Socialism vs. Capitalism, again...

[RogueLeader]

Since a lot of recent threads have once again degenerated to this topic, how about diverting that discussion to here. I doubt that will happen though...last time I tried this we only went 20 posts before it went back to the old thread-degeneration style debate again...So do it right this time you bastards!!!

[RogueLeader]

RL, you said, "[Lane] associated communism (because she had been taught it was communist) with fascism, which is a common mistake of those taught by the state." That's ludicrous. She wasn't stupid. And she had studied Marx.

As for "Rose Wilder Lane reverted to capitalism because she, like many others, believed the government's propaganda," look in the mirror. I'm guessing you're a communist because you believe propoganda. You haven't uttered a single original thought in this conversation; you've been giving me the same arguments spewed out by gnarly whiskered Marxist apologists for generations. You sound like an idealistic 17 year old who thinks he's discovered the unified field theory of human action.

Viper, I've read some things by her in which she says it was a trip to the Soviet Union that made her think socialism was not free. I've been studying Marx for years, and I still don't understand half of communist theory. It's extremely complex. There are a lot of communists who didn't know that the Soviet Union was capitalist, such as Helen Keller. Without reading a lot of Lenin it is unlikely to know that he planned for the USSR to be capitalist for a while.

The reason I give the same arguments Marxists used for years is because they have proven right so often. Once again, for what has to be the 9th time this thread, I will cite the Paris Commune, the only state to experience socialism the way Marx instructed, and the only one in which it actually achieved socialism. History has proven those arguments right. You saying that I use the same arguments that old Marxists have is like me saying that evolutionists must be wrong because they will use the same evidence as Darwin.

[The_Fur]

I don't think communism vs Capitalism is an apropriate fight, Communism is an ideology, Capitalism is a system. Communism as you have began to explain it lately is simply perfectly clean capitalism where every man gets what he deserves for the effort he puts in. Just like the USSR wasn't communist none of todays societies are truely cleanly capitalist, Capitalism is completely seperate from politics and ideologies in its essence, however since it deals with resources and resources equal power over time it has become interwoven with political interests.

More apropriate would be Communism vs Democracy (IE majority rule). Personally i can't stand either but that's besides the point.

IMO the main problem with our current system (not the problem with capitalism) is that money can be transferred from one generation to another, if after death all funds would go to a community controlled post the "troubles" of "capitalism" wouldn't exist today. Every man would work on his own merit.

[RogueLeader]

It depends on what you mean by socialism. Socialism, in the Marxian sense, is a very specific form of society, but can also mean any system in which the workers own the means of production. Capitalism, to put it in the same strict sense, is any society in which there exists capital (products that are created by wage-labor). So in that sense something cannot be mixed capitalism, it either is or isn't. Capitalism today is often taken to mean "free market" capitalism, when the government has no role.

Socialism is democracy. It is the only true democracy. Democracy today is the democracy of the bouregois, one in which only the elite can participate. Socialism is still republican form, except not the majority of the people can participate. Communism eliminates the state altogether, making it purely democratic.

[The_Fur]

*scrapped*

[Domino]

I prefer capitalism.... yeah it sucks in a lot of ways.... but it's the "free"est thing we got.

I put free in "" because it only shows that if you play the game too well, (microsoft) the government will step in and make you play on the same level.

I know that what Microsoft is doing is wrong, but how can we call this a free market if the goverment is gonna step in and break up the most powerfull people every time things get rough?

Darwin's idea of evoultion and the rise of the powerfull over the weak is a sad but very true rule by which almost everything in this world goes by. Sometimes you just have to let things take their course and not interfere.... but we all know how much our goverment likes to have its big grubby hands in everything.

[RogueLeader]

Dude, this is rhetoric. I wouldn't attempt to back up my argument with NOTHING but the sentiments of high standing figure who preached the opposing side of an argument. That's like saying that China doesn't have a human rights problems because Mao said they don't.

Let's get one thing straight. Soviet communism was NEVER capitalism. You also spend to much time reading books and not enough following real world politics. Socialism, as you define it, is not socialism as the world defines it. The utopian society that you describe can not exist. The flaw that my earlier quote pointed out with a pure democracy is valid whether or not applied to the Athenian system. Look at American politics: All you have to do to win is promise tax credits for the poor and and tax hikes for the rich. Say you're going to expand the corrupt social security system and make poor poeple not have to pay their benifits. Our politicians have even gone so far as to attempt to convince us that we ARE a democracy. That makes it that much easier to trample the constitution...... **** I'm ranting. Back to topic.

Let's not call the Soviets a failed capitalism again. American capitalism is a far cry from true capitalism, but it is the closest major nation to true capitalism. In regard to the "people" owning business in socialism, that's what they called it in the USSR. That's what they've called it in every oppresive regime fascist or communist. In a modern nation with millions of people you can't have any order without some tangible body of government to hold the mess together. It doesn't HAVE to be an oppressive regime, but it's the nature of government to progress toward one. The only way a state is going to allow "the people" ownership of business is through state ownership. You've breathed the rhetoric too deeply in your study.
So you want to play the semantics game? In that case, most of the world views capitalism as totalitarianism, a system made to exploit the working people. Therefore, capitalism is evil.

Sound stupid? So is your semantics argument. You are trying to say that Marx wanted totalitarianism because some people today define it differently from what he did. According to you, if I say I like to eat pizza, and a hundred years from now the word pizza means dog ****, I like to eat dog ****.

How about I use some definitions to your liking, then. Would you rather I call myself a Marxist? Since your definition of socialism is different from Marxism, apparently I have to.

And stop trying to desperately pretend like the Soviet Union was not capitalist? I find it humerous you claim to know more about early Soviet history than Lenin did.

28 April 1918, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government
Unquestioning submission to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of labour processes that are based on large-scale machine industry . . . today the same revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process.
(p. 342)
5 May 1918, Left wing childishness and petit-bourgeois mentality
economically, state capitalism is immeasurably superior to the present system of economy
(p. 364)
At present, petty-bourgeois capitalism prevails in Russia
(p. 366)
If we introduced state capitalism in approximately 6 months' time we would achieve a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.
(p. 360)
Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of the Soviet government to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic order is a socialist order.
... the precise nature of the elements that constitute the various social-economic forms which exist in Russia at the present time. ... Let us enumerate these elements:
1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, self-sufficing peasant economy;
2) small-commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);
3) private capitalism;
4) state capitalism, and
5) socialism.

While the revolution in Germany is slow in "coming forth," our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to do this even more thoroughly than Peter* hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and he did not hesitate to use barbarian methods in fighting against barbarism.
(p. 365)
[* Peter the Great]

In order to convince the reader that this is not the first time I have given this "high" appreciation of state capitalism and that I gave it before the Bolsheviks seized power I take the liberty of quoting the following passage from my pamphlet The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Fight It, written in September 1917.
". . . But try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landlord-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state (i.e., such as will destroy all privileges in a revolutionary way without being afraid of introducing in a revolutionary way the fullest possible democracy), and you will see that, in a truly revolutionary-democratic state, state monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably means progress towards socialism!
". . . For socialism is nothing but the next step forward after state capitalist monopoly.
". . . State monopoly capitalism is the fullest material preparation for socialism, it is its threshold, it is that rung on the historical ladder between which and the rung called socialism there are no intervening rungs."

Please note that this was written when Kerensky was in power, that we are discussing, not the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the socialist state, but the "revolutionary-democratic" state. . . . Is it not clear that from the material, economic and productive point of view, we are not yet "on the threshold" of socialism?
(p. 367)

You seem to not even understand what capitalism is. Capitalism is any economic system in which capital exist. That system does not have to free from government interference to be capitalist. State capitalism is just as much capitalism as free market capitalism, and just as bad.

Pure rhetoric. The only freedoms I lack right now are civil liberties that have been trampled in recent history. I don't have the right to injest the substances that I find acceptable (not that I do drugs, but if I wanted to I should be able to). If I get "caught" with over $10k in cash it can be confiscated.. why? I don't know, but it's law. As far as freedom to work and live, I have that. I also have the freedoms of expression... hmm what basic freedoms am I lacking? Not that I think those freedoms are out the door, but their being conspired against by leftists.
Civil liberties are negative freedoms, which exist in socialism as well. The U.S. has more negative freedoms than most countries on earth. You do not have freedom to work because that requires a civil right (not to be confused with natural right). You can work, but you do not have the right to. That right can be denied to you at any time. If we had freedom to work, there wouldn't be any unemployed. Freedom to work cannot be achieved within the capitalist system (like the reformists welfare staters want). When attempts are made to establish freedom to work in a capitalist system, it only makes things worse. The people must take back the means of production to establish that.

What? Everyone can't work in this country as it stands now? Could have fooled me. The people I'm talking about are lazy losers. It doesn't matter if we're capitalist, socialist, or an anarchist's utopia, these people will still be lazy swine. I believe they are a product of the welfare system, but they're too far gone to do ANYTHING about. The only solution is to pull the rug out from under them, watch them fall on their faces, and hope their children can adapt to the real world. I would like to know how you define capitalism because I think you have a scewed view. I'm speaking of classic Lassaiz-Faire(not french so don't diss the spelling) capitalism. No state involvement, let the system control itself. Government social programs are NOT capitalist. Capitalism is an ecconomic system only. How is a free ride at the expense of workers a representation of capitalism?
Not all unemployed people are lazy. In capitalism, you often cannot find a job even if you are willing to work. In socialism the distribution of labor is such that all people who want to work can. That means that in socialism, all people who arn't working are doing so out of laziness. Because they arn't working, they will not be paid and they can starve. If you work, you live, if you don't, you die. That is very different from capitalism, where, in order to pacify the people, you must give free money to the lazy (because you don't know if they are lazy or actually want to work but cannot find a job yet), and the wealthiest are those who do not work themselves but only rent out the means of production.

Here is a true definition of capitalism (not our current semantic-degraded version that holds that capitalism is always free market): http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm#capitalism

The reason that most of the world "goes hungry"(which is defined as feeling hunger without food at ready by a study I read. One that claimed 10 million americans went hungry every year. In other words, I'm hungry. Oh need to get groceries... Ill just wait 'till tomorow) is that they are third world countries by despots that don't give a flying f*ck about their people. You can't expect American companies to just suck up a loss because they could provide enough food to feed the world. They are motivated by profit and would fail otherwise. Those people are starving because they can't/won't establish a good government. Even a socialist one, something's better than nothing.
Many, if not most, of those despots are the result of imperialism, the spread of capitalism. But that is of no concern to this argument, because it is wrong anyway. Despotism is a plague upon those people, but that is not the source of their hunger. Even if those despots would distribute their money amongst the people (socialism anyone?) they would not have enough. Do you believe that these few rulers are consuming food for 54 billion people themselves? The British and American governments pay farmers to underproduce because the laws of supply and demand would kill their pricers if we produced all we could.

And no, those last two sentences wern't rhetoric, it was an observation from the experience of the Paris Commune.

[Cholo Grande]

The arguments are easy to dismiss. "Right to work": True we don't have a guarantee of work, but we do have a "right" to work. The ability to get a job that will allow you to sustain yourself depends on your own choices. You make the choice to attain education or skills. You make the choice to not waste your life away and make something of yourself. If you make poor choices you suffer the consequences that is the nature of our system. If you "can't" get a job in this country, I say you are a lazy pig. You can't always get the job you feel you CAN do or deserve, I'm in a job that I feel I am vastly overqualified for... funny thing is that I can trace the reasons I'm here to some bad choices I made in the past. It's not the states fault for not placing me correctly, it's my fault for not considering the future.

Your statements of Marxist vs modern real world socialist carry water, don't get me wrong. But NOTHING is ever textbook in reality. Capitalism doesn't work like it was written in Wealth of Nations either. When I talk about capitalism I speak of modern capitalism. If I want to digress into academics, I'll specify "pure" capitalism or Laissez-Faire Capitalism (which as far as I know exists nowhere in the world). However, you DO have to look at the failings of the implementation of your system and determine why it has failed historicaly. I attribute the failings to flaws in human nature. A state that acts as custodian for the people is under the greatest temptation to sieze what it already controls.

I also ask why the workers deserve to own the company or enterpirse they work for? Did they build it with their vision? No. I do 50% of the work in the small company I work for, but I don't own a single piece of it. I wouldn't really like to as I look toward my future, but if I did do I have some moral right to claim it? I do 50% of the work do I deserve half ownership? If a company ELECTS to do profit sharing or stock incentives, that is their perrogative, but should never be mandated by the state. When did it become wrong to be successfull and enjoy the rewards of your hard work?

Civil liberties are negative freedoms, which exist in socialism as well. The U.S. has more negative freedoms than most countries on earth. You do not have freedom to work because that requires a civil right (not to be confused with natural right). You can work, but you do not have the right to. That right can be denied to you at any time. If we had freedom to work, there wouldn't be any unemployed. Freedom to work cannot be achieved within the capitalist system (like the reformists welfare staters want). When attempts are made to establish freedom to work in a capitalist system, it only makes things worse. The people must take back the means of production to establish that.

A few key flaws in this argument that pop right out at me. If you are qualified to do a job and are willing to perform it in a mannor that allows the company to continue earning profit on the work you do, you WILL have work as long as the position is needed and your salary is within the realm of supply and demand for the said position. If your skills are in high demand you can command alot more money than someone who's skill are commonplace or no longer needed. There will always be unemployed because their will always be losers. For there to be winners there must be losers. "Someone has to cook the french fries".

And your statement assumes that the workers owned something at a prior date to "take back". Let's realize that without the owners the worker has no job anyway. All the microsoft employees aren't able to "take Microsoft back." They never owned it and, without Gates, they'd probably not be working in their current job or commanding their present salaries anyway. If MS wants to start a stock and profit sharing program to keep a lock on their top talent, then that is a management choice. Are they willing to give up partial ownership to keep employees that another company may steal with better salaries or such programs of their own? If so they will. There is a key diference between bending to the market and bending to the state.

There is no true freedom without economic freedom. This system does not build economic freedom; it creates a state controled atomosphere perfect for the uprising of a tyranical figure or government.

BTW I never claimed to know more about anything Soviet than anybody. I DO claim to know rhetoric when I see it. Simple beautiful sounding statements that have obsolutely no basis for their assertian. They sound good and if they're coming out of the mouth of a good speaker they can win people to your cause. I also never claimed Lennin was not intelligent or everything he ever said was bad. I've personaly never studied him in great detail from a historical standpoint, but political philosphies are a great interest to me so from that standpoint I have. The guy was obviously a very inteligent man or his writings wouldn't live on today. Of course, the gift of intelligence has absolutely no bearing on whether the man is right or not.

[Euphoric Beaver]

Have you noticed how all the poor lazy arses want Communism?

[NTKB]

RogueLeader a few questions:

If there was a communist governement who would decide who goes to the military? Because I am a big strong person does that mean I would have to be a soldier?

Who decides what country we war and what country is our allys?

If communism if supposed to make all equal how could any of the above be spoken for?

[Cholo Grande]

To me, that's where academics fail and real world takes over. Every single issue cannot be done through democratic process. Some sort of executive power must be centralized in a government entity not to mention national resource management. In theory it is all owned and managed by the people, but in practice it cannot be so. That's where the potential for exploitation of the people comes into play.

I understand the draw of the utopian society. I was a teenage anarchist in my altruistic younger days. Those were the days before I experienced that academics don't translate into the real world even half the time. Human nature is not always good and you can't trust political promises past where the telivision cameras are.

[RogueLeader]

The arguments are easy to dismiss. "Right to work": True we don't have a guarantee of work, but we do have a "right" to work. The ability to get a job that will allow you to sustain yourself depends on your own choices. You make the choice to attain education or skills. You make the choice to not waste your life away and make something of yourself. If you make poor choices you suffer the consequences that is the nature of our system. If you "can't" get a job in this country, I say you are a lazy pig. You can't always get the job you feel you CAN do or deserve, I'm in a job that I feel I am vastly overqualified for... funny thing is that I can trace the reasons I'm here to some bad choices I made in the past. It's not the states fault for not placing me correctly, it's my fault for not considering the future.
That is competely wrong I'm sorry to say. Though people like to think that anyone can get a job it simply isn't true; and when you can get a job that doesn't mean that is at a liveable wage. The median wage in the U.S. is $32,000. That is not enough to raise a family on.

Your statements of Marxist vs modern real world socialist carry water, don't get me wrong. But NOTHING is ever textbook in reality. Capitalism doesn't work like it was written in Wealth of Nations either. When I talk about capitalism I speak of modern capitalism. If I want to digress into academics, I'll specify "pure" capitalism or Laissez-Faire Capitalism (which as far as I know exists nowhere in the world). However, you DO have to look at the failings of the implementation of your system and determine why it has failed historicaly. I attribute the failings to flaws in human nature. A state that acts as custodian for the people is under the greatest temptation to sieze what it already controls.
Marxism is based on scientific observation, not random theory. Because of that it has held up nearly completely and in nearly every case. Socialism has never failed once in history. The Paris Commune, the only socialist state to have ever existed, was a total success and only collapsed when the French raised a large enough army to reconquor it. As I have said before, the idea that human nature contradicts communism has already been disproven by scientific evidence. Attempts are always being made by people to essentialize the current condition, but to essentialize capitalism requires you to ignore that history up into the last couple hundred years. Science has proven that human nature is pretty much non existant. In fact, human nature would contradict the existance of society. If we had any instincts we would not be able to make a dynamic social system. We adapt to the system we grow up in.

