See what Socialism will do for you?
Capn_TrVth
http://ww2.yle.fi/pls/show/page?id=256554
Any comment from the Dr.Laura-bashing-Liberal-effete?
No?
Aw C'mon... You know you WANT to.
Let's all see if we can guess which members of the a.r.t.d-l intelligentsia
would be so depraved as to palm their kids off on strangers so they can
stay at home and loll on Usenet all day long.
Meanwhile... Communities in the U.S. continue to clamor for more
"lazy-loot" so they too can eschew the raising of their Children in order to
stay at home and e-mail all their rumpswabbing Trotskyite Finn pals.
To a Liberal, Kids have about as much value as a cat or a dog... Which is
why their poor little Children grow up to be "haters".
What a mess...
Cap'n TrVth
murray
"Capn_TrVth"
<Capn_TrVTh@the_blinding-white-light_of_Truth@deal_with_it_losers.com> wrote
in message news:RzkZc.66830$JG7....@hydra.nntpserver.com...
> Looky here losers:
>
> http://ww2.yle.fi/pls/show/page?id=256554
>
> Any comment from the Dr.Laura-bashing-Liberal-effete?
"Dr.Laura-bashing"?
BWAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!
fuck man, now that IS funny!
Capn_TrVth
"murray" <mur...@wiggles.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ch4l77$din$5...@pita.alt.net...
How so?
-Cap'n TrVTh
Al
They will start seeing the wonderful effects of this on their society
in about 15 years.
Roger
How old are you?
"Capn_TrVth"
<Capn_TrVTh@the_blinding-white-light_of_Truth@deal_with_it_losers.com> wrote
in message news:RzkZc.66830$JG7....@hydra.nntpserver.com...
Roger
<Capn_TrVTh@the_blinding-white-light_of_Truth@deal_with_it_losers.com> wrote
in message news:mklZc.67515$JG7....@hydra.nntpserver.com...
Just when you thought it couldn't get better!
Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello
in support of Gee DUHbya Boosh!
Some such as your like and kindness once recovered from brain deadedness may
just as well commit youself to the local insane asylum or better yet go 'do
some crimes'.
Do you have silver tipped hollow-point teflon-coated bullets in you gun?????
Well, when you do, give me a call.
I am sure your unwelcomed death toll with submerge amongst the masses that
wish me dead.
Don't you know there is a war on right now?
A WAR BETWEEN DUH MASSES AND THOSE THAT CAN STILL SEE HOW STUPID DIS MESS
BEEES.
Whatever, may you days be shiny sparkly bits of desparation.
Money means nothing.
War can't fix that.
Snuffling one nose into Cheney/DUHbya butts . . .
YEAH!
That's it.
Snuffle Cheney/DUHbya's Butt Hole.
Dig your way to CHINA!
Where it's okay to be an asshole in public!
Fuck Cheney/DUHbya!
"Capn_TrVth"
<Capn_TrVTh@the_blinding-white-light_of_Truth@deal_with_it_losers.com> wrote
in message news:RzkZc.66830$JG7....@hydra.nntpserver.com...
murray
"Capn_TrVth"
<Capn_TrVTh@the_blinding-white-light_of_Truth@deal_with_it_losers.com> wrote
in message news:mklZc.67515$JG7....@hydra.nntpserver.com...
brining dr laura into any discussions is funny, you half wit!!
murray
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nrqZc.14597$zC....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
LOL! agreed!
Rafael Block
> Socialism?
>
> How old are you?
Judging by his posts, I'd say junior in high school.
Roger
news:iBtZc.436$N4...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Roger wrote:
>
> > Socialism?
> >
> > How old are you?
>
> Judging by his posts, I'd say junior in high school.
Our schools can't be half bad if they're still teaching them about
socialism.
It was over, what, 15 years ago?
Clave
> "Rafael Block" <raf...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:iBtZc.436$N4...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Roger wrote:
>>
>> > Socialism?
>> >
>> > How old are you?
>>
>> Judging by his posts, I'd say junior in high school.
>
> Our schools can't be half bad if they're still teaching them about
> socialism.
>
> It was over, what, 15 years ago?
You're probably thinking of the Soviet Union.
Socialism is an idea, and (I don't know if you'll quite get this, but...) ideas
can't die.
But anyway, socialistic policies (note that I'm not saying "socialism") work in
a whole lotta places even now.
Jim
Roger
news:ch6g4...@news3.newsguy.com...
Only in small places and small ways.
Even Bush would be happy to tell you how many countries are democracies.
Martin W. Smith
You are ignorant. Socialism requires democracy. Socialism cannot
function without democracy. Socialism and democarcy are not oppisites,
obviously.
Roger
news:u11ej0ptato21imnv...@4ax.com...
So, you must think that the Soviet Union was a democracy. It was socialist.
It was NOT communist. It never got that far.
Martin W. Smith
You are now deliberately feigning stupidity. The Soviet Union was not
Socialist, so the fact that it wasn't a democracy is irrelevant. Do
you think a state is Socialist just because it has Socialist in its
name? If so, then did you also think the German Democratic Republic
was a democracy?
You are just as dumb as George Bush.
Mr. N
> > But anyway, socialistic policies (note that I'm not saying "socialism")
> work in
> > a whole lotta places even now.
>
> Only in small places and small ways.
Like our highway system?
Power plants?
Sewage?
Schools?
--
-My Real Name
*************************
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-George W. Bush, April 9, 1999
Capn_TrVth
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:ch6g4...@news3.newsguy.com...
I'll bet all those poor little children that get palmed off on total
strangers don't agree.
Clave
Utter nonsense. Look at the US military.
Jim
Paul Mitchum
> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:UmDZc.14960$Oh6....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > But anyway, socialistic policies (note that I'm not saying
> > > "socialism") work in a whole lotta places even now.
> >
> > Only in small places and small ways.
>
> Like our highway system?
>
> Power plants?
>
> Sewage?
>
> Schools?
Corporations?
The stock market?
Mutual funds?
Credit unions?
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
Immaculata van Winkle
"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjhgzi.1gwvnzq1dlocdoN%use...@mile23.c0m...
> Mr. N <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:UmDZc.14960$Oh6....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> > > But anyway, socialistic policies (note that I'm not saying
>> > > "socialism") work in a whole lotta places even now.
>> >
>> > Only in small places and small ways.
>>
>> Like our highway system?
>>
>> Power plants?
>>
>> Sewage?
>>
>> Schools?
>
> Corporations?
>
> The stock market?
>
> Mutual funds?
>
> Credit unions?
No.........................
Public works are NOT the stinking brand of "Socialism" that you idiots
typically sponsor....
Allow me to describe the Socialism that you R-E-A-L-L-Y advocate.
The sort of Socialism that seeks to ban Prayer in School, remove GOD from
the pledge and History books.
The sort of Socialism that breeds massive poverty zones and systematically
seeks to squash ambition by promoting "LOSER MENTALITY".
The sort of Socialism that encourages AIDS. But WON'T advocate
abstinence.
The sort of Socialism that encourages MURDERING BABIES.
The sort of Socialism that ADVOCATES letting the State take care of your
Children. So you can loll on the Internet and avoid productivity.
The sort of Socialism that uses use fear, coercion, lies and anything else
that works to implement it's agendas.
The sort of Socialism that seeks to redistribute the wealth until EVERYONE
is as dependant and miserable as THEY are.
The sort of Socialism that's prime motivation is not safety or enhanced
quality of life but: Money and Power, pure and simple.
The sort of Socialism that "promises" prosperity, equality, and security,
but delivers poverty, misery, and tyranny.
The sort of Socialism that annihilates entire industries with predatory
unionization.
The sort of Socialism that is so predicated on total dependence that it that
ignores the concept of incentives.
The sort of Socialism that breeds week,lazy dependant, slackers that can't
even feed themselves.
The sort of Socialism that has NEVER flourished ANYWHERE in the world.
EVER.....
The sort of Socialism found in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China...
THAT SORT OF SOCIALISM (The only kind) F A I L E D SOCIALISM
Don't bring your silly crap about "power plants, sewage and schools" to an
argument that's really about passing out candy flavored condoms to grade
schoolers so they can get the subtle message that it's perfectly fine for
kids to explore the "Lifestyle".
WHY??? So that eventually, everyone will be gay and unemployed with ZERO
ambition and you guys will finally blend in?
I don't think so.....
Immaculata van Winkle
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Utter nonsense. Look at the US military.
>
> Jim
THAT particular Red Herring has been in the sun for WAY too long...
Clave
news:X4-dnemkxJq...@gwi.net...
Is there a reason you don't bother explaining what you mean?
Jim
Clave
<...>
You haven't the remotest idea of what socialism is.
Jim
Immaculata van Winkle
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
Of course I do, you just don't read very well.
See my original post, for the words YOUR & SORT.
Try reading it again .
Nancyboy.
You'll beg off, THEN won'tcha BOY?
-Cap'n Immaculata
Eric da Red
Immaculata van Winkle <rivw0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
>news:1gjhgzi.1gwvnzq1dlocdoN%use...@mile23.c0m...
>>>
>>> > > "socialism") work in a whole lotta places even now.
>>> >
>>> > Only in small places and small ways.
>>>
>>> Like our highway system?
>>> Power plants?
>>> Sewage?
>>> Schools?
>> Corporations?
>> The stock market?
>> Mutual funds?
>> Credit unions?
>No.........................
>
>Public works are NOT the stinking brand of "Socialism" that you idiots
>typically sponsor....
Paul is not an idiot, nor (afaik) is he a socialist.
You must be talking to someone else, or possibly yourself.
>Allow me to describe the Socialism that you R-E-A-L-L-Y advocate.
>
>The sort of Socialism that seeks to ban Prayer in School, remove GOD from
>the pledge and History books.
Ok. Now I know which brand of socialist you are describing.
Imaginary Socialist.
Glad we cleared that up.
Eric,
armchair socialist.
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
Immaculata van Winkle
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
Is there a reason you choose to play stupid after you just used "THE US
MILITARY" as EXAMPLE OF SOCIALISM????"
"The Socialist Military " is an EXTREME convoluton of facts, it's LIE...
