libertarianism - (Mr. Allen would solve things via Inquisition)
F. Cowart
In talk.politics.libertarian Ron Allen <ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote:
: Ron Allen wrote:
: > What is it about libertarians that they keep thinking every
: > democracy will lead to something that is non-democratic?
: James A. Donald wrote:
: > Because you propose that a democracy should exercise vast and terrible
: > powers that will reach into every aspect of every persons life, that
: > democracy should decide on the production of toilet paper, pencils and
: > newsprint paper.
: Ron Allen answers:
: You have conveniently read into what I have said what you think I have
: said. You believe a socialist or a communist cannot possibly believe in
: democracy unless "democracy" is redefined to mean totalitarianism. When
: A socialist or a communist speaks or writes, you hear John Bircher
: propaganda, and you cannot hear past that propaganda in order to really
: hear what I am saying. You distrust socialists and communists. You
: think all of us want to enslave humanity.
Sorry Dude, But your track record sucks :)
--
There is nothing you can say that some candy assed liberal can't take
the wrong way, So the first ammendment is dead and watch what you
say!!!
Trust me, I know what's best for you. --- Adolph H... somebody
Yes I know its too long and spelled wrong but you want something to
complain about don't you?
----------------------------------------------------------
James Bannon
In article <6m936u$oro$5...@news.smart.net>, "F. Cowart"
<madh...@smart.net> writes
>Sorry Dude, But your track record sucks :)
>
>
>
whatever with a Socialist government.They're not socialist, but
totalitarian / state capitalist. A true "Communist/Socialist" regime
would operate in much the same way as a co-operative; i.e., there are no
pay-masters and decisions are made jointly about property held in
common. There are plenty of small communities where this type of
decision-making works well. In an information age, there is no good
reason why it can't work on a larger scale.
Secondly, just in case, there is no such thing as the "tragedy of the
commons" of Adam Smith fame. You have to understand that Modern Economic
thought (read "Free Market") was born out of the need to encourage trade
and that Smith was first, and foremost, a businessman! In other words,
it was in his interests to promote a system which gives businesses
fundamental control of the system. In fact, the tragedy of the commons
might just as well be called "the tragedy of self-interest" (think about
it).
--
James Bannon
Ron Allen
F. Cowart wrote:
> Sorry Dude, But your track record sucks :)
Ron Allen answers:
If you mean by the word "your" the track record of socialism/communism,
then I agree with your gloomy assessment of socialism and communism.
The historical record of socialist and communist performance is not a
record of success. And yet, when I agree with you on this important
point, I am still reminded that I am measuring the failures of socialist
and communist organizations by a clearly defined standard; and that
transparent criterion by which I evaluate the many disappointments and
the notable miscarriages of both socialism and communism in operation
turn out to be original socialist theory and faithful communist desire.
There are numerous reasons why socialism and communism have not been
successful, and those many reasons have nothing to do with socialist
truths or communist hopes. Those on the political right who criticize
the failures of socialist and communist dreams have yet to understand
the reasons for those failures, simply because the failures of socialism
and communism have more to do with lingering capitalism and a lagging
ideology of class differentiated divisions of wealth and power. The
revolutions of this century have never established an authentic
socialism, or a genuine path towards communism, and I leave it to future
historians to figure out what was real and what was false in every
failure to achieve a democratic socialist construction of a future
anarchic communist economy.
Salisar
James Bannon wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>
>whatever with a Socialist government.They're not socialist, but
>totalitarian / state capitalist. A true "Communist/Socialist" regime
>would operate in much the same way as a co-operative; i.e., there are no
>pay-masters and decisions are made jointly about property held in
>common. There are plenty of small communities where this type of
>decision-making works well. In an information age, there is no good
>reason why it can't work on a larger scale.
And since such behavior can never be achieved in the politically real world
of people who will inevitably act in their own self interests, those who
advocate such a system must always result to totalitarianism in order to
force people to act "for the good of the state." You never have to coerce
people to act in their own self interests. Thus, which system is the most
in keeping with liberty?
>
>Secondly, just in case, there is no such thing as the "tragedy of the
>commons" of Adam Smith fame. You have to understand that Modern Economic
>thought (read "Free Market") was born out of the need to encourage trade
>and that Smith was first, and foremost, a businessman! In other words,
>it was in his interests to promote a system which gives businesses
>fundamental control of the system. In fact, the tragedy of the commons
>might just as well be called "the tragedy of self-interest" (think about
>it).
Markets evolve, they are not created full blown, which is the simple fact
that collectivists never seem to be able to grasp. When you hire a teen age
neighbor to mow your lawn and you agree to a price and to work to be
performed, you are operating in a market, albeit a small one. Markets
evolved as the natural outgrowth of the interchange between individuals to
trade goods and services. Whether the market involves a small community or
a global network, the dynamics are still the same. Only when governments
attempt to intervene with the intent to favor certain individuals or
industries, do we find that markets become skewed. Once you have an outside
force interferring, you no longer have a market, you have coerced
transactions. If society were to be destroyed by some cataclysmic event,
the second thing to emerge (after survival struggles were taken care of)
would be a means of exchanging goods and labor ... that is, markets.
Markets work because they are natural. Collective economies collapse
because they do not allow individual talent and industry to step forward and
they thus operate in a state of perpetual mediocrity at best and utter chaos
at worst.
Richard W. Bates
God save me from people who want to save me!
http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
>--
>James Bannon
Salisar
Ron Allen wrote in message <35885A...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
>F. Cowart wrote:
>> Sorry Dude, But your track record sucks :)
>
>
I disagree. The failure of collectivism is its failure to recognize the
truth about human nature. It presupposes that Man is essentially motivated
by his desire to further the interests of others before his own. As noble
and nice as that all sounds, it's simply not reality. To wish and hope for
it to be otherwise does nothing to make it so. Consequently, utopian
societies in which everyone thinks and acts alike (which is required for a
socialistic society to exist), can not be achieved by other than coercive
means. By thinking and acting alike, I do not mean like the dronelike
robots you see in old sci fi movies. Rather I mean a society in which all
individuals hold to the same identical philosophy, in this case,
collectivism. That just isn't going to happen as long as men have free
will.
To attempt to blame the failures of socialism on vestige remnants of
capitalism essentially proves that point, since what you naturally get when
you leave people to their own devices is capitalism in some form or another.
Hence, what the "excuse" for socialism's failure becomes is essentially the
realization that human nature doesn't work that way. Utlimtately,
socialists are reduced to calling those who oppose them as "hate filled",
"racist", and "greedy," all of which, even if true, are beside the point.
Because people are so diverse is exactly why socialism can't work without
coercion.
My opinion, enhanced by years of observation, is that those who advocate
socialism are often motivated by sincere motives of concern for the
downtrodden, but are also filled with a vaguely directed anger that if only
others could just "understand" they would see how much better the world they
envision would be for everyone. Even if that were true (which it is not), a
true adherence to the concepts of liberty dictates that we must accept that
others be allowed to hold their own vision of how the world should be ...
for them. Liberty means that we be allowed to create the world of our own
vision, as long as we do not prevent others from doing the same for
themselves. To suppose that we have a pipeline to a way of life that is
best for others is merely arrogance masquerading as compassion.
Ron Allen
Salisar wrote:
> And since such behavior can never be achieved in the politically real
> world of people who will inevitably act in their own self interests,
> those who advocate such a system must always result to totalitarianism
> in order to force people to act "for the good of the state."
Ron Allen answers:
You say "since such behavior can never be achieved" with the self
assurance of libertarian defender of capitalism. I do not share your
assurance that human beings can never behave in ways that are proper to
a more democratic context.
You also talk about forcing people to act for the good of the state, and
this clearly indicates your failure to read with comprehension and
honesty what has been said by democratic socialists and anarchic
communists. In a true democracy or anarchy, people are not forced to
act for the good of the state; but in a democratic socialist state the
state will be forced to act for the good of the people, while in an
anarchic communist society there will be no police state to force
obedience from the people.
Salisar wrote:
> You never have to coerce people to act in their own self interests.
Ron Allen answers:
And neither socialism nor communism advocate coercion of people. Both
socialism and communism believe that to act in one's own self-interest
is also to act in the interest of others. No matter how much people act
in their own self-interest in a capitalist context, only a few are able
to achieve a level of material and cultural life that is fully
satisfying to a well-rounded human being. Capitalists can spew out all
their words about self-interest, but the reality of capitalism is that
the real interests of each are being sacrificed to the ignoble interests
of a fortunate few.
Salisar wrote:
> Thus, which system is the most in keeping with liberty?
Ron Allen answers:
A rhetorical question, I presume. You already have the answer you want.
Salisar wrote:
> Markets evolve, they are not created full blown, which is the simple
> fact that collectivists never seem to be able to grasp.
Ron Allen answers:
Even if we grant, for the sake of debate, that collectivists do not seem
able to grasp that markets evolve, what does grasping this simple fact
imply or include -- what does grasping this elementary fact matter to
you or to me? What have I written that tells you I do not grasp the
fact I am unable to grasp?
Salisar wrote:
> When you hire a teen age neighbor to mow your lawn and you agree to a
> price and to work to be performed, you are operating in a market,
> albeit a small one. Markets evolved as the natural outgrowth of the
> interchange between individuals to trade goods and services. Whether
> the market involves a small community or a global network, the
> dynamics are still the same. Only when governments attempt to
> intervene with the intent to favor certain individuals or industries,
> do we find that markets become skewed. Once you have an outside
> force interferring, you no longer have a market, you have coerced
> transactions. If society were to be destroyed by some cataclysmic
> event, the second thing to emerge (after survival struggles were taken
> care of) would be a means of exchanging goods and labor ... that is,
> markets.
Ron Allen answers:
In the scenario you give in the above pericope, you stipulate a context
of scarcity, whereas marxists believe we have in place what it takes to
overcome the restrictions of scarcity, and that capitalist structures
are the remaining strictures standing in the way of an economy of
plenty.
Salisar wrote:
> Markets work because they are natural.
Ron Allen answers:
Markets work to the extent that they work, but markets are not natural.
Markets are a creation of human beings, a determination of human
history.
Salisar wrote:
> Collective economies collapse because they do not allow individual
> talent and industry to step forward and they thus operate in a state
> of perpetual mediocrity at best and utter chaos at worst.
Ron Allen answers:
Collectivist economies that have existed and still exist have collapsed
because they did not allow individual talent and industry to step
forward. But there are different kinds of collectivism, and democratic
socialism is not national socialism, nor is anarchic communism a
stalinist form of statism.
Capitalism also does not, on the whole, allow individual talent and
industry to step forward. A few success stories, where a minority go
from rags to riches, does not accord with the reality of nonsuccess in
which the majority of human beings suffer from the real truth of market
economics.
Ron Allen
Salisar wrote:
> The failure of collectivism is its failure to recognize the truth
> about human nature.
Ron Allen answers:
What do you mean by "collectivism"? Where do you get your "truth about
human nature". I don't know about you, but I get my truth about human
nature from the only subject I know well enough to study and interpret.
I know what I am capable of, or what I would like very much to attempt.
The way we think about self ought to determine the way we think about
others. The the typical righ-wing libertarian capitalist, the self is
hardworking, while the other is unindustrious.
Salisar wrote:
> It (collectivism) presupposes that Man is essentially motivated
> by his desire to further the interests of others before his own.
Ron Allen answers:
That is muddleheaded collectivism. A more sagacious collectivism simply
believes that it is the (now bottled up) desire of every rational and
social human being to want to further both the interests of self and the
interests of others, since the interests of each person are also the
interests of all persons.
Salisar wrote:
> As noble and nice as that all sounds, it's simply not reality.
