What socialism is not: 4 Vladimir Kuznetsov

[Guy Marsh]

I'm sorry, but it seems that I have deleted
"What socialism is" from my "outbox". I do,
however, still have a copy of "What socialism
is not" which I have posted on numerous occa-
sions.
I currently lack the time required to repro-
duce "What socialism is", but I will do so
within a day or so. That is, of course, un-
less Mike Lepore or Redflag might have a copy
or two laying around (hint hint). (o;
===============================================

What socialism is not
____________

Socialism does not mean government or state
ownership. It does not mean a state bureaucracy
as in the former U.S.S.R., with the working-class
oppressed by a new bureaucratic class. It does
not mean a closed party-run system without demo-
cratic rights. It does not mean "nationalization",
or labor-management boards," or state capitalism
of any kind. It means a complete end to all cap-
italist social relations.

To win the struggle for socialist freedom requires
enormous efforts of organizational and educational
work. It requires building a political party of
socialism to contest the power of the capitalist-
class on the political field and to educate the
majority of workers about the need for socialism.
It requires building socialist industrial union or-
ganizations to unite all workers in a classconscious
industrial force that will prepare us to take, hold
and operate the tools of production.
You are needed in the ranks of socialists fighting
for a better world. Find out more about the program
and work of the Socialist Labor Party (by clicking
the web address below) and join us to help make the
promise of socialism a reality.

Persevere,
Guy
Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP)
Member-at-large
http://www.slp.org
__________

[Vladimir Kuznetsov]

OK, it will be fun to comment on this one. Still I am waiting
for accurate definition of what "socialism" is. Then we can talk
about how feasible it is, side effects, etc.

Please, look in my comments below . . .

In article <MPG.fef2beb9...@news.ptw.com>,

Guy Marsh <gu...@ptw.com> wrote:
>
>
> What socialism is not
> ____________
>
>
>Socialism does not mean government or state
>ownership. It does not mean a state bureaucracy
>as in the former U.S.S.R., with the working-class
>oppressed by a new bureaucratic class.

So no state ownership. For an enterprise to run you have
to have somebody responsible for the well being of the corporation.
For now we know it is not the state. It is also not a bureaucracy
inside the state.

>It does
>not mean a closed party-run system without demo-
>cratic rights.

???

>It does not mean "nationalization",
>or labor-management boards," or state capitalism
>of any kind. It means a complete end to all cap-
>italist social relations.
>

So at this point no state, no party, no labor management
board. The last phrase means no traditional management the
way how we understand it. The question is, who?

>To win the struggle for socialist freedom requires
>enormous efforts of organizational and educational
>work.

By whom?

>It requires building a political party of
>socialism to contest the power of the capitalist-
>class on the political field and to educate the
>majority of workers about the need for socialism.

Here we have an answer. It will be a party. Not political,
of course.

In a first paragraph you said "...It does

not mean a closed party-run system without demo-

cratic rights...".

So we still need a party. How can you make a non-political party
is an intriguing mystery to me.

>It requires building socialist industrial union or-
>ganizations to unite all workers in a classconscious
>industrial force that will prepare us to take, hold
>and operate the tools of production.

Here is a new entity on a picture -- 'industrial union'.
I guess with this union one will need organs controlling the union
and well trained bureaucracy to run local chapters of this union.
Looks like another kind of oppressive government to me.

>You are needed in the ranks of socialists fighting
>for a better world. Find out more about the program
>and work of the Socialist Labor Party (by clicking
>the web address below) and join us to help make the
>promise of socialism a reality.

Here is a final discloser after demagogical sloganeering.
"We need you, buddy" to help us in our political intrigues!!!

Guy, are not you ashamed of this?

[peter]

In article <6m4bo5$a6e$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>, Vladimir Kuznetsov
<vl...@best.com> writes

>
> OK, it will be fun to comment on this one. Still I am waiting
>for accurate definition of what "socialism" is.

ok here you go.

Taken from an original edition of;
Vol II
FAITHS OF THE WORLD; A DICTIONARY OF ALL RELIGIONS AND RELIGIOUS SECTS,
THEIR DOCTRINES, RITES, CEREMONIES, AND CUSTOMS
Compiled from the latest and best authorities
By The Rev. James Gardner M.A.
circa 1858
Published A. Fullarton & Co. London & Edinburgh

Here we have a really clear view of the origins of Socialism, proof that
it is a faith, if not a religion, proof that it is fatally flawed in its
pre suppositions that men are equally intelligent, inspired, motivated,
and capable:
Proof that it's laudable goals are impossible to achieve, and proof that
when forced upon men, it can only slake its great need to control by
shedding the blood of millions of men women and children and the unborn.
I always thought Socialism was rooted in naivety and here is
the proof:

SOCIALISTS
A class of men professing to follow the teachings of Robert Owen of New
Lanark, who in the beginning of the present century devised what he
called the Science of Human Happieness. All the evils which afflict the
social body he belived to originate on conventionial irregularities
caused by the present state of civilization. He made a religion of
social regeneration, and expected to renovate the world by a new
arrangement of property and industrial interests. Owen taught first in
Britian and afterwards in America, that a new state of society would
secure the happiness of the whole community; that in this ideal paradise
on earth men should co-operate and enjoy the fruit of their common toil;
that instead of the present system of unnatural marriages there should
be a free choice of kindred spirits; and that instead of families there
should be communities. He held that as far as our present knowledge
extends there is no evidence of a future state of being beyond the
grave; and hence every religion which leads us to entertain such
expectation was in his view a delusion. He asserted that man is
responsible to no superior being; and that if placed from childhood in
the right circumstances, without the perverting influence of poverty and
ignorance, his moral character and feelings would be so good that a
division of property would be quite unnecessary. Man therefore is
amenable to natural consequences alone; and these are modified for good
or evil to each individual by the influence of society. "The
arrangements", says Mr. Robert Owen, "of the system which has hitherto
prevailed over the earth, have been made with the direct view to
endeavour to obtain the greatest amount of wealth and power for a
limited number of individuals, regardless of happiness to the producers
of this wealth and power; while the wealth and power thus obtained are
very limited in their aggregate amount, and cannot give substantial and
satisfactory happiness even to those who obtain the largest share of
both.
"The arrnagements or new conditions which will arise from the
universal introduction of the rational system, will be formed to give
substantial permanent happiness to ALL of the race; and by giving
happiness to all, each within these arrangements will command more
wealth and power than any one, in any rank or station, has ever
posessed, or than any one can attain, under the existing irrational
system.
"The good conditions that will be made to arise from the
rational social system will place each one, for all practical purposes,
in posession of the use of the wealth of the world; and that wealth will
be multiplied, compared with its present amount, many hundred-fold.
"Under these new conditions, also, each will posess more power
over the affections and good offices of his fellow men, and in
consequence, more power over the use and enjoyment of the earth and its
productions, than any sovereign has ever attained; yet no one will ever
obstruct any other in the enjoyment of this wealth and power; and
therein will be the security and happiness of all.
"According to this system, the good conditions which may now be
placed under the control of society will be competent, when properly
combined, to secure the permanent regeneration of mankind, - to give new
feelings, new mind, and new conduct to all; and when these conditions
shall be created, they will accomplish in a short period far more in
making men good, wise, and happy, in uniting them, and in giving
individual liberty, wealth and power, than all religions, governments,
laws, and institutionshave effected through past ages, or could attain
through eternity under such insane institutions as those now existing.
"The rational social system proposes, in an orderly, peaceable
manner, to create these superior conditions, and to make them gradually
supercede the present most irrational conditions: - conditions which
have all emanated from a fundamental falsehood, and which thus have
produced the language of falsehood, and the endless evils which have
afflicted and which now afflict the human race."
This system of Socialism, insofar as it recognises Christianity
at all, regards it as nothing more than a system of social regeneration,
and our Lord Himself as the great teacher of Communism. The holy,
humbling truths of the gospel are carefully kept out of sight; while the
love and charity which it inculcates are made its all in all. This
plausible form of infidelity, connected as it is with liberal political
views, has made extensive progress for many years past among the working
classes on both sides of the Atlantic; and its apostles, preaching
Socialism as the only religion which assigns to industry the high
position which in their view belongs to it, succeed in ensnaring many of
the honest sons of toil into the acceptance of a system of delusion and
imposture, injurious to their happiness and prosperity in this world, as
well as to their eternal well being in the world to come.
END

As this was written before the doctrine of socilaism had drained the
blood from 170 million men, women and children - it's legacy since 1917,
it is pretty mild!

[Rich Johnson]

ctive file. Deleting.
: In article <97519559F2A1EE8B.638579D40E6EBBDB.1845F91E57DEB91C@library-
: proxy.airnews.net>, lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net says...
: > On 15 Jun 1998 16:46:13 -0700, vl...@best.com (Vladimir Kuznetsov)
: > wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > OK, it will be fun to comment on this one. Still I am waiting
: > >for accurate definition of what "socialism" is. Then we can talk

: > >about how feasible it is, side effects, etc.
: > >
: > > Please, look in my comments below . . .
: > >
: > >In article <MPG.fef2beb9...@news.ptw.com>,
: > >Guy Marsh <gu...@ptw.com> wrote:
: > >>
: > >>
: > >> What socialism is not
: > >> ____________

: > >>

... snipping a bunch of stuff ...

: > >>You are needed in the ranks of socialists fighting

: > >>for a better world. Find out more about the program
: > >>and work of the Socialist Labor Party (by clicking
: > >>the web address below) and join us to help make the
: > >>promise of socialism a reality.

: > >
: > > Here is a final discloser after demagogical sloganeering.
: > >"We need you, buddy" to help us in our political intrigues!!!
: > >
: > > Guy, are not you ashamed of this?

: No, I sure as hell am not ashamed of this!
: For "(y)ou are needed in the ranks of...."
: is there for the benefit of socialists who
: may be in search of a socialist party. I
: can assure you, vlad, that the likes of you -
: do not even begin to enter my mind when penn-
: ing such things. Get it? Good!

Wow, you sure pissed off Guy. Come the revolution
you'll probably one of the first ones they shoot.

:
: Mike Quest:

: > No Vladimir, he is not. He's not yet emotionally mature enough, to
: > realize how utterly preposterous his gaggle of word smithing actually
: > is. But he's still young. Give him another 20 years or so of being
: > slapped around by a reality that has no patience with those humans who
: > try so desperately to ignore it. He'll eventually wise up, look back
: > and feel really silly for squandering his most precious wealth and
: > happiness building years capitulating to the load of un-earned guilt
: > he got from his parents.

: I am 40-years-old, Mike. How old are you?
: And not that I give a flying-fuck, but since
: I know that you do, I'll just tell you that
: I probably earn a lot more money than you do.
: And as far as happiness is concerned. I happen
: to be deliriously happy. Because of all the
: wealth I am allowed to keep? Hell no! None
: of that means much of anything to me, anymore.
: What makes me happy, Mike? Mainly, the simple
: fact that I spend at least 20-hours-per-week
: being a part of the Pacific ocean. But I won-
: der if you are even able to understand such a
: simple pleasure.

: And Mike, as I have stated on numerous occasions,
: I used to be a Mike Quest.

That must have been before the lobotomy.

: Therefore, I understand
: you quite well. Yet do you understand the socialist?
: Definitely not!

Well, that's because you socialists have yet to
explain what your plan is beyond saying that socialism
promises that the sun will shine every day and all the
people will be happy at last. Whenever we press you for
details you usually leave the thread and start up somewhere
else. Face it, you do not have a viable alternative to
capitalism. I'd be happy to debate this fact with you
but you will probably not reply.

Rich

: Persevere.

Yes, absolutely. Keep trying. The more you talk the
more you reveal the absurdity of your position.

[Jerome Fryer]

Mark Gibson wrote:
>
> Guy Marsh (gu...@ptw.com) wrote:
> >
> >
> >Socialism is the collective ownership by
> >all the people of the factories, mills,
> >mines, railroads, land and all other in-
> >struments of production. Socialism means
> >production to satisfy human needs, not, as
> >under capitalism, for sale and profit.
>
> Socialism is theft by power hungry wackos.
> Ostensibly, it is support to benefit losers,
> but they usually end up worse off than ever.
>
> Socialism is doomed to fail as it did in the USSR.

Yeah, sure. Now detail how the USSR was socialist, for the benefit of
us "wackos".

(Well, I could do with some cheap laughs... :)

Regards,
Jerome 8)

[LQuest]

On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:30:39 +0100, peter <pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

[snip]

> "The rational social system proposes, in an orderly, peaceable
>manner, to create these superior conditions, and to make them gradually
>supercede the present most irrational conditions: - conditions which
>have all emanated from a fundamental falsehood, and which thus have
>produced the language of falsehood, and the endless evils which have
>afflicted and which now afflict the human race."
> This system of Socialism, insofar as it recognises Christianity
>at all, regards it as nothing more than a system of social regeneration,
>and our Lord Himself as the great teacher of Communism. The holy,
>humbling truths of the gospel are carefully kept out of sight; while the
>love and charity which it inculcates are made its all in all. This
>plausible form of infidelity, connected as it is with liberal political
>views, has made extensive progress for many years past among the working
>classes on both sides of the Atlantic; and its apostles, preaching
>Socialism as the only religion which assigns to industry the high
>position which in their view belongs to it, succeed in ensnaring many of
>the honest sons of toil into the acceptance of a system of delusion and
>imposture, injurious to their happiness and prosperity in this world, as
>well as to their eternal well being in the world to come.
>END
>
>
>As this was written before the doctrine of socilaism had drained the
>blood from 170 million men, women and children - it's legacy since 1917,
>it is pretty mild!

Surprise surprise! The parasitic infection has not yet responded to
this interesting post.

--Mike

[Lepore]

Since you criticize everything that goes by the name
"socialism" based on what some 1858 book of editorial
opinions said about Owen, apparently you haven't
read Engels' sharp criticism of the Owen-type fakers.
When you get to high school, ask your teacher for a copy.

