitalism.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

I perceive it as a system where you are rewarded in relation to how much you help people;

Maybe, but only insofar as you "help people" from a starting position of immense structural inequality... and even then the person more capable of extortion and exploitation will be rewarded than the person simply seeking to help others.

It may "help others" to hire workers at my factory... but why is it my factory in the first place?

one simply can't get ahead in a capitalist system without giving people what they want.

Only under a certain narrow conception of "what they want" as "what they trade their stuff for."

You seem to see it as compulsion of labor

In that the arrangement of property means that most people are compelled to serve the class of owners? Yes.

and denial of goods and benefits

Insofar as that compulsion enables the setting of terms (and thus exploitation) by the owner class? Yes.

What if I were to argue that certain economic and political structures necessarily subjugate the individual--that is to say, are necessarily incompatible with a society of free individuals?

I stated that the anarchist needs to identify those structures and show other individuals that they have a strong interest to rebel against them.

I know we have differing opinions on property ownership, but I do recognize the historical link between property and state. It seems obvious to me, however, that the individual need not respect another person's property through authority, but through the utility that the other creates through his property.

Capitalism pays you on the connections you have along with the work you do. Socialism pays you according to the work you do. When socialism transitions into communism, society will be at the point where everyone will do their share of work and take their share of rewards. You must be joking if you think capitalism fairly rewards people based on their amount of work. Sometimes, people work hard enough to climb their way to the top, and then they set the bar higher so they can keep their newfound wealth and make sure nobody can beat them.

I stated that the anarchist needs to identify those structures and show other individuals that they have a strong interest to rebel against them.

Then necessarily anarchists must advocate certain kinds of economic and political organization--namely, free ones.

If the anti-capitalist anarchists are right and capitalism is intrinsically unfree, then it follows that anarchists must advocate some variety of socialism... or at least of non-capitalism. And if the anarcho-capitalists are right and capitalism is a precondition of genuine freedom, then it follows that anarchists must oppose all the alternatives to it.

So, yes, we must indeed proscribe certain economic and political institutions for an anarchist society. Otherwise we reduce the distinction between free and unfree institutions to nothing.

It seems obvious to me, however, that the individual need not respect another person's property through authority, but through the utility that the other creates through his property.

All exclusive, conditional utility is power.

That is what we call a cop out. Not only did you failt to address it - you completely lost. You demonstrated that there is no merit whatsoever to your point. No physician will work for minimum wage to assist ordinary patients because the financial incentive is not adequate. MEANING - the financial incentive IS the most meritorious part of employment for all respectable physicians. You lose. period.

Even though you throw "most" in there to make your argument less of an idiotic absolute:

http://www.identityworks.com/probono/index.htm

Then necessarily anarchists must advocate certain kinds of economic and political organization--namely, free ones.

If the anti-capitalist anarchists are right and capitalism is intrinsically unfree, then it follows that anarchists must advocate some variety of socialism... or at least of non-capitalism. And if the anarcho-captialists are right and capitalism is a precondition of genuine freedom, then it follows that anarchists must oppose all the alternatives to it.

So, yes, we must indeed proscribe certain economic and political institutions for an anarchist society. Otherwise we reduce the distinction between free and unfree institutions to nothing.

That is not advocation, that is opposition.

The anarchist is destructive, not constructive. He allows the free individual to be constructive.

All exclusive, conditional utility is power.

What do you mean?

That is not advocation, that is opposition.

"I am opposed to all systems but this one."

What do you mean?

Sorry, I misunderstood your original point.

Yes, it may be possible for people to respect other people's property claims under the justification that they increase productivity and therefore social benefit. But how long will that last before the power of property allows the owners to expand their ownership beyond that limit? And private property is only one way to attain the social benefits it is supposed to bring, anyway.

"I am opposed to all systems but this one."

If you seek to impose rules and regulations on how people interact with each other concerning scarce goods necessary for survival, then you undermine your own position.

Yes, it may be possible for people to respect other people's property claims under the justification that they increase productivity and therefore social benefit. But how long will that last before the power of property allows the owners to expand their ownership beyond that limit?

Then we take it.

And private property is only one way to attain the social benefits it is supposed to bring, anyway.

It is the one way.

However, the social benefits of private property may not be the principle interests of the individual or group of individuals, and they may reject it all together.

If you seek to impose rules and regulations on how people interact with each other concerning scarce goods necessary for survival, then you undermine your own position.

Who's talking about "impos[ing]" anything?

I think people should choose to "interact with each other concerning scarce goods necessary for survival" in certain specific ways, yes... because otherwise I think the result will be other than a free society.

I am pretty sure that while the "certain specific ways" differ between us, you agree with at least that much.

Then we take it.

See?

It is the one way.

I see no reason to believe that--at least insofar as "private property" is being used in its narrow meaning as referring to the means of production, and not to one's clothing and toothbrush.

However, the social benefits of private property may not be the principle interests of the individual or group of individuals, and they may reject it all together.

Indeed.

In Florida we call them "bachelors"! :)
My girlfriend's roommates seem to be amongst said group...
So there we go - the socialist human does in fact exist. Now all we do is get a bunch of bachelors, make them share a flat and see what happens.

Bakunin would be delighted!