Ron Allen answers:
Existing reality is precisely what every socialist and communist wishes
to revolutionize. We know that the nobility and freedom we seek for all
people is not yet reality, but we believe that noble and free human
beings can work together to create a new and better reality expressive
of both the dignity and liberty of human nature as it can become in
improved conditions. The better side of human nature has yet to preside
over the bitter side of human nature, because a better arrangement of
society has yet to nurture and cultivate away the villainous side of our
dispositions.
Salisar wrote:
> To wish and hope for it to be otherwise does nothing to make it so.
Ron Allen answers:
Granted. Wish and hope, as pre-theory, must also be and become a praxis
that is both authentic and proper to democracy and cooperation.
Salisar wrote:
> Consequently, utopian societies in which everyone thinks and acts
> alike (which is required for a socialistic society to exist), ...
Ron Allen answers:
I disagree. But I would be interested to know why you believe that
socialism requires that every person think and act like two peas in a
pod.
Salisar wrote:
> ... can not be achieved by other than coercive means.
Ron Allen answers:
People today think and act a lot alike. Perhaps this reveals the hidden
but persuasive side of coercion from capitalist markets, which most
libertarians believe is out of the question.
Salisar wrote:
> By thinking and acting alike, I do not mean like the dronelike robots
> you see in old sci fi movies. Rather I mean a society in which all
> individuals hold to the same identical philosophy, in this case,
> collectivism.
Ron Allen answers:
Most individuals in these United States hold to the same identical
philosophy, and that philosophy is pro-capitalism.
Salisar wrote:
> That just isn't going to happen as long as men have free will.
Ron Allen answers:
You say human beings have free will, but you also say we are not free to
will to be the kind of people who think and act in a way that serves the
interests of self while also equally serving the interests of others.
Salisar wrote:
> To attempt to blame the failures of socialism on vestige remnants of
> capitalism essentially proves that point, since what you naturally get
> when you leave people to their own devices is capitalism in some form
> or another.
Ron Allen answers:
That is much too naïve a notion to be seriously entertained in a
philosophy discussion group. What you call a natural tendency of people
to behave like acquisitive dolts can be honestly seen as an impulse
brought on by old habits proper to centuries of class struggle and the
inhuman slavery of most of humanity to the demands of a happy few. The
natural tendency of human nature you see revealed in the soviet
experiment with collectivism can also be seen as revealing the long-term
effects of cultural lag. Marxists believe it is utopean to assume human
beings can leap from capitalism to communism without the mediation of
time. Marxists maintain that a democratic socialist economy must take
place before an anarchic communist economy can be brought about.
Salisar wrote:
> Hence, what the "excuse" for socialism's failure becomes is
> essentially the realization that human nature doesn't work that way.
Ron Allen answers:
What happens to the free will you know so much about, if human nature
makes it certain that we human beings can never reach the goal of a
better community of true liberty, true justice, true equality and true
solidarity? You seem to think our wills are enslaved to our natures,
which you seem to think are fully in agreement with only one economic
form -- and that is capitalism.
Salisar wrote:
> Utlimtately, socialists are reduced to calling those who oppose them
> as "hate filled", "racist", and "greedy," all of which, even if true,
> are beside the point.
Ron Allen answers:
Intelligent marxists call capitalists greedy because they support and
benefit from arrangements that sustain greedy thoughts and subsidize
greedy actions. In a capitalist context, the capitalist is no more
greedy than the worker, but the worker does not profit from greed to the
same degree that the capitalist class profits.
Why do you regard hate, greed and racism as beside the point? What is
the point?
Salisar wrote:
> Because people are so diverse is exactly why socialism can't work
> without coercion.
Ron Allen answers:
I would try to take your leap from "because ..." to "... is exactly why
...", but I do not think I can make it over the deep and wide fissure in
your logic.
Salisar wrote:
> My opinion, enhanced by years of observation, is that those who
> advocate socialism are often motivated by sincere motives of concern
> for the downtrodden, but are also filled with a vaguely directed anger
> that if only others could just "understand" they would see how much
> better the world they envision would be for everyone.
Ron Allen answers:
My opinion, also enhanced by years of observation, is that those who
advocate capitalism are often motivated by sincere motives of concern
for the unhappy who suffer every day, but are also filled with a vaguely
directed envy that if only they could be just like others who are better
off then having said all those right-wing mantras over and over again
will have finally shaped their personal reality to accord with the
better life they want for themselves and their family. Often the
capitalist wannabe is more devoted to the religion of capitalism than
the capitalists themselves, who see the capitalist ideology as a means
to an end, as a means to get others to willingly work for the selfish
benefit of the employer class.
Salisar wrote:
> Even if that were true (which it is not), a true adherence to the
> concepts of liberty dictates that we must accept that others be
> allowed to hold their own vision of how the world should be ...
> for them.
Ron Allen answers:
Socialism and communism are not opposed to people holding their own
vision of a better world, and doing what it takes to build that better
world.
Salisar wrote:
> Liberty means that we be allowed to create the world of our own
> vision, as long as we do not prevent others from doing the same for
> themselves. To suppose that we have a pipeline to a way of life that
> is best for others is merely arrogance masquerading as compassion.
Ron Allen answers:
Society does have to organize itself, even if every individual has a
singular vision. I believe the option of capitalism or communism is a
viable option, a real option; and within either organization of society
each person will be free to think differently and reasonable. We have
yet to think freely and differently in a classless society.
Ron Allen
Ron Allen wrote:
> The the typical righ-wing libertarian capitalist, the self is
> hardworking, while the other is unindustrious.
Correction:
> To the typical right-wing libertarian capitalist, the self is
Ron Allen
Salisar wrote:
> And since such behavior [behavior proper to a context of democratic
> socialism or anarchistic communism] can never be achieved in the
> politically real world of people who will inevitably act in their own
> self interests, those who advocate such a system must always result
> good of the state."
Ron Allen answers:
Salisar also wrote that "men have free will". And yet, in the above
pericope, Salisar asserts with much certainty that communism can never
be achieved, because of a certain eternal human behavior slant that is
in line with capitalism, but cannot support a movement towards
communism.
To say that communism can never be pulled off because human beings
"inevitably act in their own self interests" is very much a return to
pre-sartrean ways of thinking, where essence precedes existence, where a
timeless greedy and grabby essence defines our historical and social
existence. The marxist believes differently, asserting also that human
nature does have a groove for selfish ways of living, but in addition
that human nature also has a groove for selfless ways of living. In
other words, human beings are both selfish and selfless, and nurture has
more to do with selfishness calling the tune in today's society, while
nature has less to do with our unnaturally greedy forms of living in
today's world.
Ideology has much more to do with which aspect of our dual nature is
dominant. If, today, greed is monopolistic in its seductive pull and
compelling power, then it is very possible that it is the monopoly of
capitalist ideology which promotes and prompts us towards such actions
as those which exhibit greed while inhibiting generosity. The power of
cigarette propaganda to convince us to smoke is very like the power of
capitalist ideology to convince is to live like undisturbed capitalists
or dominated wage slaves.
To believe the selfish aspect of human nature cannot be balanced by the
selfless side of our dual nature is to make an attempt to escape
responsibility -- the burden that comes with freedom. Authentic
responsibility is the ability of free and reasonable people to respond
ably to every tendency of human nature. It takes wisdom to know when it
is best or proper to give to the community on the one hand or take from
the community on the other hand. Capitalist ideology sees the duality
of human nature -- avarice vs. altruism -- as an eternal and
unresolvable opposition. Communist ideology sees the duality of human
nature as resolvable. It is not necessary for one side to dominate and
repress the other side. Communism is to be the unity and balance of
considerations of self interest with considerations of the interests of
others. Communism is to be a synthesis of selfishness and selflessness.
My interest in improving the life of my community is not an other to my
interest in improving my own life in the community. Both sides of my
dual nature are to be united in authentic communism.
The marxist believes that it is in the self-interest of each person to
act always with consideration of others. Those aspects of human nature
that make us tend towards an "ego trip" style of life are not the only
aspects of human nature. We are free precisely because we have a dual
nature -- we have a two-fold tendency to both selfishness and
selflessness. It is our free and moral character which allows us to
discharge our responsibilites both to ourselves and to others. Our dual
nature contains a dual necessity, which therefore can accomodate our
desire to live for others as well as for self, which can therefore
embody our potential decision to live in a communist arrangement just as
easily as our present decision to live in a capitalist context.
We exist, and we can freely decide what kind of people we will be. We
can freely determine what aspects of our nature we will nurture, and
what aspects we will inhibit. The marxist believes a better world would
be one where we freely educate and cultivate those aspects of human
nature that are more noble, that make existence itself more enjoyable to
all the people, that reduces the suffering of the many for the
sufficiency of a fortunate few.
Capitalism is about the freedom to get more money than one person needs
in a lifetime. Community is about the freedom to live for self while at
the same time one is living for others. A self-made person can be a
giving person. A self-made person does not have to be a taking person.
A self-made person can also be a person who helps to bring about an
honorable and honest community. In capitalism, there is a formal
freedom to have money. In communism, there ought to be a factual
freedom to be moral.
In capitalism, people are told to live for the purpose of making more
specie than others make. In communism, the purpose of life is not to
hoard more specie than others, but rather to embrace the human species
of which each of us is a vital part. Love of money is a kind of
necrophilia, becaue the value of every coin is past labor, and the
essence of exchange value is dead labor. The rule of capital is the
rule of the dead over the living, the rule of dead specie over the human
species, the rule of corpses over the life of the community.
One of the differences between capitalism and communism is the
difference between how we talk about rights and dutues. The capitalist
believes in the right of each person to freedom of speech. This is a
negative right in that it negates the power of those who rule to silence
those whom they rule. The communist believes in this bourgeois right.
But the communist also believes in the duty of each person to speek
freely. This is a positive duty in that it posits the power of every
person to self rule. I can, and I ought to, govern my speech in such a
way that respects and endorses the dignity and freedom of others. The
capitalst feels he or she can say things that pay deference to the
capitalist class, while at the same time saying things that do dishonor
to those who have failed in a capitalist setting. Those who defend the
rule of capital are much too quick to judge between those who succeed
and those who are defeated. To put it very simply: We cannot separate
political rights from what is morally right.
Ron Allen
Ron Allen wrote:
> In capitalism, people are told to live for the purpose of making more
> specie than others make. In communism, the purpose of life is not to
> hoard more specie than others, but rather to embrace the human species
> of which each of us is a vital part.
Correction:
> In capitalism, people are told to live for the purpose of making more
> specie than other people make. In communism, the purpose of life is
> not to hoard more specie than other people have, but rather to embrace
Jim Sarbeck
In article <358BE5...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>,
ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net wrote:
>Ron Allen wrote:
...
>Correction:
>> In capitalism, people are told to live for the purpose of making more
>> specie than other people make. In communism, the purpose of life is
>> not to hoard more specie than other people have, but rather to embrace
>> the human species of which each of us is a vital part.
Without moralizing on either, the purpose of life under capitalism is to
take, and the purpose of life under communism is to give. The two systems
cannot interact while staying true to their purposes, for the simple reason
that the takers will take all that the givers have to give, so that the
givers will disappear. So in a real world, one system must be absent, or
they must be effectively isolated, or at the interface there must be
interfacing mechanisms that are neither capitalistic nor communistic. On a
fully populated planet where nature's gifts and human needs are not
uniformly distributed, it is no small feat to keep these interfacing
mechanisms under control; in fact, they actually run the world.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Guru George
>F. Cowart wrote:
>> Sorry Dude, But your track record sucks :)
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>If you mean by the word "your" the track record of socialism/communism,
>then I agree with your gloomy assessment of socialism and communism.
>The historical record of socialist and communist performance is not a
>record of success. And yet, when I agree with you on this important
>point, I am still reminded that I am measuring the failures of socialist
>and communist organizations by a clearly defined standard; and that
>transparent criterion by which I evaluate the many disappointments and
>the notable miscarriages of both socialism and communism in operation
>turn out to be original socialist theory and faithful communist desire.