I also ask why the workers deserve to own the company or enterpirse they work for? Did they build it with their vision? No. I do 50% of the work in the small company I work for, but I don't own a single piece of it. I wouldn't really like to as I look toward my future, but if I did do I have some moral right to claim it? I do 50% of the work do I deserve half ownership? If a company ELECTS to do profit sharing or stock incentives, that is their perrogative, but should never be mandated by the state. When did it become wrong to be successfull and enjoy the rewards of your hard work?
Yes, workers DO build the company. ALL material wealth in the world comes from WORKERS. The bourgeois do not work. That is why they are bourgeois. The worker has nothing to make money off of except his labor. But to use his labor he needs means of production. The bourgeois has the means of production. They give the workers a small ammount of money (not related to the value of the labor, even according to capitalist theory). The worker then makes his product, the capitalist takes it and sells it and keeps the surplus value. He has no right to surplus value. The surplus value, according to all moral and ethical standards that dominate the world, belongs to the worker because it is value HE made, but the bourgeois did not pay him for. The worker in fact works without being paid! That is called theft. So what moral right does the worker have? The right to receive his payment!

A few key flaws in this argument that pop right out at me. If you are qualified to do a job and are willing to perform it in a mannor that allows the company to continue earning profit on the work you do, you WILL have work as long as the position is needed and your salary is within the realm of supply and demand for the said position. If your skills are in high demand you can command alot more money than someone who's skill are commonplace or no longer needed. There will always be unemployed because their will always be losers. For there to be winners there must be losers. "Someone has to cook the french fries".
Wrong, businesses always compete by limiting expenses. You have a job as long as your pay is low enough to keep the profits rising. Therefore, in the end, your argument boils down to this: you say that a worker can always work--as long the business can steal enough of his surplus value to continue stealing.

And your statement assumes that the workers owned something at a prior date to "take back". Let's realize that without the owners the worker has no job anyway. All the microsoft employees aren't able to "take Microsoft back." They never owned it and, without Gates, they'd probably not be working in their current job or commanding their present salaries anyway. If MS wants to start a stock and profit sharing program to keep a lock on their top talent, then that is a management choice. Are they willing to give up partial ownership to keep employees that another company may steal with better salaries or such programs of their own? If so they will. There is a key diference between bending to the market and bending to the state.
The people did own the means of production to begin with. Capitalim, to start, was dominated by the petty bourgeois, who were individual workers who stuck to their own craft. They then created industrialization, at which point the bourgeois grew by stealing up the means of production which had been socialized.

The second part of your statement makes no sense. You say that we need the owners because they create the jobs. But since "owners" of businesses is unique to capitalism, you therefore say that we need capitalism because of capitalism!

There is no true freedom without economic freedom. This system does not build economic freedom; it creates a state controled atomosphere perfect for the uprising of a tyranical figure or government.
Exactly. Economic freedom can only exist in socialism. Only in socialism does every person have the freedom to contribute to the economy and develop themselves. Capitalism always creates a strong state because it needs state interference to protect it and help it grow into new areas and markets. That is why your dream of a libertarian government mixed with capitalism is utopian and in violation of all scientific evidence. Just look at America. We used to have what you call pure capitalism, but linked to the rise in corporations after the civil war was the rise in government. Socialism is a reaction to that growth in capital and the state. It eliminates both, returning people to freedom.

BTW I never claimed to know more about anything Soviet than anybody. I DO claim to know rhetoric when I see it. Simple beautiful sounding statements that have obsolutely no basis for their assertian. They sound good and if they're coming out of the mouth of a good speaker they can win people to your cause. I also never claimed Lennin was not intelligent or everything he ever said was bad. I've personaly never studied him in great detail from a historical standpoint, but political philosphies are a great interest to me so from that standpoint I have. The guy was obviously a very inteligent man or his writings wouldn't live on today. Of course, the gift of intelligence has absolutely no bearing on whether the man is right or not.
Despite Lenin's statements on the capitalist nature of the USSR, you continued to claim it was socialist. That implies to me that you believe he was wrong and you are right.

Rhetoric is not a real rebuttel to a statement. When I say the state dies in socialism, and you only say that that is rhetoric, that is almost seen as offensive to me because it seems like you don't want to have a serious debate. If that is wrong, prove it.

If there was a communist governement who would decide who goes to the military? Because I am a big strong person does that mean I would have to be a soldier?

Who decides what country we war and what country is our allys?

If communism if supposed to make all equal how could any of the above be spoken for?
Communism is the stage after the state dies. If you mean a socialist government, then there is no army. The army is abolished and replaced with the armed people. The people are at war with all countries because countries are states and the state=oppression. They seek, though not necessarily through war, to aid the people of those countries in their fight against the state.

I was a teenage anarchist in my altruistic younger days
That explains your utopianism today :p
By the way, as an anarchist did you agree or disagree with Bakunin's theory of "stateless social revitalization"?

[Cholo Grande]

I was a teenager full of ideas with nothing to back them up. I listened to punk rock and shot speed. It just sounded cool and I could talk like I knew what I was talking about :)


I say that the "owners" contribute to the ecconomy more than the workers because Johny Sixpack just goes and works his 40 hours and is happy to maintain. The people who are successfull in this society are not a caste of elitist who were always elite and born into ownership. True those poeple exist, but those families were not rich since the beginning of time; they earned their money somewhere. Self made wealth is the crowning jem on our ecconomy. There is a sentiment lately to hate these people for being rich and a thinking that they should be lining their workers pockets more heavily. What makes them different? It's not being in an elite class, it's the drive to do more than the 40hours of Johny Sixpack. It's the ambition to realize that they have the power to shape their destiny and the insight to grasp opportunity when it presents itself.

I beg to differ on the income issue as well. I'm of a pretty modest salary myself. I make 37K a year and my wife makes about 20k. She just started working because she was bored. I supported us and our two children fine. I don't go out and blow money senselessly trying to keep up with the Jones's. Like I said I made bad decisions in my past and I could be making about 70K right now, but that's neither here nor there. The point is personal responsibility. I am not held out because some elite class is holding me down. I have a plan for my future, I'm going to school and going to work my way into a well paid position. From there I'm going to gather experience and clout in my industry and then break off on my own and start my own company. Then I'll be in the elite owner clas... how? Because I'm willing to work 50hours a week, go to school full-time, and sacrifice to get what I want. That's the gift of capitalism. I don't want someone to help me pull the weight of the ecconomy. I'm going to do it on my own, then I'll reap the benifits that other don't.

It's the concept the individual that socialism ignores. Not everyone wants to do his part. Some people want to slack and they SHOULD settle for their 30K a year income. That's what they earn. Some people take a risk, create a plan, and succeed. They deserve the benifits. All men are created "equal"(in a manner of speaking), but we don't all turn out equal. In a way, I am an elitist. I believe I AM better than alot of the people I meet every day.

I hear "the man" crap from people every day. "Can't get anything because the rich have it all." "It's not *fair* that people like Gates are so rich. They don't *need* all that money." "It's not fair that I only earn 30% of what the company bills for me." "The company *owes* me medical coverage." Who made these rules? I don't feel like anyone *owes* me anything. When I get what I earn I don't feel obligated to anyone either. The "great unwashed" love the idea of socialism whether they realize it or not, because they feel a need to be coddled. That's why the serf/lord system sprang up. The appeal of Socialism is that there isn't supposed to be any lord, but there is. It's the state.

The one claim to successfull socialism you site is just ONE. If it's such a successfull system, then why doesn't it exist in its pure form around the world? The basic rule of states is that the government rules under consent of the people. A government that loses consent will eventualy fall. No amount of military power can stop that as has been proven throughout history. The argument that a small elite class is holding it back doesn't hold water.

I do applaud your defense of your beliefs. It's refreshing to see someone who can argue extremist philosophy without resorting to demonizing the opposition. Well a little demonizing, but a hell of alot less than I get from leftist Democrats who start having siezures when I talk about dismantling the welfare and social security systems. I also am interested in the Paris Commune. I have honestly NEVER heard about it and will look for a book or two after the holidays. Know your enemy :)

[RogueLeader]

It's the concept the individual that socialism ignores. Not everyone wants to do his part. Some people want to slack and they SHOULD settle for their 30K a year income. That's what they earn. Some people take a risk, create a plan, and succeed. They deserve the benifits. All men are created "equal"(in a manner of speaking), but we don't all turn out equal. In a way, I am an elitist. I believe I AM better than alot of the people I meet every day.
This is another common misconception. Socialism furthers individuality. It is in some ways a reaction to the loss of individuality caused by industrialization. Those who work will get what they work for. If you only do $30,000 of work, you will get $30,000 of products back from the storehouses. Those who do the most get the most. Once communism is reached, the idea of to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities takes place. Even in socialism true indivual distribution cannot be attained. $30,000 of equipment to you actually may not be worth the same to me, because it will be worth more if we need it more. But such a system will require socialism to destroy some of the side effects of capitalism (such as rampant greed), and will need a very strong economy. That is why anarchism is utopian, they want it now.

[Goat Fucker]

Dont think all of us Anarchists are utopians, Rogue, you best believe that i want Anarchy right here and now, but i, and my peers, know that it wont happen, we arent dumb, thats why we are there to help the commies in every way we can :D

And Cholo Grande, all i can say is HELLO CAPTAIN ANARCHY! (insider)

[Cholo Grande]

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is the death toll for the individual. Individualism would say, "From each according to his abilities and ambition, to each what he has earned."

The entire concept of the successfull or better endowed people subsidizing the less generously skilled or gifted is completely against individuality. Individuality relies on PERSONAL rewards and responsibility. Communism denies the individual rewards and ignores personal responsibility.

BTW If you claim to be an anarchist, then you should sh!t on communism. The communist promise to the aware anarchist is a ruse. My political path landed me in the Libertarian Party. They believe in limiting government to the stripped down essentials of why we created governements to begin with: protection from foreign powers and protection from loss of life, health or property. Financial freedom for individuals without the burden of an ever increasing tax on the successfull to subsidize the non-productive and personal liberty to choose to do what you want as long as it doesn't affect the life, rights or property of another are the promises of the Libertarians. I also know that we never have a chance of gaining power, but being a man of principles, I donate and actively preach the message. Being an "extremist" guarantees that you will rarely, if ever, see your ultimate goals fufilled, but a loud enough voice of extremism influences the moderates who actualy get elected. I started as an Anarchist youth, went to being a liberal Democrat as far as ecconomic idealogy, but then, after seeing the world a little more and getting an idea of how the liberal policies actualy work, I realized that true financial freedom means no government intervention. I realized that, from an idealistic anarchist trying to find a realistic politcal philosophy, MORE government controls and constraints was directly in contradiction of my beliefs.

The real story is that you can NEVER reach high success working for someone else. The object of the game in ownership is to make yourself and your company rich not your employees. They are tools. It's not evil, the movers and shakers fuel the economy and we thank them by giving them a 50% tax bracket. What an incentive to accumilate wealth and grow your business (which provides more jobs BTW). We tax "evil" corperations... suprise it just gets passed on to the stockholders, which is usualy someone's retirement fund who may be a 30K a year teacher who's IRA is heavily invested in stock indexes. You need to realize how the game works then play it to win. That means being an entrepeneur. If anyone thinks mediocrity deserves the same reward as excellence then they need to go to places where it works that way. The money runs away to more fruitfull soils. Who suffers? Not the rich, such policies kill the poor.

[RogueLeader]

The entire concept of the successfull or better endowed people subsidizing the less generously skilled or gifted is completely against individuality. Individuality relies on PERSONAL rewards and responsibility. Communism denies the individual rewards and ignores personal responsibility.
Sounds like state monoply capitalism, not communism. The communist distribution system only means that you have to work for what you need as opposed to what others need. In the capitalist and socialist systems the value of products is not based exactly on their labor-power, and therefore distribution cannot be according to what the individual needs. Capitalism and socialism cannot recognize that there are individual differences that mean we do not need the same things. Communism does. It is the personalization of socialism to the individual. Capitalism is wholly anti-individual. It is based on the idea that the worker is only a replaceable cog in the productive machine of the bourgeois, and that he has no rights (hence, in a system that supposedly has property rights, the workers' surplus can be legally stolen).

[Hadmar]

RL, im curious.

If the state dosn't exist, what happens with the people who can't work (Let's say for medical reasons. Realy can't. Like laying in a coma, or something (yes, I'm not very creative ATM)).

Has the family to care about them? What if they don't have a family?

[The_Fur]

they die, as they would in nature.

[Hadmar]

See I don't belife humans should live the "survival of the fittest" way. Why? A comunity is stronger than a strong individuum could ever become. And I think "comunity" and "survival of the fittest" don't realy work togeter (I think it's "conflict of interest", damn translations). Therfore I find it hard to belife that a comunity can become realy strong (in the mind of the people) if there's nothing that saves you when you draw the "bad luck" card.

Maybe that dosn't make sense, maybe I'm seeing that completely wrong, maybe I'm right. Your thoughts?

[RogueLeader]

If someone is in a coma then they will be given medical treatment and supported until they can work. Obviously you can't expect someone who has been injured to work.

[Donnellizer]

Originally posted by Domino
Darwin's idea of evoultion and the rise of the powerfull over the weak is a sad but very true rule by which almost everything in this world goes by.

Close, but Darwin clearly meant survival of one SPECIES over another. Did he mean one businessman against another? No. That is known as social darwinism, which Darwin himself never even spoke of. It is not one human against one human, it is all humans against everything else. In other words, the strongest SPECIES survives. Not the strongest MEMBER of a species.

Social Darwinists argue that the poor should be left poor, as this would take away from the rich, thus making the human race weaker. Does that really make sense? If the wealth was spread equally, their "strength" (to the materialistic; money) would remain equal. So, obviously a social darwinist is not looking after the human race as he would claim to be, he is merely looking after the first world. Now, wouldn't humans be better suited over other species if we were all at an equal level of possession? It's only logic.

["Sp!ke"]

The one thing I dont understand about Communism is how it is to be implemented in to society...why would, for example, Bill GAtes want to share all his gold with his fellow microsofters when there is no one to stop him from keeping it...

[RogueLeader]

He wouldn't. That's why you kill him.

["Sp!ke"]

"He wouldn't. That's why you kill him."

Is that a bad joke? I would also like to know how you would kill him. The state would protect him, and you dont abolish the state very easily either, why would the politicians give up to a handfull of anarchists, because you are surely outnumbered, despite your comment on "a few million commies in the states" i doubt a few millions would do, and I doubt even more that they are all ready to fight a battle for their "freedom" vs an superior force in every possible way...Oh wait you just kill them, right?:rolleyes:

[RogueLeader]

The state would protect him. That is what the state does, protect the powerful from the freedom fighters. For that reason the workers must take the state first. They destroy the state and replace it with their own. It may seem unlikely to happen, but historically it has happened with regularity. The Paris workers after the Franco-Prussian War, the Germans workers after WWI, and the Russian workers at that same time, have all done it.

["Sp!ke"]

"The Paris workers after the Franco-Prussian War, the Germans workers after WWI, and the Russian workers at that same time, have all done it."

Is it just me or is this a pattern I see: Fragile goverments with zero support from its minions, and also zero control over its minions(except for the military power over them,which wasnt very great either...), the US is NOT a fragile goverment, the us have enough agencies (FBI, CIA, SS and so on...)(New discovery: Secret Service is the US version of the germen SS...or maybe not)) to keep its minions under control and can easily discover and dissolve any extreme freedom organizations before they become a real threat against the goverment.
Simply put: Its not going to happen in a country with a strong goverment, or any country with a strongly US influenced goverment as the US will gladly help third world nations maintain dictators and other facist regimes...

And do you go off line very often? It gets annoyng not knowing if ill get a response...;)

[RogueLeader]

Germany and Russia were very authoritarian governments. When a government is powerful, it is a sign of its inner-weakness. The only time a government needs power is when it knows it is in a time of crisis and no longer has support.

Proletarian revolutions also benefit from the advantage that the bourgeois state needs proletarians for its coercion. The military is made up of working class people. If they decided to join the masses, the state is ****ed.

[jaunty]

And Cholo Grande, all i can say is HELLO CAPTAIN ANARCHY! (insider)


:lol:

Indeed though, Goat is right. We'll never acheive anarchy. Too many people are too greedy and too power hungry for that. I would like to mention something though, that is an example of how communism can work.

In Sydney, there is a suburb, basically dominated by what I call coffe-shop communists (or Captain Anarchy, if you understand it ;)), they're posers, but that isn't the point. Point is, there aren't any cops there. Because we kicked them out.

Another thing that isn't there, is crime. The crime in the area is limited basically to traffic offenses. There's no drug dealers, no whores, nothing. The reason there aren't any, is because the community got together and decided that any of the above would be beaten out of Newtown (said suburb).

It works perfectly. Now lets assume Newtown to be a country, and the pigs to be a govt. Eye-opening, no? So thus, one of the many steps to communism, and one of the biggest (abolitition of the state) has been achieved, and worked.