This "Socialist Military" crap made it's way from the extreme left-wing
academia, it filtered from pinko to pinko but it's a total farce.
And so are -YOU- by the way.
There are aspects of the Military that resemble certain aspects of
socialism. "THEY GO TO A MESS HALL"
GASP THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!
By the sort of logic twisting YOU are engaging in, Koko the Gorilla is a
Qualified Authority on Linguistics
I can't believe how stupid some of you people are.
Fuck your bleating about Socialism, it's already -well- known that you are
an Osamma loving Saddam worshipping, Anti-American, Troop-Loathing Asshole,
so what's the point of making things worth by spoonfeeding a moronic meme
like that?
Huh Nancyboy?
Paul Mitchum
Immaculata's knee jerk up and hit his chin, forcing his foot into his
mouth.
Paul Mitchum
Paul Mitchum
> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
> news:ch7ts...@news4.newsguy.com...
> > "Immaculata van Winkle" <rivw0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:X4-dnemkxJq...@gwi.net...
> >> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
> >> news:ch7m5...@news4.newsguy.com...
> >>>
> >>> Utter nonsense. Look at the US military.
> >>
> >> THAT particular Red Herring has been in the sun for WAY too long...
> >
> > Is there a reason you don't bother explaining what you mean?
>
> Is there a reason you choose to play stupid after you just used "THE US
> MILITARY" as EXAMPLE OF SOCIALISM????" [..]
When will you grow tired of being so obviously wrong?
In Message-ID: <ch6g4...@news3.newsguy.com>, Clave wrote:
> But anyway, socialistic policies (note that I'm not saying "socialism")
> work in a whole lotta places even now.
--
Clave
Nope. You never have, and you're too weak-minded to ever try to learn.
Jim
Clave
> Immaculata van Winkle <rivw0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
>> news:ch7ts...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> > "Immaculata van Winkle" <rivw0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:X4-dnemkxJq...@gwi.net...
>> >> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:ch7m5...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> Utter nonsense. Look at the US military.
>> >>
>> >> THAT particular Red Herring has been in the sun for WAY too long...
>> >
>> > Is there a reason you don't bother explaining what you mean?
>>
>> Is there a reason you choose to play stupid after you just used "THE US
>> MILITARY" as EXAMPLE OF SOCIALISM????" [..]
>
> When will you grow tired of being so obviously wrong?
Same time he grows tired of beagles.
It's nothing tertiary syphilis wouldn't explain.
Jim
Eric da Red
Paul Mitchum <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote:
>Eric da Red <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul is not an idiot [..]
>
>*whew.*
I'm preparing your Not An Idiot medal. Do you want a "V" inscribed
on it?
Roger
"Martin W. Smith" <no.e...@this.time> wrote in message
socialism:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or
governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and
distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and
communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay
according to work done [m-w.com]
Immaculata van Winkle
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
Evasion noted, as expected....
What a mess.
Immaculata van Winkle
"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
Nice "hand-waving" -as you would say...
Why are you quoting me today Giligan?
You were running away like a little girl yesterday.
Please feel free to let us know *EXACTLY what I
wrote that you disagree with and WHY you disagree with it.
Post it right here.......>
Since Clave doesn't HAVE THE BALLS.
And don't forget to reply to the half dozen posts you
conveniently avoided yesterday.
Clave has left you to twist in the breeze over this, -I love it when he does
that to ya. It serves as a stark reminder of just how interdependent you
losers are on each other.
By "You Losers" I mean, All Leftist ass-holers -not just you and the Clam.
Paul Mitchum
> In article <1gjhqc0.1ivwuxap03yg8N%use...@mile23.c0m>,
> Paul Mitchum <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote:
> >Eric da Red <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul is not an idiot [..]
> >
> >*whew.*
>
> I'm preparing your Not An Idiot medal. Do you want a "V" inscribed on it?
Oh yes, very much.
Paul Mitchum
> Why are you quoting me today Giligan?
Because you're a fool, and your foolishness speaks for itself.
> Please feel free to let us know *EXACTLY what I wrote that you disagree
> with and WHY you disagree with it.
Was you said was irrelevant to the discussion, which is why I mocked
you. It's really sad that you didn't realize this, but so it goes.
Paul Mitchum
> Eric da Red <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1gjhqc0.1ivwuxap03yg8N%use...@mile23.c0m>,
> > Paul Mitchum <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote:
> > >Eric da Red <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Paul is not an idiot [..]
> > >
> > >*whew.*
> >
> > I'm preparing your Not An Idiot medal. Do you want a "V" inscribed on it?
>
> Oh yes, very much.
On second thought, no. Don't inscribe a 'V' on it.
Rafael Block
The Soviet Union wasn't a Democracy. It wasn't socialist. Nor was it communist.
[Well, for a few spare months it was] It was a dictatorship.
Rafael Block
> Please feel free to let us know *EXACTLY what I
> wrote that you disagree with and WHY you disagree with it.
>
> Post it right here.......>
> Since Clave doesn't HAVE THE BALLS.
Classic. Just how small IS your penis?
Thor Rathskeller
"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> Paul Mitchum <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote:
>
>> Eric da Red <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <1gjhqc0.1ivwuxap03yg8N%use...@mile23.c0m>,
>> > Paul Mitchum <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote:
>> > >Eric da Red <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Paul is not an idiot [..]
>> > >
>> > >*whew.*
>> >
>> > I'm preparing your Not An Idiot medal. Do you want a "V" inscribed on
>> > it?
>>
>> Oh yes, very much.
>
> On second thought, no. Don't inscribe a 'V' on it.
Wise choice.
You could never pull off the consummate "V" look.
Thor Rathskeller
"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> Immaculata van Winkle <rivw0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Why are you quoting me today Giligan?
>
> Because you're a fool, and your foolishness speaks for itself.
>
>> Please feel free to let us know *EXACTLY what I wrote that you disagree
>> with and WHY you disagree with it.
>
> Was you said was irrelevant to the discussion, which is why I mocked
> you. It's really sad that you didn't realize this, but so it goes.
>
Was I said was irrelevant?
Are you o.k.?
You're not practicing that disgusting auto-asphyxiation thing again are you?
BY THE WAY -Everything- I said was ENTIRELY relevant.
How do I know?
Because it shut you two silly bitches up.
Now.. Go back and answer everyhting you've dodged.
You can start with your "I was wrong about the war" apology speech.
You shit is Tardy as usual Giligan.
Clave
Beagle-compatible. Do the math.
Jim
Thor Rathskeller
Thor Rathskeller
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
This is how LIBERALS "argue"......
Heh....
Sweet.
Clave
news:PpWdnUpmpsG...@gwi.net...
"Argue?" Hardly. This is how we point and laugh at fuckheads like you.
How many socks are you running right now, Dink?
Jim
Joe Blowtowski
<traths...@att.worldcom.net> wrote:
>BWAHHHHhhhhhhhhh HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!
>
Yeah.. That was Funny!!
but guess what's even Funnier?
It's gonna Happen...
We Have God and Ronald Wilson Reagan on our side
God Bless George W. Bush
and the United States of America
Immaculata van Winkle
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
> "Thor Rathskeller" <traths...@att.worldcom.net> wrote in message
> "Argue?" Hardly. This is how we point and laugh at fuckheads like you.
>
But what *EXACTLY do you think you are laughing at?
And is that or Royal "WE" or do you mean you and Paul?
> How many socks are you running right now, Dink?
>
> Jim
As many as it takes to get you to do ONE more nice meltdown.
If you make it really nasty, I may give you a day or two off for bad
behavior.
Make your Mamma proud, please include the stuff about Dog-fucking and small
peni and whatnot.
TIA
I v W
Capn_TrVth
"Joe Blowtowski" <Joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5dkfj05ht9djcs2pv...@4ax.com...
SNUH!!!!!
Paul Mitchum
> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
> news:t72dnYME5YJ...@cablespeedwa.com...
>
> > "Argue?" Hardly. This is how we point and laugh at fuckheads like you.
>
> But what *EXACTLY do you think you are laughing at?
Fuckheads. Like you. Can't you read?
Immaculata van Winkle
"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> Immaculata van Winkle <rivw0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
>> news:t72dnYME5YJ...@cablespeedwa.com...
>>
>> > "Argue?" Hardly. This is how we point and laugh at fuckheads like
>> > you.
>>
>> But what *EXACTLY do you think you are laughing at?
>
> Fuckheads. Like you. Can't you read?
I thought you wanted to talk about Socialism, -what's with all the
smokescreens and hand-waving?
You're so weak these days Paul.
Put some soul in it Brother, -are you really so dispassionate about the
constructs of your fairy-tail world that you won't even openly discuss them?
Now, you -have- to find someone willing to take that spoonload of crap
before
it spoils. So why not spread some of your glorious Socialism right here for
us.. Go ahead, here look, I'll start it for ya:
My name is Paul Mitchum and I sing the praises of 'Socialism' because:
Check all that apply
[ ] Peter Pan was a wise and Noble Leader
[ ] Robin Hood robbed from the rich and gave to the poor
[ ] Snow White was covered under the Seven Dwarves Health Care Plan
[ ] Rapunzel couldn't let down her hair because she had Fibromyalgia
[ ] The Rabbit and the Turtle -both- won because competition is "wrong".
[ ] Hey Diddle Diddle, the Cat and the fiddle Bush lied & people died
[ ] Hansel & Gretal left a trail of condoms given to them by their teacher.
Please feel free to add....
Martin W. Smith
Yes? Can you explain how any of these fits the USSR any different from
the way it fits the USA?
You can't.
Roger
You're wrong.
Be a man. Admit it. Don't be like Bush.
Martin W. Smith
The Soviet Union was not Socialist. You only have to read about what
Socialism really is to see the truth of that. The Soviet Union was
totalitarianist. Socialism is not totalitarianism. socialism does not
lead to totalitarianism.
Paul Mitchum
So that's a no, you can't read.
Roger
Go to some god group and argue about angels on pinheads.
Martin W. Smith
Go to some library and read about Socialism, Capitalism,
Totalitarianism, and Democracy.
A pinhead is not the head of a pin, pinhead.