>There are numerous reasons why socialism and communism have not been
>successful, and those many reasons have nothing to do with socialist
>truths or communist hopes. Those on the political right who criticize
>the failures of socialist and communist dreams have yet to understand
>the reasons for those failures, simply because the failures of socialism
>and communism have more to do with lingering capitalism and a lagging
>ideology of class differentiated divisions of wealth and power.
Sorry, but these excuses are bathetic. Libertarians at least (I don't
know about the "right", which I don't consider myself a part of)
understand very well the failures of socialism and communism, which:
a) economically, have to do with the fact that central authorities (of
whatever stripe) cannot centrally control an economy economically
efficiently, because the knowledge that would be necessary to do so is
essentially dispersed; and b) socially, have to do with a deep
misunderstanding of human nature that makes socialism unable to turn
even "selfish" behaviour to the benefit of society, as capitalism
does.
If you try and avoid a) by saying you are *not* aiming for centralised
state control of the means of production, then you are asking for
nothing different from either plain vanilla social democracy or mere
capitalism all over again, but with workers owning and managing
themselves and their own businesses, which is already possible, but
for various reasons not in fact chosen by the workers (although
libertarians would have no problem with you exhorting them to do so).
So what the fuck are you left with?
And b) is just a stupid intellectual error, the result of wilful
ideological blindness to the depth and realism of classical liberal
and libertarian analysis.
>The
>revolutions of this century have never established an authentic
>socialism, or a genuine path towards communism, and I leave it to future
>historians to figure out what was real and what was false in every
>failure to achieve a democratic socialist construction of a future
>anarchic communist economy.
- Guru George
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
"Of course, any people always have the government they
deserve, or the God they deserve. It seems incredible
that people could believe that God would speak from a
high mountain only to tell them "no-nos". But many did,
and some still do.
Original sin, no.
Original stupidity, yes."
- Marcelo Ramos Motta,
from Class C commentary to Liber LXV
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Jim Sarbeck
In article <358c5a17....@news.blarg.net>, wa...@blarg.net wrote:
>Jim Sarbeck wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
>>In article <358BE5...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>,
>>ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net wrote:
>>Without moralizing on[capitalism or communism], the purpose of life under
capitalism is to take, and the purpose of life under communism is to give.
...
>But under capitalism, you cannot take -- you can only persuade others
>to give, normally by giving them something in return.
Normally? What is normal capitalism? Persuasion takes many forms. Some of
them emanate from the barrel of a gun. Are you suggesting that capitalism
is or should be restrained by some principles that have no traceable
relationship to capitalism?
>While under communism it is quite possible to give until you starve,
>without ever receiving. And it is what we receive, not what we give, that
keeps us alive.
True, and very important. In the real world, giving is likely to leave one
dead, if others are not so altruistic to give back. The ideal communist
society requires a different sort than we are.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Jim Sarbeck wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>In article <358BE5...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>,
>ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>Ron Allen wrote:
>...
>>Correction:
>>> In capitalism, people are told to live for the purpose of making more
>>> specie than other people make. In communism, the purpose of life is
>>> not to hoard more specie than other people have, but rather to embrace
>>> the human species of which each of us is a vital part.
>
>Without moralizing on either, the purpose of life under capitalism is to
>take, and the purpose of life under communism is to give.
But under capitalism, you cannot take -- you can only persuade others
to give, normally by giving them something in return.
While under communism it is quite possible to give until you starve,
without ever receiving.
And it is what we receive, not what we give, that keeps us alive.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Ron Allen
Jim Sarbeck wrote:
> Without moralizing on either, the purpose of life under capitalism is
> to take, and the purpose of life under communism is to give.
Ron Allen answers:
There is a difference between capitalism and communism as to purpose.
Under the rule of capital, the purpose of every thing and every action
is private, which means that whatever is given is given privately with
the intention of personally taking more than is given. The capitalist
gives jobs, but the capitalist gives jobs only in order to take back
more than was given. The capitalist gives capital value, but capital
value was not produced by the capitalist who owns that value. Capital
value is a product of past labor. Therefore, it is questionable whether
what the capitalist gives is really given by the capitalist. Meanwhile
the worker gives labor value. The capitalist takes back more capital
value and private profits, while the worker takes back a subsistence
wage and private poverty. In capitalism the give-and-take is private.
The benefits and the privations of capitalism are privatized and make no
distinction based upon personal needs. In capitalism, for example,
those who have lots of money and good health get more medical care than
those with a lot less money and bad health. This is taking more than
one needs, and this is unfair.
In a communist setting, the purpose of every thing and every action is
social, which means that whatever is given is given cooperatively with
the intention that the entire community receives more than was initially
invested. From a few seeds planted the community will receive much more
new seed from the harvest. From a few machines employed by human labor
the community will produce a lot more goods for itself. Communism is
all about giving your fair share and taking your fair share. Every
producer is also a consumer. You give your fair share based upon a need
to do productive work, a need to express yourself in your work, and a
need to enjoy a lot of time off in order to have the benefits of leisure
which labor affords us. You take your fair share based upon differences
in need.
In capitalism, a few can consume far more value than they produce,
because they have more money than those who do most of the producing.
In communism, a few can consume far more value than they produce,
because they have more need than than others who do more of the
producing. The inequalities of consumption in capitalism are based upon
inequalities of wealth. The inequalities of consumption in communism
would be based upon inequalities of need. For example, those who need
more medical care will receive more medical care.
Jim Sarbeck wrote:
> The two systems cannot interact while staying true to their purposes,
> for the simple reason that the takers will take all that the givers
> have to give, so that the givers will disappear.
Ron Allen answers:
I do not understand the above pericope.
Jim Sarbeck wrote:
> So in a real world, one system must be absent, or they must be
> effectively isolated, or at the interface there must be interfacing
> mechanisms that are neither capitalistic nor communistic.
Ron Allen answers:
I believe that capitalism has historically established that it will not
limit itself to any geographical range. I believe that capitalism
cannot limit itself to an geographical range. I also believe that
communism needs the full and willing participation of the global
community in order to achieve the humanistic goals of communism.
Jim Sarbeck wrote:
> On a fully populated planet where nature's gifts and human needs are
> not uniformly distributed, it is no small feat to keep these
> interfacing mechanisms under control; in fact, they actually run the
> world.
Ron Allen answers:
It is because nature's gifts and human needs are distributed unevenly
that we need each other. If you partition the world into two camps --
one capitalist and the other communist -- then you restrict both camps
from having free access to some of nature's gifts which are needed by
some of the people or all of the people.
cattlovrr
Fired Boston Globe columnist Patricia Smith is a credit to her...well,
you know what I mean.
Here we have a black woman who is given a job as a columnist(yes,
"given"...because affirmative action "gives" jobs, it doesn't require
they be "earned").
A job as a columnist is the most plum assignment a reporter can be
given. Your picture rides atop your columns--which only require that
you pontificate about 15 inches of copy 2-3 times a week.
What does the spoiled Patricia Smith do with this gift job? She fakes
quotes, makes up sources and generally creates a column that is a lie.
Yep, makes you proud that quotas for minorities are in place to assure
that inner city frauds and fakes like Patricia Smith get precidence for
jobs over deserving mainstream journalists.
Now that she's fired, Smith can spend her time writing a biography of
Martin Luther King--whose philandering and plagiarism is another example
of a certain culture's all too predictable way of life.
Ron Allen
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> But under capitalism, you cannot take -- you can only persuade others
> to give, normally by giving them something in return.
Ron Allen answers:
If you persuade others to give to you, then are you not taking from
them? If the capitalist class has more wealth, then is it not obvious
that the capitalist class takes far more than it gives or needs?
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> While under communism it is quite possible to give until you starve,
> without ever receiving.
Ron Allen answers:
Why do you regard this as a possibility in a communist setting? In a
communist setting, one receives according to need. In a capitalist
context, one receives according to means. In a capitalist setting it is
far more likely that one will contribute one's labor power and still
live in poverty -- even starvation poverty.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> And it is what we receive, not what we give, that keeps us alive.
Ron Allen answers:
It is both. We must produce goods and services in order to receive
them. In capitalism, we contribute labor according to need, and we
receive goods and services according to ability to pay. In communism,
we contribute labor according to ability to work, and we receive goods
and services according to need.
Alex Vange
Salisar <sal...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<6mbuai$r...@examiner.concentric.net>...
> Markets evolve, they are not created full blown, which is the simple fact
> that collectivists never seem to be able to grasp. When you hire a teen
age
> neighbor to mow your lawn and you agree to a price and to work to be
> performed, you are operating in a market, albeit a small one. Markets
> evolved as the natural outgrowth of the interchange between individuals
to
> trade goods and services. Whether the market involves a small community
or
> a global network, the dynamics are still the same. Only when governments
> attempt to intervene with the intent to favor certain individuals or
Suppose there were only a few lawns to mow and thousands of
teenagers waiting to mow them? According to capitalism the teenagers would
have to compete to see who will mow for the least. It is supply and demand.
The problem with it is that human beings are in low demand and therefore
not worth much. The System does nothing to stop the Ebenezer Scroodge
types in this world and has been bad ever since the industrial revolution,
when machines replaced human labor. We could all benefit from the machines
and have improved lives if we drop capitialism. Supply and demand puts no
special value on human beings and a system that is for selfishness is
inherently wrong. All virtue and greatness is based on having a higher
agenda than ones own selfish interests. Capitalism says we must compete
with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for the fewest
pennies per hour. Capitalism is evil.
Alex Vange
Jim Sarbeck <cjp...@batnet.nospam.com> wrote in article
<cjplace-ya0240800...@news.batnet.com>...
> Without moralizing on either, the purpose of life under capitalism is to
> take, and the purpose of life under communism is to give. The two systems
> cannot interact while staying true to their purposes, for the simple
reason
> that the takers will take all that the givers have to give, so that the
> givers will disappear. So in a real world, one system must be absent, or
> they must be effectively isolated, or at the interface there must be
> interfacing mechanisms that are neither capitalistic nor communistic. On
a
> fully populated planet where nature's gifts and human needs are not
> uniformly distributed, it is no small feat to keep these interfacing
> mechanisms under control; in fact, they actually run the world.
Capitalism and Communism are not the only choices. In fact these
two joined together to fight againt a third choice. Capitilism and
communism were allies in WWII who joined together to stop the system that
really was good.
Ron Allen
Guru George wrote:
> Sorry, but these excuses are bathetic.
Ron Allen answers:
Bathetic or not, the reasons given for the failures of socialism/
communism are honest and valid reasons.
Guru George wrote:
> Libertarians at least (I don't know about the "right", which I don't
> consider myself a part of) understand very well the failures of
> socialism and communism, which: a) economically, have to do with the
> fact that central authorities (of whatever stripe) cannot centrally
> control an economy economically efficiently, because the knowledge
> that would be necessary to do so is essentially dispersed; ...
Ron Allen answers:
Why is the knowledge dispersed? How can the knowledge be better
gathered? Part of what disperses knowledge is the inability of demand,
expressed via money, to express real needs -- because although money
supply is very often a variable, human needs do not vary a lot. If a
lot of people in a community become unemployed, for example, the loss of
wage income means their ability to communicate their real material needs
is diminished, even though their real material needs remain in fact
undiminished. In fact, a market economy expresses its information
breakdown in the fact that demand sometimes increases because of a
shortage of supplies, or supplies sometimes increase because of a
shortage of demand. The fluctuations of price are an expression of
communication breakdown, rather than an expression of equilibrium
between demand and supply.