You don't need police, you don't need the state. Wake up.

[Donnellizer]

Jaunty, you got to have the police! Because if you don't have the police, you'd be killing each other in the streets!

["Sp!ke"]

"Germany and Russia were very authoritarian governments. When a government is powerful, it is a sign of its inner-weakness. The only time a government needs power is when it knows it is in a time of crisis and no longer has support.

Proletarian revolutions also benefit from the advantage that the bourgeois state needs proletarians for its coercion. The military is made up of working class people. If they decided to join the masses, the state is ****ed."

Are we forgetting the fact that the majority dont want communism?:rolleyes:

[jaunty]

You're forgetting why the majority don't want communism; They don't know what it is.

They've been taught that communism is fascism with free food, not that it's essentialy an anarchistic society where everybody is equal, and everybody is treated well.

["Sp!ke"]

"They've been taught that communism is fascism with free food, not that it's essentialy an anarchistic society where everybody is equal, and everybody is treated well."

I know, thats what i thought until my first encounter with RogueLeader a few months ago...But school isnt gonna teach us anything but: communism = "fascism with free food" so still the majority isnt gonna support it and any attempt to enlighten that majority is going to be pretty futile...since they "know" that its evil...

[jaunty]

States get brought down, it's what they do. The world will learn one day, and they'll learn purely because they have to.

Eventually, we'll run out of resources, and only the über-rich will be able to live comfortably, then people will realise where they went wrong, and then they'll change their ways.

[BobTheFearlessFish]

i have only skim read the rest of this post, ill go back to it after this, so i apologise if this has already been said, though i dont think it has.
the thing that i dislike about capitalism that makes communism appealing is that although people may say that capitalism gives rewards to those who deserver them it does not, it gives rewards to those who can better exploit others within the capitalist system. in communism you get payed for what work you do, in capitalism you get money for the work that others do, bill gates doesnt make however many million a day because he works 24/7. he makes that much because he exploits those who work for him. in a very simplified analogy communism would be getting rid of bill gates and splitting the profit that he would make between all the workers in microsoft.

[RogueLeader]

Are we forgetting the fact that the majority dont want communism?
Everybody (in the proletariat) wants communism. All workers are naturally socialist. Workers want the things socialism brings: good benefits, shorter working hours, better working conditions, higher wages, and job security. Most of the good conditions we have today in the U.S. (minimum wage and the 8 hour work day to name a couple) were the results of the Socialist Party's program. The reason workers do not join the socialist movement is they either do not know anything about socialism or are misinformed (just look at all the people who think communism is totalitarian because that bourgeoisie Uncle Sam says so), or are simply apolitical.

[Cholo Grande]

Eventually, we'll run out of resources, and only the über-rich will be able to live comfortably, then people will realise where they went wrong, and then they'll change their ways.

Just wrong. It's an impossible scenario that could never happen.



Everybody (in the proletariat) wants communism. All workers are naturally socialist. Workers want the things socialism brings: good benefits, shorter working hours, better working conditions, higher wages, and job security. Most of the good conditions we have today in the U.S. (minimum wage and the 8 hour work day to name a couple) were the results of the Socialist Party's program. The reason workers do not join the socialist movement is they either do not know anything about socialism or are misinformed (just look at all the people who think communism is totalitarian because that bourgeoisie Uncle Sam says so), or are simply apolitical.

I don't disagree that most workers want these things, but you need to remember that most workers have a 6th grade idea of how an ecconomic system works. Look at California's "deregulation" fiasco. The state set limits on what a power broker could charge for KW/h. This was done because of the fear of rising cost to consumers. The "logical" solution? Cap them. Ok then we have Clinton who basicly halted all expansion in regard to production. What happened was a decrease in supply on a massive scale.. the power companies were strapped because they didn't have the funds needed to do the rush expansion necessary to just keep up with demand.

This isn't the same point, but a similar one that can lead toward the same logical conclusion. State interverntion in business CAN cripple it. Everyone has this picture of large companies as these HUGELY profitable enterprises. Federal regulations and tax structure (not to mention unions) have caused most of these businesses to operate on VERY low profit margins. Just for example, gas retailers make an average of 2% profit on the gasoline they sell. I'm not talking about after rent. That's profit after COST. That's why mom and pop operations in that area are dwindling where they used to be the main place you'd buy fuel. More an more stations are owned by the actual oil company because a link in the chain between manufacturer and consumer has to be removed to make it a worthwhile venture. This is a VERY simplified explanation of this and I could write you pages on each of the underlying causes, but it boils down to federal regulations and taxes have eaten into their profits so deep that it has HURT the small business owner.

Business needs to be free to persue profits. They money earned by business is payed to employees. Employees of a successfull highly profitable company have larger salaries on average, position vs position. This money translates into consumer spending that feeds companies that have to hire more workers to meet demand that feeds more money into the economy, ect ect. Demonizing corporations is VERY popular with the general populace. It's so easy... they're rich you're not. This countries own recent history shows that heavier taxes on the upper incomes slows the ecconomy. Companies will cut jobs to maintain profits, less workers, less money being spent and right back up the chain to hit the richest double. But a corporation doesn't take losses in a direct sense, the stockholders do. Which in your communist system would be the workers themselves.

Look at Delta Airlines. The union pushed and pushed for more money for pilots. They got it, then they asked for more... never mind that they are the highest paid pilots in the industry. The union continued to push for money, after all what worker doesn't want more money. Well the airlines hit hard time and people are losing jobs now. Take a look at (might have the airline wrong) SouthWest Airlines. They had a much lower payscale compared to other airlines... I think they're not unionized.. not sure. Anyway, I think they are also the only airline to have not had MASSIVE layoffs. The moral? What the worker thinks is in their best interests is not always best for them. They shouldn't presume to know how to run the company. Even without the recession and the terrorist crap, if the unions continued ot get the pay hikes that they wanted the prices would rise, less people could afford travell and eventualy the layoffs would have happened anyway, just maybe at a slower pace.

Ok that's alot of crap to say that government manipulation of companies (or ownership) is bad for an ecconomy. All current countries (that I know of) who use such systems suffer because of it. A rich country would not just be suddenly poor, but the ecconomy would not flourish as it would under pure capitalism.

[RogueLeader]

You are still arguing against state capitalism, not socialism. Socialism only wants governmeny ownership insofar as the government as we know it is destroyed and replaced with one that is equivalent to the people. The state in its current form is a seperate entity that rules over us. To give something that is unaccountable ownership of the things we depend on, like the economy, would be moronic. But in true socialism the people themselves are the state, and therefore state ownership is community ownership.

["Sp!ke"]

"Everybody (in the proletariat) wants communism. All workers are naturally socialist. Workers want the things socialism brings: good benefits, shorter working hours, better working conditions, higher wages, and job security. Most of the good conditions we have today in the U.S. (minimum wage and the 8 hour work day to name a couple) were the results of the Socialist Party's program. The reason workers do not join the socialist movement is they either do not know anything about socialism or are misinformed (just look at all the people who think communism is totalitarian because that
bourgeoisie Uncle Sam says so), or are simply apolitical."

They may want "good benefits, shorter working hours, better working conditions, higher wages, and job security" but they dont want communism cos thats just evil...may i suggest a name change from communism too "everybody-richism" or something like that because youll never get communism in such a well educated nation...seriously(well half serious considering i havnt slept for at least 30hours...) communism will never happen in the US simply bcause of people like Gates and thousands of others that live "the American dream" which for me in general means: Being better and richer than your neighbour, and they like feeling that they are worth more than their fellow beings, I know people like it simply because Iam richer than (nearly) everybody else around here and I like it and I wouldnt want it any other way.
I dont think people can handle being just the same as everybody else...dont bother responding if it sounded weird, it might have been....


Btw.on the education bit, I heard that harry potter got re named from "The Philosophers stone" to "The Sorcerors stone" since US kids were among the only ones in the world not understanding the meaning of the word "Philosopher"...

:D

[TheViper]

Sorry I've been too busy to participate. Hope to jump in later.

[RogueLeader]

I refuse to play games with words. I am not going to act like some Nazi and change definitions. I am not a "everybody-richest", I am a communist. Keep in mind that thousands of people is a very small percentage of the population. A vast majority of the people never become wealthy. They work harder than people like Gates and do more for society but because they do not cheat or break the law, they get left behind. I would like to remind you that good benefits, wages equal to power put into labor, shorter working hours, equal pay for equal work, and so forth, is socialism. If the workers want it, they want socialism. It's that simple.

["Sp!ke"]

"Wealthy" who do you consider wealthy?

[RogueLeader]

Wealthy=gaining more labor-power in the form of products than you spend.

[TheViper]

OK, I got a few minutes to jump in here. I don't know how you guys do it. I have to make a living in a capitalist society and can't average 11 long, thoughtful posts per day on this board like RL does. Man, that has to take some time. Do you participate in other forums, too, RL? Whatever you do for a living must allow you a lot of free time. Wonder if you would have all that free time in a communist society? I'm sure you're convinced you would, it's utopia for goodness' sake.

You said, "I refuse to play games with words. I am not going to act like some Nazi and change definitions."

Give me a break RL, you do it all the time. Right down to the basic subject matter, you only allow one narrow, specific definition of communism, but you appear to be comfortable applying the term "capitalist" to damn near any system that's not perfect communism. You labeled the old USSR political/economic system as a "capitalist" one. Absolutely and completely ludicrous. Lenin suggested using the capitalist "machinery" as a transitory means to his utopia, but that does not mean the Soviet Union used the capitalist _system_. There was almost no private or corporate capital behind any economic activity, it was all owned officially by "the people," and in reality by the state, so how you can label it "capitalism" is beyond belief. Capitalism cannot, by definition, exist in a society where private property is not allowed. You might have your own definition of capitalism that you can twist into your rhetoric, but here's one from Webster's (to which I ascribe a Hell of a lot more authority regarding defining terms than I do to you):

Capitalism: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

Yes, it's true that the USSR used "capital" in the production of goods, but that does not make the system "capitalism" any more than our welfare system makes our system a "communist" one (although it certainly gives it a bit of that flavor, and even its recipients would be better off without it). In fact, your logic would require you to refer to ANY economic system that used capital in the production of goods as "capitalistic," and that would include communism, for "capital" is defined as "accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods; or the value of those accumulated goods." How can you produce ANYTHING without the accumulation of goods for its production? And EVERYTHING that has a use has value.

I've noticed some other forum participants now referring confidently to the old USSR as "capitalist" as if it's true, and is common knowledge. Congratulations on a successful disinformation campaign. I can't believe how gullible some of these people are.

"A vast majority of the people never become wealthy. They work harder than people like Gates and do more for society but because they do not cheat or break the law, they get left behind. I would like to remind you that good benefits, wages equal to power put into labor, shorter working hours, equal pay for equal work, and so forth, is socialism. If the workers want it, they want socialism. It's that simple."

Are you kidding??? Take just the United States for instance. With few exceptions, the "poor" in the United States are WEALTHY in comparison to most of the world's current population, and wealthy in comparison to nearly ALL of the world's population of a couple of hundred years ago. Those working for (being "exploited by") Bill Gates are fabulously wealthy in comparison to the average worker in communist China. You're speaking in relative terms and misleading those poor wretches in this forum who appear to believe anything you say. In a rich society the less-rich are considered poor. That does not make them poor in reality. WHY are the "poor" in this country rich by world standards? Why, could it be because this economic system has created wealth like no economic system in the history of the world?

"Workers want the things socialism brings: good benefits, shorter working hours, better working conditions, higher wages, and job security. Most of the good conditions we have today in the U.S. (minimum wage and the 8 hour work day to name a couple) were the results of the Socialist Party's program."

Hogwash. What allows good benefits, shorter working hours, better working conditions, higher wages and job security? An efficient economic system with ever-increasing productivity. High productivity levels requires highly-efficient placement of talent and capital, in line with the needs and demands of the working and consuming population. A relatively free, capitalistic economic system gets information regarding what should be produced, in what quantities, from prices, which are determined via supply and demand. From where does that information come, and how is it practically applied, in your perfect, utopian communist system?

You say people would be free to do what they want and that all would have good benefits, short working hours, good working conditions, high wages and job security. OK, just how does that work? Without prices to give the economy the necessary information, how is it determined how many silk ties will be produced, and how they will be distributed? Napkins? PCs? Baseball bats? Name any consumer item and tell me who will decide who is involved in producing them, how it's decided how many/how much to produce, and how they will be distributed. What if making silk ties is booring and no one wants to do it, but everyone wants a nice collection of them? Who decides who will be an artist, who a laborer? Everyone is free to decide for himself? Wow, I can see everyone lining up for the hard labor jobs, they're so much fun.

In our sytem, everyone is free to TRY their best to succeed in some chosen occupation. You do what you want, but if 50% of the population wants to be musicians and acts on that desire, you'll have a lot of hungry violin players, and maybe a different choice would be better for you. In your communist society, who tells which musicians that some help is needed in the iron foundry? What happens if they all say, "no, this is a free communist society, you can't force me to do that, I am free to play the violin for a living and I'm also going to do so with a high salary, great working hours, good benefits, comfortable working conditions and enjoy the benefits of the iron foundry's production, because that's how it works with true communism, RL told me so"? In a free capitalistic society, of course, those working in the foundry do so because that's their best choice, if they had a better one they wouldn't be there. But someone has to do it. How do you entice the communist citizen to do it? After all, he can do whatever he wants for a living, and will still have "good benefits, shorter working hours, better working conditions, higher wages, and job security." No? Then who works in the damned foundry?

The fact is, you'll need very precise, efficient planning of the economy, and planning to execution requires enforcement of the plan. Without a state, who will plan the economy, and who will enforce the planners' decisions? I'll do you a favor and answer it myself: it won't happen. You'll need a planning and enforcement apparatus which won't work without authority to try to make the plan work -- ie, you'll need a state, a government. That will mean requiring people to do things they don't want to do. Even if you give up and accept an enforcement mechanism (read: governement) you won't have your good benefits, wages, hours and working conditions because the economy will be woefully inefficient and unresponsive to consumer wants. That central economic planning HAS been tried, to the ruin of people and the environment (yet another subject, when everyone owns something, no one cares about it, the tragedy of the commons).

A capitalist economy that runs via a rule of law that includes private property and the enforcement of contracts runs without planners, it is directed, to an extremely high degree of efficiency, by prices, and absolutely requires the enforceable rights of intellectual and private property.

You say communistic experiments have worked. I'll tell you how they worked -- people were free to participate or not. They were populated with a self-selected group who WANTED to live that way. If they didn't like it they could leave and return to the real world. How does that work on a world-wide scale when you don't have a select population of people who WANT to live that way? They were not, could not be, self-sufficient in producing a high standard of living (who manufactured the computers in those communes? The plow shares? The buttons for the clothing? The pencils they used to write with? Oh, no computers? What if someone wanted one? You mean material wealth was limited? People couldn't just decide they wanted a digital camera and go to the commissary and pick one up?).

You're living in a dream world, RL. If you want think that in a stateless, communist world you could be free to choose what you want to do and actually do it, and be guaranteed the high standard of living you have stated you want, and the leisure time you obviously value, you are absolutely hopeless as a participant in a logical intellecual debate. I really don't know why I'm wasting my valuable and limited time with this. I rather think this might be the last time.

[RogueLeader]

Whatever you do for a living must allow you a lot of free time.
Most of the time my posts are restricted to afternoon hours. It's called time management. If you understand what you are doing before you do it, you save time.

Give me a break RL, you do it all the time. Right down to the basic subject matter, you only allow one narrow, specific definition of communism, but you appear to be comfortable applying the term "capitalist" to damn near any system that's not perfect communism.
You mean I only apply the word communism to communism? Amazing concepts! You seem angry that I use words the way they were meant to you. Your statement reveals it all, you are upset that when your semantics game is lost you have no argument.

You labeled the old USSR political/economic system as a "capitalist" one. Absolutely and completely ludicrous. Lenin suggested using the capitalist "machinery" as a transitory means to his utopia, but that does not mean the Soviet Union used the capitalist _system_. There was almost no private or corporate capital behind any economic activity, it was all owned officially by "the people," and in reality by the state, so how you can label it "capitalism" is beyond belief.
Good thing we have an expert on Soviet history here to correct Lenin. :rolleyes: It is also ironic that you, a utopian (because only the most ludicrous utopian can believe capitalism, contrary to all historical evidence, does not lead to totalitarniam), call communism, a system based on scientific evidence, utopian. Unfortunatly for your argument, there was private ownership in the Soviet Union. You admitted it yourself. "it was all owned...in reality by the state". State ownership is PRIVATE ownership. The state in capitalism IS the bourgeois that has property rights in capitalism. So you ADMITTED that the Soviet Union was capitalist in the course of saying it wasn't, which is quite a feat.

Capitalism: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
Like I said before, you are playing a semantics game. You applied the definition of free market capitalism to all capitalism.

"state control of capital: an economic system in which the state controls the use of capital and the means of production" So your defintion and this one would be in conflict if you were correct. Whoops. Your argument is defeated.