[peter]

In article <35899E...@mhxv.net>, Lepore <lep...@mhxv.net> writes

You conveniently ignore the 170 million+ dead for the "cause". When you
get your passport you might consider visiting Russia and other FSU /
COMECON countries [most of which I have worked in] and go and see for
yourself. You should especially visit Romania, where the grand plan of
socialism tried to crush individualism and see the results of these
satanic utopian ideas for yourself.

"The difference between Communism and Socialism is like the
difference between murder and suicide. In one system the
government does all of the slaughtering - in the other (socialism), the
people opt to slaughter themselves."

--

[larios]

Guy Marsh wrote:

> I'm sorry, but it seems that I have deleted
> "What socialism is" from my "outbox". I do,
> however, still have a copy of "What socialism
> is not" which I have posted on numerous occa-
> sions.
> I currently lack the time required to repro-
> duce "What socialism is", but I will do so
> within a day or so. That is, of course, un-
> less Mike Lepore or Redflag might have a copy
> or two laying around (hint hint). (o;
> ===============================================
>

> What socialism is not
> ____________
>
>

> Socialism does not mean government or state
> ownership. It does not mean a state bureaucracy
> as in the former U.S.S.R., with the working-class

> oppressed by a new bureaucratic class. It does

> not mean a closed party-run system without demo-

> cratic rights. It does not mean "nationalization",

> or labor-management boards," or state capitalism
> of any kind. It means a complete end to all cap-
> italist social relations.
>

> To win the struggle for socialist freedom requires
> enormous efforts of organizational and educational

> work. It requires building a political party of

> socialism to contest the power of the capitalist-
> class on the political field and to educate the
> majority of workers about the need for socialism.

> It requires building socialist industrial union or-
> ganizations to unite all workers in a classconscious
> industrial force that will prepare us to take, hold
> and operate the tools of production.

> You are needed in the ranks of socialists fighting
> for a better world. Find out more about the program
> and work of the Socialist Labor Party (by clicking
> the web address below) and join us to help make the
> promise of socialism a reality.
>

[Octapi]

Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3588A50A...@ihug.co.nz>...

The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was the envy of the left during the
brutal regimes of Lenin and Stalin. After the left could no longer deny the
murderous terror perpetrated by the socialists in the USSR against their
people, the left made Mao their icon of socialist enlightenment. He was
equally as brutal. Then they switched to Castro. Now the left is denying
that there was any socialism at all in those countries. This is hilarious.

[Lepore]

When did Robert Owen kill 170 million people??

You're still stuck on the idea that everything that
had been called by the same name must be the same thing.

Maybe it's just me. I first realized during early childhood
that various things aren't the same merely because the same
word has been applied to them, and impatiently I expect
people here to realize that.

In fact, it's ONLY regarding the word "socialism" that
people are unable to realize it!

The schools and news media must be doing their job.

[Vladimir Kuznetsov]

In article <358e6e90...@news.cableinet.net>,
Feline <fel...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:01:44 -0500, Dave Svendsen
><svendse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>So what happens when the "rank-and-file" decide that the lowest common
>>denominator among them is what they gauge their economic prosperity by -
>>or their level of production by?
>
>What does this mean?
>
>What is the lowest common denominator of capitalist production? The
>expansion of capital through the appropriation of surplus value.
>Curiously, the rational of capitalist production is not to meet the
>needs of consumers as primary motivation.

Ha, ha, ha! If nobody is buying then the "production" goes out of
business. If it is clear, how the "capitalist production" is not there
to meet consumer's demand?

>A socialist system is built upon the premise that human productive
>capacity in meeting the requirements of consumers should be based on
>that principle... not on on appropriation of value.
>

In theory yes. But as usual the practice makes its own corrections
and the final result is something different. As long as you are pipe-
dreaming everything in the theory of socialism looks nice. But as soon
as you try to implement it (should I quote examples?) incredibly low
living conditions and human suffering is the usual result.

>
>>Then those who are truly talented will
>>be stifled and/or enslaved by the rest of the society that cannot
>>respect personal intellect, intelligence and achievement.
>
>On the contrary, socialism was founded upon the principle of
>liberating humanity from the yoke of production. The majority of
>humanity is enslaved to that process and it is only when they have the
>time to devote to their developement that that can be achieved.
>

Don't forget - in any system somebody has to produce to provide
for your nice living.

>Every advance that humanity has undertaken has been on the basis of a
>technological developement which has partially liberated people from
>the productive yoke. The entire developement of culture and technology
>has been on that basis.
>
>This enabled the developement of classes who, liberated from
>production, could devote their time cultural and technological
>progression as opposed to the classes intimately bound to the
>requirement of production.
>

Like the class of college professors teaching socialism.

>Consider recent technological advances which on the basis of
>capitalist society have not resulted in a shortening of the working
>day but in a reduction of the work force and an increase in the
>intensity of exploitation. The process is not even national but supra
>national.
>

Where did you get this? Or is it again pipe-dreaming? What do you
have in your piper?

>Such technological advances on a socialist basis would result in a
>reduction of the working day and improvements in the material
>conditions of existence generally.

In Russia, I heard these promises all my childhood but it never
happened. Of course, the usual explanation was that we have to work
harder and harder to win the race with bloody capitalists. Strangely
in spite of all achievements we were always behind.

>
>The quantitative measure of success on a socialist basis is not an
>increase in personal wealth at the expense of others but in
>improvements in one's quality of life in tandem with an improvement in
>marerial conditions. The hoarding of money becomes an irrelevance once
>it's role as regulating mechanism is supplanted.
>

So what do you mean by "improvements in one's quality of life
in tandem with an improvement in marerial conditions"/ If it is not wealth
then what is it?

And I am just curious - what are you going to supplant money with?
One of the nice things about communism (as I was taught) is the absence
money. Just enlighten us, tell us how it will look in post-money society.

>To progress it is necessary to look ahead not backwards.
>
>Feline
>
>

I don't know what you are smoking, Feline. Be careful, it can
illegal instance, you know.

vlad
;x

[Feline]

On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:01:44 -0500, Dave Svendsen
<svendse...@execpc.com> wrote:

>Guy Marsh wrote:
>
>> Socialism is the collective ownership by
>> all the people of the factories, mills,
>> mines, railroads, land and all other in-
>> struments of production. Socialism means
>> production to satisfy human needs, not, as
>> under capitalism, for sale and profit.
>>
>

><snip>
>
>> Within each shop or office division of a plant,
>> the rank and file will participate directly in
>> formulating and implementing all plans necessary
>> for efficient operations.
>>
>> Persevere.
>> Guy

>
>So what happens when the "rank-and-file" decide that the lowest common
>denominator among them is what they gauge their economic prosperity by -
>or their level of production by?

What does this mean?

What is the lowest common denominator of capitalist production? The
expansion of capital through the appropriation of surplus value.
Curiously, the rational of capitalist production is not to meet the
needs of consumers as primary motivation.

Yet I think even you would accept that the dynamic of prodution should
be to meet the requirements of consumption, as it's primary concern.

A socialist system is built upon the premise that human productive
capacity in meeting the requirements of consumers should be based on
that principle... not on on appropriation of value.

>Then those who are truly talented will
>be stifled and/or enslaved by the rest of the society that cannot
>respect personal intellect, intelligence and achievement.

On the contrary, socialism was founded upon the principle of
liberating humanity from the yoke of production. The majority of
humanity is enslaved to that process and it is only when they have the
time to devote to their developement that that can be achieved.

Every advance that humanity has undertaken has been on the basis of a

technological developement which has partially liberated people from
the productive yoke. The entire developement of culture and technology
has been on that basis.

This enabled the developement of classes who, liberated from
production, could devote their time cultural and technological
progression as opposed to the classes intimately bound to the
requirement of production.

Consider recent technological advances which on the basis of

capitalist society have not resulted in a shortening of the working
day but in a reduction of the work force and an increase in the
intensity of exploitation. The process is not even national but supra
national.

Such technological advances on a socialist basis would result in a

reduction of the working day and improvements in the material
conditions of existence generally.

The quantitative measure of success on a socialist basis is not an

increase in personal wealth at the expense of others but in
improvements in one's quality of life in tandem with an improvement in
marerial conditions. The hoarding of money becomes an irrelevance once
it's role as regulating mechanism is supplanted.

To progress it is necessary to look ahead not backwards.

Feline

[Betti Schleyer]

For one thing, Communism is not a good measure of Socialism. That's why
they are two different words. Of course, Feline's definition of
Socialism is different from mine. The money system is not inheirently
faulty. However, the current situation in the world is. Isn't it
wasteful to throw a broken thing out when you can fix it?

[Betti Schleyer]

The regimes of Mao, Lenin, and Stalin were PERSONALIST DICTATORSHIPS!!!
They weren't even true communisms. The Marxist def. of Communism in the
Manifesto was that of a cooperative anarchy.

[Betti Schleyer]

I hate bourgousie propaganda, don't you?

[Jerome Fryer]

Octapi wrote:
>
> Jerome Fryer wrote in message
> <3588A50A...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >Mark Gibson wrote:
> >>

> >> Guy Marsh (gu...@ptw.com) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Socialism is the collective ownership by
> >> >all the people of the factories, mills,
> >> >mines, railroads, land and all other in-
> >> >struments of production. Socialism means
> >> >production to satisfy human needs, not, as
> >> >under capitalism, for sale and profit.
> >>

> >> Socialism is theft by power hungry wackos.
> >> Ostensibly, it is support to benefit losers,
> >> but they usually end up worse off than ever.
> >>
> >> Socialism is doomed to fail as it did in the USSR.
> >
> > Yeah, sure. Now detail how the USSR was
> > socialist, for the benefit of us "wackos".
>
> The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was the
> envy of the left during the brutal regimes of
> Lenin and Stalin.

So I guess the German DEMOCRATIC Republic was democratic, right?

> After the left could no longer deny the murderous
> terror perpetrated by the socialists in the USSR
> against their people, the left made Mao their
> icon of socialist enlightenment.

The "left" is composed of many elements with divergent opinions.
Communists tended to extoll the virtues of these systems, not
socialists.

> He was equally as brutal. Then they switched to
> Castro. Now the left is denying that there was
> any socialism at all in those countries. This is
> hilarious.

It is hilarious that you obviously haven't the faintest idea what
socialism is.

I suggest that you grow a brain, then read some literature on socialism.

Regards,
Jerome 8)

[Marcin Tustin]

This definition refers to one sort of socialism. It has diversified.
Bolshevism was not socialist in any way. Socialism remains sound.
--
Humanity will not be happy until the day when the
last bureaucrat has been hanged with the guts of the
last capitalist

Marcin Tustin
Mar...@mindless.com

[Marcin Tustin]

In article <6mgjin$l3f$1...@news-1.news>, oct...@liberty.com says...

> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3588A50A...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >Mark Gibson wrote:
> >>
> >> Guy Marsh (gu...@ptw.com) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Socialism is the collective ownership by
> >> >all the people of the factories, mills,
> >> >mines, railroads, land and all other in-
> >> >struments of production. Socialism means
> >> >production to satisfy human needs, not, as
> >> >under capitalism, for sale and profit.
> >>
> >> Socialism is theft by power hungry wackos.
> >> Ostensibly, it is support to benefit losers,
> >> but they usually end up worse off than ever.
> >>
> >> Socialism is doomed to fail as it did in the USSR.
> >
> >Yeah, sure. Now detail how the USSR was socialist, for the benefit of
> >us "wackos".
> >
>
>
> The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was the envy of the left during the

> brutal regimes of Lenin and Stalin. After the left could no longer deny the

> murderous terror perpetrated by the socialists in the USSR against their

> people, the left made Mao their icon of socialist enlightenment. He was

> equally as brutal. Then they switched to Castro. Now the left is denying
> that there was any socialism at all in those countries. This is hilarious.

There wasn't socialism in those countries...the leaders just called it
socialism.

[Harold]

On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 06:10:09 GMT, Betti Schleyer <ome...@spyral.net>
wrote:

>The regimes of Mao, Lenin, and Stalin were PERSONALIST DICTATORSHIPS!!!
>They weren't even true communisms. The Marxist def. of Communism in the
>Manifesto was that of a cooperative anarchy.

That is the only kind of socialism that is possible. The force
necessary to implement socialism will always attract those who wish to
use the force for their own benefit. The coercion necessary to
maintain socialism will always attract the would be tyrants.

It is a defect in the idea of socialism which leads to dictatorship.

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
"Neither "property" nor the value of property is a physical
thing. Property is a set of defined options...It is that
set of options which has economic value...It is the options,
and not the physical things, which are the "property" -
economically as well as legally...But because the public
tends to think of property as tangible, physical things,
this opens the way politically for government confiscation
of property by forcibly taking away options while leaving
the physical objects untouched."
--- Thomas Sowell

[Harold]

On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:35:41 +0100, Mar...@mindless.com (Marcin
Tustin) wrote:

>In article <6mgjin$l3f$1...@news-1.news>, oct...@liberty.com says...

[edited]

>> The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was the envy of the left during the
>> brutal regimes of Lenin and Stalin. After the left could no longer deny the
>> murderous terror perpetrated by the socialists in the USSR against their
>> people, the left made Mao their icon of socialist enlightenment. He was
>> equally as brutal. Then they switched to Castro. Now the left is denying
>> that there was any socialism at all in those countries. This is hilarious.

>There wasn't socialism in those countries...the leaders just called it
>socialism.

It is the only kind of socialism possible in the real world. The
force which is necessary to institute socialism will always attract
people who would use that power to their benefit, and the coercion
necessary to maintain a socialist society will always attract those
who would misuse it.

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
-----
"To be controlled in our economic pursuits is to be controlled
in everything."
---F. A. Hayek

[Harold]

On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:26:58 GMT, fel...@cableinet.co.uk (Feline)
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:01:44 -0500, Dave Svendsen
><svendse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>

>>Guy Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> Socialism is the collective ownership by
>>> all the people of the factories, mills,
>>> mines, railroads, land and all other in-
>>> struments of production. Socialism means
>>> production to satisfy human needs, not, as
>>> under capitalism, for sale and profit.