Mark Fox
The Soviet Union was most certainly socialist and it failed.
Socialism assumes the right of the Government to control its people.
Whether you run the socialist government by democracy or dictatorship
is irrelevant. The fundamental idea of socialism is that the people
serve the government, the government doesn't serve the people. Thus
there is no freedom in socialism. This authoritarian philosophy of
enslaving the workers easily justifies a government controlling its
own people and thus it is very easy to also justify a government
trying to controlling its neighboring countries. Thus is the basis
and rationale of soviet attempted military expansion across the world.
You guys are only claiming that the soviet union was not socialist
because it failed and now you are back peddling as fast as you can.
Eric da Red
Immaculata van Winkle <rivw0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
>news:1gji39q.jbqkqf17z20n4N%use...@mile23.c0m...
>> Immaculata van Winkle <rivw0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
>>> news:t72dnYME5YJ...@cablespeedwa.com...
>>>
>>> > "Argue?" Hardly. This is how we point and laugh at fuckheads like
>>> > you.
>>>
>>> But what *EXACTLY do you think you are laughing at?
>>
>> Fuckheads. Like you. Can't you read?
>
>I thought you wanted to talk about Socialism, -what's with all the
>smokescreens and hand-waving?
A discussion about socialism is only possible with someone who knows
something about socialism.
That excludes you. However, we don't want you to feel completely
left out, so we laugh at you instead.
That's the kind of inclusive people we are.
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
Clave
> "Capn_TrVth"
> <Capn_TrVTh@the_blinding-white-light_of_Truth@deal_with_it_losers.com> wrote
> in message news:mklZc.67515$JG7....@hydra.nntpserver.com...
>>
>> "murray" <mur...@wiggles.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ch4l77$din$5...@pita.alt.net...
>> >
>> > "Capn_TrVth"
>> > <Capn_TrVTh@the_blinding-white-light_of_Truth@deal_with_it_losers.com>
>> wrote
>> > in message news:RzkZc.66830$JG7....@hydra.nntpserver.com...
>> > > Looky here losers:
>> > >
>> > > http://ww2.yle.fi/pls/show/page?id=256554
>> > >
>> > > Any comment from the Dr.Laura-bashing-Liberal-effete?
>> >
>> >
>> > "Dr.Laura-bashing"?
>> >
>> >
>> > BWAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!
>> >
>> > fuck man, now that IS funny!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> How so?
>
> Just when you thought it couldn't get better!
Hey, Eric -- someone's cancelling your posts.
Jim
Rafael Block
Actually, I'm not laughing. I think it's sad that these guys are using their
sexual frustration as a rationale for lashing out at things they know nothing
about [fear? Ignorance will produce fear in the weak].
Rafael Block
> "Immaculata van Winkle" <rivw0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:X4-dnemkxJq...@gwi.net...
>
>>"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
>>news:ch7m5...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>Utter nonsense. Look at the US military.
>>>
>>>Jim
>>
>>THAT particular Red Herring has been in the sun for WAY too long...
It is funny that central control is bad, except when you talk about corporations,
where central control is defacto, and the millitary, where it is essential. And
unions are bad except when you want your roads built to last or your house fire
put out or your woulnd attended to by a competant nurse.
But I have another qeustion: Would the old Air Traffic Control folks pre-Reagan
have allowed the WTC/DC attacks to have gone on, or was it partly the fault of the
scabs?
Rafael Block
Thanks for proving you have no idea what you are talking about.
Next?
Mark Fox
It idea went woooshing over you head? did it? Oh well, Go back to
school. read some books and get yourself a clue. Then we can talk
more later after you wise up.
Br...@watchrock.net
> Huh Nancyboy?
Got yourself another imaginary friend, Bill?
--
Brien
"George W. Bush is like Rain Man,
without the math skills."
Martin W. Smith
It wasn't Socialist. It was Totalitarian. It failed because it was a
dictatorship.
>Socialism assumes the right of the Government to control its people.
No it doesn't.
Rafael Block
Read up on it? You're kidding, right? You make up a definition of socialism that
says 'the people serve the government' and you think I need to 'read up on it?'
THAT's funny!
Roger
"Martin W. Smith" <no.e...@this.time> wrote in message
news:cbrij0pqntv0j2nvr...@4ax.com...
Clave
news:slrncjiph...@brien.WathRock.net...
> On 2004-09-02, Immaculata van Winkle <rivw0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Huh Nancyboy?
>
> Got yourself another imaginary friend, Bill?
His name's Jeffy, but he likes it if you call him "Dink."
Jim
Immaculata van Winkle
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
Is Professor Clave going to pontificate on how the U.S. Military is a
shining example of Socialism or NOT?
No, he is not going to do that.
What about parallels between Socialism and the U.S. Military?
Nope, he won't go there either.
C'mon, Pusscake I want you to shock us and actually SAY something. other
than your standard Dogfucker, and "dink" retreat. You've done that WAY too
many times.
Wouldn't it just be easier to make the original point? Apparently not.
Any Clave rumpswabs, care to dive on this grenade? Hmmm?
No, it would appear there are not.
Paghat is lonely in Alt.Rec.Gardens Clave, I suggest you limit your presence
to that newsgroup. -I'll grant you sanctity THERE -if you promise to stay
under the hem of her moo-moo and keep your hate-infested garbage where it
belongs.
Whattaya think Nancyboy?
That's a pretty magnanimous gesture on my part, is it not?
Psssst... Take the easy out Clave, Go hang with the old bull-dykes.
They'll cotton to your bullshit just fine.
This is Usenet, not your personal Lord Haw Haw broadcast.
-Cap'n Imaculata van TrVth
A.K.A. -Cap'n TrVTh
Official AFA-B/S.P.GoatKeeper
Lord Protectorate of Camp Kickapansy
B.M.O.C. B.P.R.D. F.T.O.L. A.A.U.N.G.F
http://www.geocities.com/seattlepolitics/capn.jpg
My Real Pic, -No I am not gay, thanks for asking
http://www.geocities.com/seattlepolitics/spcartooon.jpg
Martin W. Smith
Mark Fox
> > >>
> > >> The Soviet Union was not Socialist. You only have to read about what
> > >> Socialism really is to see the truth of that. The Soviet Union was
> > >> totalitarianist. Socialism is not totalitarianism. socialism does not
> > >> lead to totalitarianism.
> > >
> > >
> > >The Soviet Union was most certainly socialist and it failed.
> >
> > It wasn't Socialist. It was Totalitarian. It failed because it was a
> > dictatorship.
It failed because it refused to reward its people for hard work and
good ideas. Thus the industries stagnated and the workers had no
incentive to get up in the morning and go to work.
> >
> > >Socialism assumes the right of the Government to control its people.
> >
> > No it doesn't.
> >
Yes, it does.
Moreover, it requires a centralized government to make the decisions
for everyone - for the "good of all society". Thus the name
"socialism". There is only one "society" and thus there must be one
central government to decide what's best for it. In a socialist world
you must get permission for everything that you do and you have to
justify that its in the best interest of "the society", not in your
best interest.
In a free society the reasoning begins with the premise that you can
do anything you want and it's the government that must justify why it
needs to impose restrictions.
This is the fundamental difference between socialism and freedom.
As I stated before but you snipped, when you have a socialist
government that is accustomed to feeling entitled to impose complete
control over its people (for the good of society) then it doesn't take
much of a logical leap to then justify taking control of the people in
their neighboring countries. The socialist thinking is that enslaving
those neighboring countries is for their own good. The socialist
thinking goes even further to assume that there is only one society on
the earth thus the socialist's natural thinking is that a single
solitary central committee should rightfully take control of the whole
world (for the good of all people). The fundamental basis of, and
rationale for, this idea is that the people are too stupid to manage
their own affairs and a "central government" must take care of them.
The grand irony is that the central government must be made up of
people. These people are subject to their own style of stupidity,
corruption, greed and theft.
This is what the soviet union did and this is why the United States
was engaged in the cold war to protect freedom across the world.
Martin W. Smith
>> "Martin W. Smith" <no.e...@this.time> wrote in message
>
>> > >>
>> > >> The Soviet Union was not Socialist. You only have to read about what
>> > >> Socialism really is to see the truth of that. The Soviet Union was
>> > >> totalitarianist. Socialism is not totalitarianism. socialism does not
>> > >> lead to totalitarianism.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >The Soviet Union was most certainly socialist and it failed.
>> >
>> > It wasn't Socialist. It was Totalitarian. It failed because it was a
>> > dictatorship.
>
>It failed because it refused to reward its people for hard work and
>good ideas. Thus the industries stagnated and the workers had no
>incentive to get up in the morning and go to work.
No it didn't. The US government doesn't "reward its people for hard
work and good ideas" either. ooooops!
Mark Fox
Yes, it did!
I'm doing fine with my hard work and good ideas. Bill Gates is doing
great too. So are the people who own Southwest Airlines. The people
who started Google are also doing great. I hear that the guy who
invented velcro is doing great too! In total, the American economy is
expanding because the government allows good ideas to be put into
action.
Ooooops! I guess its just you that has done no hard work and doesn't
have any good ideas. News flash: An idea isn't great just because you
say so. How many college degrees do you have? How many proposals
have you made to your boss which will increase sales for your company?
So sorry, but if you are lazy and you are dumb then you will have a
harder time in America. Of course if you bother to check you will
find that the people having the hardest time in America are doing very
well compared to 80 percent of the world's population. Gosh, I wonder
if our free society had anything to do with that??
Al
The United States isn't Socialist.
Martin W. Smith
>Martin W. Smith <no.e...@this.time> wrote in message news:<3i5oj0pojqcleueqf...@4ax.com>...
>> mark...@yahoo.com (Mark Fox) wrote:
>>
>> >> "Martin W. Smith" <no.e...@this.time> wrote in message
>>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> The Soviet Union was not Socialist. You only have to read about what
>> >> > >> Socialism really is to see the truth of that. The Soviet Union was
>> >> > >> totalitarianist. Socialism is not totalitarianism. socialism does not
>> >> > >> lead to totalitarianism.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >The Soviet Union was most certainly socialist and it failed.