We are told often that capitalism is better than socialism because
socialism implies a centralized clearinghouse of information showing
levels of demand and levels of supply. And yet in capitalism, market
research is conducted by or for private businesses, and the data
gathered is often kept secret in order to increase the chances of more
profits for those with the most information. This kind of secrecy
serves the interests of those who profit most from undisclosed
information, but it cannot be said to serve the interests of the human
community. When the interface between supply and demand is arbitrated
by private marketeers who profit most from either misinformation or
disinformation, then we can count upon a regular shortage of supplies
and a regular swelling of demand, all in the interest of private
profits.
Guru George wrote:
> ... and b) socially, have to do with a deep misunderstanding of human
> nature that makes socialism unable to turn even "selfish" behaviour to
> the benefit of society, as capitalism does.
Ron Allen answers:
There goes that big misconception of human nature we socialists/
communists seem unable to transcend, according to libertarian capitalist
opinion. Human nature functions best in a capitalist setting, but
malfunctions in a socialist setting, such defenders of capitalism would
have us believe. Competition and greed express human nature best, while
cooperation and generosity repress our best human nature, according to
the point of view of the apologists of capitalism.
Guru George wrote:
> If you try and avoid a) by saying you are *not* aiming for centralised
> state control of the means of production, then you are asking for
> nothing different from either plain vanilla social democracy or mere
> capitalism all over again, but with workers owning and managing
> themselves and their own businesses, which is already possible, but
> for various reasons not in fact chosen by the workers (although
> libertarians would have no problem with you exhorting them to do so).
> So what the fuck are you left with?
Ron Allen answers:
Socialism is not about workers competing with workers, which worker
ownership of enterprises in a capitalist system would involve.
Socialism sees competition in markets as a waste, while it regards
competition in methods as progressive. Socialism believes cooperation
among all peoples is the best of all forms of economic and ecological
arrangements. In a socialist context, competition will not be about
private profits, but competition will be about progressive programs and
procedures.
Guru George wrote:
> And b) is just a stupid intellectual error, the result of wilful
> ideological blindness to the depth and realism of classical liberal
> and libertarian analysis.
Ron Allen answers:
If my beliefs are a result of stupidity on my part, producing the
intellectual errors I am unable to surpass, then at least I have
endeavored as best I can to explain my fallacies in observation and
logic, and have given you an opportunity to do some thinking and
reasoning while you debate with me -- and that is what this newsgroup
is all about.
Courageous
> Why do you regard this as a possibility in a communist setting? In a
> communist setting, one receives according to need.
But the problem with this is that everything that is given,
"according to need", first has to be taken away by coercive
force. Often extermely, so. Coercive, that is.
The fact of the matter is, human nature is such that
communist governments can't really be put in place without
murdering or ruining millions of people.
Communism is morally bankrupt.
C.
Courageous
> Capitalism and Communism are not the only choices. In fact these
> two joined together to fight againt a third choice. Capitilism and
> communism were allies in WWII who joined together to stop the system that
> really was good.
*giggle*
This really has to be a troll, right? In any case, communism and
fascism had far more in common than either side would admit.
National *socialist* party, hint, hint. Both were command economies,
the principal differences were simply a dictator versus a committee.
And of course they had a variety in selecting who they were going
to kill. You'd have to. To install a system like that. Kill lots
of people, I mean.
Does this make you a would-be murderer? I think so, yes..........
C.
M. Burnett
And what is your point? So you have spewed forth a number of claims about
a women who did something wrong and lost her job? Is this supposed to be
an argument of some kind. Moreover, is every minority who gets a job
"given" it?
MB
Sheila Paterson
cattlovrr <catt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Fired Boston Globe columnist Patricia Smith is a credit to her...well,
>you know what I mean.
>
>Here we have a black woman who is given a job as a columnist(yes,
>"given"...because affirmative action "gives" jobs, it doesn't require
>they be "earned").
Do you know for a fact that she was "given" this job? And if so, how
do you know this?
[snip]
>What does the spoiled Patricia Smith do with this gift job? She fakes
>quotes, makes up sources and generally creates a column that is a lie.
I read an article about her yesterday. She won an award while at the
Globe. None of the columns which were submitted (or whatever they do)
were columns that contained fabrications.
She's not the first, last or only person to be fired for making up
things. The editor for "The New Republic" was just removed for the
same thing.
>Yep, makes you proud that quotas for minorities are in place to assure
>that inner city frauds and fakes like Patricia Smith get precidence for
>jobs over deserving mainstream journalists.
How do you know she's an "inner city fraud and fake"?
>Now that she's fired, Smith can spend her time writing a biography of
>Martin Luther King--whose philandering and plagiarism is another example
>of a certain culture's all too predictable way of life.
And what is Clinton's "philandering" an indication of?
Sheila Paterson
Note: address transmogrified.
Sheila Paterson
Guru George
>Guru George wrote:
>> Sorry, but these excuses are bathetic.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>Bathetic or not, the reasons given for the failures of socialism/
>communism are honest and valid reasons.
>
Maybe from your point of view they look valid, but to me they stink of
evasion, and their originators must have been lying to themselves
deeply. One of us is right.
>Guru George wrote:
>> Libertarians at least (I don't know about the "right", which I don't
>> consider myself a part of) understand very well the failures of
>> socialism and communism, which: a) economically, have to do with the
>> fact that central authorities (of whatever stripe) cannot centrally
>> control an economy economically efficiently, because the knowledge
>> that would be necessary to do so is essentially dispersed; ...
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>Why is the knowledge dispersed?
It is essentially dispersed because a lot of it is *tacit* in
individuals, a lot of it couldn't be articulated and gathered
centrally even with the best will in the world - it exists in the way
we do things, in traditions that are passed on in families, in jobs,
etc., etc., peoples' ability to form "hunches" when faced with
patterns, stuff like that.
As so often with you, Ron, some of what you say I agree with, but to
me your overall perspective is so askew that it would take too long
for me to pick this apart bit by bit. Just focus on what I said
above, and you will start to realise for yourself why some of what you
say here is true, but irrelevant, true but not a problem, or false and
misinformed.
Start here: any proposed economic system has to cope with the fact
that the knowledge necessary to produce things socially necessarily
(i.e. to make things people actually want) and economically
efficiently (i.e. without waste) is essentially dispersed because
partly tacit, unarticulated and unarticulateable.
Either that or it just has to produce whatever it decides to produce,
and do so wastefully - to the extent that it eventually falls behind
its culturally equivalent capitalist counterpart.
>Guru George wrote:
>> ... and b) socially, have to do with a deep misunderstanding of human
>> nature that makes socialism unable to turn even "selfish" behaviour to
>> the benefit of society, as capitalism does.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>There goes that big misconception of human nature we socialists/
>communists seem unable to transcend, according to libertarian capitalist
>opinion. Human nature functions best in a capitalist setting, but
>malfunctions in a socialist setting, such defenders of capitalism would
>have us believe. Competition and greed express human nature best, while
>cooperation and generosity repress our best human nature, according to
>the point of view of the apologists of capitalism.
>
I did not say that human nature was *essentially* "competitive" or
"greedy", just that such traits do exist, and any form of social
organisation is going to have to turn them to good account. Socialism
cannot do that.
It is not necessary for classical liberal/libertarian thinking that
one view people as selfish in the sense that all their actions are
directed towards benefiting themselves; it is only necessary that one
view people as self-steering, self-directed, as rational, choosing
creatures. Everything else follows from that, no matter *who* the
*intended* beneficiaries of their actions *usually* are.
>
>Guru George wrote:
>> If you try and avoid a) by saying you are *not* aiming for centralised
>> state control of the means of production, then you are asking for
>> nothing different from either plain vanilla social democracy or mere
>> capitalism all over again, but with workers owning and managing
>> themselves and their own businesses, which is already possible, but
>> for various reasons not in fact chosen by the workers (although
>> libertarians would have no problem with you exhorting them to do so).
>> So what the fuck are you left with?
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>Socialism is not about workers competing with workers, which worker
>ownership of enterprises in a capitalist system would involve.
>Socialism sees competition in markets as a waste, while it regards
>competition in methods as progressive. Socialism believes cooperation
>among all peoples is the best of all forms of economic and ecological
>arrangements. In a socialist context, competition will not be about
>private profits, but competition will be about progressive programs and
>procedures.
>
But that's what capitalist competition *is* about. If the only way
you are allowed to be rich in a society is by producing what people
want, then you are going to have to compete with other would-be
millionaires in producing what people want, more and more efficiently,
more and more fitting their wants and even anticipating them.
The only thing that prevents this procedure from working in other
areas than stuff like food, clothes, houses, vehicles and IT, is this
bloody thing called "duh government"'s being in the way (e.g. it takes
things like law, crime-prevention, etc., etc., upon itself, with the
wonderful results we see around us).
>Guru George wrote:
>> And b) is just a stupid intellectual error, the result of wilful
>> ideological blindness to the depth and realism of classical liberal
>> and libertarian analysis.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>If my beliefs are a result of stupidity on my part, producing the
>intellectual errors I am unable to surpass, then at least I have
>endeavored as best I can to explain my fallacies in observation and
>logic, and have given you an opportunity to do some thinking and
>reasoning while you debate with me -- and that is what this newsgroup
>is all about.
I don't mean to criticise you personally, Ron. You are one of the
most reasonable Marxists I've ever come across, and I respect that.
Jeffrey N Woodford
On 18 Jun 1998 16:46:10 EDT Salisar (sal...@concentric.net) wrote:
[snip]
: Only when governments
: attempt to intervene with the intent to favor certain individuals or
: industries, do we find that markets become skewed.
This is incorrect. Markets can become "skewed" even without
government intervention. A key quality of a free market is that each
individual consumer has the choice to select from any number of
competing brands of goods or services in the market, OR may choose not
to purchase anything at all in the market. The health care market,
for example, is not a free market, nor will it ever be a free market,
because none of us realistically has this latter choice.
: Once you have an outside
: force interferring, you no longer have a market, you have coerced
: transactions.
Yes, we are all coerced to consume health care services, but that is
not due to any "outside force", it is because we are all human beings.
No government coercion is necessary.
-Jeff
--
Jeffrey N. Woodford jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu photon.unl.edu/jeff/home.html
"...the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the
ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers." - Street v. New York
Alex Vange
M. Burnett <bur...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.96a.98062...@dante11.u.washington.edu>...
> And what is your point? So you have spewed forth a number of claims about
> a women who did something wrong and lost her job? Is this supposed to be
> an argument of some kind. Moreover, is every minority who gets a job
> "given" it?
The policy of affirmative action is that a woman or minority will
get the job even if a White man is more qualified.
djarum
In article <358F06...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>,
ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net wrote:
> I say this with full awareness that it is the general
> opinion of most people in these United States that capitalism is a very
> efficient way of producing and provisioning the goods and services we
> require.
It sure seems that way when compared to the former Soviet Union...
--
Protons Electrons Always Cause Explosions
Matt (djarum98 at usa.net)
Alex Vange
Courageous <jkra...@san.rr.com> wrote in article
<358DCC...@san.rr.com>...
> This really has to be a troll, right? In any case, communism and
> fascism had far more in common than either side would admit.
> National *socialist* party, hint, hint. Both were command economies,
> the principal differences were simply a dictator versus a committee.
> And of course they had a variety in selecting who they were going
> to kill. You'd have to. To install a system like that. Kill lots
> of people, I mean.
>
> Does this make you a would-be murderer? I think so, yes..........
>
I am for National SOCIALISM. Heil Hitler. Here are some quotes for
Mein Kampf:
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were repeatedly
stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was due to the
stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every demand put
forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to making an effort
towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to adopt measures which
would insure the workmen in case of accidents in the factories, the refusal
to forbid child labour, the refusal to consider protective measures for
female workers, especially expectant mothers--all this was of assistance to
the Social Democratic leaders, who were thankful for every opportunity
which they could exploit for forcing the masses into their net. Our
bourgeois parties can never repair the damage that resulted from the
mistake that was made. For they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed
all efforts at social reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent
grounds to justify the claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely
that they alone stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral justification of
the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that the labour organizations
became from that time onwards the chief political recruiting ground to
swell the ranks of the Social Democratic Party."