You are not the only being who exists either.


You asked, so....


Yes... rewarded by the job itself.


The majority of jobs don't do this.


When, instead, we have a society where people are free to choose the jobs that are the most meaningful, fulfilling, or interesting, we have reason to expect that most labor will be anything but boring. Especially labor society has an interest in promoting.


Thats because nobody will choose the boring, but much needed jobs.


Clarify, please.

Isn't that clear? If a business will be made up of mainly boring jobs, why would anyone start a business like that in the first place when A) they wont be able to find employment B) all this stress will not bring anything in return.

Not just capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism.

I think Capitalism is the best choice for the people. Capitalism = individual rights.

I'm somewhat of a borderline anarcho-capitalist.

Insofar as that compulsion enables the setting of terms (and thus exploitation) by the owner class? Yes.

What you have described is a monopoly situation, not simple capitalism. It is a market failure that can occur within capitalism, but can also be avoided. The fact is, competition and consumer preferences force producers to please the general public as best they can while still gaining as much profit as possible. It tends to work out for both parties.

Going back to our communist chef situation... in capitalism, he might use his specialised skill for leverage to gain higher pay, but he could not "hold the community hostage" as you put it. People could always just get cheap food from the not-as-good chefs. And if some other fancy chefs show up near the first, they'll lower their prices to attract customers.

Without a monopoly, you're assertion that private business has too much exploitive power is without merit.

Anarcho-capitalism all the way. Anyone who still believes in command economics is missing a very large portion of their brain.

Anarcho-capitalism all the way.
Your signature says otherwise.

Communism, if one takes the actual, Marxian sense of the word. Not Stalinism. Learn the difference.

Communism, if one takes the actual, Marxian sense of the word. Not Stalinism. Learn the difference.

Well If you're a Trot like me that's the conventional logic.

What you have described is a monopoly situation, not simple capitalism.

No, I'm not. Workers must seek employment from others regardless of whether they are in a monopoly situation.

The fact is, competition and consumer preferences force producers to please the general public as best they can

"Competition" depends entirely on other options actually being better. Since employers have a common interest in keeping labor costs low, I'm skeptical.

"Consumer preferences"... sort of. Companies, to make a profit, must sell what people actually will buy. But this is not at all the same as "help people"... especially when companies invest money to manipulate people's irrational impulses so that they'll do things that are bad for them.

People could always just get cheap food from the not-as-good chefs.

If you recall what I said, I expressed fear that the precedent set would give an incentive for any specialized skill users to hold the community hostage.

In the case of chefs, yes, we can always deal with bad food... we don't really [I]need chefs at all. But what if the doctors decide to band together and demand higher pay for their contribution to the community?

And if some other fancy chefs show up near the first, they'll lower their prices to attract customers.

And so will he--assuming he has no compensating advantages (like community familiarity), anyway. And both will lose out.

Well If you're a Trot like me that's the conventional logic.

woooo! bolshevik-leninists rule!

I think it needs to be realized that socialism can only be realized through a new fraternal attitude to humanity, compassion in the truest sense which can only be created through an egalitarian value system. Society must exist for the sole purpose of the welfare and subsistence of the people of that society wholly and without disproportionality. We must consider the collective property of the products of labor as the necessary complement to the collectivist program, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity. Economic systems of concentration and profit can only cause disproportionate allocation of resources, and this disallocation will of course spread to politics, where control of the means of production ensures economic minoritism, control of the political means ensures political minoritism.

It must be the goal of every socialist to bridge to gap between politics and economics imposed by liberalism, to give the valuable to the valiant, to match material equality to political equality. The gap between these two has been erected as a reactionary bulwark against popular democracy in the name of 'liberty' but in fact to ensure special interest minority control, this is liberal 'democracy'. We must establish true economic democracy to bring true egalitarianism to the people, all means to this goal must be utilized, for the bulwarks of reaction will not willingly lie down.

Even though you throw "most" in there to make your argument less of an idiotic absolute:

http://www.identityworks.com/probono/index.htm


You have linked to a charity site. I'll quote;

The best lawyers and doctors donate service to good causes

I was specific - you could not get any physician to work for minimum wage to service ordinary folks. Ther is no charitable reward for helping the ordinary. So - unless you want to qualify everyone in your communist utopia as extremely disadvantaged (hmmm - maybe you DO have a point) then you wont get anyone to volunteer their career to being a physician.

Charity work is about helping the less fortunate. Those who participate (myself included) do so as a component of their primary income-producing practice. In fact - without their primary income most could not and would not be able to donate to the less fortunate. The number of folks who dedicate a career 100% to helping the less fortunate are very very small.

So - I stand on my statement. Yours is the one which took very little effort to expose it's complete lack of merit. It was so obvious I'm surprised you didn't see it coming. Your statement is the idiotic one, not for the least reason that using an absolute is never prudent. (is the irony of that statement obvious enough for you?)

I think it needs to be realized that socialism can only be realized through a new fraternal attitude to humanity,

There you have it! Damn I never thought it would be so simple! All you need to do is completely change the nature of human beings!

OK! You start in China, I'll start in Ecuador. We'll meet in Belgium and celebrate over a beer. 3.999999999 billion left to go!

LOL.