>> >> >
>> >> > It wasn't Socialist. It was Totalitarian. It failed because it was a
>> >> > dictatorship.
>> >
>> >It failed because it refused to reward its people for hard work and
>> >good ideas. Thus the industries stagnated and the workers had no
>> >incentive to get up in the morning and go to work.
>>
>> No it didn't. The US government doesn't "reward its people for hard
>> work and good ideas" either. ooooops!
>
>Yes, it did!
>
>I'm doing fine with my hard work and good ideas.
The government isn't what rewards you. Give up this line of illogic.
It is not the job of government to reward you for your hard work and
ideas.
Martin W. Smith
The United States is more Socialist than the USSR ever was during my
lifetime.
Roger
What a load of bullshit.
You know you're just a silly little twit, right?
Martin W. Smith
Yes, I know that, but it is irrelevant. The US is far more Socialist
than the USSR ever was. The main points are that the US implements the
representative form of democracy, and also implements direct democracy
at the state level alongside the state level representative democracy.
Since democracy is required for Socialism to exist at all, and since
the USSR was not a democracy, and since the US does use collectivism,
and since the creators of an enterprise in the US are free to
instantiate their enterprise in as socialist a way as they choose,
the US is definitiely far more Socialist than the USSR ever was.
I confess that I am not at all sorry to break this news to you.
Roger
Martin W. Smith
Asked and answered, Roger.
The facts remain: The US is far more Socialist
Freddy
I think you are confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. While
democracy is necessary for socialism to exist at all,
a) not all forms of "democracy" will permit socialism
And
b) the presence of a permitting form of democracy does not cause
socialism. For that, other "sufficient" conditions must apply.
> and since
> the USSR was not a democracy, and since the US does use collectivism,
but not in a way that is connected with the democracy in any
meaningful way
> and since the creators of an enterprise in the US are free to
> instantiate their enterprise in as socialist a way as they choose,
they are, but they generally don't
> the US is definitiely far more Socialist than the USSR ever was.
>
It's not scaleable either. You either have a socialist polity or you
don't. The fact that there may be a coop some place running for the
benefit of its members says nothing of substance about the polity, the
mobilisation of working people in their own class interests, the
dissolution of classes etc ...
> I confess that I am not at all sorry to break this news to you.
The Nerk
Martin W. Smith
Yes they will. Democracy is required for socialism to exist at all.
The "form" of democracy is irrelevant.
Freddy
1. You don't address the distinction between necessary and sufficient
conditions, so merely reiterating the formulation "democracy is
required for socialism to exist at all" doesn't advance your claim one
iota. Your claim can be correct (indeed, I share it) without having
any implications for the emergence of socialism. Democracy also admits
capitalism. Many indigenous hunter-gatherer societies were arguably
democratic. What is absent from this are the sufficient conditions.
viz: capacity of working people of a substantial number of advanced
industrialised states to engage in supra national economic planning
and collaboration, synergy between the social production of these
states sufficient to create a supra national division of labour,
material-technical basis for eroding the wages system and the
dissolution of classes etc.
2. You ignore the reality that the "democratic" systems prevailing in
western countries such as the US give power to working people de jure,
but not defacto. In practice, the market system and the consequent
politcal and economic atomisation of working people as individual
economic units results in a concentration of political power and
prerogative in the hands of the owners of capital. Whole areas of
potential politcal intervention are foreclosed, and indeed, as formal
political mobilisation demands resources far exceeding those of
working people, all political mobilisation at the level of state power
is filtered through institutions utterly committed to the maintenance
of the market system (in the US, the Democratic and Republican
parties).
In a system which reproduces such massive social inequality, the
"default setting" for democracy will certainly favour more inequality,
and effectively disenfranchise those towards the bottom of the social
ladder. To pretend otherwise is to participate in hoodwinking working
people -- something I take it from your other posts on the subject
you'd be disinclined to do. So the "form" of the democracy is a
pertinent consideration.
3. You don't bother to argue whether one can have "islands of
socialism" within a capitalist system, and how one would measure the
frontiers. This is implicitly necessary in your observation that "the
US is more socialist than Russia ...". If socialism is a question of
degree, if there is a sliding scale, unless you draw a firm boundary
somewhere, perhaps its found universally at least to some extent. But
that is incompatible with your view that socialism depends on
democracy. Stalinism proposes that socialism can be created within the
confines of a single state, and your disgust at Stalinism
notwithstanding, you seem to imply that it exists to some extent
anywhere that democracy exists, ie in some tiny corner of even a
capitalist state -- socialism in one enterprise perhaps.
It seems to me that socialism is indissolubly linked with
international working class-driven economic cooperation and planning,
the dissolution of classes due to material progress and so forth. To
describe something short of this is to besmirch and utterly trivialise
the idea, so that it becomes an object of frivolous banter amongst
people who think some liberal proposing an expansion of the food
stamps program is the advance guard of the proletarian revolution.
The Nerk
Martin W. Smith
Yes, it does. Democracy is necessary for Socialism to exist at all.
The USSR was not a democracy. So the USSR was not Socialist. The US is
a representative democracy, and it even uses direct democracy at the
state and local levels. It also uses collectivism at all levels, and
it uses collectivism in capitalist enterprises, like insurance
companies, HMOs, etc. So the US is further toward the Socialist end of
the scale than the USSR was.
>Your claim can be correct (indeed, I share it) without having
>any implications for the emergence of socialism. Democracy also admits
>capitalism. Many indigenous hunter-gatherer societies were arguably
>democratic. What is absent from this are the sufficient conditions.
>viz: capacity of working people of a substantial number of advanced
>industrialised states to engage in supra national economic planning
>and collaboration, synergy between the social production of these
>states sufficient to create a supra national division of labour,
>material-technical basis for eroding the wages system and the
>dissolution of classes etc.
What is this repeated use of "supra" ? There is no requirement for
Socialism to permeate everything for it to exist. An enterprise can be
social-IST to some degree. An enterprise can be capital-IST to some
degree. A government can be democrat-IC to some degree. These are not
all or nothing, binary states.
>2. You ignore the reality that the "democratic" systems prevailing in
>western countries such as the US give power to working people de jure,
>but not defacto. In practice, the market system and the consequent
>politcal and economic atomisation of working people as individual
>economic units results in a concentration of political power and
>prerogative in the hands of the owners of capital. Whole areas of
>potential politcal intervention are foreclosed, and indeed, as formal
>political mobilisation demands resources far exceeding those of
>working people, all political mobilisation at the level of state power
>is filtered through institutions utterly committed to the maintenance
>of the market system (in the US, the Democratic and Republican
>parties).
All true, but (a) there is no requirement in Socialism that the people
be prevented from choosing this situation, and (b) there is no
requirement in Socialism that wealth and power tend to be distrivuted
equally.
>In a system which reproduces such massive social inequality, the
>"default setting" for democracy will certainly favour more inequality,
>and effectively disenfranchise those towards the bottom of the social
>ladder. To pretend otherwise is to participate in hoodwinking working
>people -- something I take it from your other posts on the subject
>you'd be disinclined to do. So the "form" of the democracy is a
>pertinent consideration.
I disagree. We can, at any election, move against all the problems you
describe. I'm hoping the coming election will be an example. There is
no deafult setting. Our setting is the one we have chosen. I agree
that working people have been hoodwinked, but that is always possible.
>3. You don't bother to argue whether one can have "islands of
>socialism" within a capitalist system, and how one would measure the
>frontiers. This is implicitly necessary in your observation that "the
>US is more socialist than Russia ...".
I disagree that it is implicitly necessary, if what you mean is
islands of pure socialism within a pure capitalist system. That isn't
possible, but it isn't necessary.
> If socialism is a question of
>degree, if there is a sliding scale, unless you draw a firm boundary
>somewhere, perhaps its found universally at least to some extent.
That *is* my view.
>But
>that is incompatible with your view that socialism depends on
>democracy. Stalinism proposes that socialism can be created within the
>confines of a single state, and your disgust at Stalinism
>notwithstanding, you seem to imply that it exists to some extent
>anywhere that democracy exists, ie in some tiny corner of even a
>capitalist state -- socialism in one enterprise perhaps.
That *is* what I mean. Socialism can exist in a single progam in an
otherwise capitalist system (Medicare, Social Security, private
insurance, public schools), or it can exist in a single enterprise (a
kibbutz in Israel, a coop market in San Francisco).
>It seems to me that socialism is indissolubly linked with
>international working class-driven economic cooperation and planning,
>the dissolution of classes due to material progress and so forth.
It is certainly linked to these ideas, but only in the same sense that
democracy is linked to the ideal of each citizen having a vote in
every decision. We don't implement democracy that way, but we still
call it democracy. Unions should be as powerful as corporations, but
every worker can't be voting on every business decision. There
shouldn't be anyone living in poverty, but that doesn't mean there
shouldn't be any rich people.
> To
>describe something short of this is to besmirch and utterly trivialise
>the idea, so that it becomes an object of frivolous banter amongst
>people who think some liberal proposing an expansion of the food
>stamps program is the advance guard of the proletarian revolution.
I disagree. These purist ideas of Socialism and Capitalism and
Democracy should be well used tools that we take out of the tool box
and use every day. We shouldn't be trying to implement a pure version
of any of them. they are all required. Socialism and Capitalism should
not be viewed as adversarial positions. They are both required. They
should be viewed as complementary, both requiring democracy to exist
at all.
Freddy
Socialism is about the dissolution of class rule, which can only be
said to be in train when classes themselves begin to disappear. Since
the existence of social classes is a consequence of material scarcity
the achievement of socialism depends on the creation of material
abundance, and therewith a form of political management based on
effective social and political equality. Working one step backwards at
a time, one can see that such anundance is inconceivable within the
confines of even a fairly advanced industrial state as the US, since
the burden of producing socially necessary goods still depends on the
alienation of large percentages of the discretionary time of
individuals, the maintenance of a wages system tied to survival in
order to compel such labour and so forth. That the US is more
"democratic" than both the USSR, and its successor states simply
reflects the greater relative material abundance of the US, and the
consequent capacity of some political activity not to be exclusively a
product of the rule of privileged classes. While that does mean that
achieving socialism in the US may entails surmounting fewer political
and material obstacles that is the case in almost any other state, it
doesn't mean it's possible or formally closer than any place else, any
more than one can say that an eagle has better prospects of achieving
space flight than an ostrich because it can fly. Flight is necessary,
but not sufficient.