The fallacy here is the implication that "for sale and profit" is not
for human need. In a capitalist system, you cannot sell what people
do not want, so you will not make it.

In a Socialist system, you can make what people do not want. There is
no efficient check to insure people want it.

>><snip>
>>
>>> Within each shop or office division of a plant,
>>> the rank and file will participate directly in
>>> formulating and implementing all plans necessary
>>> for efficient operations.
>>>
>>> Persevere.
>>> Guy
>>
>>So what happens when the "rank-and-file" decide that the lowest common
>>denominator among them is what they gauge their economic prosperity by -
>>or their level of production by?
>
>What does this mean?
>
>What is the lowest common denominator of capitalist production? The
>expansion of capital through the appropriation of surplus value.

No, the production of what the public wants. Just try to manufacture
any product for which there is no market! Only a socialist can do
that and survive to produce more.

>Curiously, the rational of capitalist production is not to meet the
>needs of consumers as primary motivation.

Try selling that to any capitalist manufacturer! In fact, the only
way a capitalist can stay in business is to supply what people need.
Failure to supply what people need is the surest road to loss of
capital, hence, there is no successful capitalist manufacturer who can
afford to ignore the public's needs. Of course, a socialist
manufacturer can ignore the public, since they do not judge the
product.

>Yet I think even you would accept that the dynamic of prodution should
>be to meet the requirements of consumption, as it's primary concern.

Absolutely.

>
>A socialist system is built upon the premise that human productive
>capacity in meeting the requirements of consumers should be based on
>that principle... not on on appropriation of value.

Premises are irrelevant when they cannot be realized. In order to get
what he wants, a capitalist must do what other people want them to.
If they do not, they are punished by a lack of income. This is not,
of course, the case for a socialist manufacturer.

They can afford to continue making whatever suits their fancy, until a
committee decides to produce something else. The public's desires do
not enter into it by a direct, constant, daily, vote, as they do in a
capitalist system.

>>Then those who are truly talented will
>>be stifled and/or enslaved by the rest of the society that cannot
>>respect personal intellect, intelligence and achievement.
>
>On the contrary, socialism was founded upon the principle of
>liberating humanity from the yoke of production. The majority of
>humanity is enslaved to that process and it is only when they have the
>time to devote to their developement that that can be achieved.

How are you going to guarantee that "they" have time to devote to
their development? If you guarantee any one person the right to
resources they themselves have not produced, who are you going to
force to work to develop those resources?

>Every advance that humanity has undertaken has been on the basis of a
>technological developement which has partially liberated people from
>the productive yoke. The entire developement of culture and technology
>has been on that basis.
>
>This enabled the developement of classes who, liberated from
>production, could devote their time cultural and technological
>progression as opposed to the classes intimately bound to the
>requirement of production.

Great!!!!! Make me one of those classes who can live off of other
classes. I suggest you as one of the worker classes, so that you can
produce the resources I need to pursue my development.

In that vein, I need a new computer for my development. Produce it
for me, slave.

[deleted in disgust]

[Vladimir Kuznetsov]

No, Betty, they were socialists. Just read books written by people
who were better educated and much smarter then you are.

BTW, is not a capitalism and anarchy of entrepreneurs?

vlad
;x

In article <358DF3...@spyral.net>,

[Vladimir Kuznetsov]

In article <358DFF63...@ihug.co.nz>,

Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>It is hilarious that you obviously haven't the faintest idea what
>socialism is.
>

Do you know, Jerome, what the socialism is? I asked you once
to present us a definition. A am still waiting. I suspect that you
have no clue about reality of societal development, just a lot
of pipe-dreaming.

vlad

[Lepore]

> >Curiously, the rational of capitalist production is not to meet the
> >needs of consumers as primary motivation.
>
> Try selling that to any capitalist manufacturer! In fact, the only
> way a capitalist can stay in business is to supply what people need.

How many people here remember a vote being taken
that funds that might go to research to cure cancer
should instead be used to market the Olympic Skater Barbie doll?

[Guy Marsh]

> Octapi (oct...@liberty.com) wrote:
> >Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3588A50A...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >>Mark Gibson wrote:
> >>>

> >>> Guy Marsh (gu...@ptw.com) wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Socialism is the collective ownership by
> >>> >all the people of the factories, mills,
> >>> >mines, railroads, land and all other in-
> >>> >struments of production. Socialism means
> >>> >production to satisfy human needs, not, as
> >>> >under capitalism, for sale and profit.
> >>>

> >>> Socialism is theft by power hungry wackos.
> >>> Ostensibly, it is support to benefit losers,
> >>> but they usually end up worse off than ever.
> >>>
> >>> Socialism is doomed to fail as it did in the USSR.
> >>
> >>Yeah, sure. Now detail how the USSR was socialist, for the benefit of
> >>us "wackos".
> >>
> >
> >

> >The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was the envy of the left during the
> >brutal regimes of Lenin and Stalin. After the left could no longer deny the
> >murderous terror perpetrated by the socialists in the USSR against their
> >people, the left made Mao their icon of socialist enlightenment. He was
> >equally as brutal. Then they switched to Castro. Now the left is denying
> >that there was any socialism at all in those countries. This is hilarious.

In response - knee-jerk-reaction - to
all of the above, Mark Gibson sported
his "intelligence" in the following
manner:

> Guy Marsh is too fucking stupid to know that...

Thank you, Mark, for demonstrating, agian,
that you couldn't string together two mean-
ingful sentences to save your pathetic ass.

Persevere.

Guy
Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP)
Member-at-large
http://www.slp.org
__________

Remember the U.S.S. Liberty
06-08-67
http://www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty
_______

Former member
Republican & Democratic
Parties

[Guy Marsh]

> In article <358DFF63...@ihug.co.nz>,
> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> >It is hilarious that you obviously haven't the faintest idea what
> >socialism is.

vlad <vl...@best.com> :

> Do you know, Jerome, what the socialism is? I asked you once
> to present us a definition. A am still waiting. I suspect that you
> have no clue about reality of societal development, just a lot
> of pipe-dreaming.

vlad, perhaps Jerome is waiting for
you to acknowledge the definition -
of socialism - which I posted, five-
days-ago and at your request.
You know, the genesis of this thread !

[Jerome Fryer]

Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> In article <358DFF63...@ihug.co.nz>,
> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > It is hilarious that you obviously haven't
> > the faintest idea what socialism is.
> >
>

> Do you know, Jerome, what the
> socialism is? I asked you once to present us
> a definition. A am still waiting. I suspect
> that you have no clue about reality of
> societal development, just a lot of pipe-
> dreaming.

Change the record, Vlad. You're just making an idiot of yourself.

I provide a definition, which you ignored. For the benefit of others
I'll repost it:

socialism 1 a political and economic theory of social organization which
advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means
of production, distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or practice based on
this theory.
- source; Oxford English Dictionary.

Regards,
Jerome 8)

[Jerome Fryer]

Guy Marsh wrote:
>
> > In article <358DFF63...@ihug.co.nz>,
> > Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > It is hilarious that you obviously
> > > haven't the faintest idea what
> > > socialism is.
>

> vlad <vl...@best.com> :

>
> > Do you know, Jerome, what the
> > socialism is? I asked you once to
> > present us a definition. A am still
> > waiting. I suspect that you have no
> > clue about reality of societal
> > development, just a lot of pipe-
> >dreaming.
>

> vlad, perhaps Jerome is waiting for
> you to acknowledge the definition -
> of socialism - which I posted, five-
> days-ago and at your request.
> You know, the genesis of this thread !

I've posted a dictionary definition several times, in the hope that he
might be able to comprehend something relatively concise and simplified.

Alas, no luck yet.

Regards,
Jerome 8)

[Harold]

This is germane is some fashion? Every person who purchased a Barbie
doll made their decision that this was what they wanted their
resources to be devoted to.

They did not ask for your approval, and they did not, thankfully, need
it.

Your primary interest is in controlling the decisions of other people,
telling people what they should do for their own good. Now, what
group have I observed with that characteristic? Let me see, can I
remember...

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
-----

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment
us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience."
-C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)

[M Holmes]

It's dead. That's what it is.

FoFP

[Vladimir Kuznetsov]

I don't know what he is waiting for. How can I argue with Jerome
using your definition? He will always can bail out claiming that
he is not responsible for what you wrote.

Still I would like to know what Jerome understands about socialism
if he understands anything at all.

I think Jerome is just full of you know what.

vlad

In article <MPG.ff8c7be8...@news.ptw.com>,

[Vladimir Kuznetsov]

In article <358F63F8...@ihug.co.nz>,
Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>Guy Marsh wrote:
>>
>>
>> vlad, perhaps Jerome is waiting for
>> you to acknowledge the definition -
>> of socialism - which I posted, five-
>> days-ago and at your request.
>> You know, the genesis of this thread !
>

>I've posted a dictionary definition several times, in the hope that he
>might be able to comprehend something relatively concise and simplified.

First of all, I do not remember any post like that. Can you do
it again?

The second, I checked dictionary myself. If all your understanding
of socialism is taken from the dictionary than it is not surprising
that you put so much rubbish in this group.

vlad
;x

[Vladimir Kuznetsov]

In article <358F4FE4...@ihug.co.nz>,

Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>socialism 1 a political and economic theory of social organization which
>advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means
>of production, distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or practice based on
>this theory.
> - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
>

Is it all you know about socialism, Jerome? I just remind you
that I wanted to hear what you understand about socialism. I am
not going to argue with authors of Oxford English Dictionary. They
are not putting rubbish on this group, you do.

vlad

[Jerome Fryer]

Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> In article <358F63F8...@ihug.co.nz>,

> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >Guy Marsh wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> vlad, perhaps Jerome is waiting for
> >> you to acknowledge the definition -
> >> of socialism - which I posted, five-
> >> days-ago and at your request.
> >> You know, the genesis of this thread !
> >
> > I've posted a dictionary definition
> > several times, in the hope that he
> > might be able to comprehend something
> > relatively concise and simplified.
>
> First of all, I do not remember any
> post like that.

Selective memory loss is a requirement of being a right-winger.

> Can you do it again?

socialism 1 a political and economic theory of social organization which

advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means
of production, distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or practice based on
this theory.
- source; Oxford English Dictionary.

> The second, I checked dictionary

> myself. If all your understanding of
> socialism is taken from the dictionary than
> it is not surprising that you put so much
> rubbish in this group.

So you're trying to back away from even the feeble definition that a
dictionary gives?

You're a joke, Vlad.

Regards,
Jerome 8)

[Jerome Fryer]

Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> In article <358F4FE4...@ihug.co.nz>,

> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
> > of social organization which advocates that
> > the community as a whole should own and
> > control the means of production,
> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
> > practice based on this theory.
> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
>

> Is it all you know about socialism,
> Jerome? I just remind you that I wanted to
> hear what you understand about socialism. I
> am not going to argue with authors of Oxford
> English Dictionary. They are not putting
> rubbish on this group, you do.

The above definition is a concise, simplified summation of socialism.

I am not going to waste my time giving you more detailed definitions.
The strawman approach doesn't work, Vlad.

Now, from the above definition, prove that the USSR was a socialist
country. I know that you can't, but if you want to waste your time
trying to distort and lie your way around the original issue feel free
to do so.

Regards,
Jerome 8)

[JAF]

Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3590A2FB...@ihug.co.nz>...

>Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
socialism 1 a political and economic theory of social organization which
>advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means
>of production, distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or practice based on
>this theory.
> - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
>

Socialism-
From each according to his ability. To each
according to his need.
--
j...@jaf.nildramnilspam.co.uk
"Age Quod Agis" - "Ne Cede Malis"

[P. Marks]

Actually "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
need" is an old French communist slogan (the egalitarian idea).

Socialism need not mean egalitarianism. All socialism means (again it
started off as a French idea) was the control by the "community", or
"society" or "the people" (or some other cover words for the state) of the
means of production, distribution and exchange.

Simply the control by the socialists of everything from a big steel
factory down to market stalls. It is incredible how such a power crazed
doctrine ever attracted much support.

For socialism see Ludwig Von Mises "Socialism" (many editions).

Paul Marks.

[Vladimir Kuznetsov]

In article <3590A2FB...@ihug.co.nz>,
Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>
>Selective memory loss is a requirement of being a right-winger.
>

Thank you for pointing that out. It turned out that you were in my
kill-file. At the same time I can assure you that I am not a right or
left winger. I am just a guy using common sense. Unfortunately in
modern climate it makes me "ultra-reactionary conservative".

>> Can you do it again?
>

>socialism 1 a political and economic theory of social organization which
>advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means
>of production, distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or practice based on
>this theory.
> - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
>

In Soviet Russia under Lenin, Stalin, Chrushev, Brejnev there was
always a community control of means of production, distribution and
exchange. Because it is unfeasible in practice to control those
means by direct community vote they had a representative
authorized by people to carry those functions. So the beurocrasy in
Russia. There were little abuses (like 15 millions murdered in
labor camps) but real socialists can live with it. So I can assure
the first part of this definition was true in USSR.

The second, I can assure you that all their policies were based
on theoretical works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and the whole army
of well paid political scientists carrying those teaching
in the modern age.

So you Oxford dictionary confirms that what we had in USSR was
a socialism.

vlad

[Vladimir Kuznetsov]

In article <3590A427...@ihug.co.nz>,

Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>Now, from the above definition, prove that the USSR was a socialist
>country. I know that you can't, but if you want to waste your time
>trying to distort and lie your way around the original issue feel free
>to do so.
>

You are not missing your chance to spit on your opponent, Jerome.
Even before allowing him to present his arguments. Lenin wrote
somewhere that this is the only way to deal with your opponents.

Another great socialist Stalin did not spit, he was cutting heads.

vlad

[Octapi]

Betti Schleyer wrote in message <358DF3...@spyral.net>...

>The regimes of Mao, Lenin, and Stalin were PERSONALIST DICTATORSHIPS!!!
>They weren't even true communisms. The Marxist def. of Communism in the
>Manifesto was that of a cooperative anarchy.