Who's talking about "impos[ing]" anything?

I think people should choose to "interact with each other concerning scarce goods necessary for survival" in certain specific ways, yes... because otherwise I think the result will be other than a free society.

I am pretty sure that while the "certain specific ways" differ between us, you agree with at least that much.


And what of the people who don't 'choose' wisely. What would you do with them? Gulag or execution? Certainly not imposing!

Capitalism, since it is the only one that has ever worked without causing the deaths of millions

There you have it! Damn I never thought it would be so simple! All you need to do is completely change the nature of human beings!

OK! You start in China, I'll start in Ecuador. We'll meet in Belgium and celebrate over a beer. 3.999999999 billion left to go!

LOL.

I agree, the culture of capital and profit has massively changed the people of this world, but 'human nature' as you put it is not a set thing, it can be changed just as the Industrial Revolution changed humanity. If you read about Trotsky's idea of the 'permanent revolution' and the 'new socialist man' of Che would like might understand better.

I simply put forward that eventually humanity will not survive liberal capitalism into this century unless we can reject the excess economy and move to subsistence of consumption to avoid duplication of effort and waste and reinforce the social coherency.

Gulag or execution?

Tea party.

The gap between these two has been erected as a reactionary bulwark against popular democracy in the name of 'liberty' but in fact to ensure special interest minority control

While I agree, it is dangerous to extrapolate from this that all elements of liberalism and minority rights are similarly oriented towards minority domination.

That is simply not the case, and if you must have a socialist state, much better that it be a relatively liberal one than an aggressively statist one.

No, I'm not. Workers must seek employment from others regardless of whether they are in a monopoly situation.
ummm - no they don't. There are plenty of opportunities for self-employment and many people choose that option. Are you suggesting that they do not actually work?


"Competition" depends entirely on other options actually being better. Since employers have a common interest in keeping labor costs low, I'm skeptical.
You assume 'employers' have a monopoly on the cost of labor. If you accept that mistaken premise than you also have to accept that to own a monopoly you have to own the commodity - not the consumption of it. Therefore - your premise is flawed even within it's own context - 'Laborers' own the labor and thus they own the commodity and set the prices.

Of course - your entire premise is wrong - but I had to expose the idiocy of your own contradiction as well.


"Consumer preferences"... sort of. Companies, to make a profit, must sell what people actually will buy. But this is not at all the same as "help people"... especially when companies invest money to manipulate people's irrational impulses so that they'll do things that are bad for them.
But if those people wore tin-foil hats then the eeeevul corporations could not manipulate their frail little minds!


If you recall what I said, I expressed fear that the precedent set would give an incentive for any specialized skill users to hold the community hostage.

In the case of chefs, yes, we can always deal with bad food... we don't really [I]need chefs at all. But what if the doctors decide to band together and demand higher pay for their contribution to the community?

Hmmm - ain't it a shit when labor bands together?


And so will he--assuming he has no compensating advantages (like community familiarity), anyway. And both will lose out.
Both lose out? You'll have to explain that one a whole lot better. Besides - I thought this was about the community? And screw doctors and chefs - lets talk about the more essential daily needs - the ones everyone uses every day. What about the sewer workers? Refuse disposal? The guy who cleans up roadkill?

All of these are unpleasant jobs - who would you compel to do them? What incentive would they have when they could be chefs instead? Is your Utopian community going to get in the business of telling people what they can or cannot do for a living?? Are they going to set minimum acceptable standards? What about the people who fail or refuse to meet them - gulag or execution? That is not freedom. That is not Utopia.

I agree, the culture of capital and profit has massively changed the people of this world, but 'human nature' as you put it is not a set thing, it can be changed just as the Industrial Revolution changed humanity. .


I will not allow you to stand your argument upon a completely unsubstantiated supposition. Humans have always acted the same way. You say otherwise - proove it. What specifically about human nature has changed? How?

Human nature is called human nature for a reason...

While I agree, it is dangerous to extrapolate from this that all elements of liberalism and minority rights are similarly oriented towards minority domination.

That is simply not the case, and if you must have a socialist state, much better that it be a relatively liberal one than an aggressively statist one.
Well I think I should quote Che, 'Go ahead, shoot me, your only killing a man', the concept here are culturally entrenched ideas, Stalinism failed not only primarily because of the moral wrongs of murder, but moreover because of the misconception that killing people would eventually leave you with the best and most 'socialist' ones. The permanent revolution must be a radical cultural change to self-managed collectivism.

Social solidarity can never be imposed, people never unwillingly unite in any meaningful way by an outside imposition, whether this outside imposition be a state/party or whatnot. Solidarity and true unity comes from a consensus of the whole community to the objective of true egalitarian communism, and the only way to do this is with education, by making people aware so they cannot be led astray by a combination of their ignorance and the lies and propaganda of reactionaries. While ignorance and illiteracy benefits those who would uphold liberalism, education and knowledge can only lead to revolution.

Mystical Skeptic: Until you start engaging in at least the pretense of making a rational argument for longer than a few lines, I haven't the slightest inclination to pay any serious attention to what you say.

I will not allow you to stand your argument upon a completely unsubstantiated supposition. Humans have always acted the same way. You say otherwise - proove it. What specifically about human nature has changed? How?