> >2. You ignore the reality that the "democratic" systems prevailing in
> >western countries such as the US give power to working people de jure,
> >but not defacto. In practice, the market system and the consequent
> >politcal and economic atomisation of working people as individual
> >economic units results in a concentration of political power and
> >prerogative in the hands of the owners of capital. Whole areas of
> >potential politcal intervention are foreclosed, and indeed, as formal
> >political mobilisation demands resources far exceeding those of
> >working people, all political mobilisation at the level of state power
> >is filtered through institutions utterly committed to the maintenance
> >of the market system (in the US, the Democratic and Republican
> >parties).
>
> All true, but (a) there is no requirement in Socialism that the people
> be prevented from choosing this situation, and (b) there is no
> requirement in Socialism that wealth and power tend to be distributed
> equally.
>
On the contrary, I think (b) certainly is implicit, otherwise we have
a form of class rule, de facto, and part of the definition of
socialism is that the exercise of power is classless in character.
Regimes that are transitional will not have this character, and Lenin
spoke of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" to convey a period in
which the will of working people was exercised to preclude the return
to social and political power of the feudal and capitalist classes,
and the organisation of labour and materials to lay the basis for
socialism across the world. This he saw as "proletarian democracy"
rather than democracy in general, since in his view, all democracy in
class societies had a class character, and the tendency to speak
simply of democracy hid the hand that lay behind democracy in
capitalist society.
> >In a system which reproduces such massive social inequality, the
> >"default setting" for democracy will certainly favour more inequality,
> >and effectively disenfranchise those towards the bottom of the social
> >ladder. To pretend otherwise is to participate in hoodwinking working
> >people -- something I take it from your other posts on the subject
> >you'd be disinclined to do. So the "form" of the democracy is a
> >pertinent consideration.
>
> I disagree. We can, at any election, move against all the problems you
> describe. I'm hoping the coming election will be an example.
You hope in vain. There are no proposals for socialism, or even for
more inclusive capitalism, or even for a discussion of the prospects
for such things. I assume you are being rhetorical here.
> There is
> no deafult setting. Our setting is the one we have chosen. I agree
> that working people have been hoodwinked, but that is always possible.
>
In the absence of a large workingclass party striving unambiguously
for the class rule of working people, that's not merely possible, but
certain.
> >3. You don't bother to argue whether one can have "islands of
> >socialism" within a capitalist system, and how one would measure the
> >frontiers. This is implicitly necessary in your observation that "the
> >US is more socialist than Russia ...".
>
> I disagree that it is implicitly necessary, if what you mean is
> islands of pure socialism within a pure capitalist system. That isn't
> possible, but it isn't necessary.
>
> > If socialism is a question of
> >degree, if there is a sliding scale, unless you draw a firm boundary
> >somewhere, perhaps its found universally at least to some extent.
>
> That *is* my view.
>
> >But
> >that is incompatible with your view that socialism depends on
> >democracy. Stalinism proposes that socialism can be created within the
> >confines of a single state, and your disgust at Stalinism
> >notwithstanding, you seem to imply that it exists to some extent
> >anywhere that democracy exists, ie in some tiny corner of even a
> >capitalist state -- socialism in one enterprise perhaps.
>
> That *is* what I mean. Socialism can exist in a single progam in an
> otherwise capitalist system (Medicare, Social Security, private
> insurance, public schools), or it can exist in a single enterprise (a
> kibbutz in Israel, a coop market in San Francisco).
>
Well then we have different views on what socialism amounts to.
> >It seems to me that socialism is indissolubly linked with
> >international working class-driven economic cooperation and planning,
> >the dissolution of classes due to material progress and so forth.
>
> It is certainly linked to these ideas, but only in the same sense that
> democracy is linked to the ideal of each citizen having a vote in
> every decision. We don't implement democracy that way, but we still
> call it democracy. Unions should be as powerful as corporations, but
> every worker can't be voting on every business decision. There
> shouldn't be anyone living in poverty, but that doesn't mean there
> shouldn't be any rich people.
>
It's irrevocably bound up with these ideas. And as to you analogy,
some of the regular contributors distinguish democratic from
republican rule, on the basis that the US is NOT a democracy, but a
Republic.
> > To
> >describe something short of this is to besmirch and utterly trivialise
> >the idea, so that it becomes an object of frivolous banter amongst
> >people who think some liberal proposing an expansion of the food
> >stamps program is the advance guard of the proletarian revolution.
>
> I disagree. These purist ideas of Socialism and Capitalism and
> Democracy should be well used tools that we take out of the tool box
> and use every day. We shouldn't be trying to implement a pure version
> of any of them. they are all required. Socialism and Capitalism should
> not be viewed as adversarial positions. They are both required. They
> should be viewed as complementary, both requiring democracy to exist
> at all.
They are antagonistic. While it's likely that markets would persist in
a number of areas in the aftermath of a socialist revolution, the
resulting state would not, by definition be a socialist state but a
kind of half-way house, in which working people became accustomed to
organising the production and distribution of socially necessary goods
and services, while seeking to spread their influence to the working
people of other states, so as to make wider collaboration and an
international division of labour possible. Only when the capitalist
class had been effectively defeated on something like a world scale,
and complementary planning could take place across regions that were
rich in resources, technique and infrastructure, could we begin the
painstaking journey towards socialism.
The Nerk
Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello
You Get The
Gee DUHbya Boosh Award For DUH Most
"smarter than I am" Award!
Now, when you get a handle on what Socialism REALLY MEANS,
feel free to insert your contest entry into the proper slot next time.
Until then, have fun licking Bill Bonde's Balls!
"Freddy" <fredd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b00426.04091...@posting.google.com...
Martin W. Smith
But that is the same as "the American way," so if that is what
Socialism is about, then Socialism and America are about the same
thing. But that's not the case. I don't think Socialism can be about
the dissolution of class rule, because there are always classes.
Socialism can't possibly dissolve class rule.
> Since
>the existence of social classes is a consequence of material scarcity
>the achievement of socialism depends on the creation of material
>abundance, and therewith a form of political management based on
>effective social and political equality.
That conclusion doesn't follow. If Socialism wants to create material
abundance, the best way to do that is to use capitalism, because
capitalism takes advantage of personal ambition and greed.
But social classes exist whether there is material scarcity or not.
Social and political equality refer to equality of rights and
responsibilities, but capitalism also depends on these equlaities, so,
again, this does not distiguish socialism and capitalism.
> Working one step backwards at
>a time, one can see that such anundance is inconceivable within the
>confines of even a fairly advanced industrial state as the US, since
>the burden of producing socially necessary goods still depends on the
>alienation of large percentages of the discretionary time of
>individuals, the maintenance of a wages system tied to survival in
>order to compel such labour and so forth.
Economics operates in both capitalism and socialism. The problem of
lack of abundance really is due to lack of abundance combined with
inefficiency when there *is* abundance. The "alienation of large
percentages of the discretionary time of individuals" will always
happen in a system balanced toward either capitalism or socialism.
There is no free lunch. You have to work, and some people will have to
work harder than others some of the time.
I think it is a mistake to begin looking at these two systems as if
one is human and the other is not. I think the right way to look at
them is that they are the same except for one point: absentee owners.
Eliminate absentee owners from capitalism and you have socialism. Add
absentee owners to socialism and you have capitalism. The degree of
social and political equality or inequality will always vary in both
systems depending on the local culture. Both systems require
democracy, and both depend on the average level of humanity of the
population.
> That the US is more
>"democratic" than both the USSR, and its successor states simply
>reflects the greater relative material abundance of the US, and the
>consequent capacity of some political activity not to be exclusively a
>product of the rule of privileged classes. While that does mean that
>achieving socialism in the US may entails surmounting fewer political
>and material obstacles that is the case in almost any other state, it
>doesn't mean it's possible or formally closer than any place else, any
>more than one can say that an eagle has better prospects of achieving
>space flight than an ostrich because it can fly. Flight is necessary,
>but not sufficient.
We just disagree here.
>> >2. You ignore the reality that the "democratic" systems prevailing in
>> >western countries such as the US give power to working people de jure,
>> >but not defacto. In practice, the market system and the consequent
>> >politcal and economic atomisation of working people as individual
>> >economic units results in a concentration of political power and
>> >prerogative in the hands of the owners of capital. Whole areas of
>> >potential politcal intervention are foreclosed, and indeed, as formal
>> >political mobilisation demands resources far exceeding those of
>> >working people, all political mobilisation at the level of state power
>> >is filtered through institutions utterly committed to the maintenance
>> >of the market system (in the US, the Democratic and Republican
>> >parties).
>>
>> All true, but (a) there is no requirement in Socialism that the people
>> be prevented from choosing this situation, and (b) there is no
>> requirement in Socialism that wealth and power tend to be distributed
>> equally.
>>
>
>On the contrary, I think (b) certainly is implicit, otherwise we have
>a form of class rule, de facto, and part of the definition of
>socialism is that the exercise of power is classless in character.
We disagree here, too. There are the two concepts of cooperation and
competition. Socialism emphasizes cooperation, and capitalism
emphasizes competition, but cooperation and competition are always
both present. Just as important are the differences in individuals
with respect to these two concepts. There are people we would describe
as cooperators or consensus seekers, and there are people we would
describe as competitors or aggressive. People in the former group will
lean toawrd socialism, and people in the latter group will lean toward
capitalism, but no one is absolutely one or the other, and both types
are always present. People in the former group will tend not to rise
to the top in a capitalist system, and people in the latter group will
feel like prisoners in a socialist system.
It will always be that way because human nature varies over this
spektrum. The political and economic system we choose must reflect
this variable human nature, or it will fail, so capitalism and
socialism must both be included, which means there will always be an
unequal distribution of wealth and power. An unequal distribution is
not inherrantly wrong or bad.