Bullshit. Marx himself advocated DICTATORSHIP and SOCIALISM before the
state would "whither away" to a communist paradise. The problem is that a
SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIP doesn't whither away. Mikhail Bakunin (an anarchist)
predicted that Marx's system would inevitably lead to dictatorship long
before it was tried anywhere.

[Octapi]

Lepore wrote in message <358EB6...@mhxv.net>...

>> >Curiously, the rational of capitalist production is not to meet the
>> >needs of consumers as primary motivation.
>>
>> Try selling that to any capitalist manufacturer! In fact, the only
>> way a capitalist can stay in business is to supply what people need.
>
>How many people here remember a vote being taken
>that funds that might go to research to cure cancer
>should instead be used to market the Olympic Skater Barbie doll?

Billions of people vote on these things everyday with their money.

[Octapi]

Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3590A427...@ihug.co.nz>...
>Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>>
>> In article <358F4FE4...@ihug.co.nz>,

>> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
>> > of social organization which advocates that
>> > the community as a whole should own and
>> > control the means of production,
>> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
>> > practice based on this theory.
>> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
>>

>> Is it all you know about socialism,
>> Jerome? I just remind you that I wanted to
>> hear what you understand about socialism. I
>> am not going to argue with authors of Oxford
>> English Dictionary. They are not putting
>> rubbish on this group, you do.
>
>The above definition is a concise, simplified summation of socialism.
>
>I am not going to waste my time giving you more detailed definitions.
>The strawman approach doesn't work, Vlad.
>

>Now, from the above definition, prove that the USSR was a socialist
>country. I know that you can't, but if you want to waste your time
>trying to distort and lie your way around the original issue feel free
>to do so.
>

The definition given doesn't say anything about how the "community as a
whole should own and control the means of production". In the USSR, the
communist party represented the community as a whole. They owned and
controlled the means of production. Therefore, the USSR was socialist.

[Guy Marsh]

> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3590A427...@ihug.co.nz>...

> >Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <358F4FE4...@ihug.co.nz>,
> >> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
> >> > of social organization which advocates that
> >> > the community as a whole should own and
> >> > control the means of production,
> >> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
> >> > practice based on this theory.
> >> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
> >>
> >> Is it all you know about socialism,
> >> Jerome? I just remind you that I wanted to
> >> hear what you understand about socialism. I
> >> am not going to argue with authors of Oxford
> >> English Dictionary. They are not putting
> >> rubbish on this group, you do.
> >
> >The above definition is a concise, simplified summation of socialism.
> >
> >I am not going to waste my time giving you more detailed definitions.
> >The strawman approach doesn't work, Vlad.
> >
> >Now, from the above definition, prove that the USSR was a socialist
> >country. I know that you can't, but if you want to waste your time
> >trying to distort and lie your way around the original issue feel free
> >to do so.

Octapi <oct...@liberty.com> :

> The definition given doesn't say anything about how the "community as a
> whole should own and control the means of production". In the USSR, the
> communist party represented the community as a whole. They owned and
> controlled the means of production. Therefore, the USSR was socialist.

Communism is "the casting aside of the
political hull (Karl Marx)."

But hey, Octapi, you just keep on
believing what it is that wish to be-
lieve, what you are SUPPOSED to believe.

[Guy Marsh]

[Guy Marsh]

> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3590A2FB...@ihug.co.nz>...

> >Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
> socialism 1 a political and economic theory of social organization which
> >advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means
> >of production, distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or practice based on
> >this theory.
> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.

Jaf <J...@jaf.nildramn.nodamnspam.co.uk> :

> Socialism-
> From each according to his ability. To each
> according to his need.

Ultimately, yes. Yet, in the immediate
sense (for the purpose of defining socialism),
the above is a poor representation. And,
although Marx certainly (employed) this
quote, in "The Critique of the Gottha
Programme", it is (not) a quote which
owes its derivation to one Karl H. Marx,
contrary to popular belief, of course.

[peter]

In article <358C1C...@mhxv.net>, Lepore <lep...@mhxv.net> writes
>When did Robert Owen kill 170 million people??
>
>You're still stuck on the idea that everything that
>had been called by the same name must be the same thing.
>
>Maybe it's just me. I first realized during early childhood
>that various things aren't the same merely because the same
>word has been applied to them, and impatiently I expect
>people here to realize that.
>
>In fact, it's ONLY regarding the word "socialism" that
>people are unable to realize it!
>
>The schools and news media must be doing their job.

All the socialists commie pinko fabian apologists say that: -

NAZI = national SOCIALIST / but ......that wasn't socialism
Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics = but....than wasn't socialism
Communist China.............nah.....
Pol Pot and the great socialist revolution?
Robert Owen and those of his type = weren't socialists
NEW Labour - well they are certainly NOT socialists

So where HAS socialism worked? been applied? as obviously we can't
locate it so we must be missing something?
If socialism is so great but hasn't managed to be identified, defined or
located someone is pulling someone's chain here......

Socialism is from hell. Maybe that is where the people who managed it in
Russia, China, and Cambodia are now?
--
peter

[Chris Faatz]

"By 'socialism' I mean a classless society in which the State has
disappeared, production is cooperative, and no man [sic] has political or
economic power over another. The touchstone would be the extent to which
each individual could develop his [her] own talents and personality."
--Dwight Macdonald, _The Root Is Man_, 1946

[KAZ Vorpal]

ALL versions of socialism have one thing in common:

They involve "solutions" that require an authoritarian government to
take away people's freedom of choice.

Which version do you want to check?

Public schools? You force people to pay for them.

Safety regulations? You force people to submit to them. What
if some people WANT to be able to decide that something's safe
for them to do, that doesn't effect others?

Prohibition of private property? What if a community of people
form in an area where the land was not used, and CHOOSE to trade
among themselves, in the country where property is banned? Government
must take it away from them.

"Protection" of workers? It always involves taking away not only
the employer's freedom, but also the worker's freedom to choose
things the socialists forbid. What if a worker WANTS to work for
less than minimum wage in order to get a job he's not qualified for,
that would be a great career opportunity (and thus pay for itself
in the long run)?

The right to medical care? You must force people to pay for the
medical care of those who can't afford it.

The right to housing? You must enslave people to pay for the
housing of those who don't pay for their own.

Because the taking away of choice is the only thing that all
socialism has in common, that /is/ socialism.

Of course, this is also what even the informed socialists (Marx, for example)
and economists used to say...and say to this day. But they've used these
little propoganda tricks to fool the gullible masses.

"Socialism is nothing but 'A system which protects the workers'"

Yeah...using government force to take away choices.

"Socialism is simply the protection of all members of society with
the things they need to survive"

Yeah, using government to force some people to labor to supply
the others with food, shelter, medical care...government force
to take away choices.

That is socialism, in a nutshell.

--
Secrets of the Sentient:
Truth in History:

The ecoomic growth that followed the Reagan tax cuts increased federal
tax revenues in the 1980s by $1,100,000,000,000.
-- Labor Department/Census Bureau

--------------------

http://www.smart.net/~kaz/ mailto:k...@freedom.usa.com

AOL Instant Message Name: KAZVorpal
(I don't have AOL <ick>, but now AIM comes with Netscape
and it works better than ICQ)

--

This has been a Sentient Moment, brought to you by the makers of
/True Democracy/, /The Words of the Sentient/, and various other
Pompous Pontifications. All opinions are for entertainment purposes
only; we don't actually claim to predict the future, even though we
say we do repeatedly in our infomercial. Any actions taken by the
proletariat based on the content of this Sentient Moment are the
sole responsibility of the consumer, and are not proposed or
endorsed by UltraMegaLimitless or the employees of KAZ Vorpal.
Use or rebroadcast without the expressed written consent of ESPN
is highly likely.

KAZ Vorpal:
OverLord of the World's Most Verbose Tagline

[Lepore]

< oct...@liberty.com >:

What evidence do you offer for your claim that, in
the USSR, "the communist party represented the community
as a whole"?

Your assertion isn't sufficient.

[Octapi]

Guy Marsh wrote in message ...

>
>
>
>> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3590A427...@ihug.co.nz>...
>
>
>> >Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <358F4FE4...@ihug.co.nz>,

>> >> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
>> >> > of social organization which advocates that
>> >> > the community as a whole should own and
>> >> > control the means of production,
>> >> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
>> >> > practice based on this theory.
>> >> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
>> >>

>> >> Is it all you know about socialism,
>> >> Jerome? I just remind you that I wanted to
>> >> hear what you understand about socialism. I
>> >> am not going to argue with authors of Oxford
>> >> English Dictionary. They are not putting
>> >> rubbish on this group, you do.
>> >
>> >The above definition is a concise, simplified summation of socialism.
>> >
>> >I am not going to waste my time giving you more detailed definitions.
>> >The strawman approach doesn't work, Vlad.
>> >
>> >Now, from the above definition, prove that the USSR was a socialist
>> >country. I know that you can't, but if you want to waste your time
>> >trying to distort and lie your way around the original issue feel free
>> >to do so.
>
>Octapi <oct...@liberty.com> :
>
>> The definition given doesn't say anything about how the "community as a
>> whole should own and control the means of production". In the USSR, the
>> communist party represented the community as a whole. They owned and
>> controlled the means of production. Therefore, the USSR was socialist.
>
>
>Communism is "the casting aside of the
>political hull (Karl Marx)."
>
>But hey, Octapi, you just keep on
>believing what it is that wish to be-
>lieve, what you are SUPPOSED to believe.
>

First of all, the subject is socialism, not communism.

Second, Marx himself advocated that nations pursue socialism (total
government power) before the state could whither away. Unfortunately,
history has shown that people who hold total power don't have any intention
of allowing the state to whither away.

Third, Bakunin predicted long before Marx's system was ever put into
practice that Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat would inevitably become
a dictatorship over the proletariat. History has proven him to be correct.

I've read several of your posts. You offer no arguments. No defense. No
compelling vision. No historical examples. You offer nothing but a few
stupid quotes from obsolete books. The only thing I can infer is that you
aren't too bright and you are incapable of formulating your own ideas and
explaining your position. You in fact are the perfect mindless tool of the
socialist tyrants.

[Eric, da Red]

In article <6mtt7f$8p4$1...@news.smart.net>, KAZ Vorpal <k...@smart.net> wrote:
>
>ALL versions of socialism have one thing in common:
>
>They involve "solutions" that require an authoritarian government to
>take away people's freedom of choice.

Except for the versions of socialism that don't.

[lame babblings, deleted]

>That is socialism, in a nutshell.

You really need to get out of that nutshell and visit the real world
once in a while.

--
Dialogue Of The Week:
Person A: United We Stand. Divided We Fall.
Person B: United You Suck. Divided You Suck Alone.

[Dan Clore]

Lepore wrote:
> < oct...@liberty.com >:
>
> What evidence do you offer for your claim that, in

> the USSR, "the communist party represented the community

> as a whole"?

Good luck, Lepore: I've been in debates like this one before, so I know
what kind of answer you can expect, you lying commie.

--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore

The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....

The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"

[Guy Marsh]

Socialism is the collective ownership by
all the people of the factories, mills,
mines, railroads, land and all other in-
struments of production. Socialism means
production to satisfy human needs, not, as
under capitalism, for sale and profit.

Socialism means direct control and manage-
ment of the industries and social services
by the workers through democratic government
based on their nationwide economic organiza-
tion.

Under socialism, all authority will originate
from the workers, integrally united in Social-
ist Industrial Unions. In each workplace, the
rank and file will elect whatever committees or
representatives are needed to facilitate produc-
tion.

Within each shop or office division of a plant,
the rank and file will participate directly in
formulating and implementing all plans necessary
for efficient operations.

Besides electing all necessary shop officers,
the workers will also elect representatives to
a local and national council of their industry
or service - and to a central congress represen-
ting all the industries and services. This all-
industrial congress will plan and coordinate pro-
duction in all areas of the economy.

All persons elected to any post in the socialist
government, from the lowest to the highest level,
will be directly accountable to the rank and file.
They will be subject to removal at any time that
a majority of those who elected them decide it is
necessary.

Such a system would make possible the fullest
democracy - economic freedom.

For individuals, socialism means an end to economic
insecurity and exploitation. It means that workers
would cease to be commodities bought and sold on the
labor market, and forced to work as appendages to
tools owned by someone else. It means a chance to
develop all individual capacities and potentials
within a free community of free individuals.

[peter]

In article <MPG.ffdf7eab...@news.ptw.com>, Guy Marsh
<gu...@ptw.com> writes

>
>
>Socialism is the collective ownership by
>all the people of the factories, mills,
>mines, railroads, land and all other in-
>struments of production. Socialism means
>production to satisfy human needs, not, as
>under capitalism, for sale and profit.

Ownership? Like in the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics?

>
>Socialism means direct control and manage-
>ment of the industries and social services
>by the workers through democratic government
>based on their nationwide economic organiza-
>tion.

You mean like the collective farms in Rumania?

>
>Under socialism, all authority will originate
>from the workers,

You mean the Comintern or the Politburo workers?

>integrally united in Social-
>ist Industrial Unions. In each workplace, the
>rank and file will elect whatever committees or
>representatives are needed to facilitate produc-
>tion.

Like the NKVD?

cut

>All persons elected to any post in the socialist
>government, from the lowest to the highest level,
>will be directly accountable to the rank and file.

You mean like Stalin? or Kim ?

>They will be subject to removal at any time that
>a majority of those who elected them decide it is
>necessary.

Providing you can get past the tanks.

>
>Such a system would make possible the fullest
>democracy - economic freedom.
>

Such a system is both theoretical and utopian; and therefore cannot and
will not work.

>For individuals, socialism means an end to economic
>insecurity and exploitation. It means that workers
>would cease to be commodities bought and sold on the
>labor market,

They can refuse to work.

> and forced to work as appendages to
>tools owned by someone else.