Human nature is called human nature for a reason...
No, your wrong. If you want to get into debates about humans in history, you'll notice that many 'primitive' cultures were totally collectivist until Western imposition and the excess economy ruined them, the Aboriginal culture of subsistence for over 30k years proves this. Spanish communes worked out well too.

Specifically the shift from agricultural subsistence to excessivism gave rise to social stratification, coercion, and alienation. Where once consumption was by need, now excess is created to sell as capital, this concentration by it's very nature creates abstract wealth and structurally impoverishes people.

I am simply advocating the empowerment of the people as a whole towards self-management consumption, as opposed to being beholden to others. It's like the saying that 'In need, freedom is latent', meaning that when you need something, the person who has that product is immediately in a position over you, and you beholden to them. In truth liberal capitalists seek a global monopoly of dependence of a giant oligopoly, while myself and others like me advocate true economic democracy.

Mystical Skeptic: Until you start engaging in at least the pretense of making a rational argument for longer than a few lines, I haven't the slightest inclination to pay any serious attention to what you say.

That's what is called false indignation. You have nothing to support your argument so you pretend that it's merit is above dispute. You may buy it - but nobody else does.

No, your wrong. If you want to get into debates about humans in history, you'll notice that many 'primitive' cultures were totally collectivist until Western imposition and the excess economy ruined them, the Aboriginal culture of subsistence for over 30k years proves this. Spanish communes worked out well too.

Specifically the shift from agricultural subsistence to excessivism gave rise to social stratification, coercion, and alienation. Where once consumption was by need, now excess is created to sell as capital, this concentration by it's very nature creates abstract wealth and structurally impoverishes people.

I am simply advocating the empowerment of the people as a whole towards self-management consumption, as opposed to being beholden to others. It's like the saying that 'In need, freedom is latent', meaning that when you need something, the person who has that product is immediately in a position over you, and you beholden to them. In truth liberal capitalists seek a global monopoly of dependence of a giant oligopoly, while myself and others like me advocate true economic democracy.
You are confusing economic principle with human behavior. Human behavior is much more base than that. You should look up Maslow. You will notice that the top of his pyramid is not 'community actualization'.

so you pretend that it's merit is above dispute

...which is why I've been willing to respond to everyone's arguments but yours.

But I'm sure that's just because you're so brilliant that a pathetic fool like me could never succeed at responding effectively to your challenges. Who could possibly stand against you?

;)

No, your wrong. If you want to get into debates about humans in history, you'll notice that many 'primitive' cultures were totally collectivist until Western imposition and the excess economy ruined them, the Aboriginal culture of subsistence for over 30k years proves this. Spanish communes worked out well too.

Specifically the shift from agricultural subsistence to excessivism gave rise to social stratification, coercion, and alienation. Where once consumption was by need, now excess is created to sell as capital, this concentration by it's very nature creates abstract wealth and structurally impoverishes people.

I am simply advocating the empowerment of the people as a whole towards self-management consumption, as opposed to being beholden to others. It's like the saying that 'In need, freedom is latent', meaning that when you need something, the person who has that product is immediately in a position over you, and you beholden to them. In truth liberal capitalists seek a global monopoly of dependence of a giant oligopoly, while myself and others like me advocate true economic democracy.

Pshah.

Communalism works under threat, either external human (Kibbutzim) or intense environmentally originating scarcity (primitive societies) in which everyone is constantly impoverished. Threat enforces group cohesion and group identity.

Pshah.

Communalism works under threat, either external human (Kibbutzim) or intense environmentally originating scarcity (primitive societies) in which everyone is constantly impoverished. Threat enforces group cohesion and group identity.
Actually the most basic threat is that of need, that is being beholden to certain interests because they have something you need. Societies based on subsistence consumption ignore this threat because production is geared toward consumption rather than profit. You are correct though in that survival means have created collectivist attitudes, being that living in a community in which part of your wealth is common property ensures common need is satisfied via avoiding the duplication of effort and waste if these tasks were to be done individually. So your correct in that the threat of that surviving as a species 'imposes' if you will collectivism, but that's rather a matter of practicality than anything else.

external human (Kibbutzim)

:confused:

While ignorance and illiteracy benefits those who would uphold liberalism, education and knowledge can only lead to revolution.

And how the hell do you get this statement to even remotely agree with url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate]reality?[/url]

Look at the states at the top of the list, and they all seem to be some of the most liberal in the entire world.

:confused:

Don't play games, the kibbutzim were vitally important links in the defense of the Israeli state. Heavily armed virtual fortresses, they provided a form of collective security against external threats from Palestinian combatants and the incursions of the militaries of the surrounding Arab states.

And how the hell do you get this statement to even remotely agree with url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate]reality?[/url]

Look at the states at the top of the list, and they all seem to be some of the most liberal in the entire world.
Educational content I would say, education geared towards excess (that is professionalism/careerism) would naturally produce that result rather than educational content geared toward genuine enlightenment if you will. Knowledge itself should be an end.

Don't play games, the kibbutzim were vitally important links in the defense of the Israeli state. Heavily armed virtual fortresses, they provided a form of collective security against external threats from Palestinian combatants and the incursions of the militaries of the surrounding Arab states.