>Regimes that are transitional will not have this character, and Lenin
>spoke of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" to convey a period in
>which the will of working people was exercised to preclude the return
>to social and political power of the feudal and capitalist classes,
>and the organisation of labour and materials to lay the basis for
>socialism across the world. This he saw as "proletarian democracy"
>rather than democracy in general, since in his view, all democracy in
>class societies had a class character, and the tendency to speak
>simply of democracy hid the hand that lay behind democracy in
>capitalist society.
I think Lenin tried to explain away what I said above, but he couldn't
do it. Human nature really does span the cooperation/competition
spektrum, so there will always be classes, and there will always be
change.
>> >In a system which reproduces such massive social inequality, the
>> >"default setting" for democracy will certainly favour more inequality,
>> >and effectively disenfranchise those towards the bottom of the social
>> >ladder. To pretend otherwise is to participate in hoodwinking working
>> >people -- something I take it from your other posts on the subject
>> >you'd be disinclined to do. So the "form" of the democracy is a
>> >pertinent consideration.
>>
>> I disagree. We can, at any election, move against all the problems you
>> describe. I'm hoping the coming election will be an example.
>
>You hope in vain. There are no proposals for socialism, or even for
>more inclusive capitalism, or even for a discussion of the prospects
>for such things. I assume you are being rhetorical here.
I accept that in recent years the US in particular has moved away from
socialism, but during the 20th century, there were a lot of important
socialistic advances, and the pendulum will swing back that way again.
But if you require Socialism in an absolute sense, you will always
fail.
>> There is
>> no deafult setting. Our setting is the one we have chosen. I agree
>> that working people have been hoodwinked, but that is always possible.
>>
>
>In the absence of a large workingclass party striving unambiguously
>for the class rule of working people, that's not merely possible, but
>certain.
I don't think a large working class party, were it composed of people
who think like the people who intend to vote for George Bush, would do
any better. I offer Norway as an example of how a country should be
run. It balances capitalism and socialism effectively and efficiently.
It can certainly be more efficient, but it uses level of service as a
measure of success as much as it uses profitiability. I would say that
Norway is, practically speaking, close to the best of both worlds, and
both worlds are required.
>> >3. You don't bother to argue whether one can have "islands of
>> >socialism" within a capitalist system, and how one would measure the
>> >frontiers. This is implicitly necessary in your observation that "the
>> >US is more socialist than Russia ...".
>>
>> I disagree that it is implicitly necessary, if what you mean is
>> islands of pure socialism within a pure capitalist system. That isn't
>> possible, but it isn't necessary.
>>
>> > If socialism is a question of
>> >degree, if there is a sliding scale, unless you draw a firm boundary
>> >somewhere, perhaps its found universally at least to some extent.
>>
>> That *is* my view.
>>
>> >But
>> >that is incompatible with your view that socialism depends on
>> >democracy. Stalinism proposes that socialism can be created within the
>> >confines of a single state, and your disgust at Stalinism
>> >notwithstanding, you seem to imply that it exists to some extent
>> >anywhere that democracy exists, ie in some tiny corner of even a
>> >capitalist state -- socialism in one enterprise perhaps.
>>
>> That *is* what I mean. Socialism can exist in a single progam in an
>> otherwise capitalist system (Medicare, Social Security, private
>> insurance, public schools), or it can exist in a single enterprise (a
>> kibbutz in Israel, a coop market in San Francisco).
>>
>
>Well then we have different views on what socialism amounts to.
Yes, we do.
>> >It seems to me that socialism is indissolubly linked with
>> >international working class-driven economic cooperation and planning,
>> >the dissolution of classes due to material progress and so forth.
>>
>> It is certainly linked to these ideas, but only in the same sense that
>> democracy is linked to the ideal of each citizen having a vote in
>> every decision. We don't implement democracy that way, but we still
>> call it democracy. Unions should be as powerful as corporations, but
>> every worker can't be voting on every business decision. There
>> shouldn't be anyone living in poverty, but that doesn't mean there
>> shouldn't be any rich people.
>>
>
>It's irrevocably bound up with these ideas. And as to you analogy,
>some of the regular contributors distinguish democratic from
>republican rule, on the basis that the US is NOT a democracy, but a
>Republic.
But republican democracy is a more efficient form of democracy. We
could have a much more efficient republic, but having everything
decided by direct democracy would be a disaster. There really are a
lot of stupid people in the world, and the US has more than its share
these days. Voters really should know what they are doing. This is the
problem with direct democracy. Everybody must have the right to vote.
That is required. But the state can't go through life lurching from
one stupid, emotional election to another. You simply can't ignore the
problem of stupid people.
>> > To
>> >describe something short of this is to besmirch and utterly trivialise
>> >the idea, so that it becomes an object of frivolous banter amongst
>> >people who think some liberal proposing an expansion of the food
>> >stamps program is the advance guard of the proletarian revolution.
>>
>> I disagree. These purist ideas of Socialism and Capitalism and
>> Democracy should be well used tools that we take out of the tool box
>> and use every day. We shouldn't be trying to implement a pure version
>> of any of them. they are all required. Socialism and Capitalism should
>> not be viewed as adversarial positions. They are both required. They
>> should be viewed as complementary, both requiring democracy to exist
>> at all.
>
>They are antagonistic.
Major point of disagreement.
Jésus Pépé
Fact Checker
They support Bush.
--
Cold Calculator,
Raven Cecil
"[...] since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter
whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is
that a state of war should exist."
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/16.html
"War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the
stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials
which might otherwise be used to make the masses [...] in the
long run, too intelligent."
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/16.html
"The enemy of the moment always represent[s] absolute evil."
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/2.html
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a
revolutionary act." [George Orwell]
Vote Smart, Vote S-Mart!
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.badnarik.org/
http://www.self-gov.org/
Freddy
> Yo! Fred Eye!
>
> You Get The
> Gee DUHbya Boosh Award For DUH Most
> "smarter than I am" Award!
>
Thanks ... (I think).
>
> Now, when you get a handle on what Socialism REALLY MEANS,
> feel free to insert your contest entry into the proper slot next time.
>
Well there are, as Martin demonstrates, a number of definitions in
circulation, but I tend to go with the orthodox one held by socialists
such as Marx, Plekhanov, Lenin, Kautsky, De Leon and so forth --
namely, a classless and essentially stateless society (ie one without
a wages system, compulsory labour etc) where social production, such
as it is, is conducted for and by the will of the citizenry on a
voluntary basis.
I guess it does get blurry when we speak of "socialist" parties and
"socialist" revolutions, becuase the inference is that a "socialist"
party or revolution necessarily defines the character of the ensuing
state, rtaher than perhaps, its mission or direction.
One could speak of socialist policies, without assuming that their
realisation would lead to socialism automatically. For example, a
socialist policy under capitalism might call for free access to
education or health services or transport, all of which would be
provided from funds drawn from the communtiy as a whole. That wouldn't
mean the society was "partly socialist" or that the health or
education or transport system was an instance of socialism, since the
context in which these operated would be:
a) marked by classes, a wages system, forced labour, persistence of
class society
and
b) capitalist markets determining production, planning etc ..
> Until then, have fun licking Bill Bonde's Balls!
>
I hadn't considered that. I lack the data to know if that would be any
good, but I take it you have some insight on the matter. I'm going to
pass, but as a good socialist I won't condemn you if that's your bag
and you and Bill consider the activity consensual.
The Nerk
Martin W. Smith
>"Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello" <visualize.w...@sweet.pussy.juice> wrote in message news:<8Ay1d.2965$g9.2251@trnddc06>...
>> Yo! Fred Eye!
>>
>> You Get The
>> Gee DUHbya Boosh Award For DUH Most
>> "smarter than I am" Award!
>>
>
>Thanks ... (I think).
>>
>> Now, when you get a handle on what Socialism REALLY MEANS,
>> feel free to insert your contest entry into the proper slot next time.
>>
>
>Well there are, as Martin demonstrates, a number of definitions in
>circulation, but I tend to go with the orthodox one held by socialists
>such as Marx, Plekhanov, Lenin, Kautsky, De Leon and so forth --
>namely, a classless and essentially stateless society (ie one without
>a wages system, compulsory labour etc) where social production, such
>as it is, is conducted for and by the will of the citizenry on a
>voluntary basis.
I agree that this is the orthodox definition, but I argue that it
isn't valid, because it was never achievable. I don't mean that it was
never achievable in the sense that ideals are forms of perfection that
are never achievable. I mean it was never achievable because it was
based on an incorrect view of human nature. I have tried to explain
what I think is the correct view of human nature, namely that there
are people we describe as competitors, and there are people we
describe as cooperators, and these two kinds of people view the world
in fundamentally different ways. I don't think these different views
are based only on education. For example, men tend to be more
competitive than women, and women tend to be more cooperative than
men, and I think this difference is partly due to biology.
>I guess it does get blurry when we speak of "socialist" parties and
>"socialist" revolutions, becuase the inference is that a "socialist"
>party or revolution necessarily defines the character of the ensuing
>state, rtaher than perhaps, its mission or direction.
>
>One could speak of socialist policies, without assuming that their
>realisation would lead to socialism automatically. For example, a
>socialist policy under capitalism might call for free access to
>education or health services or transport, all of which would be
>provided from funds drawn from the communtiy as a whole. That wouldn't
>mean the society was "partly socialist" or that the health or
>education or transport system was an instance of socialism, since the
>context in which these operated would be:
>
>a) marked by classes, a wages system, forced labour, persistence of
>class society
>
>and
>
>b) capitalist markets determining production, planning etc ..
I disagree with your point. I say this would be an instance of
socialism complementing capitalism.
I think it is time to define socialism more in line with what is
natural for a group of people who are cooperators. We can, for
example, define a socialist enterprise as one in which:
(a) there are no absentee owners, and
(b) every employee "owns" one or more shares of the enterprise.
I put "own" in quotes because I mean this ownership is not
transferrable. The employee "owns" the share(s) because he works in
the enterprise, and if he leaves the enterprise, he forfeits his
share(s). It seems to me that this is a natural implementation of
socialism at the enterprise level that will enable most of what
Socialists mean when they talk about implementing Socialism.