Yes, it's true that the USSR used "capital" in the production of goods, but that does not make the system "capitalism"
Yes, it does. Capitalism is the economic system based on CAPITAL. Think for a moment, the name is somewhat self explanatory. Once again, your definition is that of free market capitalism and I already proved your definition wrong.

I've noticed some other forum participants now referring confidently to the old USSR as "capitalist" as if it's true, and is common knowledge. Congratulations on a successful disinformation campaign. I can't believe how gullible some of these people are.
It shows how gullible you believed all of what you were told which I have clearly proven wrong. It also shows how arrogant you are that you, when proven wrong, claim that it wasn't you, but in fact the English language that was wrong, because their definitions do not conform to your distorted ones. Believe it or not, our language is not centered around you.

Are you kidding??? Take just the United States for instance. With few exceptions, the "poor" in the United States are WEALTHY in comparison to most of the world's current population, and wealthy in comparison to nearly ALL of the world's population of a couple of hundred years ago. Those working for (being "exploited by") Bill Gates are fabulously wealthy in comparison to the average worker in communist China.
So what you are saying is, the workers payment is not related to the work he puts into it. And you are saying that America's workers, who WERE impovershed like all the world until the Socialist Party drive the bourgeois to give them benfits and minimum wage, have benefited from the socialist elements that have been forced to be conceded by the bourgeois? I would have never guessed...

Hogwash.
Oops, sorry, I guess I was a little wrong. I take it back. All workers want low pay, to suffer from disease, to be fired constantly, and want their children sent to factories to die. Thank you for correcting me. :rolleyes:

An efficient economic system with ever-increasing productivity
So now you say you want socialism? Since socialism increases efficiency, yet capitalism can only improve efficiency by reducing the costs that must be conceded to labor (thus meaning higher efficiency only benefits them), I assume that is what you are saying.

A relatively free, capitalistic economic system gets information regarding what should be produced, in what quantities, from prices, which are determined via supply and demand. From where does that information come, and how is it practically applied, in your perfect, utopian communist system?
In your utopian dream world, where theft is okay, the workers don't want pay, want their children murdered, and don't want benefits, which even you concede can be at best "relatively free" (i.e. totalitarian), price is NOT determined by only supply and demand. It is also determined by the call to offer and competition. From someone who says so many things so wrong I would expect no better an understanding of economics. But then again, you also hate a free economic system like communism where all workers can contribute, so your support for authoritarianism does not surprise me.

Without prices to give the economy the necessary information, how is it determined how many silk ties will be produced, and how they will be distributed?
Distribtion by the people, like it is now, only then it will be all people. Who said anything about there being no prices in socialism? There is still currency in socialism. The price is now the LEVEL OF VALUE of the product, not greater.

In our sytem, everyone is free to TRY their best to succeed in some chosen occupation
LOL! :p Nice to know those starving Ethopian people can get a good IT job and TRY to succeed. This is what I mean when I prove you are utopian. You are so horribly naive and gullible. :rolleyes:

You'll need a planning and enforcement apparatus which won't work without authority to try to make the plan work -- ie, you'll need a state, a government. That will mean requiring people to do things they don't want to do. Even if you give up and accept an enforcement mechanism (read: governement)
Authority != the state. By your logic, a teacher in a school is the state since they have authority. So apparently if a teacher punches another teacher it is an act of war, using your system. Socialism has a state, but it equals the people.

You say communistic experiments have worked. I'll tell you how they worked -- people were free to participate or not. They were populated with a self-selected group who WANTED to live that way. If they didn't like it they could leave and return to the real world. How does that work on a world-wide scale when you don't have a select population of people who WANT to live that way? They were not, could not be, self-sufficient in producing a high standard of living (who manufactured the computers in those communes? The plow shares? The buttons for the clothing? The pencils they used to write with? Oh, no computers? What if someone wanted one? You mean material wealth was limited? People couldn't just decide they wanted a digital camera and go to the commissary and pick one up?).
All workers do want to live in communism. Oh wait, I forgot, it is hogwash to say the workers want pay, safe children, health, and so forth. So the socialist experiment (and you must mean the Paris Commune since it is the only one), was not self sufficient? Amazing! One city was not self-sufficient! I hope you didn't work too hard to figure that out. That only confirms the Marxian theory of world revolution. Most of this paragraph is funny in its idiocy. It seems that with your attempt to redefine every word in the English language ahving failed, you now resort to the most absurd attempts to theorize certain situations. What if, for some reason, there are no computers, and someone wants one? Then they don't get one. Duh. How do you give someone what you don't have. How, in capitalism, would they get computers? They don't. Duh. You can't give someone what you don't have. That is logic. You have made the most amazing list of non sequiturs in one paragraph I have ever seen in my life. It is almost as random as above when you said, "From where does this information come...in...communism", after talking about prices. You went from prices, and then refered to prices as "this information", which was totally senseless.

You're living in a dream world, RL
Oh, right, it's hogwash to say the workers want pay! I forgot! If it is a dream world to want to scientifically study human society, sign me up for that dream world. Humerously, your "real world" is one where you argue about a system you clearly know nothing about, and make senseless illogical arguments against those who have proven that the English language should not be rewritten to fit one man's mad designs.

you are absolutely hopeless as a participant in a logical intellecual debate.
To the fool, he speaks wisdom sounds foolish. Likewise, to the madman who speaks nothing but random non sequiturs, he who can make a coherent paragraph (coincidentally also using real definitions), makes no sense.

I've decimated every one of your arguments. In summary, your arguments were that the USSR was not capitalist. I have proven that wrong. That the definitions of communism and capitalism should be changed. I proved that wrong. That the workers don't want higher pay or benefits. I proved that wrong. That capitalism is "relatively free" (you couldn't even claim it was actually free). I proved that wrong. Finally, I have proven that your utopian dream of perfect flawless capitalism is a lie. I have You simply have not become educated enough yet to grow out of your idealism. You still have a naive outlook on life, that "everything is all right" outlook.

I have proven that wrong.

[TheViper]

Oh, my God. Can you say "straw man?" You set up a conclusion you claim I came to which I did not, or a claim I have made which I have not, then you shoot it down and claim victory (I included the definition of straw man for the benefit of anyone reading this who is not trained in the art of rhetoric. You presumably know what it is because you use it so frequently. However, you have not mastered its use; you must learn to be more subtle if you wish to be more effective. You should not use a blunderbuss when a nicely concealed stiletto would suffice.

"I've decimated every one of your arguments."

You didn't even touch them. You dodged them, mainly with straw men. There were a couple of points you tried to make that did not use straw men:

"In summary, your arguments were that the USSR was not capitalist. I have proven that wrong."

Yes, I did say the USSR was not capitalist. It was not. Your "proof" was that ownership by the State equals private ownership. My goodness. That wasn't even a subtle error. The use of capital in an economic system does not make it a "capitalist" system. You are the one changing definitions. A capitalist system requires that the majority of capital reside in private hands, not the hands of the State. Government property does not equal private property. If you try to equate those, go take an intellectual honesty pill and cease pointing a finger at me and claiming I am changing definitions. My goodness Gracious.

The other: "That capitalism is "relatively free" (you couldn't even claim it was actually free). I proved that wrong."

I did not wish to claim that capitalism, as it is currently in existence, is completely free. There are no completely free markets, not on nation-wide scales. This was, come to think of it, a bit of a straw man after all. You implied that I had a desire to claim it was completely free, I do not. It is not. Even the definition of capitalism I thoughtfully provided for you allowed that not all transactions in a capitalist system are driven by a completely free market.

"That the definitions of communism and capitalism should be changed. I proved that wrong."

Straw man. I didn't suggest the definitions be changed. I used the Webster's definition of "capitalism." That sufficed, I don't need or wish to see it changed. And - I didn't even offer a definition of "communism." You have plainly, for all to see, taken words out of my keyboard that were not keyed in, then claimed to have proven them wrong. VERY nice straw man. But clumsily done.

"That the workers don't want higher pay or benefits. I proved that wrong."

Call out the crows. Another straw man. Of COURSE workers want higher pay and benefits. You equate that universal desire with a desire of all workers for communism [an accurate paraphrase of your words]. To take that as a given presumes it is a given that communism is the only system that would result in higher pay and benefits. A reasonable debate requires a basic set of presumptions upon which both sides agree. We don't agree on that one (it is actually a point of our debate), so please don't use a conclusion with which I disagree as a component of a "proof" which you imply I must agree with. Duh. History has shown that the capitalist system DOES result in higher pay and benefits, in real terms, over time. You say that before the Socialist Party platform influenced our system of wealth redistribution, workers in the United States were poverty-stricken ["...America's workers, who WERE impovershed like all the world until the Socialist Party drive the bourgeois to give them benfits and minimum wage... ."]. Oh? Was net immigration to the United States in the 19th century a positive or a negative number? You know the answer, of course. The USA was where the world wanted to live in the 19th century. Why? Because that's where economic opportunity existed like nowhere else on Earth. You apparently (you'll notice no straw man here, I say "apparently," because this is my best guess at where your impression came from) are applying 21st Century standards of poverty to the 19th Century. Yes, the average worker in the 19th Century was impoverished by our 21st Century standards (which I already pointed out in a previous post), but not by contemporary 19th Century world standards. The system of private property and relatively free markets resulted in an unprecedented set of incentives to create, invent, exchange and increase prosperity (incentives which would be terribly corrupted in a communist system), gradually and inevitably creating previously unimaginable wealth over time. That you would ignore the lessons of history and imply that communism is the only system which can result in "pay, safe children, health, and so forth," is not indicative of the use of reason (to put it tactfully). The acceleration of the creation of wealth and the direction of improved public health was set long before the Socialist Party of America published its infamous early 20th Century platform. Whether the impact of the incorporation of the Socialist Party's plaform into our systems of law and wealth redistribution had a positive or negative influence on economic progress is a subject still being debated by better economic minds than yours and mine; it is far from being decided. You can pick your side. The side that says all people, rich and "poor" alike, would have been better off without such intervention, than they are today with it, makes a much better case, IMO. I'm sure you disagree. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine.

"You mean I only apply the word communism to communism? Amazing concepts! You seem angry that I use words the way they were meant to you. Your statement reveals it all, you are upset that when your semantics game is lost you have no argument."

Straw man. No, I'm not even angry. But to the point, what I meant (and you know what I meant) was that while you require a system to perfectly adhere to your concept of pure communism in order to be called communist (neatly allowing you to ignore the failures of all imperfect communist systems), you easily refer to systems which hardly resemble capitalism as "capitalist" (thus neatly allowing you to blame the failures of literally all economic systems, all of which require capital in order to function, on capitalism). I am willing to admit that a perfectly free market capitalist system would have problems of its own (utopia is not an option), wherease you apparently are reluctant to consider that a perfectly correct communist system would have flaws. Repeat after me: Utopia is not an option. Utopia is not an option.

"Finally, I have proven that your utopian dream of perfect flawless capitalism is a lie."

Sigh...straw man. This one is particularly blatant, for in a recent conversation with you I made it clear that I believe in no perfect systems, no flawless utopias. This is what I said, "This is funny...I'm usually arguing about the benefits of small govenment against some proponent of big government. Now I find myself arguing the benefits of _some_ government against a proponent of NO government. Well, utopia is not an option for any of us, unfortunately." Go check it out: http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97542&highlight=utopia+is+not+an+option
RL, I have no utopian dreams of "perfect flawless capitalism," and you obviously knew that before setting up that scarecrow in order to easily knock it down. *sigh*

"You still have a naive outlook on life, that "everything is all right" outlook. I have proven that wrong."

Technically a straw man. You do not know me well enough to know my "outlook on life." I most certainly do not have an "everything is all right" outlook, although I'll admit I'm an optomist about many things. I'm pessimistic about many things, as well. Reality guides me there. I would tell you to look before you leap in making a point, but you knew full well what you were doing with that rhetorical trick. You might know crapola about applied economics (Marxist/Leninist THEORY is NOT applied economics, and a little 3 month experiment where the long-term self-sufficiency of an economic system could not be tested does not represent an example of applied economics), but you do know how to confuse some people who haven't learned and practiced the art of rhetoric.

And you know what? You completely dodged the main topic of my post (one of the objects of your rhetorical style -- if you can't win the point, draw the debate elsewhere...nice try), which was to point out that for an economy to function even at a rudimentary level, it must be controlled by something. In a free market (please allow me to use the term loosely, both of us understanding that no market is completely free...oh, except that you think a communist market would be completely free, I forget)...in a free market, prices, and how people respond to them, are what primarily determine what is made, how much, and how it is distributed. Prices won't work in your society as a controlling factor, because even if they could be set properly, people won't respond to them appropriately. If there is a shortage of pencils, will the price of pencils increase? Who will decide (a vote of all the people)? The pencil seller won't care, he gets no profit from their sale (he doesn't own the pencils, so he can't claim any profit), he'll just sell them for the same low price (or his patrons will be very upset) until they're gone (and the late-comers will be upset, he'll shrug his shoulders and tell them he's just a storekeeper, he doesn't conrol the supply). When the pencils are gone, what then? Who will decide how production is to be increased (for it obviously needs to be, or people will go without pencils)? Will people rush to build pencil factories? No, the incentive of rising prices, and profit to be made from them, will not be there. Some central authority to decide, perhaps? But there's no authoritative government, only "the people." So do they take a vote and let the whole of the people decide all the little details of how more pencils are to be made? That might get a bit cumbersome. Have you ever read "I, Pencil"?

"You simply have not become educated enough yet to grow out of your idealism."

Now, that's rich. You know, I really hate that old saw about the pot calling the kettle black, but I really can't think of a better response to this. I had previously renounced, in your presence, the idea that utopia is remotely possible. You hold a concept of perfect communism, where private property does not exist, no one is motivated by profit, yet everyone is equal in a high level of material wealth, everyone lives a relatively easy life with great hours, perfect job security, and no money worries, there are no wars because there are no governments to wage them, ... . And you claim I am the idealist? My goodness Gracious' sakes alive.

Oh, and let me repeat that last little gem of yours: "You simply have not become educated enough yet to grow out of your idealism."

RL, you don't want to get into a c___ measuring contest with me about which of us has the most extensive and varied education and which of us has had the most hard-nosed, idealism-busting real world experience in politics. Believe me, you don't.

Your technique of straw men and rhetorical slight-of-hand is well-used by people who can't argue their weak positions straight up, because it's so frequently effective in influencing naive onlookers, and against inexperienced debate opponents. However, it is not very effective if the opponent (or your audience) knows what you're up to, and certainly not if you use it as clumsily and obviously as you do. You have much to learn if you hope to convert the masses to your utopian dream. Perhaps I have been of assistance in pointing out some flaws on which you can work.

[Cholo Grande]

Ok I admittedly didn't read the last couple long posts. My PC has been down and I'll have to catch up on them later. This definition of "state capitalism" goes against the very definition of capitalism.

First off we need to distinguish between the three basic groups of theory we are discussing. They are ecconomic theory, political thoery, and social theory. Ecconomic theory is, of course, the ecconomic system you favor and, I think, the most important building block for a society. Political theory is the idea of how people should be governed and what the functions of that government should be. Social theory is alot harder to nail down because it is so dependent on the other two. We keep reffering to the social aspect of these various theories and fail to make the separation between a social theory and the ecconomic and political theories we think would bring it about.

As far as ecconomic theory capitalism is based on the notion that trade and enterprise should function seperately from the government. It should be allowed to rise and fall through pure supply and demand. The notion of "state capitalism" doesn't really fall under the definition of capitalism in my eyes. It sounds more like the ecconomic system proposed to tie into fascism, which I do not consider capitalism. American politics are slowly leading us toward a fascist system of ecconomics and the fuel is the hatred of the rich. People actualy buy this nonsense that you can't rise above your station. The beauty of capitalism is that ANYONE who is willing to use the rescources they have can expand beyond their current station and move into a higher ecconomic caste. The downside is that there HAS to be a lower caste. "Somone has to cook the french fries."

To say that people can't rise above their station offends me greatly. The only excuse people have who don't have a physical or mental limitation is lazyness. Five generations ago my family were farm laborors. My Great great grandfather saved and started his own small farm in Virginia. He never became "rich" but increased his station from pretty much the lowest income at the time to middle to lower middle class. My Great Grandfather sold the farm and started a small lumber yard and hardware store with his money. My Grandfather inhereted the business and grew it with hard work into one of the largest lumber suppliers in the area. He was very wealthy and I would go so far as to call him "rich". He was stricken very ill and has since died. His wife squandered the business during his illness and the inheritance left to my parents was rather small. A multi-million dollar business translated into about 150K for my parents. This just shows that workers CAN gain the means of production in captialism. My in-laws are Mexican imigrants. They worked as fry cooks for a restaurant for over 10 years making about 9 dollars an hour. They scrimped saved, each worked two jobs. They now own the restaurant they came to work for and own their house outright, the restaurant and pay cash for absolutely everything. When they came here they couldn't speak english and had NOTHING but their clothes. Capitalism works for those not too lazy to grasp opportunity.