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the situation
offered him for the future. While on the one hand he organized capitalistic
methods of exploitation to their ultimate degree of efficiency, he curried
favour with the victims of his policy and his power and in a short while
became the leader of their struggle against himself. 'Against himself' is
here only a figurative way of speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies'
knows how to appear in the guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on
others. Since he had the impudence to take a personal lead among the
masses, they never for a moment suspected that they were falling prey to
one of the most infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it
actually was."
Ron Allen
Alex Vange wrote:
> We could all benefit from the machines and have improved lives if we
> drop capitialism. Supply and demand puts no special value on human
> beings and a system that is for selfishness is inherently wrong. All
> virtue and greatness is based on having a higher agenda than ones own
> selfish interests. Capitalism says we must compete with the people in
> Mexico and China to see who will work for the fewest pennies per hour.
> Capitalism is evil.
Ron Allen answers:
If we drop capitalism, then as productive human beings we can employ the
machines rather than the machines employing us. The reason "supply and
demand" places no special value on human beings is because the supply
response never recognizes real human needs, but only respects the lure
and pull of money. If real human needs are not communicated or mediated
by spending money, then authentic human needs are not transmitted in the
only form the market can acknowledge. "Demand" is not equivalent to
need. They are not one and the same. Need and supply do not
correspond, although it does happen very often that need is more or less
adequately harmonized with demand, especially when those who need are
also those with money to spend. When supply yields to demand there is
the direct submitting of goods and services to the tug of money, but
only an indirect concession to real human need. In the market economy
of today, the floor is given to money, and money alone is acknowledged
as entitled to speak. One's real needs are silent without spending
money to speak out for one's needs. Without spending money as your
mouthpiece, you can not direct the market to answer your needs, you can
never make demands on the market supply of goods and services. For this
reason, capitalism is very inefficient because capitalism is indifferent
to human needs. I say this with full awareness that it is the general
Ron Allen
Alex Vange wrote:
> Capitalism and Communism are not the only choices. In fact these two
> joined together to fight againt a third choice. Capitilism and
> communism were allies in WWII who joined together to stop the system
> that really was good.
Ron Allen answers:
On this newsgroup your are free to speak/write your mind. Perhaps you
can take some time to defend your assertion that fascism is better than
communism.
Ron Allen
Courageous wrote:
> This really has to be a troll, right? In any case, communism and
> fascism had far more in common than either side would admit.
> National *socialist* party, hint, hint. Both were command economies,
> the principal differences were simply a dictator versus a committee.
> And of course they had a variety in selecting who they were going
> to kill. You'd have to. To install a system like that. Kill lots
> of people, I mean.
Ron Allen answers:
The kind of communism you describe is known among authentic communists
as "red fascism". You are right to equate stalinist communism with
fascism, but stalinism was not authentic communism. You are right to
compare bolshevism with nazism, but bolshevism was not a democratic
path to communism, and was therefore an improper method for approaching
a truly communist future.
Ron Allen
Alex Vange wrote:
> I am for National SOCIALISM. Heil Hitler. Here are some quotes for
> Mein Kampf:
> "There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
> hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
> repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
> due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
> demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
> making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
> adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
> the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
> consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
> mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
> who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
> forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
> repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
> they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
> reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
> claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
> stand up for the interest of the working class.
> "And this became the principle ground for the moral justification of
> the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that the labour
> organizations became from that time onwards the chief political
> recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social Democratic Party."
> "The Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the situation
> offered him for the future. While on the one hand he organized
> capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate degree of
> efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy and his
> power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle against
> himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of speaking;
> for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the guise of
> the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the impudence
> to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a moment
> suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most infamous
> deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually was."
Ron Allen answers:
How did Hitler defend these words? Why do you believe these words?
Ron Allen
Courageous wrote:
> But the problem with this is that everything that is given,
> "according to need", first has to be taken away by coercive
> force. Often extermely, so. Coercive, that is.
Ron Allen answers:
In a communist economy, who would own what others need? In a communist
economy, why would anyone need to take what one needs by coercive force?
Courageous wrote:
> The fact of the matter is, human nature is such that communist
> governments can't really be put in place without murdering or ruining
> millions of people.
Ron Allen answers:
Again, we have human nature as the reason why capitalism does the trick,
and as the reason why communism cannot do its thing.
Courageous wrote:
> Communism is morally bankrupt.
Ron Allen answers:
In one sentence you point the finger at human nature as the reason why
communism cannot operate, and in another sentence you point the finger
at communism as itself the reason why communism cannot function.
Ron Allen
Guru George wrote:
> Maybe from your point of view they look valid, but to me they stink of
> evasion, and their originators must have been lying to themselves
> deeply. One of us is right.
Ron Allen answers:
Unless both of us are wrong.
Ron Allen asked:
> Why is the knowledge dispersed?
Guru George wrote:
> It is essentially dispersed because a lot of it is *tacit* in
> individuals, a lot of it couldn't be articulated and gathered
> centrally even with the best will in the world - it exists in the way
> we do things, in traditions that are passed on in families, in jobs,
> etc., etc., peoples' ability to form "hunches" when faced with
> patterns, stuff like that.
Ron Allen answers:
The answer you give above is unclear to me, but it is your answer.
Guru George wrote:
> As so often with you, Ron, some of what you say I agree with, but to
> me your overall perspective is so askew that it would take too long
> for me to pick this apart bit by bit.
Ron Allen answers:
Take your time. I do not rush off answers to every question asked of
me. Maybe you can answer at another time. I just hope I do not miss
your answer. I prefer you give answer on the alt-philosophy.debate
newsgroup, and e-mail me to let me know your answer is posted on the
newsgroup.
Guru George wrote:
> Just focus on what I said above, and you will start to realise for
> yourself why some of what you say here is true, but irrelevant, true
> but not a problem, or false and misinformed.
Ron Allen answers:
You will need to help me find out my errors in understanding and
reasoning if you see them and I do not.
Guru George wrote:
> Start here: any proposed economic system has to cope with the fact
> that the knowledge necessary to produce things socially necessarily
> (i.e. to make things people actually want) and economically
> efficiently (i.e. without waste) is essentially dispersed because
> partly tacit, unarticulated and unarticulateable.
Ron Allen answers:
I do not understand. Please take some time to develop the assertions in
the above pericope. What do you mean by "tacit" in the above context,
for example?
Guru George wrote:
> Either that or it just has to produce whatever it decides to produce,
> and do so wastefully - to the extent that it eventually falls behind
> its culturally equivalent capitalist counterpart.
Ron Allen answers:
What is "it"? This pericope is also unclear to me.
Guru George wrote:
> I did not say that human nature was *essentially* "competitive" or
> "greedy", just that such traits do exist, and any form of social
> organisation is going to have to turn them to good account. Socialism
> cannot do that.
Ron Allen answers:
Like you, I have been taught all my life to believe there is no place
for competition in socialism or communism. But this is wrong, in my
opinion. In socialism and communism, competition between ideas and
opinions can and will exist, competition between plans and methods can
and will exist, competition between ends and means can and will exist,
but competition between people as producers or consumers will not exist.
I want the word "competition" to return to its original meaning, which
is "to work together, to strive together, to seek together".
Guru George wrote:
> It is not necessary for classical liberal/libertarian thinking that
> one view people as selfish in the sense that all their actions are
> directed towards benefiting themselves; it is only necessary that one
> view people as self-steering, self-directed, as rational, choosing
> creatures. Everything else follows from that, no matter *who* the
> *intended* beneficiaries of their actions *usually* are.
Ron Allen answers:
If people are self-steering, self-directed and rational beings, if
people can govern themselves and be responsible members of the
community, if people can keep their promises and their faith in each
other, then anarchic communism would be the ideal arrangement of
productive assembly and distributive allotment. Who needs an
authoritarian state? Who needs a police authority? Who needs money?
Who needs classes? Who needs gods?
Guru George wrote:
> But that's what capitalist competition *is* about.
Ron Allen answers:
Perhaps you confuse "competition" with "the invisible hand". You seem
willing to soften what competition means in a capitalist context. But
the only ameliorative agency singled out in most capitalist apologies is
the so-called "invisible hand" -- and this softening mediation between
self interests and human interests is invisible for very good reasons.
Guru George wrote:
> If the only way you are allowed to be rich in a society is by
> producing what people want, then you are going to have to compete with
> other would-be millionaires in producing what people want, more and
> more efficiently, more and more fitting their wants and even
> anticipating them.
Ron Allen answers:
This is what we are told over and over again. And the few individuals
that succeed make us believe in a system in which the vast majority do
not succeed. Bill Gates and Ted Turner are not everyman. They are the
exception, not the rule. The spotlight shines on them, but not on the
billions whom they rule.
Guru George wrote:
> The only thing that prevents this procedure from working in other
> areas than stuff like food, clothes, houses, vehicles and IT, is this
> bloody thing called "duh government"'s being in the way (e.g. it takes
> things like law, crime-prevention, etc., etc., upon itself, with the
> wonderful results we see around us).
Ron Allen answers:
I will not defend big government, because I do not believe even in
minimal government. Either people can govern themselves, or we are not
worth being governed against ourselves.
Guru George wrote:
> I don't mean to criticise you personally, Ron. You are one of the
> most reasonable Marxists I've ever come across, and I respect that.
Ron Allen answers:
Thank you.
Like so many ideas and ideals that have been badly defended and badly
practiced, we must learn to judge every idea and every ideal on its own
merits, and not on the demerits of its defenders, advocates and
practitioners.
Salisar
Jeffrey N Woodford wrote in message <6mmkrh$b...@crcnis3.unl.edu>...
>On 18 Jun 1998 16:46:10 EDT Salisar (sal...@concentric.net) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: Only when governments
>: attempt to intervene with the intent to favor certain individuals or
>: industries, do we find that markets become skewed.
>
>This is incorrect. Markets can become "skewed" even without
>government intervention. A key quality of a free market is that each
>individual consumer has the choice to select from any number of
>competing brands of goods or services in the market, OR may choose not
>to purchase anything at all in the market. The health care market,
>for example, is not a free market, nor will it ever be a free market,
>because none of us realistically has this latter choice.
>
>: Once you have an outside
>: force interferring, you no longer have a market, you have coerced
>: transactions.
>
>Yes, we are all coerced to consume health care services, but that is
>not due to any "outside force", it is because we are all human beings.
>No government coercion is necessary.
>
I'm glad you brought up health care, because that is a classic example of
how government intervention has driven costs through the ceiling and what
happens when true market forces are not allowed to exist.
Present day health care is not subject to normal market forces, not because
we all need it (we don't, by the way), but because consumers (ie, patients)
do not have to pay the actually price for health care. Due to government
mandates and low copays, a person will usually pay a small portion
(generally 20% of less) of the charges for hospitalization and/or physician
care. So, in affect, the pricing for health care tends to run about 5 times
higher than it would if true market forces were in force.
Perhaps a thought experiment can help to illustrate this point. Suppose the
government said that everyone was entitled to a car, and furthermore, the
government would subsidize your costs for a car up to 80% of the price of
the car. In other words, you would pay a 20% "co-pay" on the purchase of an
automobile ... government would pick up the rest. Before this new law was
in affect, you could afford a $10,000 automobile. Now suddenly you are able
to buy a $50,000 automobile due to the subsidies. Rather than buying a
$10,000 auto with $2000 of your own money, you will tend to buy the 50K
auto, since you could afford 10K before. The auto industry realizes that as
long as you, the buyer feel that you are getting your $10K worth, the
quality of their automobiles need not exceed that. So they begin, slowly of
course, to lower the quality of their product, while raising the price, so
that in time, a car that a person would have paid no more than 10K for now
costs 50K. In other words, quality descends by a magnitude of 5 because
there is nothing to force the maintainance of quality. Of course, the
consumer doesn't pay any more, but he gets less for his money, since quality
will decline without any market incentives for manufacturers to produce a
better car for the money.