Freddy
> fredd...@hotmail.com (Freddy) wrote:
>
> >"Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello" <visualize.w...@sweet.pussy.juice> wrote in message news:<8Ay1d.2965$g9.2251@trnddc06>...
> >> Yo! Fred Eye!
> >>
> >> You Get The
> >> Gee DUHbya Boosh Award For DUH Most
> >> "smarter than I am" Award!
> >>
> >
> >Thanks ... (I think).
> >>
> >> Now, when you get a handle on what Socialism REALLY MEANS,
> >> feel free to insert your contest entry into the proper slot next time.
> >>
> >
> >Well there are, as Martin demonstrates, a number of definitions in
> >circulation, but I tend to go with the orthodox one held by socialists
> >such as Marx, Plekhanov, Lenin, Kautsky, De Leon and so forth --
> >namely, a classless and essentially stateless society (ie one without
> >a wages system, compulsory labour etc) where social production, such
> >as it is, is conducted for and by the will of the citizenry on a
> >voluntary basis.
>
> I agree that this is the orthodox definition, but I argue that it
> isn't valid, because it was never achievable. I don't mean that it was
> never achievable in the sense that ideals are forms of perfection that
> are never achievable. I mean it was never achievable because it was
> based on an incorrect view of human nature.
I reject the view that one can usefully describe human attributes as
human nature" -- if this refers to attributes distinct from the
experiential dimensions of human personality. Human predispositions
are a a complex combination of lived experience with biochemisty and
physiology, and since all of this is extremely hard to measure and
model reliably, it falls to us to set up paradigms of human
relationships and contexts likely to predispose individuals to
pro-social collaborative endeavour.
> I have tried to explain
> what I think is the correct view of human nature, namely that there
> are people we describe as competitors, and there are people we
> describe as cooperators, and these two kinds of people view the world
> in fundamentally different ways. I don't think these different views
> are based only on education. For example, men tend to be more
> competitive than women, and women tend to be more cooperative than
> men, and I think this difference is partly due to biology.
>
I think at some point this was more true than now, but it becomes less
true with each passing moment. At some point in history, biology in
its broadest sense was front and centre in lived experience -- and it
was "natural" (for want of a better term) for men and women to see
well defined gender-based personae as normative. Certainly, there
remains some evidence about the ways in which serotonin levels,
norepinephrine, testosterone, oestregen etc affect and regulate human
interactions, but I think we've come to the point when the influence
of these ought to be largely peripheral and not a significant factor
in modelling human systems.
> >I guess it does get blurry when we speak of "socialist" parties and
> >"socialist" revolutions, becuase the inference is that a "socialist"
> >party or revolution necessarily defines the character of the ensuing
> >state, rtaher than perhaps, its mission or direction.
> >
> >One could speak of socialist policies, without assuming that their
> >realisation would lead to socialism automatically. For example, a
> >socialist policy under capitalism might call for free access to
> >education or health services or transport, all of which would be
> >provided from funds drawn from the communtiy as a whole. That wouldn't
> >mean the society was "partly socialist" or that the health or
> >education or transport system was an instance of socialism, since the
> >context in which these operated would be:
> >
> >a) marked by classes, a wages system, forced labour, persistence of
> >class society
> >
> >and
> >
> >b) capitalist markets determining production, planning etc ..
>
> I disagree with your point. I say this would be an instance of
> socialism complementing capitalism.
>
> I think it is time to define socialism more in line with what is
> natural for a group of people who are cooperators. We can, for
> example, define a socialist enterprise as one in which:
>
> (a) there are no absentee owners, and
>
> (b) every employee "owns" one or more shares of the enterprise.
>
If the "owners" of the enterprise are equally equitable stakeholders
as well as producers, the internal relationships will be different --
they won't be divided between producers and capitalists, but the
enterprise, if it is a constituent part of a larger market dependent
on trade in labour power will still not qualify as socialist. Does a
group of consultants who form a partnership and go to India to offer
themselves for example, as a contract firm of IT specialists servicing
Indian business amount to a capitalist enterprise, in your view?
> I put "own" in quotes because I mean this ownership is not
> transferrable. The employee "owns" the share(s) because he works in
> the enterprise, and if he leaves the enterprise, he forfeits his
> share(s). It seems to me that this is a natural implementation of
> socialism at the enterprise level that will enable most of what
> Socialists mean when they talk about implementing Socialism.
I accept that you see the system as divisible rather than totalising,
and that this is one plausible model of the economic system, but I
think that ultimately one must define systems by the ways in which
most of the stakeholders interact with it. Most people in advanced
industrial societies know the system as one in which (if they can)
they sell their labour power for credits to purchase the social
product of the labour power of others. Some people with capital can
trade in the labour power of others, typically by selling the products
or services. A system in which labour is a commodity is known as
capitalism, even if some enterprises and work units within the system
don't operate that way. They are part of the integument and
reticulation of the system rather than an alternative and
complementary entity.
The Nerk
Martin W. Smith
As far as I can tell, what you wrote is consistent with what I mean by
human nature. I don't mean there is one personality that is human
nature. There are many. among them are the competitive personality and
the cooperative personality.
>> I have tried to explain
>> what I think is the correct view of human nature, namely that there
>> are people we describe as competitors, and there are people we
>> describe as cooperators, and these two kinds of people view the world
>> in fundamentally different ways. I don't think these different views
>> are based only on education. For example, men tend to be more
>> competitive than women, and women tend to be more cooperative than
>> men, and I think this difference is partly due to biology.
>>
>
>I think at some point this was more true than now, but it becomes less
>true with each passing moment. At some point in history, biology in
>its broadest sense was front and centre in lived experience -- and it
>was "natural" (for want of a better term) for men and women to see
>well defined gender-based personae as normative. Certainly, there
>remains some evidence about the ways in which serotonin levels,
>norepinephrine, testosterone, oestregen etc affect and regulate human
>interactions, but I think we've come to the point when the influence
>of these ought to be largely peripheral and not a significant factor
>in modelling human systems.
I disagree with that. Sexual preference, for example, is biological.
One can live against one's sexual preference, but the cost is high in
spiritual terms. We also have different rates of metabolism, so that
some people tend toward obesity, while others tend toward being
underweight. Why not expect the same kind of pre-programmed
differences in emphasis on personality attributes like competitiveness
and cooperativeness. In any case, here we are. We have a great many
highly competitve people and a great many highly cooperative people.
and we have a great many people who can do both.
They sell their services collectively, and they share the profit. They
each contribute to the work and to the decisions about how to run
their collective enterprise, what contracts to compete for, how much
to charge, how to distribute the profit among their group. If the
income is distributed among only their group and not to investors
outside the group (paying bank loans is an expense, not distribution
of profit), then it is a socialist enterprise in my view. If the
consultants are paid wages, not one or more shares of the profit, and
if the profit instead goes to shareholders who don't work for the
enterprise, it is a capitalist enterprise.
>> I put "own" in quotes because I mean this ownership is not
>> transferrable. The employee "owns" the share(s) because he works in
>> the enterprise, and if he leaves the enterprise, he forfeits his
>> share(s). It seems to me that this is a natural implementation of
>> socialism at the enterprise level that will enable most of what
>> Socialists mean when they talk about implementing Socialism.
>
>I accept that you see the system as divisible rather than totalising,
>and that this is one plausible model of the economic system, but I
>think that ultimately one must define systems by the ways in which
>most of the stakeholders interact with it. Most people in advanced
>industrial societies know the system as one in which (if they can)
>they sell their labour power for credits to purchase the social
>product of the labour power of others.
Viewed at the individual level, there is no difference between a
capitalist and a socialist. Capitalism and socialism only apply to
groups of people, and they differ in the financial, social, and
political rules that bind those people into the group.
> Some people with capital can
>trade in the labour power of others, typically by selling the products
>or services. A system in which labour is a commodity is known as
>capitalism, even if some enterprises and work units within the system
>don't operate that way. They are part of the integument and
>reticulation of the system rather than an alternative and
>complementary entity.
I'm saying that is the wrong way to view the world, because it is
self-defeating. Viewed that way, you are right, when you say you can't
change it except by violent revolution.
Freddy
It's the other way around. The dissolution of class rule leads
to/ushers in socialism. You are right to say that there have always
been classes (well nearly always -- not sure about prehistory, nomadic
hunter-gatherer societies, but we'll stick to the last few thousand
years of what is called "civilisation"). But does that entail
supposing that there WILL always be classes? Plainly, yes, if the
sufficient conditions apply -- material scarcity plus alienation of
the products of labour from those selling labour. Overcome those two
features of society and classes WILL disappear, at least in any form
that is measurably relatable to the political character of governance.
> > Since
> >the existence of social classes is a consequence of material scarcity
> >the achievement of socialism depends on the creation of material
> >abundance, and therewith a form of political management based on
> >effective social and political equality.
>
> That conclusion doesn't follow. If Socialism wants to create material
> abundance, the best way to do that is to use capitalism, because
> capitalism takes advantage of personal ambition and greed.
>
It's a double-edged sword though. Capitalist methods of social
organisation are perforce undemocratic. You can't have a plan to
determine production, distribution, allocation of inputs, allocation
of outputs etc based on worker/consumer choice if these matters are
the prerogative of those privately financing the operation. If "fear
and greed" (what I was always taught drove the system) really is at
the heart of matters, then it can hardly be dispensed with, except at
the cost of material abundance, and yet to maintain it we must have
radical and savage inequality, which is incompatible with democracy
also, which by your reckoning, would exclude socialism.
> But social classes exist whether there is material scarcity or not.
> Social and political equality refer to equality of rights and
> responsibilities, but capitalism also depends on these equlaities, so,
> again, this does not distiguish socialism and capitalism.
>
De Jure yes, but not de facto. The fact that the poor and the rich
have an equal right to sleep under bridges does not make them social
equals.
> > Working one step backwards at
> >a time, one can see that such anundance is inconceivable within the
> >confines of even a fairly advanced industrial state as the US, since
> >the burden of producing socially necessary goods still depends on the
> >alienation of large percentages of the discretionary time of
> >individuals, the maintenance of a wages system tied to survival in
> >order to compel such labour and so forth.