More chip on shoulder. You assume people are equal, and moreover
equally capable and moreover they all ought to be rewarded the same. If
they are then presumably you will let your local butcher perform a
triple by-pass on you?

> It means a chance to
>develop all individual capacities and potentials
>within a free community of free individuals.
>

Dream on.
>
>
>Persevere.

Having visited Russia, Romania, Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics
and seen what the unions did to the UK in the 1970's I can honestly say
that your definition of socialism has never been achieved. The love of
power and control over others combined with weapons and colleges of
torture mean that socialism is a political means of destruction of human
good, beauty, art, fidelity, and honor.

Socialism belongs in the fiery pit to have the dross removed from it.
Living in the USA as you do, you live in a cotton candy coccoon so you
can afford to extol the virtues of a system you neither understand, nor
would you be able to defend ONE socialist experiment had you seen the
misery socialism has caused.

>Guy
>
>
>
> Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP)
> Member-at-large
> http://www.slp.org
> __________
>
> Remember the U.S.S. Liberty
> 06-08-67
> http://www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty
> _______
>
> Former member
> Republican & Democratic
> Parties

--
peter

[Jerome Fryer]

Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> In article <3590A2FB...@ihug.co.nz>,

> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
> >
> > Selective memory loss is a requirement of
> > being a right-winger.
>
> Thank you for pointing that out. It
> turned out that you were in my kill-file. At
> the same time I can assure you that I am not
> a right or left winger. I am just a guy using
> common sense. Unfortunately in modern climate
> it makes me "ultra-reactionary conservative".
>
> >> Can you do it again?
> >

> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
> > of social organization which advocates that
> > the community as a whole should own and
> > control the means of production,
> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
> > practice based on this theory.
> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
> >
>

> In Soviet Russia under Lenin, Stalin,
> Chrushev, Brejnev there was always a community
> control of means of production, distribution
> and exchange. Because it is unfeasible in
> practice to control those means by direct
> community vote they had a representative
> authorized by people to carry those functions.
> So the beurocrasy in Russia. There were little
> abuses (like 15 millions murdered in labor
> camps) but real socialists can live with it. So
> I can assure the first part of this definition
> was true in USSR.
>
> The second, I can assure you that all
> their policies were based on theoretical works
> of Marx, Engels, Lenin and the whole army of
> well paid political scientists carrying those
> teaching in the modern age.
>
> So you Oxford dictionary confirms that
> what we had in USSR was a socialism.

I wonder: is this guy deliberately setting out to make himself look like
a total idiot, or is it accidental?

Or is he perhaps merely a construction of the NSA or some other agency?

Regards,
Jerome 8)

[Jerome Fryer]

Octapi wrote:
>
> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3590A427...@ihug.co.nz>...

> >Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <358F4FE4...@ihug.co.nz>,

> >> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
> >> > of social organization which advocates that
> >> > the community as a whole should own and
> >> > control the means of production,
> >> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
> >> > practice based on this theory.
> >> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
> >>

> >> Is it all you know about socialism,
> >> Jerome? I just remind you that I wanted to
> >> hear what you understand about socialism. I
> >> am not going to argue with authors of Oxford
> >> English Dictionary. They are not putting
> >> rubbish on this group, you do.
> >
> > The above definition is a concise,
> > simplified summation of socialism.
> >
> > I am not going to waste my time giving
> > you more detailed definitions. The
> > strawman approach doesn't work, Vlad.
> >
> > Now, from the above definition, prove
> > that the USSR was a socialist country.
> > I know that you can't, but if you want
> > to waste your time trying to distort
> > and lie your way around the original
> > issue feel free to do so.
>

> The definition given doesn't say anything

> about how the "community as a whole should
> own and control the means of production".
> In the USSR, the communist party

> represented the community as a whole. They
> owned and controlled the means of production.
> Therefore, the USSR was socialist.

The community did not give this power to the CPSU. The USSR was a
tyranny.

QED.

Regards,
Jerome 8)

[KAZ Vorpal]

In alt.politics.usa.republican Eric, da Red <berg...@big.aa.net> wrote:

EdR])In article <6mtt7f$8p4$1...@news.smart.net>, KAZ Vorpal <k...@smart.net> wrote:
>>
>>ALL versions of socialism have one thing in common:
>>
>>They involve "solutions" that require an authoritarian government to
>>take away people's freedom of choice.

EdR])Except for the versions of socialism that don't.

EdR])[lame babblings, deleted]

>>That is socialism, in a nutshell.

EdR])You really need to get out of that nutshell and visit the real world
EdR])once in a while.

If there were any truth to your denial...if I were not 100% correct in
my assertion...then you would have listed my specific arguments with
your denial, instead of using the lies of "refutation by implication"
and "refutation by mockery" and excluding the arguments which proved
your response to be false.

You would have included a specific example, but you could not so you
did not.

For example...list ANY form of socialism which does not involve a promise
or program which requires an authoritarian government to take away the

people's freedom of choice.

The version where "socialism is any system which protects the workers"
requires government to FORCE both workers and employers to NOT do
certain things, even if the workers want to, like work under minimum
wage for a job where the worker is not otherwise qualified, but which
has tremendous career benefits that more than pay for the effort.

Socialism which gives ANY specific "right to have", like "the right to
health care", the "right to work", or the "right to food and shelter"
require the enslavement of those who produce, to work to produce the
resources to finance the needs of those who do not.

Socialism which "protects us from bad choices", like "protects the
children", or "protects consumers from unhealthy choices" (closing
restaurants, forcing food inspections, et cetera) or unsafe behavior
(smoking, bungee jumping, speeding) take away the consumer's/individual's
right to disagree with the government on what's safe or healthy.
That requires an authoritarian government, of course, and violates
freedom of choice.

Socialism which "protects the environment" does so by taking away freedom
of choice with regulations which allege to do so. One cannot choose
to do things which the government decides are damaging.

Socialism which "makes progress by funding research" enslaves those
who are forced to produce the resources which fund that research.
It also prevents the people from using those same resources for
the far more effective private sector research.

Socialism which "bans private property" must, of course, do so
by force. What if a community of people get together in an
area which is completely unused and undesired, and start respecting
each other's private property rights and trading among themselves,
in the midst of the socialist society? What if a lot of people do
this all through the society? Only authoritarian government can
/force/ people to not respect their property rights, or defend
them.

Face it, I've nailed socialism on the head. You can't get out of
this one by any HONEST means.
--
--
Words of the Sentient:

Sex is one of the nine reasons for reincarnation ... the other eight
are unimportant. -- Henry Miller

[Octapi]

Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3594A7A4...@ihug.co.nz>...

First, the dictionary definition of socialism says nothing about political
systems. The USSR meets the definition of socialism. Second, you leftist
twits have only been calling the USSR a tyranny since it fell. For most of
the 20th century, the western left was totally infatuated with murderous
dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro.

[Dan Clore]

Octapi wrote:
> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3594A7A4...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >Octapi wrote:
> >> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3590A427...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >> >Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> >> In article <358F4FE4...@ihug.co.nz>,
> >> >> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
> >> >> > of social organization which advocates that
> >> >> > the community as a whole should own and
> >> >> > control the means of production,
> >> >> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
> >> >> > practice based on this theory.
> >> >> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.

> First, the dictionary definition of socialism says nothing about political

> systems. The USSR meets the definition of socialism.

Bullshit: Stalin was most definitely *not* the "community as a whole".
In fact, he was only a small part of the "community as a whole" --
probably only one single individual, I'd bet.

> Second, you leftist
> twits have only been calling the USSR a tyranny since it fell. For most of
> the 20th century, the western left was totally infatuated with murderous
> dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro.

There were plenty of leftists who were opposed to all of those
dictators: George Orwell (the socialist who coined the term Newspeak,
referring to things like calling the USSR's state-capitalist
dictatorship socialism), the whole anarchist movement (anarchists who
actively fought against Lenin, like Makhno, Arshinov, Voline, Maximoff,
Goldman, Berkman, etc, documented the crimes of Lenin and Stalin -- and
were published by the "western left"), the Council Communists like Anton
Pannekoek and Karl Korsch, the Situationist International during the
1950s and 1960s (who managed to provoke an uprising that involved 10
million people), the Autonomists in Italy, and on and on and on --
that's barely a start. But keep repeating this right-wing myth: its
constant repetition reveals the level of concern for truth you guys
have. While you're at it, be sure to trot out the Council Communist
uprising in Hungary 1956, and reveal that you have no clue what the
Council Communists were fighting for.

[Octapi]

Dan Clore wrote in message <35951B...@columbia-center.org>...

>Octapi wrote:
>> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3594A7A4...@ihug.co.nz>...
>> >Octapi wrote:
>> >> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3590A427...@ihug.co.nz>...
>> >> >Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>> >> >> In article <358F4FE4...@ihug.co.nz>,
>> >> >> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> >> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
>> >> >> > of social organization which advocates that
>> >> >> > the community as a whole should own and
>> >> >> > control the means of production,
>> >> >> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
>> >> >> > practice based on this theory.
>> >> >> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
>
>> First, the dictionary definition of socialism says nothing about
political
>> systems. The USSR meets the definition of socialism.
>
>Bullshit: Stalin was most definitely *not* the "community as a whole".
>In fact, he was only a small part of the "community as a whole" --
>probably only one single individual, I'd bet.
>

Soviet style "democratic centralism" was supported by much of the American
left as the proper way to run a socialist country.

>
>> Second, you leftist
>> twits have only been calling the USSR a tyranny since it fell. For most
of
>> the 20th century, the western left was totally infatuated with murderous
>> dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro.
>
>There were plenty of leftists who were opposed to all of those
>dictators: George Orwell (the socialist who coined the term Newspeak,
>referring to things like calling the USSR's state-capitalist
>dictatorship socialism), the whole anarchist movement (anarchists who
>actively fought against Lenin, like Makhno, Arshinov, Voline, Maximoff,
>Goldman, Berkman, etc, documented the crimes of Lenin and Stalin -- and
>were published by the "western left"), the Council Communists like Anton
>Pannekoek and Karl Korsch, the Situationist International during the
>1950s and 1960s (who managed to provoke an uprising that involved 10
>million people), the Autonomists in Italy, and on and on and on --
>that's barely a start. But keep repeating this right-wing myth: its
>constant repetition reveals the level of concern for truth you guys
>have. While you're at it, be sure to trot out the Council Communist
>uprising in Hungary 1956, and reveal that you have no clue what the
>Council Communists were fighting for.
>

There are exceptions to every rule. America labor leaders like Lane
Kirkland were also fiercely anti-communist. This is generally untrue of
labor leaders in other countries. The fact remains that Lenin was (is) a
hero to many leftists. So were Mao, Castro and to a lesser extent, Stalin.

[Dan Clore]

Octapi wrote:
> Dan Clore wrote in message <35951B...@columbia-center.org>...
> >Octapi wrote:
> >> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3594A7A4...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >> >Octapi wrote:
> >> >> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3590A427...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >> >> >Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <358F4FE4...@ihug.co.nz>,
> >> >> >> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
> >> >> >> > of social organization which advocates that
> >> >> >> > the community as a whole should own and
> >> >> >> > control the means of production,
> >> >> >> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
> >> >> >> > practice based on this theory.
> >> >> >> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
> >
> >> First, the dictionary definition of socialism says nothing about
> political
> >> systems. The USSR meets the definition of socialism.
> >
> >Bullshit: Stalin was most definitely *not* the "community as a whole".
> >In fact, he was only a small part of the "community as a whole" --
> >probably only one single individual, I'd bet.
> >
> Soviet style "democratic centralism" was supported by much of the American
> left as the proper way to run a socialist country.

Assume it's true: what difference would it make? Would Stalin magically
become the "community as a whole" because some American leftists thought
he was?

> >> Second, you leftist
> >> twits have only been calling the USSR a tyranny since it fell. For most
> of
> >> the 20th century, the western left was totally infatuated with murderous
> >> dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro.
> >
> >There were plenty of leftists who were opposed to all of those
> >dictators: George Orwell (the socialist who coined the term Newspeak,
> >referring to things like calling the USSR's state-capitalist
> >dictatorship socialism), the whole anarchist movement (anarchists who
> >actively fought against Lenin, like Makhno, Arshinov, Voline, Maximoff,
> >Goldman, Berkman, etc, documented the crimes of Lenin and Stalin -- and
> >were published by the "western left"), the Council Communists like Anton
> >Pannekoek and Karl Korsch, the Situationist International during the
> >1950s and 1960s (who managed to provoke an uprising that involved 10
> >million people), the Autonomists in Italy, and on and on and on --
> >that's barely a start. But keep repeating this right-wing myth: its
> >constant repetition reveals the level of concern for truth you guys
> >have. While you're at it, be sure to trot out the Council Communist
> >uprising in Hungary 1956, and reveal that you have no clue what the
> >Council Communists were fighting for.
> >
> There are exceptions to every rule. America labor leaders like Lane
> Kirkland were also fiercely anti-communist. This is generally untrue of
> labor leaders in other countries. The fact remains that Lenin was (is) a
> hero to many leftists. So were Mao, Castro and to a lesser extent, Stalin.

So your statement was false: why did you make it? Oh, and BTW: the fact
remains that right-wing dictators like Pinochet and Suharto were (are)
heroes to many right-wingers. -- What of that?

[Ed Boraas]

KAZ Vorpal wrote:

[snip]

> For example...list ANY form of socialism which does not involve a promise
> or program which requires an authoritarian government to take away the
> people's freedom of choice.

[snip]

What about Anarchism? It's a form of socialism, and it believes that
government is entirely unnecessary. I suppose that is somehow "requiring

an authoritarian government to take away the people's freedom of

choice"?

I recommend you check out the Anarchism FAQ at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931 where you can already find
many of your arguments efficiently refuted :)

--
Ed Boraas | "Freedom without Socialism is privilege and
Vancouver BC (Canada) | injustice; Socialism without freedom is
mo...@vcn.bc.ca | slavery and brutality." -- Bakunin

[Octapi]

Dan Clore wrote in message <359526...@columbia-center.org>...