The problem with the majority of American workers is that they are just too damn lazy and apathetic to do anything. Everyone has a "give me" complex and thinks that something is owed to them by the rich because they must have "cheated" to get where they are. Look at imigrants. When they come alot of them have absolutely NOTHING. Most of them don't become "rich", but compared to their past situation they do become quite wealthy. Ecconomic freedom exists for those not scared to reach for it. It means risk. It means taking a chance of screwing up and being worse off then when you started, but capitalism is the only ecconomic system that will provide for a working class person to become a wealthy person.

Politicaly you don't really explain how communism will work other than saying that the state will "become the people". In a modern large sized first world country this is just rhetoric. There will have to be some sort of representive system in place. It still comes down to ruling the few with a representative body of few. When you put the job of regulating the entire ecconmic and goods distribution system in the hands of the few, no matter what your intentions, you risk tyranny. Look at the Soviet Union again. You stated that Stalin abandoned the system for fascist tyranny. Every major communist venture has ended up in tyranny around the world (excepting your previous example that does not relate to a a large population nation). In politics you have to balance the academic with the reality of political systems. Political theory, like most theories involving sociology and human behavior, doesn't always follow from the academic writings.

Social thoery we both seem to agree on. Freedom. As a Libertarian I believe that government should not interfere in the social freedoms unless those freedoms infringe on the freedom, life or property of another citizen. The main purpose of government should be to protect citizens from deviants and foreign powers that would attempt to infringe on a citizen liberties. We are a far cry from the Constitutional limitations of government in this country. The great deception that has provided for this is that Americans believe we are a democracy. We are a constitutional republic and that means that the will of the people is to be balanced with indirect representation and a document that limits the power the of government. To me it seems that the constitution is simply being ignored in regard to all the limitations our government is supposed to have.

Oh well. I'm at work and can't continue rambling... time for a cup of coffee.

[TheViper]

Not bad for being composed in a bit of break at work, Cholo. I agree 120%.
TheViper <------ 100/100 on the Nolan Chart (aka the Diamond Chart, aka The World's Smallest Political Quiz).

See http://www.self-gov.org/

[RogueLeader]

The use of capital in an economic system does not make it a "capitalist" system
Apparently, I did not dodge this point since I have already proven it wrong. Gee, let me think...capital...capitalism...hmmm...

I'm afraid you are WRONG (gee, imagine that!). ANY system with capital is capitalism. According to you, state capitalism is not capitalism; since state capitalism is capitalism in which capital is owned by the state, definitionally you are wrong. So you are changing definitions, and you have dodged that point MULTIPLE times. You have yet to not ignore that state capitalism, under your definition, isn't, contrary to its definition, capitalism.

I did not wish to claim that capitalism, as it is currently in existence, is completely free. There are no completely free markets, not on nation-wide scales. This was, come to think of it, a bit of a straw man after all. You implied that I had a desire to claim it was completely free, I do not. It is not. Even the definition of capitalism I thoughtfully provided for you allowed that not all transactions in a capitalist system are driven by a completely free market.
This is very strange. You just said "capitalism, as it is currently in existence." You thus admit capitalism is in existence. You then say "there are no completely free markets". But according to your definition of capitalism, it must be free market capitalism to be capitalism ("An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"). Therefore, you say capitalism exists, but according to your definitions, nowhere is capitalist. How do you justify this? You say that your definition says that the market does not have to be free! After you definition explicitly states that prices, production, and distribution are determined mainly by a free market, you say they are not! Now, I bet you will try to weasel out of this by saying "but it says 'mainly'!" If you understand english you know that "mainly" is an adverb applied to "determined", and determined is a verb that applies to the subjects if "prices, production, and distribution", not to "free market". It is not a "mainly free market". It is a "free market" or it is not. And your definition states that it is in a free market that capitalism exists.

So fess up, Dippy, either your definition is wrong or you are. After I have proven you wrong, you tried to change your story and got called out.

Straw man. I didn't suggest the definitions be changed. I used the Webster's definition of "capitalism." That sufficed, I don't need or wish to see it changed. And - I didn't even offer a definition of "communism." You have plainly, for all to see, taken words out of my keyboard that were not keyed in, then claimed to have proven them wrong. VERY nice straw man. But clumsily done.
You used webster's definition ONLY to copy and paste it, then went on to define it totally differently. I have PROVEN that above. I bet you will try to ignore this again and say I didn't. It is clear to anyone reading this that you lost. Are you still denying my proof above? Are you going to say that your definition says "mainly free market"? When I wrote the above response, I was with friends and jokingly said that since I destroyed your arguments you would probably just deny you ever made them and resort to more personal attacks, as I have seen here from many people, and was correct as usual. You didn't say outright to change definitions, that was the debate method you used. Capitalism is any economic system in which capital is produced. You tried to change it to be that all capitalism has to be free market capitalism. Did you bother to look up "state capitalism". Here is Webster's definition: "an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control." Note that it says that it is a variation on "private capitalism." That indicates that its definition for capitalism is that of PRIVATE CAPITALISM, not capitalism in general.

I don't need to use Webster's own defintions to refute you though. Simply the fact that you used Webster's is proof that you need to use incredible sources. You do know the history of Webster's Dictionary, do you not?

I want to hear your definition of capital (not what the people at webster's have to say, and not one specific to private capitalism). Do you even know what capital is?

Of COURSE workers want higher pay and benefits. You equate that universal desire with a desire of all workers for communism [an accurate paraphrase of your words].
First, I responded to what you said literally. You literally called it hogwash when I said the workers wanted higher pay. If you didn't mean that, you shouldn't have said it.

Now on to refuting even your hidden meaning in your statement. Yes, since communism provides that and capitalism does not. Capitalism, even according to the theororists who support it, does not pay according to work. But then again, you don't seem to know what capitalism is, so your mistake is understandable.

History has shown that the capitalist system DOES result in higher pay and benefits, in real terms, over time.
WRONG! If we look at the U.S. (and I do not know the history of other states' economies, but since the U.S. is the most advanced economically, and the only one to not have been ravaged by war this century, I presume it is the most optimistic capitalist outcome), the only time workers' pay has increased has been during periods in which labor unions have become powerful, and since worker organization is socialist, you must not approve of labor unions. Overall, people during the depression still had 66% as much money we have today. It seems odd our median income per year could be only $10,000 away from that of people who lived in one of if not the poorest set of conditions to ever exist in the United States. That includes the influence of the SP in raising wages and benefits as well. If you factor out any increase in wages caused by socialist movements, you would probably have negative growth, very small growth at best. And this is using the U.S., the best possible example. In most places in the world, capitalism has totally done a number on everyone, including most of the bourgeois.

You apparently (you'll notice no straw man here, I say "apparently," because this is my best guess at where your impression came from) are applying 21st Century standards of poverty to the 19th Century
Poverty is an arbitrary distinction, and I place it at the point where people can no longer live comfortably. You probably think "but back then you couldn't live comfortably no matter what." Hogwash, as you would say. People could live quite comfortably back in Rome. As long as comfort can be possibly given to the entire population, someone who does not live in comfort is in poverty. At that time comfort could have been given to the entire population.

The acceleration of the creation of wealth and the direction of improved public health was set long before the Socialist Party of America published its infamous early 20th Century platform. Whether the impact of the incorporation of the Socialist Party's plaform into our systems of law and wealth redistribution had a positive or negative influence on economic progress is a subject still being debated by better economic minds than yours and mine; it is far from being decided. You can pick your side. The side that says all people, rich and "poor" alike, would have been better off without such intervention, than they are today with it, makes a much better case, IMO. I'm sure you disagree. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine.
Wealth can only be generated with labor. Increased wealth production has meant increased labor. America has had the greatest creation of wealth, but its people work harder and longer than any other industrial nation on the planet. Therefore you cannot equate this increase with efficiency of capitalism, but rather the labor of the working class. There is no case that the people would be better off without socialist influence. The facts speak for themselves. Look at the growth of median incomes and compare it to the growth of labor unions.

I won't change your mind, you won't change mine.
I don't expect to change your mind, I am correcting, for anyone else who reads this thread (by this point probably very few) your incorrect definitions and all of the evils that your incorrect definitions therefore associate with communism and socialism.

you easily refer to systems which hardly resemble capitalism as "capitalist"
Once again this is the result of your incorrect definition. Any economic system with capital is capitalist. I don't call every country "free market capitalist". Some our free market, some are state capitalist, some mix both, but whether free market, state, or state and free market, it is always capitalism. Communism is very different from capitalism because capitalism is simply an economic system, and a very general one, but communism is a very specific society model. Saying that I apply one strictly and one loosely is like saying I apply the word food to all foods but only apply the word pizza to a piece of food that fits a very exact description.

wherease you apparently are reluctant to consider that a perfectly correct communist system would have flaws. Repeat after me: Utopia is not an option. Utopia is not an option
I want you to quote me where I said "communism is perfect". Please do that. Can you find any moment I said communism is flawless? It isn't flawless, but its as good as man's dynamic social model inherent in his evolution can achieve.

And you know what? You completely dodged the main topic of my post (one of the objects of your rhetorical style -- if you can't win the point, draw the debate elsewhere...nice try), which was to point out that for an economy to function even at a rudimentary level, it must be controlled by something.
You expected me to get that point with you misusing your pronouns? If what you meant when you said "From where does that information come, and how is it practically applied, in your perfect, utopian communist system", is "What controls the economy in communism", then you should have said that. To refute it now that you reveal your hidden meaning: the workers do.

And by the way, when someone proves you wrong, and you say that they did not because the topic of what you said was actually something completely different, that just looks childish.

Shortages are the result of a bad distribution of labor. That is also the reason we have the boom-bust cycle of capitalism. If one market produces too much, prices drop and the market gets screwed. You seem to be applying supply and demand curves to socialism. There is no supply and demand, prices is ALWAYS based on the value of the labor of the product. You only need supply and demand when you have capital. I won't tell you why because I want to hear your definition of capital and telling you why would reveal the real definition.

RL, you don't want to get into a c___ measuring contest with me about which of us has the most extensive and varied education and which of us has had the most hard-nosed, idealism-busting real world experience in politics. Believe me, you don't.
You don't know my life. You presume a lot.

Your technique of straw men and rhetorical slight-of-hand is well-used by people who can't argue their weak positions straight up, because it's so frequently effective in influencing naive onlookers, and against inexperienced debate opponents. However, it is not very effective if the opponent (or your audience) knows what you're up to, and certainly not if you use it as clumsily and obviously as you do. You have much to learn if you hope to convert the masses to your utopian dream. Perhaps I have been of assistance in pointing out some flaws on which you can work.
Nice try. :p You didn't fool anyone. No offense, but you arn't a good debater. Better people than you have tried your method of debate, when you accuse the other person of doing what you do. Sadly, you do it very badly. A good person, when saying they didn't actually say such and such (and thus their opponent must have dodged the subject) do not go ahead and say exactly what their opponent argued against to begin with. You have claimed repeatedly that I dodged your real arguments, then go on to say your arguments were exactly what I said! Oh, and don't use personal attacks in your posts. They work for some people, but you're not one of them. You arn't good enough with words to cover up the fact that they only indicate you have no agument.

Nice try, but you crashed and burned this time.



Thank you to Cholo Grande for knowing how to actually have a civil, intellectual argument. I'm glad there are still some mature people in this thread.

To say that people can't rise above their station offends me greatly
Some people can, but to say that everyone can is just as wrong as to say no one can. It isn't always laziness. If everyone could climb the ladder, we would have almost nothing but corporate executives. Right now the system is such that a few people get big slices of the pie and most people get a small piece. If everyone tried to get the huge pieces, we'd run out of pie real fast.

The problem with the majority of American workers is that they are just too damn lazy and apathetic to do anything.
I have to disagree. Americans work longer and harder than any other people on the planet. We are the most industrious people on Earth, which is one reason why our nation has so much wealth.

Social thoery we both seem to agree on. Freedom. As a Libertarian I believe that government should not interfere in the social freedoms unless those freedoms infringe on the freedom, life or property of another citizen.
I agree. A true socialist wants freedom. I don't want government in its current form involved in the economy. I only want it to own the economy in so much as the people are the government. Unfortunately, governments in our current system are composed only of the elite who will have no regard for the peple.

[TheViper]

"Apparently, I did not dodge this point since I have already proven it wrong. Gee, let me think...capital...capitalism...hmmm..."

Let me think...commune...communism...hmmm... ." There have been lots of experiments in communism, come to think of it, right RL? Must have been hundreds here in the USA in the late '60s and early '70s alone. Oh, those hippie communes didn't represent Communism as you see it? Why not? They were communes. They must have been communist systems. You don't have to rely just on the Paris experiment anymore, RL! See how ludicrous this is? You accused me of changing definitions, when I have not, and you persist in it. The requirement for capital does not a "capitalist" system make, any more than the existence of a commune makes a "communist" system. Otherwise, you would have to consider even your purest communist system capitalist. Those terms have definitions. Not all that glitters is gold.

That's all I have time for at the moment, must go celebrate the new year's eve.

[RogueLeader]

They were communist. There are three types of communism: Primitive, Utopian, and Scientific. The communes we have had in America, with the exceptions of the Seattle and St. Louis Communes, which were Full Communist, have been the result of what is known as Utopian Communism, a theory formed by Thomas More in his book Utopia.

All are communist because they are stateless, purely democratic, and all people involved work on their own. Primitive communism is the form of this that existed during the dawn of man. Utopian is the form that has been practiced most in America. They always have and always will fail because they try to change people overnight and try to practice their system in isolation. Scientific communism is that of Marx that scientifically studies human society in order to find how man will reach communism gradually and worldwide.

[NTKB]

Originally posted by RogueLeader

Apparently, I did not dodge this point since I have already proven it wrong. Gee, let me think...capital...capitalism...hmmm...

I'm afraid you are WRONG (gee, imagine that!). ANY system with capital is capitalism. According to you, state capitalism is not capitalism; since state capitalism is capitalism in which capital is owned by the state, definitionally you are wrong. So you are changing definitions, and you have dodged that point MULTIPLE times. You have yet to not ignore that state capitalism, under your definition, isn't, contrary to its definition, capitalism.


This is very strange. You just said "capitalism, as it is currently in existence." You thus admit capitalism is in existence. You then say "there are no completely free markets". But according to your definition of capitalism, it must be free market capitalism to be capitalism ("An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"). Therefore, you say capitalism exists, but according to your definitions, nowhere is capitalist. How do you justify this? You say that your definition says that the market does not have to be free! After you definition explicitly states that prices, production, and distribution are determined mainly by a free market, you say they are not! Now, I bet you will try to weasel out of this by saying "but it says 'mainly'!" If you understand english you know that "mainly" is an adverb applied to "determined", and determined is a verb that applies to the subjects if "prices, production, and distribution", not to "free market". It is not a "mainly free market". It is a "free market" or it is not. And your definition states that it is in a free market that capitalism exists.

So fess up, Dippy, either your definition is wrong or you are. After I have proven you wrong, you tried to change your story and got called out.


You used webster's definition ONLY to copy and paste it, then went on to define it totally differently. I have PROVEN that above. I bet you will try to ignore this again and say I didn't. It is clear to anyone reading this that you lost. Are you still denying my proof above? Are you going to say that your definition says "mainly free market"? When I wrote the above response, I was with friends and jokingly said that since I destroyed your arguments you would probably just deny you ever made them and resort to more personal attacks, as I have seen here from many people, and was correct as usual. You didn't say outright to change definitions, that was the debate method you used. Capitalism is any economic system in which capital is produced. You tried to change it to be that all capitalism has to be free market capitalism. Did you bother to look up "state capitalism". Here is Webster's definition: "an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control." Note that it says that it is a variation on "private capitalism." That indicates that its definition for capitalism is that of PRIVATE CAPITALISM, not capitalism in general.

I don't need to use Webster's own defintions to refute you though. Simply the fact that you used Webster's is proof that you need to use incredible sources. You do know the history of Webster's Dictionary, do you not?

I want to hear your definition of capital (not what the people at webster's have to say, and not one specific to private capitalism). Do you even know what capital is?


First, I responded to what you said literally. You literally called it hogwash when I said the workers wanted higher pay. If you didn't mean that, you shouldn't have said it.

Now on to refuting even your hidden meaning in your statement. Yes, since communism provides that and capitalism does not. Capitalism, even according to the theororists who support it, does not pay according to work. But then again, you don't seem to know what capitalism is, so your mistake is understandable.


WRONG! If we look at the U.S. (and I do not know the history of other states' economies, but since the U.S. is the most advanced economically, and the only one to not have been ravaged by war this century, I presume it is the most optimistic capitalist outcome), the only time workers' pay has increased has been during periods in which labor unions have become powerful, and since worker organization is socialist, you must not approve of labor unions. Overall, people during the depression still had 66% as much money we have today. It seems odd our median income per year could be only $10,000 away from that of people who lived in one of if not the poorest set of conditions to ever exist in the United States. That includes the influence of the SP in raising wages and benefits as well. If you factor out any increase in wages caused by socialist movements, you would probably have negative growth, very small growth at best. And this is using the U.S., the best possible example. In most places in the world, capitalism has totally done a number on everyone, including most of the bourgeois.


Poverty is an arbitrary distinction, and I place it at the point where people can no longer live comfortably. You probably think "but back then you couldn't live comfortably no matter what." Hogwash, as you would say. People could live quite comfortably back in Rome. As long as comfort can be possibly given to the entire population, someone who does not live in comfort is in poverty. At that time comfort could have been given to the entire population.