>
> Economics operates in both capitalism and socialism. The problem of
> lack of abundance really is due to lack of abundance combined with
> inefficiency when there *is* abundance. The "alienation of large
> percentages of the discretionary time of individuals" will always
> happen in a system balanced toward either capitalism or socialism.
> There is no free lunch. You have to work, and some people will have to
> work harder than others some of the time.
>
But in the end, the credits being traded in the form of money or other
valuables are units of the work of others. Those who trade better do
get what amounts to a free lunch. Those who trade poorly have to pay a
premium. And those who aren't in the game at all can go starve.
> I think it is a mistake to begin looking at these two systems as if
> one is human and the other is not.
One is based on caprice, chance and the conviction that humans cannot
identify their interests as humans and plan and implement solutions
accordingly. Socialism as a political system looks at the development
of humans from isolated individuals at the mercy of natural forces and
each other, and notes their escape from barbarism along the road of
greater and more effective collaboration. Capitalism, in the first
flush of its victory over feudalism and artisan-based industry
represented a step forward in historical terms, by marshalling the
coordinated power of humans to the cause of social production to an
extent never before seen.
But that period has now exhausted all of its historic mission. Now, it
has become a zero sum game, in which units of production have
developed to a point where they can only collide with each other in
futile competition, causing counterproductive duplication, human
conflict on a massive scale, the immiseration of large sections of the
non-industrialised world, the progressive pauperisation of the working
people of even the first world and a massicve military arsenal to
proect whatever privielges the first world deems essential.
If the world were governed rationally, ie according to the interests
of most humans, the next logical step would surely involve the
creation of an international division of labour and resources, capable
of sharing the benefits of the efficiencies created amongst all those
willing to work, more or less evenly, so that we all lived with
roughly the same practical prospects of happiness and much the same
burdens of labour.
It is if you believe that everyone is entitled to make the claims upon
the world's resources on the same basis that you make them. To defend
this principle in purely notional terms while rejecting it in practice
is, in my view, untenable.
There are no certainties in politics, but it is clear to me that the
struggle to establish socialism, as I see it, is the minimum ethical
position for someone who sees all humans as ethical equals, and
coextensively the only one consistent with the creation of a world in
which individual humans can hope to approach complete freedom.
I don't think people are inherently stupid. Certainly, there are
social processes in contemporary which result in radically larger
numbers of people who lack the interest in their own condition, or
that of others, to seek apparent gratification or mere survival as
their primary mode of behaviour. Such people learn to be "stupid" (ie
disconnected from their world, their peers, their own identity and
possibilities, and consequently ignorant and gullible). That is at
least one of the reasons for changing society as it is now -- to
empower those who cannot conceive of it. I don't think this is any
kind of historical accident either. Mass stupidity serves the powerful
at least as well as any tool of brute force -- and perhaps more so in
most cases.
Martin W. Smith
I don't see your reasoning for supposing that classes will disappear,
when material scarcity and absentee ownership disappear (alienation of
the products of labour from those selling labour = absentee
ownership). I propose to have socialist enterprises, as I have
described earlier. A socialist enterprise is one that, simply, has no
absentee owners and all the employees have some ownership of the
enterprise (non-transferrable) by virtue of being employees of the
enterprise. That is simply elimination of absentee ownership, which is
half of the two problems you claim must be eliminated for classes to
spontaneously disappear. But you can't make material scarcity go away.
To the extent that you can eliminate material scarcity, you can't
control it.
It sounds like you assume that material scarcity is deliberate, or
that it is an unavoidable consequence of capitalism. I don't think it
is either. I remind you that the command economies of the USSR and
China were dismal failures compared to the capitalist west.
We can certainly eliminate food scarcity (still, although we are in an
increasingly precarious situation), and we can eliminate clotihing
scarcity and transportation scarcity. But even if we eliminate
clothing scarcity, for example, there are always new styles, and they
new style clothing will always be scarce. And everyone can't get a new
car every two years. And we don't have enough energy to produce
everything that the increasing population will want. Elimination of
material scarcity is simply not possible, so classes can never
spontaneously disappear, and they will certainly never go away by
force.
Furthermore, I don't know why you would want to eliminate them.
>> > Since
>> >the existence of social classes is a consequence of material scarcity
>> >the achievement of socialism depends on the creation of material
>> >abundance, and therewith a form of political management based on
>> >effective social and political equality.
>>
>> That conclusion doesn't follow. If Socialism wants to create material
>> abundance, the best way to do that is to use capitalism, because
>> capitalism takes advantage of personal ambition and greed.
>>
>
>It's a double-edged sword though. Capitalist methods of social
>organisation are perforce undemocratic.
No, they aren't. There is no reason why good capitalists can't run
their enterprises democratically. However, there are good reasons not
to run them that way, which is why even the socialist enterprises I
describe would run better when their employees elect a CEO and other
officers who can run the enterprise as a profit making business
without fear of immediate removal.
>You can't have a plan to
>determine production, distribution, allocation of inputs, allocation
>of outputs etc based on worker/consumer choice if these matters are
>the prerogative of those privately financing the operation.
Wait! You can't make these choices democratically, certainly! The
systems of the world are far too big and complex to run by democracy.
Most employees have little idea how much of their product should be
produced. They might be producing something that no one will want in a
month, and whole populations can't vote on all this stuff quickly
enough. You would be spending all your time just voting on how much of
each product to make!
> If "fear
>and greed" (what I was always taught drove the system) really is at
>the heart of matters, then it can hardly be dispensed with, except at
>the cost of material abundance, and yet to maintain it we must have
>radical and savage inequality, which is incompatible with democracy
>also, which by your reckoning, would exclude socialism.
I have repeatedly said the opposite, that equality of material wealth
is not only not required for socialism but is not desirable.
>> But social classes exist whether there is material scarcity or not.
>> Social and political equality refer to equality of rights and
>> responsibilities, but capitalism also depends on these equlaities, so,
>> again, this does not distiguish socialism and capitalism.
>>
>
>
>De Jure yes, but not de facto. The fact that the poor and the rich
>have an equal right to sleep under bridges does not make them social
>equals.
Socialism does not depend on material equality.
>> > Working one step backwards at
>> >a time, one can see that such anundance is inconceivable within the
>> >confines of even a fairly advanced industrial state as the US, since
>> >the burden of producing socially necessary goods still depends on the
>> >alienation of large percentages of the discretionary time of
>> >individuals, the maintenance of a wages system tied to survival in
>> >order to compel such labour and so forth.
>>
>> Economics operates in both capitalism and socialism. The problem of
>> lack of abundance really is due to lack of abundance combined with
>> inefficiency when there *is* abundance. The "alienation of large
>> percentages of the discretionary time of individuals" will always
>> happen in a system balanced toward either capitalism or socialism.
>> There is no free lunch. You have to work, and some people will have to
>> work harder than others some of the time.
>>
>
>But in the end, the credits being traded in the form of money or other
>valuables are units of the work of others. Those who trade better do
>get what amounts to a free lunch. Those who trade poorly have to pay a
>premium. And those who aren't in the game at all can go starve.
There is no way to determine whether a trade is fair except by
agreement of the parties to the trade. The future is not that
predictable. A socialist enterprise makes a profit or a loss just like
the corresponding capitalist enterprise. The difference is in the
distribution of that profit or loss. Of course there are better
traders and worse ones. Socialism doesn't guarantee equal trades.
>> I think it is a mistake to begin looking at these two systems as if
>> one is human and the other is not.
>
>One is based on caprice, chance and the conviction that humans cannot
>identify their interests as humans and plan and implement solutions
>accordingly.
Neither is based on those things.
>Socialism as a political system looks at the development
>of humans from isolated individuals at the mercy of natural forces and
>each other, and notes their escape from barbarism along the road of
>greater and more effective collaboration. Capitalism, in the first
>flush of its victory over feudalism and artisan-based industry
>represented a step forward in historical terms, by marshalling the
>coordinated power of humans to the cause of social production to an
>extent never before seen.
>
>But that period has now exhausted all of its historic mission. Now, it
>has become a zero sum game, in which units of production have
>developed to a point where they can only collide with each other in
>futile competition, causing counterproductive duplication, human
>conflict on a massive scale, the immiseration of large sections of the
>non-industrialised world, the progressive pauperisation of the working
>people of even the first world and a massicve military arsenal to
>proect whatever privielges the first world deems essential.
>
>If the world were governed rationally, ie according to the interests
>of most humans, the next logical step would surely involve the
>creation of an international division of labour and resources, capable
>of sharing the benefits of the efficiencies created amongst all those
>willing to work, more or less evenly, so that we all lived with
>roughly the same practical prospects of happiness and much the same
>burdens of labour.
All I can say is: Get real. You are thinking in the rarified
atmosphere of social theory that even sounds boring. I consider myself
a socialist (in the terms I have described), and as I read what you
advocate, I become depressed just thinking about it. I certainly do
not want to live in the world you envision as ideal. Why can't you be
happy working in an enterprise where there is no absentee ownership
and where you receive a fair share of the profit and have a meaningful
voice in how the enterprise is run? That's all you have a hope in hell
of achieving.
[...]
>There are no certainties in politics, but it is clear to me that the
>struggle to establish socialism, as I see it, is the minimum ethical
>position for someone who sees all humans as ethical equals, and
>coextensively the only one consistent with the creation of a world in
>which individual humans can hope to approach complete freedom.
I agree, as long as establishing socialism does not mean eliminating
capitalism. The two systems are complementary. Both are necessary.
[...]
>I don't think people are inherently stupid. Certainly, there are
>social processes in contemporary which result in radically larger
>numbers of people who lack the interest in their own condition, or
>that of others, to seek apparent gratification or mere survival as
>their primary mode of behaviour. Such people learn to be "stupid" (ie
>disconnected from their world, their peers, their own identity and
>possibilities, and consequently ignorant and gullible). That is at
>least one of the reasons for changing society as it is now -- to
>empower those who cannot conceive of it. I don't think this is any
>kind of historical accident either. Mass stupidity serves the powerful
>at least as well as any tool of brute force -- and perhaps more so in
>most cases.
Some people are inherently stupid. A lot of them live in the US.