>Octapi wrote:
>> >
>> Soviet style "democratic centralism" was supported by much of the
American
>> left as the proper way to run a socialist country.
>
>Assume it's true: what difference would it make? Would Stalin magically
>become the "community as a whole" because some American leftists thought
>he was?
>

There aren't any metaphysically true definitions of any word. Words mean
what people think they mean. If the vast majority of leftists in the 20th
century thought that soviet-style democratic centralism was consistent with
true socialism, I am not going to argue otherwise.

My statement was not false. I never said that ALL leftist were infatuated
with the USSR. Only that most of them were. I rarely use the terms
"always" and "never" because there are usually exceptions to every
situation. I tend to deal with the general case most of the time.

It's not very relevant that a small handful of people on the left are
anti-statist. The general history of the left in the 20th century is one of
statism, bureaucracy, and government power. French and British Socialists
nationalized industries. Soviet and Chinese Socialists nationalized and
enslaved whole societies. In the 20th century, Socialism meant government
ownership of the means of production pure and simple. Most people who ran
socialist economies believed this. Most people who voted for socialist
politicians believed this. Most academics who wrote about socialist
economics believed this.

I understand completely that you want to run away from your history and
claim that socialism really means something else. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot
are some pretty big albatrosses to have hanging around your neck. If anyone
every comes up with a non-statist form of socialism, I'll listen. To date,
I haven't seen anything like that. ParEcon is certainly not it. It's just
another hierarchy with national planning and a central committee that sets
prices. There's nothing new there. The Green Party platform isn't much
better.

I would venture to guess that 99% of the American right had never even heard
of Suharto until this year. Yes, you are correct that many American
conservatives liked Pinochet. That has nothing to do with me. I am not a
conservative or a Republican. My political philosophy falls between Thomas
Jefferson who stated that government is best which governs least and Henry
David Thorea who stated that government is best which governs not at all. I
don't support American foreign aid to anyone. I never have. Having said
that, although Pinochet was a brutal dictator and deserved scorn from all
freedom loving people, he was a choir boy compared to Stalin, Hitler, Mao,
Pol Pot, Hoxea, Kim Ill Sung, Castro, and other socialist heroes.

[LQuest]

On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 16:33:46 -0400, Lepore <lep...@mhxv.net> wrote:

>When did Robert Owen kill 170 million people??
>
>You're still stuck on the idea that everything that
>had been called by the same name must be the same thing.
>
>Maybe it's just me. I first realized during early childhood
>that various things aren't the same merely because the same
>word has been applied to them, and impatiently I expect
>people here to realize that.
>
>In fact, it's ONLY regarding the word "socialism" that
>people are unable to realize it!
>
>The schools and news media must be doing their job.

Lep, my boy, you are correct. But the fact that you are correct is
irrelevant. ANY system, called by ANY name, that imposes artificial
barriers to individual self sufficiency (including barriers to the
honest acquisition of UNLIMITED wealth) is a manifestation of
anti-life force. Now I'll post this then sit back and wait for your
inevitable whine that "capitalism" (which does not exist) does just
that and your pet brand "socialism" does not. I could use another
good laugh.

--Mike

[Guy Marsh]

[This followup was posted to alt.politics.libertarian and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

In article <5+$J7jCHf...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk>,
pe...@pwwatson.demon.co.uk says...

Yeah, the American working-class lives
"in a cotton candy cocoon". No wonder
this dick, err, I mean Peter (thinks) he
understands the meaning of socialism.

Persevere.

[LQuest]

On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 19:30:42 -0700, gu...@ptw.com (Guy Marsh) wrote:

>
>
>Socialism is the collective ownership by
>all the people of the factories, mills,
>mines, railroads, land and all other in-
>struments of production. Socialism means
>production to satisfy human needs, not, as
>under capitalism, for sale and profit.

In ANY system, if people don;t want or need something, it won't be
produced -- unless its a system like the Chicoms have where the
government (IOW the "people") "decided" that they would make 500,000
inferior 4 wheel speckmobiles per year even though NOBODY wanted them.

Earth to Guy: In ALL organized group efforts, the phrase "we need to
do this" ultimately means "someone should do this" and that's the end
of it because no one in particular is held accountable for getting it
done. To correct this problem, you must have a command and authority
hierarchy. Each level of the command hierarchy requires different
skills and mental abilities. The higher up the command hierarchy you
go the harder it is to find those who can actually do the job. The
moment you have a command hierarchy, PRESTO -- you have a de facto
class structure simply because of the immutable reality of the human
species -- no two are alike. You're pissin' into a hurricane dude.

>
>Socialism means direct control and manage-
>ment of the industries and social services
>by the workers through democratic government
>based on their nationwide economic organiza-
>tion.

Mob rule. Not far from what we have now in America.

>Under socialism, all authority will originate

>from the workers, integrally united in Social-
>ist Industrial Unions.

...each of which will eventually become deeply corrupted little
fiefdoms for the union hierarchy.

> In each workplace, the
>rank and file will elect whatever committees or
>representatives are needed to facilitate produc-
>tion.

-Based on what standards? Who will set the standards?

-What will be the criteria for setting such standards?

-Who will determine the criteria?

-How will they know they have the correct criteria?

>
>Within each shop or office division of a plant,
>the rank and file will participate directly in
>formulating and implementing all plans necessary
>for efficient operations.

-Who will craft the plan?

-How will the plan designers know what to plan for?

-What if no one WANTS to be a planner? Will you force them?

>
>Besides electing all necessary shop officers,
>the workers will also elect representatives to
>a local and national council of their industry
>or service - and to a central congress represen-
>ting all the industries and services.

Presto -- you have a perfect recipe for perfidious political intrigue.

>This all-industrial congress will plan and coordinate pro-

>duction in all areas of the economy.

How will they know what to plan?

>All persons elected to any post in the socialist
>government, from the lowest to the highest level,
>will be directly accountable to the rank and file.

By what mechanism? Allegedly, our "representatives" in congress are
already "accountable" to the "people". How will your "system" ensure
any more desirable result than we have now?

>They will be subject to removal at any time that
>a majority of those who elected them decide it is
>necessary.

How will the majority "decide"?

>Such a system would make possible the fullest
>democracy - economic freedom.

What on earth makes you believe this is true?

>
>For individuals, socialism means an end to economic
>insecurity and exploitation.

So I guess the critical administrative and leadership roles in YOUR
utopia will only be occupied by infallible, incorruptible gods. Dang!
Now why didn't WE think of that? Guy, you are a genius.

>It means that workers
>would cease to be commodities bought and sold on the

>labor market, and forced to work as appendages to
>tools owned by someone else. It means a chance to

>develop all individual capacities and potentials
>within a free community of free individuals.
>

Sigh :-/ I want to live i\on your planet. Let me know when it's
ready.

--Mike
"A democracy [including the "socialist" variety] cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters
discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public
Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with
the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy
and is always followed by dictatorship." --from "The Decline and Fall
of the Athenian Republic", by Alexander Fraser Tyler

[ME]

"The secret dread of modern intellectuals, liberals and conservatives
alike, the unadmitted terror at the root of their anxiety, which all
of their current irrationalities are intended to stave off and to
disguise, is the unstated knowledge that Soviet Russia is the full,
actual, literal, consistent embodiment of the morality of altruism,
that Stalin did *not* corrupt a noble ideal, that this is the only way
altruism has to be or can ever be practiced. If service and
self-sacrifice are a moral ideal, and if the "selfishness" of human
nature prevents men from leaping into sacrificial furnaces, there is
no reason - no reason that a mystic moralist could name - why a
dictator should not push them in at the point of bayonets - for their
own good, or the good of humanity, or the good of posterity, or the
good of the latest bureacrat's latest five-year plan. There is no
reason that they can name to oppose *any* atrocity. The value of a
man's life? His right to exist? His right to pursue his own
happiness? These are concepts that belong to individualism and
capitalism - to the antithesis of the altruist morality."

KAZ Vorpal wrote:

> ALL versions of socialism have one thing in common:
>

> They involve "solutions" that require an authoritarian government to
> take away people's freedom of choice.
>
> Which version do you want to check?
>
> Public schools? You force people to pay for them.
>
> Safety regulations? You force people to submit to them. What
> if some people WANT to be able to decide that something's safe
> for them to do, that doesn't effect others?
>

> Prohibition of private property? What if a community of people

> That is socialism, in a nutshell.
>

> --
> Secrets of the Sentient:
> Truth in History:
>
> The ecoomic growth that followed the Reagan tax cuts increased federal
> tax revenues in the 1980s by $1,100,000,000,000.
> -- Labor Department/Census Bureau
>

[Dharmadeva]

Would wealth regulation, by way of a ceiling on the maximum wealth that may
be accumulated by a person result in abuse of governmental power?

The abuse is already ongoing everyday with those who control excessive
amounts of wealth. Wealth is already regulated by those well outside
government. It is not a question at all of government regulating
distribution centrally. It is a question of what will allow the populace
to attain maximum physical, psychic/mental/creative and spiritual
advancement/movement. Concentration and regulation of wealth by a few does
not achieve that.

This has nothing to do with a mean spirited population calling for
government to take away from the rich and give to them. It was such things
as colonisation, destruction of indigenous cultures, supported by organised
Christian religions which took away the wealth from the common persons and
passed it to a few rich that played God. History is full of this not the
other way around. The meanness was forced on the spirited population and
continues so rather than the other way around.

The excess wealth accumulators have deprived and stolen our resources.

Availability of minimum necessities to all such as food, housing, clothing,
shelter, medical, transport derived from a proper purchasing capacity
hardly results in a decline in society. It may result in a decline in the
society of the few who concentrate the wealth to themselves, but they have
not got it in the main from effort but from ineficient distribution
systems, biased in their favour.

If Bill Gates, for example, would be limited as to earnings, the
advancement of the availability and quality of computers would not be
retarded. This is becauses Microsoft happens to have taxpayers subsided
copyright laws for operating systems that give it a monopoly particularly
after Mr Gates did his early deal with IBM. It has nothing to do with the
quality of computers (which he does not produce anyway) or the quality of
operating systems - but everything to do with a monopoly granted to him (or
Microsoft), even if by default (ie misconceived government and legislative
policy).

[Stan Rothwell]

Marcin Tustin wrote:

> This definition refers to one sort of socialism. It has diversified.
> Bolshevism was not socialist in any way. Socialism remains sound.

Of course, no evidence or argument to substantiate this point, merely a
statement.--

> Humanity will not be happy until the day when the
> last bureaucrat has been hanged with the guts of the
> last capitalist

And this is not Bolshevist??

[Stan Rothwell]

Ed Boraas wrote:

What about Anarchism? It's a form of socialism, and it believes that

> government is entirely unnecessary. I suppose that is somehow "requiring
> an authoritarian government to take away the people's freedom of
> choice"?

I submit that most anarchists are closet socialists with a penchant for wearing
t-shirts from mediocre rock bands...

Stan Rothwell

[Stan Rothwell]

Eric, da Red wrote:

> In article <6mtt7f$8p4$1...@news.smart.net>, KAZ Vorpal <k...@smart.net> wrote:
> >
> >ALL versions of socialism have one thing in common:
> >
> >They involve "solutions" that require an authoritarian government to
> >take away people's freedom of choice.

(edited for brevity)

> >That is socialism, in a nutshell.
>

> You really need to get out of that nutshell and visit the real world

> once in a while.

Having seen a bit of the real world, his assessment is pretty much on the
mark...Obviously you don't have anything of substance to disagree with, as you
failed to come up with any evidence or data to the contrary...

[Stan Rothwell]

Guy Marsh wrote:

> Socialism is the collective ownership by
> all the people of the factories, mills,
> mines, railroads, land and all other in-
> struments of production.

And who administers this "collective ownership"?

> Socialism means
> production to satisfy human needs, not, as
> under capitalism, for sale and profit.

And who determines "human needs"?

> Socialism means direct control and manage-
> ment of the industries and social services
> by the workers through democratic government
> based on their nationwide economic organiza-
> tion.

AKA "centralized planning"... not exactly a process with a successful
track record...

> Under socialism, all authority will originate
> from the workers, integrally united in Social-
> ist Industrial Unions.

Do you believe that?

> In each workplace, the
> rank and file will elect whatever committees or
> representatives are needed to facilitate produc-
> tion.

And this "'rank-and-file" will be comprised of experts???

> Within each shop or office division of a plant,
> the rank and file will participate directly in
> formulating and implementing all plans necessary
> for efficient operations.

So this system will result in 'efficient' operations???What incentive is
provided for them to be efficient???

> Besides electing all necessary shop officers,
> the workers will also elect representatives to
> a local and national council of their industry
> or service - and to a central congress represen-

> ting all the industries and services. This all-

> industrial congress will plan and coordinate pro-
> duction in all areas of the economy.

Again, certralized planning has been a general failure...

> All persons elected to any post in the socialist
> government, from the lowest to the highest level,
> will be directly accountable to the rank and file.

> They will be subject to removal at any time that
> a majority of those who elected them decide it is
> necessary.

As in the Soviet Union???It usually turns out that the "party" officials
remove the WORKERS (relocation, death camps)...
ever heard of Siberia, Red Boy???

> Such a system would make possible the fullest
> democracy - economic freedom.

I don't know where ya get's yo' smoke from... but it mus' be' sum STRONG
shit...

Stan

[Stan Rothwell]

Guy Marsh wrote:

> > Having visited Russia, Romania, Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics
> > and seen what the unions did to the UK in the 1970's I can honestly say
> > that your definition of socialism has never been achieved. The love of
> > power and control over others combined with weapons and colleges of
> > torture mean that socialism is a political means of destruction of human
> > good, beauty, art, fidelity, and honor.
> >
> > Socialism belongs in the fiery pit to have the dross removed from it.
> > Living in the USA as you do, you live in a cotton candy coccoon so you
> > can afford to extol the virtues of a system you neither understand, nor
> > would you be able to defend ONE socialist experiment had you seen the
> > misery socialism has caused.
>
> Yeah, the American working-class lives
> "in a cotton candy cocoon". No wonder
> this dick, err, I mean Peter (thinks) he
> understands the meaning of socialism.