That is the state we are seeing with health care. The HMO, for example,
knows that it is going to get its money (from insurance or government)
regardless of the quality or timeliness of the care it provides. 80% of the
money it collects is not even considered by the patients in their selection
of providers. They just want to be assured that an office visit will only
cost them 10-15 dollars per visit, and that they are on the hook for no more
than 20% of a hospital bill.
Imagine, now, what would happen if suddenly consumers had to bear the full
cost for their health care. Immediately, most would tend to contain their
visits to a doctor for purely necessary care. This would result in a
dramatic loss of revenue for physicians. Like any commodity, health costs
would have to drop to attract business (and make no mistake about it, it IS
a business). In addition, when the customer knows he or she is footing the
ENTIRE bill, that famous "fuck you" attitude of doctor receptionists and
doctors themselves would evaporate in a real hurry. Also, true competition
in the quality of health care would become a factor once again too. All
because market power has once again been restored to the customer of the
services.
Medical savings accounts are the solution to health care costs. Here is how
they work:
Suppose it costs your employee $4000/year to buy you a low copay, high cost
insurance policy. Now, the employee will, instead, purchase a low cost
"catastrophic" policy which will ensure that you are covered in the event of
major illness or injury. The cost for that policy will be around $1500.
The balance, $2500 is placed in an account that you are free to draw from
for all other medical expenses over the course of the year. It woudl be
from this fund that doctor visits, etc would be paid. If you did not use
all of your account by the end of the year, you could either cash it in, or
roll it over into the following year.
This offers the best of both worlds ... the ensurance of health care and
hospitalization in the event of a serious health event, and the ablity for
you to shop your other health care services around, thus getting a better
price for yourself. As MSA's proliferated, customers would find themselves
once more in control of the pricing structure of health care.
Of course, liberals and big government enthusiasts think that by making
health care even cheaper for consumers that the quality is going to go up.
On what alchemy that process is supposed to be subject to, they remain
silent.
Food for thought.
Richard W. Bates
God save me from people who want to save me!
http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
Robert Sparks
Ron Allen wrote:
> Jim Sarbeck wrote:
> > ...the purpose of life under capitalism is to take, and the purpose of
> life under communism is to give.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There is a difference between capitalism and communism as to purpose.
> Under the rule of capital, the purpose of every thing and every action
> is private, which means that whatever is given is given privately with
> the intention of personally taking more than is given.
Mighty glib with YOUR view of intention. Probably there is this
non-descript idea of "taking" and "giving" that is utterly confused by the
idea of CREATING. After something is CREATED is it given or taken?
> The capitalist
> gives jobs, but the capitalist gives jobs only in order to take back
> more than was given.
What would a capitalist want with MORE jobs. Cutsey and glib, but not very
instructive or informative.The capitalist CREATES jobs, expects work in
return, and gambles on the outcome. Some win, some don't. Not quite so
neat a package as you make it out to be.
> The capitalist gives capital value, but capital
> value was not produced by the capitalist who owns that value. Capital
> value is a product of past labor.
As we carry this scenario further and further back into the past of
capitalists vs laborers, we find that the only true workers and laborers are
the dirty farmers scratching with their fingers. H-m-m-m-m....
> Therefore, it is questionable whether
> what the capitalist gives is really given by the capitalist.
Boy, those gys (and gals) can't ever do anything right, eh....
> Meanwhile
> the worker gives labor value.
And that, too, is questionable..... or, at least there is some wonder about
how much "labor" is involved in that steel-stamping machine operator vs the
value of the finished product. Not likely that the "laborer" is the only ,
or even the major, source of value.
> The capitalist takes back more capital
> value and private profits, while the worker takes back a subsistence
> wage and private poverty.
Oh, yea, "subsistence" wages....????
> In capitalism the give-and-take is private.
> The benefits and the privations of capitalism are privatized and make no
> distinction based upon personal needs. In capitalism, for example,
> those who have lots of money and good health get more medical care than
> those with a lot less money and bad health. This is taking more than
> one needs, and this is unfair.
Would you care to define "fair" vs "unfair" in these instances. I think we
eventually find that you will be running in circles around fair-unfair /
capitalism/communism. Fair????? h-m-m-m-m. I'm willing to listen....
>
>
> In a communist setting, the purpose of every thing and every action is
> social, which means that whatever is given is given cooperatively with
> the intention that the entire community receives more than was initially
> invested.
THere are those intentions again. Would you care to define how one might
interpret your use of the term "social" in "every action is social" (vs the
other side "every action is private)"?
> From a few seeds planted the community will receive much more
> new seed from the harvest.
That's sort of the way it works for capitalist farms. H-m-m-m... what is
the distinction?
> From a few machines employed by human labor
> the community will produce a lot more goods for itself.
The community will??? Well, if you lump them altogether as you do without
definitions, yea,; but Just calling a collect of people a community doesn't
make the" individual" labor "community labor." THere is no community
without the individuals, and yet there can easily be individuals without
community. You elevate the non-esstenial above the essential. That's
turning the world upside-down alright.
> Communism is
> all about giving your fair share and taking your fair share.
Ahhh, is communism wonderful!!!!! Please..... Again with the "fair"
word. Fair according to whom??
> Every
> producer is also a consumer.
Yikes, we're back on the farm, again.
> You give your fair share based upon a need
> to do productive work, a need to express yourself in your work, and a
> need to enjoy a lot of time off in order to have the benefits of leisure
> which labor affords us.
I guess I'm just not getting it. I work at what I do because its fun and
people pay me money for it. Hey, that's a good living. (I wonder,
though,... is it "fair" to enjoy it and be a capitalist?I have no need to
express myself in my work, even though I do express myself. But htere's no
NEED to do it, its just a fun thing to do. I've had jobs that required that
I develop some personal expression, but that was in community jobs that
didnt have enough satisfaction in the mere production of a valuable item.
Another thing. I seem to enjoy my job so much I prefer to do it even when
no one pays me for it. (Some might decide to psychologizes that to
"work-a-holic." But then they are probably the ones who are doing a job
they don't really like....and they are the ones who ought to reconsider what
they are doing for a living. But I like being a capitalist, and individual,
a person.
> You take your fair share based upon differences
> in need.
*I* on the other hand get what I can in exchange for my labor, spend some,
save some, and hope that tomorrow there's more to do.... after all, what fun
would there be when IT ALL GETS DONE.
>
>
> In capitalism, a few can consume far more value than they produce,
> because they have more money than those who do most of the producing.
Self-righteous efinitions here. Sorry, just glib silly-putty stretching
definitions. The distrotions are overly noticeable.
> In communism, a few can consume far more value than they produce,
> because they have more need than than others who do more of the
> producing. The inequalities of consumption in capitalism are based upon
> inequalities of wealth. The inequalities of consumption in communism
> would be based upon inequalities of need. For example, those who need
> more medical care will receive more medical care.
Medical care provided by whom? All that medical care for the many produced
by the few???? I imagine your communists would all be getting pretty sick,
and the number of physicians, nurses and health care providers wold dwindle
to a preciaous few. Ah, but then you wouldn't have to prove that it would
be different, you can just say so, eh?
>
Ron Allen
Ron Allen wrote:
> It is the general opinion of most people in these United States that
> capitalism is a very efficient way of producing and provisioning the
> goods and services we require.
djarum wrote:
> It sure seems that way when compared to the former Soviet Union...
Ron Allen answers:
Granted. But I trust you do know the difference between state ownership
of the means of production (statism), private ownership of the means of
production (capitalism), and social ownership of the means of production
(socialism).
Alex Vange
Ron Allen <ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<358F08...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> The kind of communism you describe is known among authentic communists
> as "red fascism". You are right to equate stalinist communism with
> fascism, but stalinism was not authentic communism. You are right to
> compare bolshevism with nazism, but bolshevism was not a democratic
> path to communism, and was therefore an improper method for approaching
> a truly communist future.
The nazis and fascists were the ones who faught against
communism. Here are some quotes form Mein Kampf:
"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from five
to eight hundred opponants against fifteen to sixteen National Socialists;
yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be killed rather than
capitulate. More than once a handful of party colleagues offered a heroic
resistance to a raging and violent mob of Reds. Those fifteeen or twenty
men would certainly have been overwhelmed in the end had not the opponants
known that three or four times as many of themselves would first get their
skulls cracked. And that was a risk they were not willing to run."
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to mind
the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months
past."
Communism became popular because the capitalists really were
excessively greedy. The answer to communism was not to defend capitalism
but to show a better way, namely National Socialism.
Alex Vange
Ron Allen <ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<358F07...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
The communists believed in class warfare. They were against the
business leaders. This is wrong. Business leaders are superior and they are
the ones who create the jobs for people. But the communists were correct
that the capitalists were too greedy. There is nothing to stop the
Ebenezer Scroodge types in a capitalist system and the system encourages
this type when it considers selfishness to be a good thing.
The answer to communism was not to defend capitalism but to show a
better way, namely National Socialism and Fascism. The communist ideas of
class warfare and opposing private property should be rejected and replaced
with fair laws that protect the worker.
In Amerca there are many good laws that protect working people.
There are laws regarding retirement and overtime pay after forty hours etc.
These are good laws and capitalism would be opposed to them because of its
flawed principles and philosophy. But there is no law in America to prevent
companies from firing American workers and hiring people in Mexico and
China who will work for starvation level wages. They say we must compete to
see who will work for the fewest pennies per hour. This philosphy is wrong
and needs to be replaced.
The situation is illustrated in the old black and white movie called
Metropolis. First it showed the problems in capitalism, and then it showed
that class warfare was the wrong answer. When the business leader shook
hands with the working leader at the end, this was National Socialism.
Communism was also leftist and anti-Christian. National Socialism
rejected its leftist ideas. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
" But all that I heard had the effect of arousing the strongest
antagonism in me. Everything was disparaged-the nation, because it was
held to be an invention of the 'capitalist' class (how often I had heard
that phrase!); the Fatherland, because it was held to be an instrument in
the hands of the bourgeosie for the exploitation of the working masses; the
authority of the law, because that was a means of holding down the
proletariat; religion, as a means of doping the people, so as to exploit
them afterward; morality, as a badge of stupid and sheepish docility. There
was nothing that they did not drag in the mud.
"At first I remained silent; but that could not last very long."
"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am
defending the handiwork of the Lord."
"Was not the Press instrumental in bringing in a state of moral
degradation among our people? Were not morals and public decency made to
look ridiculous and classed as out-of-date and banal, until finally our
people also became modernized?"
"It must be noted too that the attack on the dogmatic principles
underlying ecclesiastical teaching increased steadily in violence. And yet
this human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical
existance of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not
composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is
absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life."
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His
estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those
enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God"
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the press. The Jew exercised all his skill and tenacity
in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began gradually to control
public life in its entirety."
Of religion he (the Jew) makes a mockery. Morality and decency are
described as anti-quated prejudices"
"Anyhow, the Jew has attained the ends he desired. Catholics and
Protestants are fighting with one another to their hearts content, while
the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve."
"the Jew trafficked in the freedom of the nation and sold our country
to the masters of international high finance. So in our day he has
succeeded again, this time by raising ructions between the two German
religious denominations while the foundations on which both rest are being
eaten away and destroyed through the poison injected by the international
and cosmopolitan Jew."