Wealth can only be generated with labor. Increased wealth production has meant increased labor. America has had the greatest creation of wealth, but its people work harder and longer than any other industrial nation on the planet. Therefore you cannot equate this increase with efficiency of capitalism, but rather the labor of the working class. There is no case that the people would be better off without socialist influence. The facts speak for themselves. Look at the growth of median incomes and compare it to the growth of labor unions.


I don't expect to change your mind, I am correcting, for anyone else who reads this thread (by this point probably very few) your incorrect definitions and all of the evils that your incorrect definitions therefore associate with communism and socialism.


Once again this is the result of your incorrect definition. Any economic system with capital is capitalist. I don't call every country "free market capitalist". Some our free market, some are state capitalist, some mix both, but whether free market, state, or state and free market, it is always capitalism. Communism is very different from capitalism because capitalism is simply an economic system, and a very general one, but communism is a very specific society model. Saying that I apply one strictly and one loosely is like saying I apply the word food to all foods but only apply the word pizza to a piece of food that fits a very exact description.


I want you to quote me where I said "communism is perfect". Please do that. Can you find any moment I said communism is flawless? It isn't flawless, but its as good as man's dynamic social model inherent in his evolution can achieve.


You expected me to get that point with you misusing your pronouns? If what you meant when you said "From where does that information come, and how is it practically applied, in your perfect, utopian communist system", is "What controls the economy in communism", then you should have said that. To refute it now that you reveal your hidden meaning: the workers do.

And by the way, when someone proves you wrong, and you say that they did not because the topic of what you said was actually something completely different, that just looks childish.

Shortages are the result of a bad distribution of labor. That is also the reason we have the boom-bust cycle of capitalism. If one market produces too much, prices drop and the market gets screwed. You seem to be applying supply and demand curves to socialism. There is no supply and demand, prices is ALWAYS based on the value of the labor of the product. You only need supply and demand when you have capital. I won't tell you why because I want to hear your definition of capital and telling you why would reveal the real definition.


You don't know my life. You presume a lot.


Nice try. :p You didn't fool anyone. No offense, but you arn't a good debater. Better people than you have tried your method of debate, when you accuse the other person of doing what you do. Sadly, you do it very badly. A good person, when saying they didn't actually say such and such (and thus their opponent must have dodged the subject) do not go ahead and say exactly what their opponent argued against to begin with. You have claimed repeatedly that I dodged your real arguments, then go on to say your arguments were exactly what I said! Oh, and don't use personal attacks in your posts. They work for some people, but you're not one of them. You arn't good enough with words to cover up the fact that they only indicate you have no agument.

Nice try, but you crashed and burned this time.



Thank you to Cholo Grande for knowing how to actually have a civil, intellectual argument. I'm glad there are still some mature people in this thread.


Some people can, but to say that everyone can is just as wrong as to say no one can. It isn't always laziness. If everyone could climb the ladder, we would have almost nothing but corporate executives. Right now the system is such that a few people get big slices of the pie and most people get a small piece. If everyone tried to get the huge pieces, we'd run out of pie real fast.


I have to disagree. Americans work longer and harder than any other people on the planet. We are the most industrious people on Earth, which is one reason why our nation has so much wealth.


I agree. A true socialist wants freedom. I don't want government in its current form involved in the economy. I only want it to own the economy in so much as the people are the government. Unfortunately, governments in our current system are composed only of the elite who will have no regard for the peple.

Hey rogue dont quite your day job :lol: ;) :)

[DEFkon]

Perhaps one day there will be a utopian society. But alas, i do not believe man will not be a part of it. Men are not equall, and life isn't fair.

[RogueLeader]

There will be a utopia, once man wipes himself out.

Utopia next week!!!

[The_Fur]

no way, i want to start the 6th reich first (guess which one is the 5th).

And wtf is this:

I have to disagree. Americans work longer and harder than any other people on the planet. We are the most industrious people on Earth, which is one reason why our nation has so much wealth.

You've got to be kidding me, I'd say the people who support your wealth (all those people working in sweatshops all over the world to make your low quality crap) work a hell of a lot harder then you at less wage as well.
The only reason the US is so wealthy is because it lacks an organised counter-force, it has absolutely nothing to do with "hard work".

[RogueLeader]

I said it had partly to do with it. It also helps that the U.S. is very imperialist. But a comparison of working hours of people from every industrialized nation has shown that Americans do work harder than anyone else.

[The_Fur]

:con: and i'm the tooth fairy

[RogueLeader]

Do you actually think our corporations would resort to enslaving foreign workers without having enslaved us first?

[TheViper]

You're getting oddly tied up with Webster's definition of capitalism. It uses the term "free markets." So? I call myself a free man, yet I'm not completely free. This is no libertarian utopia we live in, no one is completely free. When people refer to themselves as "free" they nearly always use it to mean they're more free than not. That is usually the case when "free markets" are referred to. On a couple of occasions I used the adjective "mostly" simply for clarification, to point out that no market is completely free. It didn't even matter. The Webster's definition must use "free markets" in that sense, for if it did not, the definition itself would preclude the very existence of captalism. Use some common sense, RL.

************
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of COURSE workers want higher pay and benefits. You equate that universal desire with a desire of all workers for communism [an accurate paraphrase of your words].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I responded to what you said literally. You literally called it hogwash when I said the workers wanted higher pay. If you didn't mean that, you shouldn't have said it."
************

Here's what I called "hogwash." You said, "Workers want the things socialism brings: good benefits, shorter working hours, better working conditions, higher wages, and job security. Most of the good conditions we have today in the U.S. (minimum wage and the 8 hour work day to name a couple) were the results of the Socialist Party's program."

I said "hogwash" after that two sentence paragraph. You set up another straw man in "assuming" I was referring to the first of those two sentences. I was obviously referring to the second sentence, your claim that most of today's good working conditions resulted from the Socialist Party's program. This was not an innocent mistake on your part, because no rational person would believe that workers, in general, do not want those things. This is yet another example of your primary technique: falsly implying or claiming your opponent has said a thing which is then easily refuted; it is an attempt to divert the argument away from one with which you are not comfortable to a false one which you appear to easily win; in the process, you attempt to make your opponent appear foolish by trying to make it appear he made an irrational or foolish statement or argument when he did no such thing. There is no honor in this.

***********
"You probably think "but back then you couldn't live comfortably no matter what." Hogwash, as you would say."
***********

Desist, RL. Of course I don't think that.

***********
" quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wherease you apparently are reluctant to consider that a perfectly correct communist system would have flaws. Repeat after me: Utopia is not an option. Utopia is not an option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want you to quote me where I said "communism is perfect". Please do that. Can you find any moment I said communism is flawless? It isn't flawless, but its as good as man's dynamic social model inherent in his evolution can achieve."
***********

I don't need to do that, RL, because I didn't accuse you of ever having said that. It is the implication of what you have said that you are (read carefully here) _apparently_ _reluctant_ to consider that a correctly executed communist system would have flaws. "Apparently" means it's a conclusion based on numerous observations. My use of the word "reluctant" pointedly allows that you might have, on occasion, considered or admitted such a thing. I gave you all sorts of benefit of the doubt there. You, on the other hand, do no such thing when you repeatedly commit what you just falsly accused me of. Ie, all your dozens of straw men. An example. You said in a previous post, "Finally, I have proven that your utopian dream of perfect flawless capitalism is a lie." You allow no benefit of the doubt here, you ascribe a utopian dream of "perfect flawless capitalism" to me which is apparently plucked out of thin air. Please quote my reference to my alleged "dream of perfect flawless capitalism." No honor, RL.

***********
"I want to hear your definition of capital... ."
***********

Why, so you can counter with a slightly different definition and call me an idiot? Let's hear yours first if you want to play that game.

You actually did, on one occasion, veer away from repeated straw man slashing, and get to a main point: ""What controls the economy in communism", then you should have said that. To refute it now that you reveal your hidden meaning [? the meaning was clear ?] : the workers do." You even answered a question literally. Thank you. I would ask the most obvious question, HOW the workers control the economy, but I tire of this. I am not remotely interested in your answer at this point.

************
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RL, you don't want to get into a c___ measuring contest with me about which of us has the most extensive and varied education and which of us has had the most hard-nosed, idealism-busting real world experience in politics. Believe me, you don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't know my life. You presume a lot."
************

That's pretty weasly, considering what prompted that statement was your rude and shallow assumption regarding MY life and education. Allow me to refresh your memory. You said, in referring to me, "You simply have not become educated enough yet to grow out of your idealism." You know nothing of my education and nothing of my life, or the idealism-shattering components of it. There is no honor in what you have just done, RL.

************
Oh, and don't use personal attacks in your posts.
************

Grow up. Quoting you: "You simply have not become educated enough yet to grow out of your idealism," and "...fess up, Dippy... ." You insult my life and education which you know nothing about (then whine when I respond appropriately to the attack) and you throw name-calling on top of it, then you have the gall to ask me to please not use personal attacks.

You have no honor, RL. I'm done with you. I've been told to not waste my time getting into discussions with you, and I should have heeded the warning.

[The_Fur]

Do you actually think our corporations would resort to enslaving foreign workers without having enslaved us first?

Touche, HOWEVER, this is more rule then exception in the cases of "civilised" nations.


and Viper:

You have no honor, RL. I'm done with you. I've been told to not waste my time getting into discussions with you, and I should have heeded the warning.

[DEFkon]

the debate between two opposing ideals can never be won. The debate has nothing to do with fixing great wrongs, or enlightening us to some great truth. it's true purpose is much simplier than that. In any case, it's time for me to get some rest.

[&quot;Sp!ke&quot;]

"I have to disagree. Americans work longer and harder than any other people on the planet. We are the most industrious people on Earth, which is one reason why our nation has so much wealth."

50% of the worlds natural resources prolly helps a bit as well...

[The_Fur]

??? The US doesn't hold 50pct of the worlds natural resources, let me rephrase, US soil doesn't hold 50% of the worlds natural resources.

[&quot;Sp!ke&quot;]

The entire continent do, I think I read it two weeks ago...think...

[The_Fur]

The entire continent=/=US soil... yet.

[&quot;Sp!ke&quot;]

"we[US] have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population"

It was wealth apperantly, if it was the one I found i was thinking about...i was so sure it was natural resources....

[RogueLeader]

You're getting oddly tied up with Webster's definition of capitalism. It uses the term "free markets." So? I call myself a free man, yet I'm not completely free. This is no libertarian utopia we live in, no one is completely free. When people refer to themselves as "free" they nearly always use it to mean they're more free than not. That is usually the case when "free markets" are referred to. On a couple of occasions I used the adjective "mostly" simply for clarification, to point out that no market is completely free. It didn't even matter. The Webster's definition must use "free markets" in that sense, for if it did not, the definition itself would preclude the very existence of captalism. Use some common sense, RL.
So now that I have exposed your definition as a fraud, you start changing the definitions of words within that definition? Jesus Christ! Your definition said "free markets", not "sort of free markets", not "kind of free markets", and not, as you said capitalism was (in contradiction to your defiition), "relativly free markets". And then you try to change English grammer because Webster's definition does not fit the world!

My Thesis:
According to Webster's definition, capitalism must not exist anywhere in the world.
Capitalism exists in most of the world.
Therefore, Webster's definition is wrong.

Your Thesis:
According to Webster's definition, capitalism must not exist anywhere in the world.
Capitalist exists in most of the world.
Therefore, the word "mostly" applied to "free markets" in the definition, in violation of all rules of English.

I take it this was your way of admitting you were wrong since you seem to be backing off your definition now. But just because, when someone resorts to petty personal attacks and slander to win a debate, I must defeat them outright and totally, allow me to continue smashing your definition.

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Time for an English lesson. "mainly by competition in a free market." Believe it or not, mainly can be an adjective. But to do that, it must be connected to another adjective and hyphenated, according to the rules of the English, for example, "mainly-free market". It is also traditional that, barring a comma to set it apart in a seperate clause, the adverb will apply to whatever verb immediatly precedes or follows it. In this case it says "determined mainly". According to the rules of English, mainly applies to determined, not to "free market". Since, as I point out above, it is an adverb unless hyphenated, there is no way it could possibly apply to "free market", because "free market" is a noun and "mainly" is an adverb.

I said "hogwash" after that two sentence paragraph. You set up another straw man in "assuming" I was referring to the first of those two sentences. I was obviously referring to the second sentence, your claim that most of today's good working conditions resulted from the Socialist Party's program.
You quoted BOTH sentences, then made a response, following that quote, that did not apply to both? What kind of logic do you use? Most people tend to quote what they respond to. You quoting both sentences and applying your response to both is like me quoting the entire book of Crime and Punishment to prove Raskolnikov killed a pawn broker. If you want to quote both sentences at once, for future reference, please make it clear which sentence each part of your response applies to. "Howash" doesn't exactly give me any explicit or implicit indication of what you were addressing.

This was not an innocent mistake on your part, because no rational person would believe that workers, in general, do not want those things.
Exactly what made your response so idiotic.

This is yet another example of your primary technique: falsly implying or claiming your opponent has said a thing which is then easily refuted; it is an attempt to divert the argument away from one with which you are not comfortable to a false one which you appear to easily win; in the process, you attempt to make your opponent appear foolish by trying to make it appear he made an irrational or foolish statement or argument when he did no such thing. There is no honor in this.
Remember what I said in my last big response, Viper? How you shouldn't try to play the "I blame you for what I do" game when you make it obvious what you are doing? Just like personal attacks, it works for some people, but not you. When I disprove your definition, it took you three posts for you to back off of that argument, the whole time you were trying to say I ignored your arguments. And look, now, above, you have been forced into conceding that point. So now that you have just admitted to trying to divert attention, and then blame me? Kind of like how you said something COMPLETELY different than what you claim to have when you said "hogwash", and then say I diverted from the point?

:p You arn't very experienced at debates are you?

Desist, RL. Of course I don't think that.
Then why did you say I was applying 21st century standards of living to the 19th century? I obviously don't think the people in the 19th century should have had computers and television.

It is the implication of what you have said
You want to get into implications? By which you mean to say, "I will accuse you of something but then say you didn't say it but still meant it." I hope, for the sake of what is left of our criminal justice system, you arn't an attorney. "I'm innocent!" "The implication is he admitted the crime."

I have never said nor implied communism is perfect. Does a perfect world have disease? Natural disasters? Famines? Floods? The Sun dying and leaving all life on Earth decimated?

I don't need to do that, RL, because I didn't accuse you of ever having said that.
I quote this out of order, after the above quote, because I want to show how sad your ability to lie is. A good liar doesn't lie about what he has done 2 seconds after he has done it and with the person he is lying to having watched him. You said you didn't accuse my of saying communism was perfect, then say I did say it implicitly (and in case you try to sneak out of this, "implicitly" saying something is still saying something because you are still transfering the idea in the words).

_apparently_ _reluctant_ to consider that a correctly executed communist system would have flaws
You are many things, but consistant is not one. First you say you never accused me of thinking communism is perfect (after I pressed you to quote me). Immediatly following that you accuse me of saying communism is perfect. Following that, you qualify your accusation severely, that it isn't that I don't think it has flaws, but that I am "reluctant" to admit it does.

Before you continue trying to find ground for this argument that isn't shakey, let me simply spell it out for you:
Communism is not perfect (quote that). It does correct a majority of the manmade problems we have today. How do I know this? Because in primitive communism, we did not have wars, we did not have significant crime, and we did not have classes. It does not attain perfection. You cannot entirely eliminate crime, though it can be reduced drastically. The elimination of poverty will stop most crime, but some people are just ****ed in the head. Communism does not stop natural evils such as disease, floods, hurricanes, and famines. In my definition of "PERFECT", we would have none of those.

Why, so you can counter with a slightly different definition and call me an idiot? Let's hear yours first if you want to play that game.
i.e. You don't know. I won't give you mine because I still want to hear what you think makes capitalism capitalism. Since you deny that capitalism is the existance of capital, I must wonder if you know what capital is. My guess is you misunderstand capital, and think it is investments and so on.

You actually did, on one occasion, veer away from repeated straw man slashing...
Ironically, by saying this you veer away from the point you were responding to.

That's pretty weasly, considering what prompted that statement was your rude and shallow assumption regarding MY life and education
I made no assumptions about your life and education, I made "assumptions" about WHAT YOU BELIEVE, and since you have been in this thread making post after post expressing your beliefs, I think I have some idea of what you believe.
Here is an example of you being what you call a "straw man".

"I have You simply have not become educated enough yet to grow out of your idealism. You still have a naive outlook on life, that 'everything is all right' outlook."
First of all, you are implicitly (I assume I'm allowed to look at what is implied since you did) are associating education with schooling. Your belief that you can have a weak state and capitalism is naive, because history has verified that as capitalism industrializes it creates a proletariat, and capital then needs a strong state to protect its property from the majority proletariat. Capitalism will naturally lead to a strong state. What did you turn that statement into?

"RL, you don't want to get into a c___ measuring contest with me about which of us has the most extensive and varied education and which of us has had the most hard-nosed, idealism-busting real world experience in politics."
From my statement on the relationship between capitalism and the state, you jump to some jibberish about "hard-nosed, idealism-busting real world experience". I don't even want to know what words "implied" anything about that.