Considering that you have no true understanding of the dismal failure brought
on by socialism, you have little ground to call others names... How about some
FACTS (not just your silly failed Marxist theory) to back your claims for a
change???

And if you still think socialism is worth it, why not emigrate to North
Korea??? I'm willing to bet you'll find someone willing to trade places with
you (a mutual transaction that everyone should be happy with... ;o) ).

Stan Rothwell

[Stan Rothwell]

peter wrote:

> Having visited Russia, Romania, Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics
> and seen what the unions did to the UK in the 1970's I can honestly say

> that your definition of socialism has never been achieved. The love of
> power and control over others combined with weapons and colleges of
> torture mean that socialism is a political means of destruction of human
> good, beauty, art, fidelity, and honor.
>
> Socialism belongs in the fiery pit to have the dross removed from it.
> Living in the USA as you do, you live in a cotton candy coccoon so you
> can afford to extol the virtues of a system you neither understand, nor
> would you be able to defend ONE socialist experiment had you seen the
> misery socialism has caused.

Maybe our buddy Guy should take a drive down the old A4 (E40) between Fulda
and Dresden, which was once part of 3 land routes to Berlin open to
westerners. He might marvel about how efficient the East Germans were about
stripping away all the vegetation from the autobahn, and how they had put
little observation posts at the edge of the cleared area set up to offer a
nice clear field of fire should anyone decide to hitch a ride out. He
might marvel at the fact that town such as Erfurt and Gotha have been
largely abandoned when the residents were moved into nice big state run
apartments where they could be kept under observation...

I remember viewing the KLEN line (old fence between east and west) near
Lubeck in 1981, and viewing the minefield, plowed strip, no-man's-land, and
electrified fence that
kept those Ossis from being tempted by the evils of the materialist West.

It is interesting how many societies have built walls and fences to keep
foreigners out.
Only with socialism did we have the phenomena of nations contructing deadly
obstacles to keep their own people in...

Stan Rothwell

[Steve Conatser]

A few questions about socialism:

1. How do you mean "instruments of production"? There are many
businesses that do not "produce" anything in the very strict sense of
the word. Retail businesses typically buy a product from the producer
and market and sell it. Does your definition include all businesses or
only those which actually manufacture a good? Also, the American
economy has increasingly become a service-based economy. Does your
definition include services as well as goods?

2. Would private property exist in socialism? Or would all property be
collectively owned?

3. Would participation in these businesses be voluntary? If I'm a
loner and don't like being part of these big groups, would I be allowed
to refuse participation? For example, if I'm happier making handcarved
wood furniture by myself, would I be allowed to do that? Would I be
allowed to sell the furniture to my neighbors for cash? To trade it for
lawnmowing services? Could my two buddies help me? Would we be allowed
to sell the furniture and split the revenues in a method of our
choosing?

4. Just want to make sure I understand you: do you see the economic
and political representatives as leaders? How much latitude would they
have to make decisions? Obviously, it would be impossible to have every
single decision made democratically. Business managers, for example,
make hundreds of decisions a day, ranging from the inconsequential to
the hugely significant. Where would you draw the line?

I have other questions, but maybe we can just start with these. Thanks.

Steve Conatser
San Antonio, TX

[Ed Boraas]

Closet socialists they are not. Openly socialist they are. See my other
post to you on this subject.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931 <-- the Anarchism (aka
Libertarian *Socialism*) FAQ, for those interested.

--
Ed Boraas | "Freedom without Socialism is privilege and
Vancouver BC (Canada) | injustice; Socialism without freedom is

e...@tao.ca | slavery and brutality." -- Bakunin

[Betti Schleyer]

My form of socialism involves a republic, much like ours, except that
the rich are not allowed to pervert it.
-John H. Diebold

[Betti Schleyer]

Are you aware of the fact that the Warsaw pacters were COMMUNISTS?
HELL-O!!!!! ANYONE WITH A HALF A BRAIN IN THERE???
-John H. Diebold

[Betti Schleyer]

I agree. 1.3 BILLION HUMAN BEINGS earn about US$1 annually. If we were
to do a Robin Hood on Mr. Gates, and distribute his dough to those 1.3
Bil, they're annual income for that year would be about 40 TIMES
greater. We should do that sort of thing every year. Sound fun?
-John H. Diebold

[Betti Schleyer]

Both of ya' need your heads examined... yas both WRONG!
-John H. Diebold

[Betti Schleyer]

Bolshevism is to Socialism as squares are to rectangles. I hope you
paid attention in geometry class...
-John H. Diebold

[Betti Schleyer]

Dear Comrade Conaster,
1. The Instruments of production in a service industry would include
company-owned computers, buildings, devices, etc...
2. Private Property would exist.
3. Yes to all. But they had better be GOOD chairs.
4. I favor the keeping of most modern-day american governmental organs.
In business, I favor a true "Soviet" (as in Worker's Revolutionary
Councils, not that Stalinist bullcrap.) system.

Thanks for asking.
-John H. Diebold

[Jerome Fryer]

LQuest wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 16:33:46 -0400,
> Lepore <lep...@mhxv.net> wrote:
>
> > When did Robert Owen kill 170 million people??
> >
> > You're still stuck on the idea that everything
> > that had been called by the same name must be
> > the same thing.
> >
> > Maybe it's just me. I first realized during
> > early childhood that various things aren't the
> > same merely because the same word has been
> > applied to them, and impatiently I expect
> > people here to realize that.
> >
> > In fact, it's ONLY regarding the word
> > "socialism" that people are unable to realize
> > it!
> >
> > The schools and news media must be doing their
> > job.
>
> Lep, my boy, you are correct. But the fact that
> you are correct is irrelevant.

!???

> ANY system, called by ANY name, that imposes
> artificial barriers to individual self
> sufficiency (including barriers to the honest
> acquisition of UNLIMITED wealth) is a
> manifestation of anti-life force.

Is that kind of like the "dark side"?

Maybe you can get Hollywood to do you a remake of Star Wars, with a Karl
Marx look-alike playing Vader. "Turn to the dark side, Bill! You know
you can't resist the urge to give away your billions!"

You can come up with some really funny one-liners, LQ. Have you
considered stand-up? ;)

Regards,
Jerome 8)

[Betti Schleyer]

Marx advocated Communism. That's why his book was titled "The Communist
Manifesto." In it he said, in no uncertain words, that Communism was
separate from all other forms of Socialism. Believe me, I've read it.
-John H. Diebold

[Jerome Fryer]

Stan Rothwell wrote:
>
> Eric, da Red wrote:
>
> > In article <6mtt7f$8p4$1...@news.smart.net>,
> > KAZ Vorpal <k...@smart.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > ALL versions of socialism have one thing in
> > > common:

Right-wingers don't have the faintest idea about any of them?

> > >They involve "solutions" that require an authoritarian government to
> > >take away people's freedom of choice.

Oh well. I guess it was too much to hope for a sudden attack of sanity.

> (edited for brevity)
>
> > > That is socialism, in a nutshell.
> >
> > You really need to get out of that nutshell
> > and visit the real world once in a while.

They won't let him. Besides which, who'd give him crayons and a
computer to play on in the real world? ;)

> Having seen a bit of the real world, his
> assessment is pretty much on the mark...
> Obviously you don't have anything of
> substance to disagree with, as you failed
> to come up with any evidence or data to
> the contrary...

Aside from all of that evidence to the contrary that is continually
posted on this NG in order to show up right-wing lunatics. (But of
course, you don't read that - that would be "reading propaganda", right?
:)

I think that Eric was on the mark. By "real world" I suspect he means
that place where old ladies get mugged for a couple of bucks and people
live on the streets - not in the "nice" neighbourhoods of the new
apartheid system as practised in the west.

Regards,
Jerome 8)

[Jerome Fryer]

Octapi wrote:
>
> Jerome Fryer wrote in message
> <3594A7A4...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >Octapi wrote:
> >>
> >> Jerome Fryer wrote in message
> >> <3590A427...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >> >Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <358F4FE4...@ihug.co.nz>,
> >> >> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
> >> >> > of social organization which advocates that
> >> >> > the community as a whole should own and
> >> >> > control the means of production,
> >> >> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
> >> >> > practice based on this theory.
> >> >> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
> >> >>

> >> >> Is it all you know about socialism,
> >> >> Jerome? I just remind you that I wanted to
> >> >> hear what you understand about socialism. I
> >> >> am not going to argue with authors of Oxford
> >> >> English Dictionary. They are not putting
> >> >> rubbish on this group, you do.
> >> >
> >> > The above definition is a concise,
> >> > simplified summation of socialism.
> >> >
> >> > I am not going to waste my time giving
> >> > you more detailed definitions. The
> >> > strawman approach doesn't work, Vlad.
> >> >
> >> > Now, from the above definition, prove
> >> > that the USSR was a socialist country.
> >> > I know that you can't, but if you want
> >> > to waste your time trying to distort
> >> > and lie your way around the original
> >> > issue feel free to do so.
> >>
> >> The definition given doesn't say anything
> >> about how the "community as a whole should
> >> own and control the means of production".
> >> In the USSR, the communist party
> >> represented the community as a whole. They
> >> owned and controlled the means of production.
> >> Therefore, the USSR was socialist.
> >
> > The community did not give this power to the
> > CPSU. The USSR was a tyranny.

>
> First, the dictionary definition of socialism
> says nothing about political systems.

"policy or practice based on this system"

> The USSR meets the definition of socialism.

No it doesn't.

> Second, you leftist twits have only been
> calling the USSR a tyranny since it fell. For
> most of the 20th century, the western left was
> totally infatuated with murderous dictators
> like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro.

Ah. And where did you learn this? "McCarthy's Big Fat Book of CIA
Misinformation" perhaps? Or was it "Comforting Lies for Minibrained
Losers" - the Ronald Reagan commemorative edition, with extra large type
and big, colourful pictures? ;)

Regards,
Jerome 8)

[Dharmadeva]

Steve Conatser <stev...@intersatx.net> wrote in article
<3596FB22...@intersatx.net>...

> 2. Would private property exist in socialism? Or would all property be
> collectively owned?

Fundamentally, it seems that equality of wealth distribution is a useless
utopian fantasy. That does not mean that social equality in other fields
of human interaction cannot exist, eg equal opportunities in employment
etc. Indeed must exist. Nor does it mean that there cannot be a maximum
ceiling as to how much wealth an individual may accumulate.

In terms of physical wealth a progressive society and a truly dynamic
economy needs minimum necessities for all (variable as per the increase in
economic wealth in an age) and a limit on maximum acccumulation of hoarded
and unproductive wealth (ie in the sense of being socially beneficial). In
between that incentives are needed.

This scenario of incentives and amentity allocation is indeed not easy, but
would suggest that it is a problem/issue better faced than ignored because
what we have at present, ie a situation of many without minimum necessities
and a few with ridiculously excessive wealth is not viable for the
sustainabilty of human advancement of its own psyche and
spiritual/universal values.

Incentives are needed for the meritorious and special. Who is to select
these special people and their traits? Today it is commonly found that
selection of these people is self-serving. Their traits, by luck, appeal to
people who enjoy to do the selection, and they pay each other off through
mutual acclimation and monetary rewards.

Therefore, standards need to be developed based on the degree of social
service a person gives to society and the social good they generate. This
does not have to be a relative measure. For sure it requires a value based
system. The primary value being one of service to humanity.

The criteria for special amenities should be based on the contribuions made
to meet the needs of collective and individual good, ie for the benefit of
the people in society, whether the contributors are scientists or truck
drivers.

These contributions will change often during eras, and the consesus will
decide on the amenities. Restoration of trust and the end to excessive
litigation in the developed world,
which squelches interference by jealosy, will create an atmosphere needed
to make this work.

Although changes occur, this is unlikely to be so fast as to not be capable
of policy formulation within reasonable implementative time frames.
Further, it must, have to do with higher sentiments being made a priority
in individual and collective life.

It may take time, but clearly many more are realising the problem is the
inequitable distribution of wealth.

dieter

[Dharmadeva]

Steve Conatser <stev...@intersatx.net> wrote in article
<3596FB22...@intersatx.net>...

> A few questions about socialism:

> 2. Would private property exist in socialism? Or would all property be
> collectively owned?
>

> 3. Would participation in these businesses be voluntary?

The psychic disease of the excess wealth accumulators has to be remedied.

The aspiration to become rich by exploiting others is a sort of psychic
disease. If the infinite hunger of the human mind does not find the real
path leading to mental and spiritual wealth it becomes engaged in
accumulating more wealth than what it requires in the mundane world,
thereby depriving others of their share of wealth.

Capitalists who say, "We have seized wealth by intelligence and labour. If
others have the mental and physical potentialities they may do likewise.
Who objects to it?", they do not want to realise that the volume of
commodities is limited whereas the requirement is common to all. In most
spheres individual abundance leads to a reduction in the morsels available
to others - leads to taking the bread out of the mouths of others.

The inability to understand this common necessity of all is a psychic
ailment.

But the people afflicted with this ailment are members of this vast human
family and consequently they are our brothers and sisters. Therefore they
will have to be cured of this disease either by humanitarian appeals or by
exerting pressure of circumstances. It will be a great crime even to think
of their destruction.

Nevertheless, capitalists create hindrances on the path of human beings to
prevent them from becoming one with the Truth/God/Understanding. So
capitalism is anti-spiritual.

As the caliber of the average person declines, it offers opportunity to
political opportunists who gain from disfunctionality and loss of self
reliance.

Those that will stand up for principles will be persecuted as trouble
makers and encouraged to learn to "fit in" with the majority. The cry for
peace is paramount but useless without regard to the issue of morality and
justice.

It should also be added that communism is a worse disease than capitalism.

Communism had to face a black death while dancing in the ecstasy of terror
and massacre. Capitalism and communism have polluted the air, water and
environment in this peace-loving world.