I'd say the Spanish communes would be a better example of external threat, given their obliteration at the hands of the fascists.

Don't play games, the kibbutzim were vitally important links in the defense of the Israeli state.

Their socialist character was not connected to this. No one was holding a gun to their heads and threatening them with destruction unless they abolished private property.

Of course, the Kibbutz model didn't really "work" anyway. Not in the long run.

...which is why I've been willing to respond to everyone's arguments but yours.

But I'm sure that's just because you're so brilliant that a pathetic fool like me could never succeed at responding effectively to your challenges. Who could possibly stand against you?

;)

whoa! Why not change your sig to "nee-ner nee-ner"?

Actually the most basic threat is that of need, that is being beholden to certain interests because they have something you need. Societies based on subsistence consumption ignore this threat because production is geared toward consumption rather than profit. You are correct though in that survival means have created collectivist attitudes, being that living in a community in which part of your wealth is common property ensures common need is satisfied via avoiding the duplication of effort and waste if these tasks were to be done individually. So your correct in that the threat of that surviving as a species 'imposes' if you will collectivism, but that's rather a matter of practicality than anything else.

Then why did humanity leave such a pleasant phase in the first place?

I don't think you understand the issues involved in surplus production all that well, though. I don't think you understand how it was originally brought about, why it is viewed as desirable by nearly everyone and it's implications for the future of society and the products of society.

Which do you think is better overall, Capitalism, Communism, or Socialism? I would say Socialism because it has the people in-mind.

Considering that communism is a form of government resulting from the combination of economic and political control, capitalism is strictly an economic policy (for lack of a better term at the moment) based on a free market economy, and socialism combines government regulation of absolute capitalism, I'd say socialism, with minor controls to prevent the worst effects of a true free market economy.

And communism, by definition, also has the people in mind...though in practice it is often a little less so :)

I'd say the Spanish communes would be a better example of external threat, given their obliteration at the hands of the fascists.

I wanted to show how external human threat is insufficient to maintain a communal society over an extended period of time, how the development of a strong state decreases the importance of a communal society. Perhaps even the importance of the comparison between the roles of the state and the roles of the communal society.

Educational content I would say, education geared towards excess (that is professionalism/careerism) would naturally produce that result rather than educational content geared toward genuine enlightenment if you will. Knowledge itself should be an end.

That's pretty idiotic.

Knowledge itself is entirely worthless. The applicability of knowledge, though, is where the value of knowledge derives from. If you can do something with that knowledge, that's when it has value.

That's pretty idiotic.

Knowledge itself is entirely worthless. The applicability of knowledge, though, is where the value of knowledge derives from. If you can do something with that knowledge, that's when it has value.

Knowledge is power. Hide it well. *nods*

Knowledge is power. Hide it well. *nods*

It's power because you can use it. If you learn and don't use it, though, you waste it.

It's power because you can use it. If you learn and don't use it, though, you waste it.

Using is, as you say, one thing.

Sharing, on the other hand, runs counter to the ultimate goal of self-preservation and should thus be avoided at all costs.

I think it needs to be realized that socialism can only be realized through a new fraternal attitude to humanity, compassion in the truest sense which can only be created through an egalitarian value system. Society must exist for the sole purpose of the welfare and subsistence of the people of that society wholly and without disproportionality. We must consider the collective property of the products of labor as the necessary complement to the collectivist program, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity. Economic systems of concentration and profit can only cause disproportionate allocation of resources, and this disallocation will of course spread to politics, where control of the means of production ensures economic minoritism, control of the political means ensures political minoritism.

It must be the goal of every socialist to bridge to gap between politics and economics imposed by liberalism, to give the valuable to the valiant, to match material equality to political equality. The gap between these two has been erected as a reactionary bulwark against popular democracy in the name of 'liberty' but in fact to ensure special interest minority control, this is liberal 'democracy'. We must establish true economic democracy to bring true egalitarianism to the people, all means to this goal must be utilized, for the bulwarks of reaction will not willingly lie down.

The problem with the above is how do you divide up the results of 'labour' is your ideal society.
For example , what incentive is there for me to spend 4 years learning engineering and a further 4 yrs learning CNC programming combined with more learning of various CAD/CAM technology if my pay/rewards are going to be the same as someone who puts no effort into learning and sweeps the floor in the factory
Why bother?
Oh you got to do it for the good of the commune.. then how do you decide who gets the training and who does'nt.
How do you decide who gets to be the brain surgeon and who gets to sweep the roads?
Unless you test your commune members and then you find out that people are not born equal, which is not to say they have not got unique talents.
Of course you can have worker elections to the position of commune head, but then what happens if he/she promises a larger share of the commune's output to the people who dont bother learning just to ensure they vote the right way, and stuff the educated/skilled members of the commune.

In other words, socialism is bound to fail because it will always be undone by one thing, our human nature.

Boris

<<off to the re-education camp for some 9mm revolutionary justice:D

Using is, as you say, one thing.

Sharing, on the other hand, runs counter to the ultimate goal of self-preservation and should thus be avoided at all costs.

I'm certain that somewhere in that sarcasm there is a point...

(looks again)

Nope - my bad.

Who's talking about "impos[ing]" anything?