Grow up. Quoting you: "You simply have not become educated enough yet to grow out of your idealism," and "...fess up, Dippy... ." You insult my life and education which you know nothing about (then whine when I respond appropriately to the attack) and you throw name-calling on top of it, then you have the gall to ask me to please not use personal attacks.

Paraphrasing me: "If I am attacked personally, I will defend myself and use personal attacks to retaliate."
You do not know how to hold any kind of civil debate. As soon as you see something you do not like you make some childish post that is amazingly disrespectful. Here is the thing regarding respect, Viper: Have you ever heard the saying "You give a little, you get a little"? It also works conversely: "You give little, you get little."

If you are going to get upset over my attacks on you, you shouldn't have attacked me.

You have no honor, RL. I'm done with you. I've been told to not waste my time getting into discussions with you, and I should have heeded the warning
Since you like dictionaries so much, I used one to look up honor. Amazingly, one definition is "respect". Since you obviously have no respect, I must conclude you have no honor. Don't think that is an insult though. When you said I have no honor, I didn't feel bad. Do you think you are a man of honor, Viper? How shallow can you get?

[The_Fur]

ok ATM no time to read that all however didn't we allready establish that true capitalism doesn't exist anywhere since pure capitalism would mean a stream of capital completely un-interfered by outside sources such as goverment meddling?

And if you'd have pure capitalism it would be pretty close to cammunism as rogue (sometimes) describes it. IE every man gets what he works for. Since profit=the wage of the entrepeneur whatever profit he makes is what he has worked for. And if people are unwilling to work for a certain wage then the entrepeneur has to raise the wage to get enough people. So the people get what their position is worth to the rest of the people.

Both true capitalism and communism require the state to be a non-entity in the system, both pay people for what their services are worth to the rest of the system.
So what is all this bickering about communism vs capitalism? Both correspond pretty much in the economical parts and in the parts where they supposedly conflict capitalism in fact doesn't exist. Becaus capitalism doesn't include social issues, so it can't conflict with communism there.
So where is the conflict?

[Cholo Grande]

Pure capitalism does NOT say that every man gets what he works for. Pure capitalism is simply Laisez-Faire ecconomics where the government lets the ecconomy function without intervention. Pure capitalism is everyone gets what he can attain. That sounds simplistic, but it is. I work quite a few hours myself and on top of that, I go to school full time. I'm doing this to better my future. Let's just say that I work 50 hours a week. Joe sixpack works 60 hours a week, but he squanders what he has trying to keep up with the neighbor's material possetions and is suprised to find he is laid off at age 50 with no planned retirement outside of his ****ty work pension. I will have more than him... he worked harder, but I was smarter.

A capitalism purist says, "screw the masses, I'm worried about myself." I don't give a rat's arse if someone else is too foolish to plan for his future.. should I have to subsidize his foolishness because I was smarter and more responsible?

I don't believe in a work=reward system. It's hard work and smart thinking that equal success. There are people who lived their life with a upper class income and retire on crumbs because they had to live a life that was JUST out of their reach. They always knew they would get another raise to help them catch up and they eventualy got laid off and are in over their heads. I don't care HOW hard they worked, they deserve what they get.

A little off topic, but I had to bitch about it. I got in this debate with someone the other day about how it's my social responsibility to take care of the poor and elderly.

[The_Fur]

Planning and inventing=work as well so you get what you acn attain=you get what you deserve. If you don't stand p fr yourself you get crap, your own fault for not standing up, you get what you deserve.
The way rogue has been describing communism lately is quite similar.

[O.D.]

This is my favorite thread of 2002.

Other Dave

PS TheViper wins. Sorry Rogue, you got too histrionic for me.

[TheViper]

"You arn't very experienced at debates are you?"

Hehe. Yeah, actually. At the highest level attainable at the state level. Your techniques would have relegated you to being ignored, and therefore completely ineffective, in those circles.

That's why I'm so amazed that I let myself get caught up in this endless nonsense with you. Won't happen again.

[RogueLeader]

ok ATM no time to read that all however didn't we allready establish that true capitalism doesn't exist anywhere since pure capitalism would mean a stream of capital completely un-interfered by outside sources such as goverment meddling?

And if you'd have pure capitalism it would be pretty close to cammunism as rogue (sometimes) describes it.
No, this is what Viper claimed and I have proven wrong. Viper thinks that capitalism is ONLY capitalism if it is free market capitalism. Government interference only makes it state capitalism. Capitalism is always capitalism as long as it has capital. Capitalism never pays based on work because then the profit would not be capital, and thus it would not be capitalism.

Hehe. Yeah, actually. At the highest level attainable at the state level. Your techniques would have relegated you to being ignored, and therefore completely ineffective, in those circles.
Funny how when I attend the debate competitions I usually win because:
1) I have facts to support me. I have used facts in my support, you have not. That is why you lost so badly.
2) I know how to be civil. People who do not have much debating experience like yourself are defeated you usually resort to personal attacks as you did here. It shows inexperience. But once someone does attack me, I also can use their own tactic of personal attacks again them to make them look bad.
3) I don't have to resort to using obvious and pathetic tricks as you have, for example the way you tried to divert attention away from the subject every time I confronted you with evidence you were wrong.

I suggest you study debating techniques before trying it again.

[Cholo Grande]

The true test of argument skill is to argue for something that you disagree with. :)

I have to disagree with "state capitalism" falling under the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is defined by some form of free market system. State control of the ecconomy isn't capitalism. Having capital doesn't equate capitalism. By that logic having farming/work communes equates to communism; which the Soviet Union had and you say it wasn't true communism.

As far as "everyone" not being able to attain wealth, maybe. Everyone can't be "rich", but everyone can attain success and financial freedom. You CAN make 30K a year and support a family with financial independence in your immediate future (depending on what part of the country you're living in), but I also have to say that if you're only making 30K a year then you either aren't reaching your potential or you have very low potential. True everyone can't be uber-rich, but there has to losers to have winners. In a communist system NOBODY (supposedly... yeah right) gets to be "rich". "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his means," is the notion that gifted and/or ambitious should subsidies the less gifted and/or lazy. How does that provide finiancial freedom?

[RogueLeader]

Having communes does equate to communism, as I said above, just not scientific communism, and the Soviet Union did not have communes. The USSR destroyed the Soviets that already existed.

Capitalism, n. - The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the employment of wage labor.

[Cholo Grande]

Now THAT I know for a fact to be untrue. The Soviets DID (and may still I don't know) have farming communes. Jesus... now if I could just remember the source I would post it for you. I was reading an article a few years ago that had ran some comparisons for some reasons and Soviet farming communes were used in the an expample.

Anyway, if you want to play on definitions then how about this one for Communism -" A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."

That doesn't exactly ring with what you said communism was. Dictionary definitions are a weak mannor to define political terms. If you're looking up was alutruism means or something like that, it's fine, but too look up an entire conect and phrase it into one broken sentence is not the best of definitions.

However, if you like, I'll define capitalism as "free market capitalism" and leave it at that. In my studies capitalism is defined using the free market system. From my studies of ecconomic systems I'll say that capitalism is an ecconomic system where the government takes a non-interventionist approach to the ecconomy. Fascism controls the ecconomy with statutes and other control measures. Socialism controls the ecconomy by state ownership of large portions of the ecconomy.

Your definition DID make a point to emphasise PRIVATE ownership of the means of production. There state ownership is NOT capitalism. If capitalism is defined by having capital (goods and commodities) then any ecconomy is capitalism. Even in your utopian communist system commodities (work) is traded for goods. Or are you proposing a system with no represenation of money as being non-capitalist? It's impossible and it can't be done.

[RogueLeader]

A farming commune would be primitive communism, even if it existed. Stalin wanted to communalize the farmers, which led to the slaughter of the farmers instead.

That doesn't exactly ring with what you said communism was. Dictionary definitions are a weak mannor to define political terms. If you're looking up was alutruism means or something like that, it's fine, but too look up an entire conect and phrase it into one broken sentence is not the best of definitions.
That has been my exact point the whole time. You wouldn't take what an anonymous man on the streets gives as a definition to be the literal truth, so why take the definition of the anonymous man working at Webster's to be true? The definition I gave did not come from a dictionary. Dictionary defitions do not study the meaning of the word, they do not look for the most fundamental meaning. That is why we nowadays define capitalism as free market capitalism. What about back before the days of free market capitalism? The early capitalist systems were managed by the state. How could a theory of capitalism have been created if it wasn't capitalism? My definition of capitalism did not come from a dictionary. It was a paraphrase from Capital, which, Marxist, or not, is still the best study of capitalism ever done.

Fascism controls the ecconomy with statutes and other control measures. Socialism controls the ecconomy by state ownership of large portions of the ecconomy.
Fascism is an extremely reactionary form of capitalism. Socialism, you must understand, is state ownership, but your definition is not specific enough. It does not address what the state is in socialism. In capitalism, the state is the elite, the police, the military, all those that are used for coercing the people. But in socialism, all armed people are the state. Therefore, for a capitalist state to control the economy means for the corporate elite and military to control the economy, whereas a socialist state that controls the economy is the people controlling the economy. Fascism's goal is to give the bourgeois state total control of the economy, not just to restrict it with statutes. If I had the full copy of What is Fascism? by Mussolini I would quote that.

Edit: Hit submit by accident. :p

There state ownership is NOT capitalism
The state curently is an organization of the few, and thus ownership by the state is ownership by only a few. If having ownership by an organization is not private, then a company owned and traded publically could not be called private property. State ownership is still not ownership by everyone, and if everyone does not have ownership it is still private.

[Cholo Grande]

It depends on how you twist the meaning of the words. "Private" ownership denotes ownership by either an individual or a private enterprise. State ownership, whether by a tyranical government or a "people's" government, does not fall under the blanket of "private" ownership unless you twist the meaning of private ownership to blanket everything not accessable to every person in a society.

The key point in your arguments for a socialist or communist system are that people are not truly free under capitalism. If this is so true then why are you having to bend over backwards to prove that it's an oppresive system? The entire basis for the assumption that there is no ecconomic freedom is to asser that there is an inaccessable bourgeios class controls the ecconomy. I will agree that the bourgeios class is the most influential member of the our ecconomy, but they are not inaccessable. Movement between ecconomic classes is perfectly doable. The main limitations a "worker" faces are ability, ambition, and dependence. All but one of these factors can be overcome easily.

Ambition is needed to attain any upward movement through the ecconomic strata. Without the desire and dedication to sacrifice and risk to achieve more, Johny Sixpack will be relegated to his low station for his entire life. That's would be a product of decision making. With ambition a worker class can rise through to upper levels within a company or, better yet, become and entrepeneur.

Every worker is dependent on his company. You will never make more than 50% of what you can earn for a company and most likely you will be getting closer to 20%. Why is this? You don't own and run the place. You are a commodity while working for someone else. If you are a plentifull commodity (manual labor) then you will get relatively low compensation. If you are a rare commodity (engineers and such) you'll get a much higher commodity, but the company will still throw you away when you're no longer financialy viable. This is the pitfall that comes from dependence. It can be overcome by either living within your means and saving and investing for your future or taking a risk and stepping out from dependence on a company.

Ability can be partialy overcome. Of course, intellectual and physical capacity are pretty much inborn so your root potential can't be altered. You can, however, further educate yourself to improve your job ability. I say that ability can't be overcome simply because a low intelligence individual is stuck being a low intelligence individual. Also a physicly handicapped individual is usualy stuck in that position as well. Life's not fair everyone isn't equal.

Through these means it's perfectly doable to move from a low ecconomic class. It's not easy, but as in most things in life, most good things don't come easily. There is no ruling class to overthrow, ecconomicly anyway.

[RogueLeader]

You are taking the problem for the solution. It is exactly that the worker is a commodity that is the problem. We have the working and capitalist class. The capitalist class by definition does not work. They become wealthy off the labor of the workers. The workers can only sell themselves to the capitalist for money. There is absolutely no reason to have one class that forces others to work for less than they earn. If it was easy to move from proletarian to bourgeois, then the working class would not be the majority. And even if it was possible, it does not address the fact that classes are in violation of natural law. Private property, even the capitalist libertarians say, can be property that belongs to the government. The capitalist idea of property is simply that is must belong to someone or something, just not everyone. When the state owns the means of production, that does not negate private property. The property that comes from it is still privately owned, and the state still exists as an entity with ownership. If bourgeois state ownership is not private, then Microsoft must not be private property either, since anyone can buy stock in it.

How am I "bending over backwards" to prove capitalism is oppressive? It takes no effort to do so. The majority of the people have no demoratic rights in a bourgeois state. Can you participate in government? Can you run for federal office? Not as a member of the working class. How many working class people are there in Congress? Why is it you think that the wealthy want to ban guns except for trained guards? Who can only afford a gun and who can afford a guard? Most working class people can't pay for a private corporation to protect them. What about property rights? How come the working class people have no property rights but the wealthy do? The product of the worker is taken by the bourgeois and sold. That is theft. If it is acceptable because the worker used the means of production, then why is it not exortion to control the means of prodution and then force anyone who wants to live to give more than they receive?

Why do so few people "make it" in bourgeois society? You said before that you thought most people were lazy and wanted everything handed to them. Most people work their entire lives without making it, while most capitalists do nothing. They didn't earn their means of production, they inherit their capital, and their parents inherited it, and their parents got it by exploiting people. The bourgeoisie are not bourgeois because they work hard, they are bourgeoisie becaue they do not work at all.

Edit: From the Marxist Internet Archive's encyclopedia of terms:
"Private property is the right of an individual to exclude others use of an object, and predates the rupture of society into classes. In its undeveloped form private property is the simple relation of the individual to the natural world in which their individuality finds objective expression. Private property is essentially the denial of the private property of others and finds its ultimate expression only in the relation of wage-labour and capital."

[Cholo Grande]

The capitalist class by definition does not work. They become wealthy off the labor of the workers. The workers can only sell themselves to the capitalist for money. There is absolutely no reason to have one class that forces others to work for less than they earn.

Why do so few people "make it" in bourgeois society? You said before that you thought most people were lazy and wanted everything handed to them. Most people work their entire lives without making it, while most capitalists do nothing. They didn't earn their means of production, they inherit their capital, and their parents inherited it, and their parents got it by exploiting people. The bourgeoisie are not bourgeois because they work hard, they are bourgeoisie becaue they do not work at all.

Ok no offense, but now your age reveals itself. Owners do NO WORK?!?! I hate to break the news to you, but successfull entrepeneurs are the hardest working people you will ever meet. Go and find a guy starting his own business. He'll be the first one there and the last to leave. He'll be the guy who pay revolves around the success of a business. There was a point in my job where I absolutely KNOW I was making more money every week than my boss. He was voluntarily taking a loss to keep things afloat in a rough time. You don't have an accurate view of how the world works. There isn't a fat cat class riding the worker.

As far as workers being stuck, it's not true. You're going to have to provide better evidence than the fact that there are less rich people than poor people. You seem to think that if upward movement is doable then EVERYONE will be in a top notch position. It's not true. You have not been in the working world and gotten to see how the real worker "rides the clock" or sits around all day bitching about the boss. Lazyness IS pervasive. It doesn't bother me at all. It makes it that much easier for motivated people like myself to be sucessfull. As far as a worker who doesn't make all the money he produces.... well look at it this way, he has an employer who provides him with the work, finds the work. His employer will teach him how to do a job and some new skills to go with it. His employer will give him the ability to earn a larger profit than he would doing the same job and amount of work for himself (if you'd like me to explain that just ask... it will be another book). His employer has to pay for his insurance for on the job injuries at the minimum. The employer provides a worker with ALOT. Not to mention the employer pays for the office or plant. On top of the the owner deserves to pull a large chunk of the profits... because he put the whole stinking operation together.

I used to work in contruction before I suffered an injury. I was amazed out how many people were still working for someone for 12 dollars an hour when it was so easy to start your own crew. I started my own small contracting business and pulled about $1000 on my first job (took less than a week). These guys who had had YEARS to save up the >$10000 required to realy start a good well equipped construction business still worked for someone else and lived check to check. They were (and still are I assume) lazy and pathetic. They weren't losing because a guy who didn't drive nails owned the place, they were losing because they were sorry excuses for humanity.

Anyway, you need to get out in the world and get out of the books for a little while. Acedemics don't translate into reality. They provide a good base of understanding, but are not the do all say all you make them out to be.

[RogueLeader]

Wrong, management of the bourgeois machine is not work. Work is labor, the creation of wealth. Managing others' creation of wealth is not work in itself. If your definition of work is telling someone else to make something, then selling what they made and keeping the money, then you seem have a hopelessely optimistic view of capitalism.

If you want me to repeat the proof that the rich are the minority (I don't understand why you seem to think that is not the case since it is a well-accepted fact), just look at the census data. The median income in the U.S. is $32,000 per year. That means half of the U.S. earns less. So with just that number we verify that in the U.S. half of the people arn't poor. That alone shows the rich arn't the majority, but the fact that the mean income is around $42,000 a year is even more revealing. There is a very large difference between the mean and median income. The larger that difference, the larger of a gap between rich and poor there must be, since it shows that the man who makes the income in the exact middle of the set is much lower than the number offset by the large incomes of the top few (the mean).