By nature human beings are peace-loving, not war-loving. It is capitalism
and communism that have caused two world wars and so many other sanguinary
battles in the world in the recent past.

Both these systems have created suppression, repression and oppression in
the minds of the people. But while capitalism makes people slaves,
communism makes them worse than slaves.

Due to the suppression, repression and oppression caused by communism,
people are not turned into slaves, rather the human mind is transformed
into matter. This is because in communism human values do not exist, so the
human mind becomes inert like matter. In this state people have no
connection with the Self or soul.

Communism is irrational and inhuman -- it is against the human psyche.

In any proposal of expanded ownership of the means of production, we insist
that every worker - that is, everyone who works - has the God-given natural
right to exercise their control in
deciding how that capital is to be used, eg through voting directors to
managerial boards and earn rational (not abnormal) profits from that
capital.

To think owenership of the means of production itself as the cure for
poverty seems, at first, almost novel. But ownership in common (ie the
State or soviet collective) is not a solution, rather individual ownership
via shareholdings in a co-operative venture is the solution. In that way
the society moves to each person being entitled to equal access to
institutions, laws, and the variety and scope of other social goods.

Redistribution of past wealth accumulations is a necessity in this regard
as they derive from inefficient and exploitative positions in history which
need to be remedied. Many irrational biases and improper motives gave rise
to that situation which require redress. Expansion of future ownership,
profit-sharing opportunities among working people, and educated
participation in management/shareholder's decisions is the kind of new
social technology that can humanize
organizations and economic institutions around the world.

dieter
--
'The main characteristic of PROUT-based socioeconomic movements
is that they aim to guarantee the comprehensive, multifarious
liberation of humanity.' P R Sarkar
PROgressive Utilisation Theory:
People's News Agency
is a free news, views, analysis and literature
service for the progressive minded.
Send email to: majo...@igc.org subscribe pna-news

[Free-Market.Net]

Ed Boraas wrote:
>
> KAZ Vorpal wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > For example...list ANY form of socialism which does not involve a promise
> > or program which requires an authoritarian government to take away the

> > people's freedom of choice.
>

> [snip]

>
> What about Anarchism? It's a form of socialism, and it believes that
> government is entirely unnecessary. I suppose that is somehow "requiring
> an authoritarian government to take away the people's freedom of
> choice"?

Show me any theory of anarchy which believes that government is ENTIRELY
unnecessary and I'll show you anarcho-capitalism. Real anarchy is a form
of capitalism because, as Kaz points out in his "What if people start
trading and respecting each other's property rights" scenario,
capitalism is what people do when they are free.

> I recommend you check out the Anarchism FAQ at
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931 where you can already find
> many of your arguments efficiently refuted :)

I will check it out. I'm sure it will be good target practice. Thanks!

[Dan Clore]

Free-Market.Net wrote:
> Ed Boraas wrote:
> > KAZ Vorpal wrote:

> Show me any theory of anarchy which believes that government is ENTIRELY
> unnecessary and I'll show you anarcho-capitalism. Real anarchy is a form
> of capitalism because, as Kaz points out in his "What if people start
> trading and respecting each other's property rights" scenario,
> capitalism is what people do when they are free.

There has never been a society that was both capitalist and stateless.
There have, however, been many non-capitalist, stateless societies. See
Harold Barclay's _People without Government: An Anthropology of
Anarchism_ for many detailed examples. Now, if what people in the real
world who live in stateless societies isn't "what people do when they
are free", then what precisely is?

--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore

The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....

The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"

[Harold]

On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:02:07 +1200, Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

>Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>>
>> In article <3590A2FB...@ihug.co.nz>,
>> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> >Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>> >
>> > Selective memory loss is a requirement of
>> > being a right-winger.
>>
>> Thank you for pointing that out. It
>> turned out that you were in my kill-file. At
>> the same time I can assure you that I am not
>> a right or left winger. I am just a guy using
>> common sense. Unfortunately in modern climate
>> it makes me "ultra-reactionary conservative".
>>
>> >> Can you do it again?

>> >
>> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
>> > of social organization which advocates that
>> > the community as a whole should own and
>> > control the means of production,
>> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
>> > practice based on this theory.
>> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
>> >
>>

>> In Soviet Russia under Lenin, Stalin,
>> Chrushev, Brejnev there was always a community
>> control of means of production, distribution
>> and exchange. Because it is unfeasible in
>> practice to control those means by direct
>> community vote they had a representative
>> authorized by people to carry those functions.
>> So the beurocrasy in Russia. There were little
>> abuses (like 15 millions murdered in labor
>> camps) but real socialists can live with it. So
>> I can assure the first part of this definition
>> was true in USSR.
>>
>> The second, I can assure you that all
>> their policies were based on theoretical works
>> of Marx, Engels, Lenin and the whole army of
>> well paid political scientists carrying those
>> teaching in the modern age.
>>
>> So you Oxford dictionary confirms that
>> what we had in USSR was a socialism.
>
>I wonder: is this guy deliberately setting out to make himself look like
>a total idiot, or is it accidental?
>
>Or is he perhaps merely a construction of the NSA or some other agency?

That's a wonderfully persuasive way to answer the points he has
raised.

1. Ignore them, then

2. Use an ad hominem attack.

Well, I have come to expect no more from you.

Regards, Harold
----
"What is politically defined as economic "planning" is the
forcible superseding of other people's plans by government
officials."
--- Thomas Sowell

[Harold]

On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:04:52 +1200, Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

>Octapi wrote:

>>
>> Jerome Fryer wrote in message <3590A427...@ihug.co.nz>...

>> >Vladimir Kuznetsov wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <358F4FE4...@ihug.co.nz>,

>> >> Jerome Fryer <jer...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > socialism 1 a political and economic theory
>> >> > of social organization which advocates that
>> >> > the community as a whole should own and
>> >> > control the means of production,
>> >> > distribution, and exchange. 2 policy or
>> >> > practice based on this theory.
>> >> > - source; Oxford English Dictionary.
>> >>

As Vlad and others have noted, that is what all socialism is or must
become, a tyranny. Socialism has a basic fault. The force necessary
to initiate socialism attracts those fascinated by power, and the
coercion required to maintain a socialist economy the stuff of
tyranny.

Regards, Harold
----
"The desire of businessmen for profits is what drives prices
down unless forcible prevented from engaging in price
competition, usually by governmental activity. "
--- Thomas Sowell

[Harold]

On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 11:25:40 GMT, Betti Schleyer <ome...@spyral.net>
wrote:

That's nice. Out of curiosity, only. Who are you John Diebold who is
using Betti Schleyer's account. Or are you Betti using John Diebold's
name?

Or are you both, and do you have conversations with yourself?

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
"Neither "property" nor the value of property is a physical
thing. Property is a set of defined options...It is that
set of options which has economic value...It is the options,
and not the physical things, which are the "property" -
economically as well as legally...But because the public
tends to think of property as tangible, physical things,
this opens the way politically for government confiscation
of property by forcibly taking away options while leaving
the physical objects untouched."
--- Thomas Sowell

[Free-Market.Net]

Dan Clore wrote:
>
> Free-Market.Net wrote:
> > Ed Boraas wrote:
> > > KAZ Vorpal wrote:
>
> > Show me any theory of anarchy which believes that government is ENTIRELY
> > unnecessary and I'll show you anarcho-capitalism. Real anarchy is a form
> > of capitalism because, as Kaz points out in his "What if people start
> > trading and respecting each other's property rights" scenario,
> > capitalism is what people do when they are free.
>
> There has never been a society that was both capitalist and stateless.
> There have, however, been many non-capitalist, stateless societies. See
> Harold Barclay's _People without Government: An Anthropology of
> Anarchism_ for many detailed examples.

Thank you for the book referral. I will definitely check it out. But
until I get the chance, I wonder if you could tell me a little bit about
these non-capitalist, anarchist societies. Like, for instance, how large
were they? How long did they last? What was the ultimate cause of their
downfall?

I have serious doubts, based on laws of economics and lessons of
history, that a society of any considerable size or consequence could
last long without any notion of the natural, human rights of property
ownership and trade.

[Guy Marsh]

> Guy Marsh wrote:
>
> > > Having visited Russia, Romania, Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics
> > > and seen what the unions did to the UK in the 1970's I can honestly say
> > > that your definition of socialism has never been achieved. The love of
> > > power and control over others combined with weapons and colleges of
> > > torture mean that socialism is a political means of destruction of human
> > > good, beauty, art, fidelity, and honor.
> > >
> > > Socialism belongs in the fiery pit to have the dross removed from it.
> > > Living in the USA as you do, you live in a cotton candy coccoon so you
> > > can afford to extol the virtues of a system you neither understand, nor
> > > would you be able to defend ONE socialist experiment had you seen the
> > > misery socialism has caused.
> >

> > Yeah, the American working-class lives
> > "in a cotton candy cocoon". No wonder
> > this dick, err, I mean Peter (thinks) he
> > understands the meaning of socialism.

Stanley Rothwell:

> Considering that you have no true understanding of the dismal failure brought
> on by socialism, you have little ground to call others names... How about some
> FACTS (not just your silly failed Marxist theory) to back your claims for a
> change???

Quite franky, Stanley, you can kiss
my goddamned ass!
If you wish to continue to believe
that, say, the U.S."S".R. was a "so-
cialist" society, and you do, go ri-
ght ahead. I possess no need to con-
vince your utterly brainwashed "mind".
But the fact of the matter is that you
(DO) make your self out to be but a
buffoon when you spout that sort of cr-
ap.
As per "my" "silly" Marxist theory, how
do you know that what I post is Marxist
theory? YOU'VE NEVER STUDIED MARXIST
THEORY. Yet you have the balls to tell
me that I "have no understanding of the
dismal failure brought about by 'social-
ism'."
Hey Stanley, go fuck yourself!

> And if you still think socialism is worth it, why not emigrate to North
> Korea??? I'm willing to bet you'll find someone willing to trade places with
> you (a mutual transaction that everyone should be happy with... ;o) ).

You know, Stanley, I'm glad you
mentioned this. For I have been
trying to transfer to N. Korea
for years now. But my KGB hand-
lers keep telling me "Comrade Marsh,
we need you to remain in southern
California." And then I usually
say something like, "Oh, OK. But
do I have to keep hangin around these
dammned beaches? I mean all these
women and all. Oh well, I suppose
I can tough it out a bit longer."

Put in the good word for me, eh Stanley!

Persevere.
Guy
Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP)
Member-at-large
http://www.slp.org
__________

Remember the U.S.S. Liberty
06-08-67
http://www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty
_______

Former member
Republican & Democratic
Parties

[Dan Clore]

Free-Market.Net wrote:
> Dan Clore wrote:
> > Free-Market.Net wrote:
> > > Ed Boraas wrote:
> > > > KAZ Vorpal wrote:

> > > Show me any theory of anarchy which believes that government is ENTIRELY
> > > unnecessary and I'll show you anarcho-capitalism. Real anarchy is a form
> > > of capitalism because, as Kaz points out in his "What if people start
> > > trading and respecting each other's property rights" scenario,
> > > capitalism is what people do when they are free.
> >
> > There has never been a society that was both capitalist and stateless.
> > There have, however, been many non-capitalist, stateless societies. See
> > Harold Barclay's _People without Government: An Anthropology of
> > Anarchism_ for many detailed examples.
>
> Thank you for the book referral. I will definitely check it out. But
> until I get the chance, I wonder if you could tell me a little bit about
> these non-capitalist, anarchist societies. Like, for instance, how large
> were they? How long did they last? What was the ultimate cause of their
> downfall?

There's a broad range from tiny bands of hunter-gatherers, to widespread
tribal groups that may include hundreds of thousands or even millions of
members. The first type has lasted since the human species began. Most
of these (all types) have been incorporated into modern states by now,
and exist in a sort of mixed state between the original culture and one
imposed on them from without.

> I have serious doubts, based on laws of economics and lessons of
> history, that a society of any considerable size or consequence could
> last long without any notion of the natural, human rights of property
> ownership and trade.

Well, the idea of "natural, human rights" of anything is a relatively
recent invention. As far as property ownership and trade, all societies
have *something* that you might classify that way, but many are very far
from the specific form called capitalism. To say "capitalism is what
people do when they are free" is a bit like saying "English is the
language people speak when they are free" -- it's a specific, socially
learned form of behavior.

[Steve Conatser]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all businesses have
instruments of production, even if that business does not physically
"produce" anything, in the strict sense of the word. So basically, ALL
businesses (production, retail, service, whatever) would be collectively
owned and democratically managed? Am I understanding you correctly? I
don't want to put words in your mouth. I just want to make sure I
understand what you're saying.

On the issue of private property and the furniture-maker, I need to be
more specific in my questions:

Is he free to use his private property (wood, workbench, carving tools,
etc., which presumably he got from a collectively-owned business) as
"instruments of production" to produce handcarved wood furniture? Is he
free to sell the furniture? What if he makes BAD chairs? Such that his
customers aren't willing to pay him $200 each but only $50 each? Is he
free to sell them at that price? Are the customers free to buy them at
that price?

What if he needs help from his buddies, so he offers them $6 per hour
for their work? Is he free to make this offer? Are his buddies free to
accept? Are they free to enter into this agreement?

The basic questions are:

Are citizens free to use their private property to produce a product or
service and sell it to someone? Are they free to ask any price? Are
they free to keep all revenues?

[Steve Conatser]

A few questions:

1. How do you define "exploit"? Isn't it true that in capitalism,
physical force and the threat thereof is illegal and banned in all
relationships?

2. Specifically, what does "by exerting pressure of circumstances"
mean?

3. How do capitalists "take the bread out of the mouths of others"?

4. If I offer you a job that you don't want, am I hurting you?

5. Can you give some examples of how Bill Gates has limited other
people's ability to provide for themselves?

[Jerome Fryer]

Octapi wrote:

<snip>

> There aren't any metaphysically true
> definitions of any word. Words mean what
> people think they mean.

Have you ever read 1984?

Regards,
Jerome 8)