"The most devoted Protestant could stand side by side with the most
devoted Catholic in our ranks"
"The National Socialist Movement must see to it that at least in our
own country the mortal enemy is recognized and that the fight against him
may be a beacon light pointing to a new and better period for other nations
as well as showing the way of salvation for Aryan humanity in the struggle
for its existance."
Robert Sparks
Ron Allen wrote:
I'm willing to listen to the differences (as you might see them). I see
state ownership as that of ownership by FORCE (usually by a few), private
ownership as that of ownership by contract; but I do get lost in what
"social ownership" means. If by contract, who signs; if by FORCE, by how
many? If by contract and there is disagreement, how is it settled
djarum
In article <35902C...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>,
ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net wrote:
> Granted. But I trust you do know the difference between state ownership
> of the means of production (statism), private ownership of the means of
> production (capitalism), and social ownership of the means of production
> (socialism).
That's strange, I always thought statism meant general belief in the
State. You're saying it is a purely economic term?
djarum
> Ron Allen wrote:
>
> > Ron Allen wrote:
> > > It is the general opinion of most people in these United States that
> > > capitalism is a very efficient way of producing and provisioning the
> > > goods and services we require.
> >
> > djarum wrote:
> > > It sure seems that way when compared to the former Soviet Union...
> >
> > Ron Allen answers:
> > Granted. But I trust you do know the difference between state ownership
> > of the means of production (statism), private ownership of the means of
> > production (capitalism), and social ownership of the means of production
> > (socialism).
>
> I'm willing to listen to the differences (as you might see them). I see
> state ownership as that of ownership by FORCE (usually by a few), private
> ownership as that of ownership by contract; but I do get lost in what
> "social ownership" means. If by contract, who signs; if by FORCE, by how
> many? If by contract and there is disagreement, how is it settled
Social ownership means wealth is not appropriated by private persons, but
by society as a collective whole. Within the context of the society, the
word 'ownership' loses its meaning with respect to material goods.
Robert Sparks
> djarum wrote:
> > Social ownership means wealth is not appropriated by private persons,
> > but by society as a collective whole. Within the context of the
> > society, the word 'ownership' loses its meaning with respect to
> > material goods.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There will be ownership in a mature communist economy
Should I ask what happens between now and then ... i.e. the MATURE
communist economy?
> -- you will own
> the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the place you live in, etc.
> There will be private ownership of things.
Private ownership of anything that is NOT a "means of production" but
merely the PRODUCT of production?
> Communism is about ending
> private exploitation of the labor of others,
Could you define more clearly what this "buzz word" exploitation of the
labor of others" entails? How does one know one is ?exploiting? another?
> private expropriation of
> the product of the labor of others,
What is the meaning of "expropriation" in this case? How does one decide
whether a trade is acceptable or expropriation?
> and private ownership of the means
> of production.
Yikes! Now there is private ownership of everything including "means."
What exactly is the difference between capitalism and communism in this
case? Good intentions?
> If, in a communist setting, you create a work of art,
> then that is your private property, unless and until you give it to
> someone as a gift for whatever reason. In some cases you may desire to
> give something you have created to the community. It will be your
> choice.
And the "needs" of the community are supplied how?
Ron Allen
djarum wrote:
> Social ownership means wealth is not appropriated by private persons,
> but by society as a collective whole. Within the context of the
> society, the word 'ownership' loses its meaning with respect to
> material goods.
Ron Allen answers:
There will be ownership in a mature communist economy -- you will own
the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the place you live in, etc.
There will be private ownership of things. Communism is about ending
private exploitation of the labor of others, private expropriation of
the product of the labor of others, and private ownership of the means
of production. If, in a communist setting, you create a work of art,
Ron Allen
Robert Sparks wrote:
> I see state ownership as that of ownership by FORCE (usually by a
Ron Allen snwers:
State ownership is state possession and control of the means of
production, which an army and police ready for service.
Robert Sparks wrote:
> ... private ownership as that of ownership by contract; ...
Ron Allen answers:
You seem able to separate contracts from force in your thinking. You
seem unable to rack your brain in order to come up with forms of force
other than state forms.
Robert Sparks wrote:
> ... but I do get lost in what "social ownership" means.
Ron Allen answers:
First, you need to separate society from state. Imagine a society with
no state. Imagine a society with no private ownership of the means of
production. Imagine a community sharing ownership of the means of
production, and sharing equally the product produced by the means of
production.
Robert Sparks wrote:
> If by contract, who signs; ...
Ron Allen answers:
Imagine a society without contracts. Imagine a society where people
promise and speak the truth when they promise.
Robert Sparks wrote:
> ... if by FORCE, by how many?
Ron Allen answers:
Imagine a society without coercion, without police coercion or economic
duress.
Robert Sparks wrote:
> If by contract and there is disagreement, how is it settled.
Ron Allen answers:
No contracts. Disagreements will be settled in a mature manner worthy of
free and reasonable people, sometimes with the help of go-betweens who
are good at negotiating between differences.
Ron Allen
djarum wrote:
> That's strange, I always thought statism meant general belief in the
> State. You're saying it is a purely economic term?
Ron Allen answers:
Statism is often called interventionism, and usually in a context of
state intervention in the economic sphere.
Ron Allen
Alex Vange wrote:
> The communists believed in class warfare.
Ron Allen answers:
Communists do not "believe in" class warfare as one "believes in" Jesus.
Communists do not believe class warfare is redemptive. For the
communist with a marxist slant, class warfare is a fact of history, not
the saving of history. In my opinion, as a marxist, class warfare
simply discloses the conflict in history between those who rule and
those who are ruled. I believe the conflict has existed as long as
there have been class differentiations, but I do not "believe in" class
struggle.
Alex Vange wrote:
> They were against the business leaders.
Ron Allen answers:
Communism is not against the business leaders as people, because an
intelligent marxist understands that business leaders have simply
succeeded in working within the system as it exists. The marxist wishes
to see the system overthrown so that the kind of people who are
successful business leaders in a capitalist context will be free to be
pioneers and pathfinders in a communist context, using their talents for
the good of the community.
Alex Vange wrote:
> This is wrong. Business leaders are superior and they are the ones who
> create the jobs for people.
Ron Allen answers:
Business leaders are not superior people. And they do not create jobs.
Business leaders create positions with their business enterprises where
people can do jobs for a wage. In a capitalist context, demand creates
jobs, and often jobs that have very little or nothing to do with
producing the real needs of human beings.
A business leader who hires plumbers to work for a plumbing company does
not create the job of plumbing. There were plumbers before the company
was started, and there are plumbers who work for other plumbing
companies. In a capitalist economy, as long as plumbers are needed
there will be plumbers.
Alex Vange wrote:
> But the communists were correct that the capitalists were too greedy.
> There is nothing to stop the Ebenezer Scroodge types in a capitalist
> system and the system encourages this type when it considers
> selfishness to be a good thing.
Ron Allen answers:
We agree here.
Alex Vange wrote:
> The answer to communism was not to defend capitalism but to show a
> better way, namely National Socialism and Fascism. The communist ideas
> of class warfare and opposing private property should be rejected and
> replaced with fair laws that protect the worker.
Ron Allen answers:
I regard fascism as a form of state capitalism. Do you agree?
Alex Vange wrote:
> In Amerca there are many good laws that protect working people. There
> are laws regarding retirement and overtime pay after forty hours etc.
> These are good laws and capitalism would be opposed to them because of
> its flawed principles and philosophy. But there is no law in America
> to prevent companies from firing American workers and hiring people in
> Mexico and China who will work for starvation level wages. They say we
> must compete to see who will work for the fewest pennies per hour.
> This philosphy is wrong and needs to be replaced.
Ron Allen answers:
Communism tends to be internationalist. In other words, the communist
ideal is a global economic community organized around cooperation
between geographical regions, rather than competition.
Alex Vange wrote:
> The situation is illustrated in the old black and white movie called
> Metropolis. First it showed the problems in capitalism, and then it
> showed that class warfare was the wrong answer.
Ron Allen answers:
Allow me to reiterate the point that marxism does not regard class
warfare as "the answer". Class warfare is a fact brought into existence
with the existence of classes. When human society became organized into
social stratums, with social rank, that is when class struggle began.
Alex Vange wrote:
> When the business leader shook hands with the working leader at the
> end, this was National Socialism.
Ron Allen answers:
As long as there are business leaders shaking hands with labor leaders
you retain non-democratic arrangements of production, with labor leaders
serving capital rather than labor.
> described as antiquated prejudices"
> "Anyhow, the Jew has attained the ends he desired. Catholics and
> Protestants are fighting with one another to their hearts content,
> while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up
> his sleeve."
> "The Jew trafficked in the freedom of the nation and sold our country
> to the masters of international high finance. So in our day he has
> succeeded again, this time by raising ructions between the two German
> religious denominations while the foundations on which both rest are
> being eaten away and destroyed through the poison injected by the
> international and cosmopolitan Jew."
> "The most devoted Protestant could stand side by side with the most
> devoted Catholic in our ranks"
> "The National Socialist Movement must see to it that at least in our
> own country the mortal enemy is recognized and that the fight against
> him may be a beacon light pointing to a new and better period for
> other nations as well as showing the way of salvation for Aryan
> humanity in the struggle for its existance."
Ron Allen answers:
You want a return to some pedigree aryan race, with a pedigree faith in
pedigree gods. You speak a different language from me. You speak to a
different end from what I address and desire. I find no meeting ground
between us. I do wonder if perhaps you could share with us your own
personal reasons for agreeing with Hitler's outlook.
Guru George
>Guru George wrote:
>> Maybe from your point of view they look valid, but to me they stink of
>> evasion, and their originators must have been lying to themselves
>> deeply. One of us is right.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>Unless both of us are wrong.
>
Indeedly-doodly.
>Ron Allen asked:
>> Why is the knowledge dispersed?
>
>
>
>Guru George wrote:
>> It is essentially dispersed because a lot of it is *tacit* in
>> individuals, a lot of it couldn't be articulated and gathered
>> centrally even with the best will in the world - it exists in the way
>> we do things, in traditions that are passed on in families, in jobs,
>> etc., etc., peoples' ability to form "hunches" when faced with
>> patterns, stuff like that.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>The answer you give above is unclear to me, but it is your answer.
>
I don't know how I can make it clearer. Think of it this way:
consider any skill you've got. Can you write down how you do it, and
precisely how good you are at it - and not only that but how
*objectively* effective it is at its job - in such a way that some
central authority would be able to factor your skill into its
production/distribution decisions? No. But it is precisely that
skill of yours which, issuing in some physical item you produce, is
judged by those who buy it or leave it in the marketplace at the price
at which you offer it.
Consider also any job you've done. Think about how somebody showed
you how to do it, and you were crap at it for a while, and then
eventually "got the hang of it". That "getting the hang of things" is
also something that cannot be factored into a central plan, but is
dealt with by the market quite easily. There are also traditions that
are handed down, in families, in groups of friends that live together
and develop ideas together, in religious groups, in institutions,
etc., etc.
Every job or task or part of the production process has a "knack" of
its own, some of which just *can't* be written down. Because it can't
be written down, it can't be factored into a central calculation. But
the decentralised, living abacus of the price system factors it in
without anybody *having* to write it down. How? Because however
inaccessible these skills, traditions, etc., are, however much they
are embodied and un-write-downable, they will have *effects* in
action. If there are sensors locally that are aware of those effects
(i.e. all the individual entrepreneurs, producers, buyers, sellers,
with their local, specialised knowledge, which is *itself* partly
tacit in exactly this way), and if they have an *incentive* to notice
those effects, then the distributed calculation machinery of the
market, using all those brains, of entrepreneurs, producers, buyers,
sellers, will be able to factor in those effects and calculate their
value, their "socially necesssary" value (which is, again, a kind of
distributed value - its most famous face being the price to the
consumer, but that is just one "aspect" of value in the distributed
sense, which includes value to entrepreneurs, producers, sellers as
well).