I think people should choose to "interact with each other concerning scarce goods necessary for survival" in certain specific ways, yes... because otherwise I think the result will be other than a free society.

I am pretty sure that while the "certain specific ways" differ between us, you agree with at least that much.

Yes, then you agree that anarchist must only be concerned with destroying those structures that impede free action.

I cannot imagine someone so far-sighted that they can prescribe how anarchism would "look", rather the anarchist will likely perpetually be concerned for how anarchy doesn't look.

I see no reason to believe that--at least insofar as "private property" is being used in its narrow meaning as referring to the means of production, and not to one's clothing and toothbrush.

Only private property provides for the efficiency required for full wealth production.

No, I'm not. Workers must seek employment from others regardless of whether they are in a monopoly situation.

"Competition" depends entirely on other options actually being better. Since employers have a common interest in keeping labor costs low, I'm skeptical.

Well, in capitalism workers control their own labor, which is their primary asset, and which they trade to employers for capital. To assume that the employers in a non-monopolistic capitalist system have utter control of the wages and conditions is a fallacy (and one which I know you don't believe, as your argument against the chef's (or doctor's) specialisation was that he could demand special privileges (such as higher wages or better conditions) because he controls his own labor).

Now, I will grant you that, depending on the working population, there may be too many workers or too few to meet the demands of industry. When there is an employment shortage, workers have much more power in determining their wages and conditions. When there is a surplus of employable manpower (that is, widespread unemployment unrelated to the quality of the workforce) employers have an advantage in that workers themselves are competing and offering lower prices for their labor.


And so will he--assuming he has no compensating advantages (like community familiarity), anyway. And both will lose out.

Actually, the result would be that the people serving bad food at the low prices would go out of business (who would buy bad food when you can buy good food at the same price?), while the people serving good food would end up selling it at about the same price that the poor-quality chefs did (within a price floor of the costs of materials and upkeep, of course--they wouldn't drive themselves broke to out-compete each other [since they are competing to earn more customers and more money, after all]).

That scenario actually nicely eliminates the threat of the chefs holding the community hostage or demanding increased prices, while still improving the quality of life.

Specialization: in economics, it's a beautiful thing.

To assume that the employers in a non-monopolistic capitalist system have utter control of the wages and conditions is a fallacy

Indeed it is.

But to point out that there is a significant power imbalance there is not.

Actually, the result would be that the people serving bad food at the low prices would go out of business (who would buy bad food when you can buy good food at the same price?), while the people serving good food would end up selling it at about the same price that the poor-quality chefs did

You're assuming there's a significant quality difference.

Like I said: the argument from competition assumes that there are substantively better options. There may not be.

That scenario actually nicely eliminates the threat of the chefs holding the community hostage

No, it doesn't.

You are still failing to consider the possibility of coordination.

Communism.

And if that is the case, then where is the predictive power of those strata? If I can't tell anything about you or your future from what "class" you belong to, then what's the worth of the concept? Of course you can tell certain things about certain people of certain classes. Poor people don't own yachts. How many examples could you think of to contract this? Not enough to keep it from being a general rule.

The 'freedom' communists talk about is not the generally accepted meaning of freedom, they believe it to mean freedom from economic need, where as the freedom individualist, libertarians and capitalist mean is the freedom from coercion. There is no freedom from coercion without freedom from economic need.

The majority of jobs don't do this.For you. The vast majority of jobs would have somebody who not only enjoyed doing them, but was good at it.

Thats because nobody will choose the boring, but much needed jobs.Why must there be a dichotomy between the two?
Why must someone do those jobs for the entirety of their working career?

Charity work is about helping the less fortunate. Those who participate (myself included) do so as a component of their primary income-producing practice. In fact - without their primary income most could not and would not be able to donate to the less fortunate. The number of folks who dedicate a career 100% to helping the less fortunate are very very small. There are plenty of people who are paid by charities to work for them.

The problem with the above is how do you divide up the results of 'labour' is your ideal society.
For example , what incentive is there for me to spend 4 years learning engineering and a further 4 yrs learning CNC programming combined with more learning of various CAD/CAM technology if my pay/rewards are going to be the same as someone who puts no effort into learning and sweeps the floor in the factory
Why bother?The enjoyment that you get from learning CNC programming is the reason you would do it. If your major reason for doing it is some other reason, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Well, in capitalism workers control their own labor, which is their primary asset, and which they trade to employers for capital. Certainly. The employers not only have their own labor to trade but also the business itself could be traded. Thus the employer necessarily has the advantage.

Sophomoric thought seems to be quite a hit today.

Of course you can tell certain things about certain people of certain classes. Poor people don't own yachts. How many examples could you think of to contract this? Not enough to keep it from being a general rule.
Yeah, but wealth isn't really what Marx meant by class. Or rather it is, but indirectly because he figured that the amount of money a person has determines their character, their political interests, the way they interact with the environment and so on.

I'm saying that who a person is, how he/she acts and how his/her life turns out is not determined by wealth to anything like the extent that would make it the sort of reliable predictor you'd need for Marxist theory to work.

Yeah, but wealth isn't really what Marx meant by class.

No, Marx meant a specific economic relation to the means of production. Members of a class share a political interest insofar as they share this economic relation.

