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/ter...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
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

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?