Do you actually believe that the only reason your theory that any worker who works hard will make has not shown itself in reality that the workers don't work hard? Granted some people do just sit around pretending to work, a vast majority of the workers are very hard working. I will remind you that Americans work more than the people of any other industrialized country. But we have the 8 hour work day. Do all other countries have 6 hour work days? Of course not. If everyone in Britain and America worked the bare minimum, we would work for equal hours on average. The reason Americans work more than others is because we spend much more time in overtime. If nobody wanted to work, but just sit around and bitch, why would they stay extra time at work? They would earn more money of course, but not much more. Most lazy slobs would rather leave than get a few extra bucks. There is also the issue of productivity. We produce massive ammounts of material wealth. How would we do this without people working? If we all just sat on our ass all day, nothing would be created.

Perhaps, in the case of construction workers (and the example applies to others I am sure), people like their job. Most people are doers. They want to actually go out there and do work (contrary to your statements above). I would find it much more satisfying to build a house than to ask someone else to build it for me. I probably wouldn't go into construction, but to use an example more realistic according to my taste, I will use an example of computers. I like computers; I toy around with mine all the time, and I wouldn't mind a job building or repairing computers, because I like it. If I like building computers, why would I want to stop doing that simply to make other people do it? And then one must ask, what if all of your contruction workers, like you, decided that they would start their own business? Is there enough room in your town for that many businesses? But that isn't the biggest problem. Now all of your construction workers are running businesses, not building houses or buildings. There arn't any workers left. You will all be a one man business. What if all your workers started their own businesses? You wouldn't be making any money. The workers are the core of all production in post-industrialized capitalism. Without them there is nothing.

Academics, believe it or not, comes from the study of reality. Marxism's strength is that all of Marxist theory comes from scientific observations. If you analyze capitalism beyond the shell that you can see with the naked eye, you can see many problems. The construction worker analogy is a good example of that. On the surface you may see people that are lazy simply because they are workers. But your definition of a worker is someone who is lazy, then our society depends on the lazy people, because without the lazy people, who are so lazy that instead of telling others to do something they do it themselves, then there would be no one for the business owners to tell to work, and all production would cease.

[Cholo Grande]

If you want me to repeat the proof that the rich are the minority (I don't understand why you seem to think that is not the case since it is a well-accepted fact), just look at the census data. The median income in the U.S. is $32,000 per year. That means half of the U.S. earns less. So with just that number we verify that in the U.S. half of the people arn't poor. That alone shows the rich arn't the majority, but the fact that the mean income is around $42,000 a year is even more revealing. There is a very large difference between the mean and median income. The larger that difference, the larger of a gap between rich and poor there must be, since it shows that the man who makes the income in the exact middle of the set is much lower than the number offset by the large incomes of the top few (the mean).
I never said that there were more rich than non-rich. What do you define poor as? 30K a year? That's not poor, maybe your parents make more than that, but I know lots of poeople who are self sufficient in the 30-40k range. I said it's not some kind of sin to be rich.

Wrong, management of the bourgeois machine is not work. Work is labor, the creation of wealth. Managing others' creation of wealth is not work in itself. If your definition of work is telling someone else to make something, then selling what they made and keeping the money, then you seem have a hopelessely optimistic view of capitalism.
Physical work is the only work? Producing something is the only work? Funny how all the things that drive our modern ecconomy don't fall under the catagory of "work". The fact that if you make your living from the neck down relegates you to the lower income brackets is simple to reason out. Everyone has physical capacity, not everyone has higher capacity. Earn your cash from the waste down and be ready to hit the ceiling at about $20/hour. Use the upper reaches of you anatomy and the sky's the limit, as it should be.

Granted some people do just sit around pretending to work, a vast majority of the workers are very hard working. I will remind you that Americans work more than the people of any other industrialized country. But we have the 8 hour work day. Do all other countries have 6 hour work days? Of course not. If everyone in Britain and America worked the bare minimum, we would work for equal hours on average.
And in France it has actualy been legislated to stop people from working more. Wow ecconomic freedom. You can't work more even if you want to. Who has an eight hour work day? I work 10 hours a day, on top of that I go to school. But if I don't actualy use my own hands to do something and instruct someone else, it's not really work. I guess that's how I handle it. We work more because we also spend more. We're the most commercialized civilization on the planet.

Perhaps, in the case of construction workers (and the example applies to others I am sure), people like their job. Most people are doers. They want to actually go out there and do work (contrary to your statements above). I would find it much more satisfying to build a house than to ask someone else to build it for me. I probably wouldn't go into construction, but to use an example more realistic according to my taste, I will use an example of computers. I like computers; I toy around with mine all the time, and I wouldn't mind a job building or repairing computers, because I like it. If I like building computers, why would I want to stop doing that simply to make other people do it? And then one must ask, what if all of your contruction workers, like you, decided that they would start their own business? Is there enough room in your town for that many businesses? But that isn't the biggest problem. Now all of your construction workers are running businesses, not building houses or buildings. There arn't any workers left. You will all be a one man business. What if all your workers started their own businesses? You wouldn't be making any money. The workers are the core of all production in post-industrialized capitalism. Without them there is nothing.
Without the leadership ownership/management provides there is nothing either. The two sides of the coin can't be seperated. The thing that balances out everyone starting their own business is competition and the simple fact that most poeple won't do it. Apathy has been around since the beginning of time. If you're making ends meet now, why risk it? THAT is what ensures a work force. People who are not the trend setters and risk takers. They don't want to take the risk that is necessary to reap rewards.

[RogueLeader]

I never said that there were more rich than non-rich. What do you define poor as? 30K a year? That's not poor, maybe your parents make more than that, but I know lots of poeople who are self sufficient in the 30-40k range. I said it's not some kind of sin to be rich.
Poor depends on how much you work. I would say anyone paid less than what they earn is poor. And don't confuse "earn" with its common usage, where someone might say "I earn $10.00 an hour." Wage-labour always earns more than it gets. Pay can never be as much as the work is valued in capitalism or the capitalist class would get no profits.

Physical work is the only work? Producing something is the only work? Funny how all the things that drive our modern ecconomy don't fall under the catagory of "work". The fact that if you make your living from the neck down relegates you to the lower income brackets is simple to reason out. Everyone has physical capacity, not everyone has higher capacity. Earn your cash from the waste down and be ready to hit the ceiling at about $20/hour. Use the upper reaches of you anatomy and the sky's the limit, as it should be.
Production does not only mean physical objects. An IT worker who does maintains a computer network is doing a good deal of mental work but not much physical work, but he is still generating wealth. The bourgeoisie, unlike that worker do not generate any wealth. They have no purpose. They only direct others how to produce, and then take possession of their labor and sell it, keeping the money for themselves.

And in France it has actualy been legislated to stop people from working more. Wow ecconomic freedom. You can't work more even if you want to. Who has an eight hour work day? I work 10 hours a day, on top of that I go to school. But if I don't actualy use my own hands to do something and instruct someone else, it's not really work. I guess that's how I handle it. We work more because we also spend more. We're the most commercialized civilization on the planet.
I'm not going to argue that the French government isn't moronic. My personal goal in life is to see that government collapse for it did to the Commune. Granted it was the Third Republic that did that, I still have to take my anger out on something. :p Simply instructing someone else is not work, because you are not producing. The capitalist class is not needed for production of wealth because without them production would still continue. The workers are not expendable because they are the only people who produce wealth. I also will not argue against the statement that we are the most commercialized civilization on the planet.

Without the leadership ownership/management provides there is nothing either. The two sides of the coin can't be seperated. The thing that balances out everyone starting their own business is competition and the simple fact that most poeple won't do it. Apathy has been around since the beginning of time. If you're making ends meet now, why risk it? THAT is what ensures a work force. People who are not the trend setters and risk takers. They don't want to take the risk that is necessary to reap rewards.
The workers can provide leadership by democratically choosing what to do. You said it yourself there is nothing to stop them from running their own business, logically they have the ability to, together, manage theirs. Management is not part of the capitalist class. They are petty-bourgeois, part of the working class, though seperated from the class consciousness. Calling the workers lazy for not starting a business confuses the means with the end. There is a risk involved in starting a business, and a big one. In the old days of capitalism, before industrialization created wage-labor and the petty-bourgeois worker was instinct, a person could work doing what he wanted and sell his own products. In today's world, the top few bourgeois control everything, and will destroy any competition that will force them to limit profits. Starting a business is dangerous. A worker who doesn't want to risk his family's wellbeing simply so that he can force others to work and keep the products of their work for himself is doing nothing wrong in my opinion. The problem with capitalism can be found in your own statement that it is neccessary to start a business to reap rewards. The only people in capitalism who are rewarded are those that do not work, those who make others work for them. Those pillars of society who actually do work, who arn't lazy and want to make something of themselves, are never paid the price of the labor.

[Cholo Grande]

I think you illogicly devalue management with your statements. Let's assume I am the evil one himself. I come up with the capital to start a business. I hire the best talent I can get my hands on in my field. I direct the business to grow and compete on level with existing producers in my market. I get fairly wealthy and am written about in the Wall St. Journal (Entrepeneur of the Year or whatever).

My average worker makes about $20/hour with the bottom guys making $12 and the top making $50. The bottom guy gives me about $50/hour billable and the top guys give me $200 gross. I'm doing great. My business is profitable and I have the top notch guys in the field. Even with similar prices the other guys can't compete because they can't perform the quality service or can't accomplish the jobs in the same time since I have such a superior work force. Should I be feeling guilty for making this money? It was my idea that I put together. I built this enterprise.

Well, let's say that the old major competator, who has just snapped out of the stupor induced by my cutting edge business method grabbing 30% of their market share, streamlines their own operations, but it still hurting because I stole so many of the top employees. They see how much money I'm able to turn off each of them and decide they can afford to pay out a 15% higher salary than I'm paying. I can either raise my salaries or start losing my kick ass team I put together. Competetion steps in to take care of wage imbalances. What about Joe the Janitor? Well he was making 8$/hour from me and their are alot of janitors so he's screwed... maybe he should learn to build and service widgets like my 12-20$/hour guys or learn to design widgets like my high paid guys.

Anyway after years of battleing I am still a major player in my field. I have earned millions of dollars with my vision. What did I build? I produced a new company that offered better services than the current ones did and through competition improved the marketplace for everyone. Not to mention the growth in my industry that was sparked because of my vision. They say that the sagging market for widgets picked up, mainly because of consumer interests generated by my companies competetion with other competitors to make better and more exciting widgets. All the widget engineers and widget assemblers enjoyed an increase in pay and demand for their work because of the larger profits able to be generated by widget manufacture worldwide.

I think I did produce something for the economy and society. Something bigger than one worker by himself could have. Something larger than all them working as they had been couldn't have done. The impression my company left actualy made widget workers better paid and now young adults are going to college to specialize in widget engineering to fill the huge demand for fresh ideas in the heated widget competetion. I deserve the millions I earned and battled for.

Long illustration, but the "capitalist class" does produce. They don't just suck money and do nothing. Perhaps in other countries it's like that(I'm far from an expert on other international ecconomics), but in America there isn't a ruling class that owns everything and hold the common man down. I'm living proof of it. I can name several people in my family that are living proof of it. I can point to thousands of Mexican immigrants that are proof of it (embarassing proof to complainers that were born here in wealth compared to that of Mexico).

[RogueLeader]

Here is where we differ: "I produced a new company that offered better services than the current ones did and through competition improved the marketplace for everyone."

A company is not wealth. There is, in reality, no such thing as a company. A company is a legal fiction, requiring a state to legally recognize its existance. To create a company is to create nothing. Wealth only comes from the creation of physical objects, not from legal fiction. In the case of your example, what you did is buy their labor, and in return let them use your means of production. All this does is reinforce what I said: that the capitalist is not needed. You were valuable only insofar as you were able to extort others because you had something that they did not. If the workers had the means of production, as they will in socialism, the capitalist has no reason to exist. "Companies" are gone because they are not needed and hinder the scientific development of the political economy. What role did you, in your example play? Only to let them work, because you had what was needed to live and therefore made them work for a wage not based on labor to use it. You in no sense earned those millions because all of your income came from what the workers produced, and all of the money of their product went to you. I deny the possibility that it is "earning" money to steal from someone else.

Your example verifies that the capitalist class does not produce, because a company is only a means of having others produce. A capitalist, at best, produces by proxy. He produces only insomuch as he can forces others to produce for him. To say the capitalist produces is like saying a slave owner did the work on his plantation.

Saying that there isn't a ruling class simply does not make sense to me, since we have already established there is a section of society that is extremely wealthy, that they are a small minority, and they make up nearly all of our government.

[Cholo Grande]

What you fail to see is that without the person who aquired the means of production there would not have been the resurgence in the widget industry. The example shows that the ownership can and does influence production and the ecconomy. Not to mention that competition fuels growth. Your system doesn't provide the fertile ground for growth and development that capitalism does.

The company acutaly focuses labor. In the same mannor that a general turns a bunch of guys with guns and a common cause into an army. The army will beat the hell out of the group of guys with no leadership every time. The company as we know it performs a huge role. The fact that more than one company competes for their consumers dollars further fuels growth and bends the power toward the consumer. Competition among employers helps the standing of employees. If there was only one widget manufacturer there would be no concept of the best place to work to make widgets for the best pay. If it was a state enterprise it would just be we make the widgets and we get to stay in our houses and eat the food that is suitable for a widget maker.

The concept of the potential of the individual is ignored as I stated before. You claim that the individual is only truly free under your system, yet you seem to not count the successfull as valid individuals. The fruits of success are the crowning jewel of individual success.

[RogueLeader]

If success means the enslavement of wage-labor, then I don't see why success is a good thing. In socialism success is the result of hard work. In capitalism it is the restult of others' hard work. What I don't think you consider is the necessity, or lack thereof, of the capitalist class. The capitalists only role is to own the means of production. The workers can also own the means of production. Since the workers can do it, and them doing so would consequently result in a more fair reward system in which pay is based on job performance rather than supply vs. demand of labor power, that system is superior. In capitalism, there is no concept of the individual. The "individual" in capitalism is nothing more than a widget (ironically you used that as your example) in the industrial machine. He is not a person and has no rights. Only the bourgeoisie have rights in capitalism. Socialism only extends natural rights to the working class, while eliminating those political rights which conflict with the natural ones, which have priority.

[Cholo Grande]

What you fail to see is that every has the inborn RIGHT to own a business. Part of owning a business is building it and growing it by hiring employees. A owner DOES contribute more than simply owning.

Where would all the autoworkers at GM be without corperate leadership (ok... maybe a bad example... But imagine how much WORSE it would be without corporate ownership and direction). A large company cannot function without a consolidated power core from whence direction comes from. If "the people" own the business then "the people" won't be making the decisions that run the business. People who currently own businesses EARNED what they have. They don't just "own the means of production". They own direct and compete against other owners for customers and employees. In a system of universal ownership, there is no competition either way... or no real competition. The end results is a stagnant ecconomy.

All of this debate is really merely academic, since neither of our systems exist as we think they should. How about moving the debate to current REAL world politics and talking about things that are legitimate and may actualy be changed.

[RogueLeader]

A business is a legal fiction. It does not exist naturally. I do not see how someone can have a natural right to that which does not exist in nature.

Without corporate "leadership" workers would be much better off. The corporation would be able to scientifically organize itself for maximum production. Without a few people taking most of the money, the workers would get much more. Each worker would understand the needs of the consumers and each other, and be able to work towards satisfying those. The owners are not the directors. The owners do very little direction. They assign petty-bourgeois supervisors to direct the machine. The petty-bourgeoisie are working class because they, like the workers, depend on wages to live.

Competition actually is a curse on capitalism, and not needed in socialism. In socialism, since maximum production is reached, competition would be useless, and since all people work together to constantly improve production, it is not necessary. In capitalism, competition destroys the equilibrium between supply in demand. When a business reduces its cost, demand will increase, while its competitors must make a change in supply to be able to produce the same quantity at lower prices. The change in supply will change the equilibrium and throw off the market. In theory the reduced quantity supplied of the business that lowered prices should compensate, but historically many businesses have figured out that it is easy to flood the market with ltos of cheap goods until the competitors die off.

Edit: Are you getting as bored with this thread as I am?

[Cholo Grande]

Yeah that's why I proposed talking about real world politics. I love discussing/debating politics, but we're at the classic capitalism/communism standoff. Whether a free capitalist society is better for the individual. I think so because it gives the potential for advancement to everyone. You think not because greedy capitalists (who I call the successfull) have all the resources. Both arguments are true. What it comes down to is if you believe in social Darwinism and that the "best" will rise to the top. The tragedy of capitalism is that there will always be losers that counterbalance the winners. Saying that if success were possible for everyone then everyone would be successfull ignores the fact that lots of people are content to never achieve anything greater or risk for greater achievement. Libraries are everywhere, yet everyone isn't educated.

How about talking about the ridiculous government giving 1.6 mil to families who lost loved ones in the WTC... THAT is foolish and just and example of the "cradle to the grave" government coddling we're embracing in this country.