In other words, socialism is bound to fail because it will always be undone by one thing, our human nature.

Your ignoring the fact that such nature can easily be changed by environment.

No, Marx meant a specific economic relation to the means of production. Members of a class share a political interest insofar as they share this economic relation.
Be that as it may, we've moved beyond the sort of classes that were around during Marx' time, but not in the way he predicted. As a result, the traditional classes have been changed in modern economies because the means of production and their relationships have changed. Whether someone is from the "working class" no longer tells us much about their living standards, their interests, their everyday life or their political affiliations.

So really, stratifying society into classes derived from Marxist theory is a pointless exercise.

Your ignoring the fact that such nature can easily be changed by environment.
You're ignoring fact full stop.

You're assuming there's a significant quality difference.

If there isn't a quality difference, then what in God's name have we been talking about? Wasn't the basic premise that the one chef was better than the rest and chose to specialize? And if not, then how the heck could he get away with raising his price in the first place? He'd lose customers to the other (cheaper) chefs.

No, it doesn't.

You are still failing to consider the possibility of coordination.

Well, oligopolies can be prevented as easily as monopolies. An ideal capitalist society would enforce measures to prevent restrictions to entering a market or industry, ensuring that anyone could enter the field in which the consumers are being taken advantage of, and undercut the corporate oligopolies to steal their business, make more money, and provide cheaper products/services to the consumers.

Even if all persons of a certain hard-to-find skill focus (say, periodontists) coordinate to increase the price of their services, the ideal capitalist society would have unrestricted opportunity for other citizens to become periodontists (and the market that the coordination has produced would promote and reward anyone entering that field--practically ensuring healthy incoming competition).

Yeah, but wealth isn't really what Marx meant by class. Or rather it is, but indirectly because he figured that the amount of money a person has determines their character, their political interests, the way they interact with the environment and so on.

I'm saying that who a person is, how he/she acts and how his/her life turns out is not determined by wealth to anything like the extent that would make it the sort of reliable predictor you'd need for Marxist theory to work. This is particularly true in Australia, where most of the lowest echelons of the economic strata can easily afford luxuries like plasma TVs, V8 cars, and such.

Communism.
There are plenty of people who are paid by charities to work for them.


Then it is not really charitable on their part - is it?

If there isn't a quality difference, then what in God's name have we been talking about? Wasn't the basic premise that the one chef was better than the rest and chose to specialize?

"And if some other fancy chefs show up near the first, they'll lower their prices to attract customers."

Even if all persons of a certain hard-to-find skill focus (say, periodontists) coordinate to increase the price of their services, the ideal capitalist society would have unrestricted opportunity for other citizens to become periodontists

By giving everyone the necessary talent? By allowing everyone unlimited educational opportunity? By giving everyone the necessary capital? Really?

and the market that the coordination has produced would promote and reward anyone entering that field

Not if it means entering a field where there are already well-established, wealthy companies who can and will compete with you, no.

Yes, if the coordination is extreme enough it would be broken... competitive forces exist, and the profits to be gained by entry were indeed extreme, some people would try, and if they were particularly competent perhaps succeed. But it's not as if "competition" is the glorious panacea advocates of capitalism want it to be, either. It doesn't fundamentally alter the distribution of power.

"And if some other fancy chefs show up near the first, they'll lower their prices to attract customers."


I guess that was a misunderstanding between us. By "other fancy chefs" showing up, I meant chefs who, like the first, are better than your average sloppy Joe-Blo in a chef hat.


By giving everyone the necessary talent? By allowing everyone unlimited educational opportunity? By giving everyone the necessary capital? Really?


Unrestricted opportunity isn't the same as paying someone's way. As long as there are no government operational license fees, or something similar that would pose a major barrier to new entry to the industry, individuals can easily take out loans for education and investment in equipment/land/personnel (banks are generally very happy to lend money to buy property and equipment, as they've got nothing to lose if the borrower doesn't repay--they just obtain the property).


Not if it means entering a field where there are already well-established, wealthy companies who can and will compete with you, no.

Yes, if the coordination is extreme enough it would be broken... competitive forces exist, and the profits to be gained by entry were indeed extreme, some people would try, and if they were particularly competent perhaps succeed. But it's not as if "competition" is the glorious panacea advocates of capitalism want it to be, either. It doesn't fundamentally alter the distribution of power.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I guess that was a misunderstanding between us. By "other fancy chefs" showing up, I meant chefs who, like the first, are better than your average sloppy Joe-Blo in a chef hat.

If the chefs are of substantively lower quality than the first chef, the first chef won't be outcompeted. He'll have quality on his side. This was exactly Neu Leonstein's original point, if I recall correctly... the chef's skills are exclusive, which is why (the argument went) it made little sense to share or rotate them, and why no more generous or more cooking-loving member of the community could step up and replace him.

If the chefs are of approximately equal quality to the first chef, undercutting his prices, in the end, may not benefit them at all.

Unrestricted opportunity isn't the same as paying someone's way.

No, not in your use of it. So, in fact, we are not talking about unrestricted opportunity at all--we are talking about opportunity restricted by monetary means.

individuals can easily take out loans for education

They still need the requisite talent, which is not always something that can be taught efficiently.

and investment in equipment/land/personnel (banks are generally very happy to lend money to buy property and equipment, as they've got nothing to lose if the borrower doesn't repay--they just obtain the property).

And what happens to this enterprising individual if she fails... and her investment of time and (at least some of her) money ends up being wasted?

Communism.

the enjoyment that you get from learning CNC programming is the reason you would do it. If your major reason for doing it is some other reason, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.


You've never done CNC work I can tell :p

More seriously you have'nt addressed the point of why should I bother putting myself out learning stuff if the rewards are the same as if I did'nt bother learning stuff?
Under capitalism I'd get more cash, plus be able to sell myself to the highest bidder for my services.
Under a soviet government I'd get 'labour hero' status and a bigger house/apartment (and more cash.. not sure about that one)
Under pure communism I'd get squat. so I would'nt bother.

Your ignoring the fact that such nature can easily be changed by environment.

The enviroment 2000 yrs ago was very different, however the Romans seized control of countries for their resources in return for higher social status and a chance of grabbing some power.
Is that so different from now where CEO's grab control of other companies in return for more wealth and power.
or from a tribal society that beats and kills a rival tribe to control access to the waterhole, the waterhole being the source of wealth and power(at least in terms of crops/cattle that can be raised from it)

human nature has not changed for the past xxxxxxx years . That being to control the largest amount of resources it can hang onto to make sure its tribe/nation/company can survive.

Then it is not really charitable on their part - is it?Perhaps, perhaps not. Nonetheless, these people are generally not particularly highly paid, so clearly they do it for reasons other than monetary remuneration.

More seriously you have'nt addressed the point of why should I bother putting myself out learning stuff if the rewards are the same as if I did'nt bother learning stuff?The rewards aren't the same. In the former case you have the reward of gaining additional knowledge. I don't know about you, but when I enjoy something I also enjoy learning more about it.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Nonetheless, these people are generally not particularly highly paid, so clearly they do it for reasons other than monetary remuneration.
Just like the folks at McDonalds, Costco and General Motors. They are all saints!

The rewards aren't the same. In the former case you have the reward of gaining additional knowledge. I don't know about you, but when I enjoy something I also enjoy learning more about it.
I enjoy making money.

anarcho-syndicalism is the best option i think

Just like the folks at McDonalds, Costco and General Motors. They are all saints!Typically the people who work there don't have any other options.
People who work at charities typically do.

I enjoy making money.But, of course you enjoy other things as well.

I like communism best, although there won't be any real communism for ages; people are just not ready for that stuff I guess. With Communism, I really like the idea of workers being payed by how their fellow workers rate their inputs and efforts into society. But like I said, people are pretty corrupt and egocentric nowadays so it wouldn't really work in this time. A sidenote to clear some things up: the former USSR and modern China are both not Communist governments, they're dictatorships.

Capitalism may not be perfect, but for a naturally arising system it works remarkably well.

It's like a dancing bear--the remarkable thing is not that it dances well, but that it dances at all.

But trying to impose communism instead of capitalism is like killing the bear, tying its arms and legs with strings, and trying to make the corpse dance better by pulling the ropes.

If the chefs are of approximately equal quality to the first chef, undercutting his prices, in the end, may not benefit them at all.

If they get more sales, then yes, they'll benefit. And the public benefits from lower prices. Nobody will undercut to the point that they run themselves out of business.

So, in fact, we are not talking about unrestricted opportunity at all--we are talking about opportunity restricted by monetary means.

Well, given the availability of loans except where the borrower might be denied a loan given poor credit history or business management skills, the only restricting factor is the individuals themselves, and their skills or lack thereof.

They still need the requisite talent, which is not always something that can be taught efficiently.

If someone has no talent with which to serve society, and cannot be otherwise educated, then they'd be useless in either a capitalist or a communist system. I have no easy answer to that particular problem, and neither does communism. Although soylent green comes to mind...

And what happens to this enterprising individual if she fails... and her investment of time and (at least some of her) money ends up being wasted?

The bank seizes the assets on which the entrepreneur spent the loans. Hopefully she reflects on why her enterprise failed and tackles a different approach or market. Perhaps she had neither quality of goods/services, nor prices low enough to outcompete the existing oligopoly (in which case, the oligopoly is apparently not over-charging so much after all), or perhaps she was in a poorly chosen location, or perhaps she failed to market her product well. She may try again, or she may give up. The impetus is on the individual.

Capitalism is amazing because you have each individual trying to improve their own lot in life and in doing so they work toward improving society as a whole. It doesn't need an overarching vision or central coordination. It doesn't need some external guiding entity that steals resources from the individual in order to fund its endeavors and arrange things like wealth and industry as it sees fit. Capitalism is more free, more efficient, and (ironically, for a system essentially based on greed) has less opportunity for corruption than any operational alternative, at least as pertains to large populations (obviously a family unit can operate its internal affairs without capitalism, and certain small commune systems could accomplish similar operations).

Typically the people who work there don't have any other options.
People who work at charities typically do.
Really? People who work for General Motors, Costco and McDonalds are all indentured servants? Forced labor? But people who work for non-profits are not? That's quite a stretch...

But, of course you enjoy other things as well.

So? Are you going to be the arbiter of which of my pleasures I should study, improve and learn more about?