The power of that distributed calculation machinery, which utilises
the brains of everybody involved in the market, producers, buyers,
sellers, consumers, and not any lesser number of brains (like a
central committee or a workers' committee) is what you lose if you try
to plan things centrally. Unless you've got something to replace it,
you're just whistling in the wind.
(Whereas if all you're saying is that workers should run their own
factories, then that *is* capitalism, as here outlined, just in a
slightly different form - and you are quite welcome to encourage it as
far as classical liberals or libertarians are concerned, so long as
it's voluntary.)
>
>Guru George wrote:
>> As so often with you, Ron, some of what you say I agree with, but to
>> me your overall perspective is so askew that it would take too long
>> for me to pick this apart bit by bit.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>Take your time. I do not rush off answers to every question asked of
>me. Maybe you can answer at another time. I just hope I do not miss
>your answer. I prefer you give answer on the alt-philosophy.debate
>newsgroup, and e-mail me to let me know your answer is posted on the
>newsgroup.
>
OK, you said:-
>Ron Allen answers:
>Why is the knowledge dispersed? How can the knowledge be better
>gathered? Part of what disperses knowledge is the inability of demand,
>expressed via money, to express real needs -- because although money
>supply is very often a variable, human needs do not vary a lot.
This is not true: human needs are the most variable thing, they grow
with our vision of what's possible.
Plus, you aren't understanding the meaning of "dispersed knowledge"
here, which is as I am explaining - it is *that* meaning that results
in the "drift" between supply and demand, more than anything else.
Natural events and the variable availability of raw goods, and
technological discoveries all play a part too, of course.
>If a
>lot of people in a community become unemployed, for example, the loss of
>wage income means their ability to communicate their real material needs
>is diminished, even though their real material needs remain in fact
>undiminished.
This is not true: their ability to communicate their wants (which is
what *they* believe their "real material needs" are) is unaltered -
they can tell anybody what they want, and it could in principle be
written down somewhere centrally.
What they have lost is the ability to *get* what they want, because
they have nothing to offer that anybody (locally) is willing or able
to exchange for.
You are also making it sound as if people are literally starving in
their millions because of the capitalist system, which is ridiculous,
and doesn't make your argument credible. You aren't playing to the
gallery here, you know. Less people are starving under capitalist
systems than under any other kinds of socioeconomic systems ever
tried, including those that have called themselves "socialist" and
"communist".
>In fact, a market economy expresses its information
>breakdown in the fact that demand sometimes increases because of a
>shortage of supplies, or supplies sometimes increase because of a
>shortage of demand.
Yes, but this isn't a problem with capitalist relations, it's a fact
that this imbalance will happen under *any* system of economic
relations that isn't one in which the population just has to take what
it gets, i.e. in any system that tries to match what's produced to
what people want.
>The fluctuations of price are an expression of
>communication breakdown, rather than an expression of equilibrium
>between demand and supply.
This is partly true, but it's not a communication breakdown as simple
as you put it above - it's not that the information is there
somewhere, but we just can't get at it. It's that some of it isn't
get-at-able at all, and has to be guessed. That is the entrepreneur's
function, for which you propose no replacement.
So, as I've said several times, either you just produce what you want
to produce and devil take peoples' wants, or you attempt to satisfy
peoples' wants by a guessing process that is more clumsy and less
economically efficient because it uses less brains, centralised.
>We are told often that capitalism is better than socialism because
>socialism implies a centralized clearinghouse of information showing
>levels of demand and levels of supply. And yet in capitalism, market
>research is conducted by or for private businesses, and the data
>gathered is often kept secret in order to increase the chances of more
>profits for those with the most information.
Sometimes, but this isn't the *cause* of imbalance between supply and
demand, nor is it logically equivalent to any kind of centralisation.
>This kind of secrecy
>serves the interests of those who profit most from undisclosed
>information, but it cannot be said to serve the interests of the human
>community. When the interface between supply and demand is arbitrated
>by private marketeers who profit most from either misinformation or
>disinformation, then we can count upon a regular shortage of supplies
>and a regular swelling of demand, all in the interest of private
>profits.
This is just nonsense. Entrepreneurs don't profit from misinformation
or disinformation (or at least not normally, since that is illegal in
a capitalist society), they profit from the fact that the information
isn't in principle collectable, and they are good at guesstimating.
Disequilibrium, chaos, is not the result of a conspiracy but a NATURAL
TENDENCY. Unless you are prepared to IMPOSE order on people, that is.
Simply because they *are* self-steering, people don't always fall in
with "plans": in a capitalist society, they themselves will be the
ones that suffer most of the consequences of their dereliction from
their "socially necessary" duty, and any effects that become negative
- or even positive - externalities for others are coped with by the
entrepreneurial equilibriating mechanism, which weaves the
distributed, decentralised, self-repairing *capitalist* "plan" around
the effects of whatever they did, moving towards the restoration of
equilibrium. (And then something *else* happens to perturb the thing,
and *that* is incorporated, and so on ... )
In a socialist society, they simply fuck up the plan (unless you're
prepared to keep them at it at the point of bayonets), i.e. the
consequences of their dereliction from their "socially necessary" duty
are chaotically spread out, with no compensating factor (or only some
necesssarily clumsier substitute for the entrepreneurial compensating
factor - necessarily clumsier simply because it uses less computing
power, and doesn't factor in all that tacit knowledge). Tragedy of
the Commons. Disequilibrium. Waste. Draconian measures. Death.
Boredom. Living hell.
>Guru George wrote:
>> Just focus on what I said above, and you will start to realise for
>> yourself why some of what you say here is true, but irrelevant, true
>> but not a problem, or false and misinformed.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>You will need to help me find out my errors in understanding and
>reasoning if you see them and I do not.
>
I'm trying, goddammit!
>
>Guru George wrote:
>> Start here: any proposed economic system has to cope with the fact
>> that the knowledge necessary to produce things socially necessarily
>> (i.e. to make things people actually want) and economically
>> efficiently (i.e. without waste) is essentially dispersed because
>> partly tacit, unarticulated and unarticulateable.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>I do not understand. Please take some time to develop the assertions in
>the above pericope. What do you mean by "tacit" in the above context,
>for example?
>
As I said above. It's not as if you could go around everybody with a
notebook and ask them how they do what they do. The information you
got would be far to simplistic to enable you to actually factor it in
to your calculations in any meaninful way. How people do what they do
is *embodied* in their habits, traditions, ways of life, the subtle
ways their individual brains work; i.e. it is tacit,
uncollectable-even-in-principle. Any calculation that factors the
effects of those tacit abilities, traditions, ways of life, in their
effect on production, has to basically guess their effect (plus also
factor in the effects of changes in discovery and those items of
information that *are* writeable-down, but also scattered and
therefore not gatherable without great *cost*). If you propose to
replace x million entrepreneurs doing this job with any lesser number
of bureaucrats who qualify themselves for the job not by *proving*
their ability but by mere commitment (in the best case), you lose.
>
>Guru George wrote:
>> Either that or it just has to produce whatever it decides to produce,
>> and do so wastefully - to the extent that it eventually falls behind
>> its culturally equivalent capitalist counterpart.
>
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>What is "it"? This pericope is also unclear to me.
>
Any form of organisation that attempts to replace the distributed
calculation machine of the market, which uses brains that prove
themselves at what they do, with any lesser number of brains that
don't have to, operating centrally, with whatever intention, to
benefit whomever.
>Guru George wrote:
>> I did not say that human nature was *essentially* "competitive" or
>> "greedy", just that such traits do exist, and any form of social
>> organisation is going to have to turn them to good account. Socialism
>> cannot do that.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>Like you, I have been taught all my life to believe there is no place
>for competition in socialism or communism. But this is wrong, in my
>opinion. In socialism and communism, competition between ideas and
>opinions can and will exist, competition between plans and methods can
>and will exist, competition between ends and means can and will exist,
>but competition between people as producers or consumers will not exist.
>
>I want the word "competition" to return to its original meaning, which
>is "to work together, to strive together, to seek together".
>
You can't have competition without success and failure - and the
virtue of the system of private property is that the rewards and
punishments for success and failure resulting from a given action are
restricted, as much as humanly possible to the actor (though of course
not hermetically - there are always going to be positive and negative
externalities to any action any human being does, and that's also what
the market can handle). Unless you have something comparable to
replace that, your system will suffer from some form of the "Tragedy
of the Commons", where it is in the very logic of the scenario that
*other* people will be chaotically rewarded or suffer because of my
behaviour.
>
>Guru George wrote:
>> It is not necessary for classical liberal/libertarian thinking that
>> one view people as selfish in the sense that all their actions are
>> directed towards benefiting themselves; it is only necessary that one
>> view people as self-steering, self-directed, as rational, choosing
>> creatures. Everything else follows from that, no matter *who* the
>> *intended* beneficiaries of their actions *usually* are.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>If people are self-steering, self-directed and rational beings, if
>people can govern themselves and be responsible members of the
>community, if people can keep their promises and their faith in each
>other, then anarchic communism would be the ideal arrangement of
>productive assembly and distributive allotment. Who needs an
>authoritarian state? Who needs a police authority? Who needs money?
>Who needs classes? Who needs gods?
>
We don't need an authoritarian state, nor gods, but we do need money,
and some form of law and its enforcement (though not necessarily by a
state); and classes are a sociological phenomenon that is inevitable
simply because some people are better at some things than others.
(Note: I *can* see this evolving into something better and better
gradually over a thousand year period, eventually to something we
can't even envisage right now, but these infantile attempts to
second-guess our evolution are just .... gaaack! We will only get
there *through* a fully developed, laissez-faire capitalism, which
hasn't happened yet. Hey, maybe I am a Marxist after all! Or maybe
Marx was kind of right in an odd way, but just a wee bit out in his
calculations, to put it fucking mildly.)
Any *political* substitue for these things which are necessary for a
distributed system (that doesn't need anybody to give orders for there
to be order) is just going to be more clumsy and inefficient.
People are self-steering, but that doesn't mean they don't err, and
steer themselves into others' paths. That needs to be kept down to a
minimum if *everybody* is to get a chance to self-steer.
See, the horrific thing is, you leftists don't even twig the real
meaning of equality, you have this ersatz, woo-woo vision, a sort of
pretty pattern in your useless heads, the implementation of which
inevitably means TREATING PEOPLE UNEQUALLY. PFfft! What a pile of
shite.
(GG calms down ... )
>
>Guru George wrote:
>> But that's what capitalist competition *is* about.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>Perhaps you confuse "competition" with "the invisible hand". You seem
>willing to soften what competition means in a capitalist context. But
>the only ameliorative agency singled out in most capitalist apologies is
>the so-called "invisible hand" -- and this softening mediation between
>self interests and human interests is invisible for very good reasons.
>
This sounds to me like you don't even understand the meaning of "the
invisible hand" ferrchrissakes.
It's like, biologist Richard Dawkins' wrote a book called "The Blind
Watchmaker", which is an explanation of Darwinian theory. Now do you
think that Dawkins is really saying that there is some kind of "force"
that "guides" anything, like a real Watchmaker? No. Nor was Smith.
It's a fucking metaphor - things happen AS IF there were an invisible
hand, get it? (No, I didn't think you did. :-)
>
>Guru George wrote:
>> If the only way you are allowed to be rich in a society is by
>> producing what people want, then you are going to have to compete with
>> other would-be millionaires in producing what people want, more and
>> more efficiently, more and more fitting their wants and even
>> anticipating them.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>This is what we are told over and over again. And the few individuals
>that succeed make us believe in a system in which the vast majority do
>not succeed. Bill Gates and Ted Turner are not everyman. They are the
>exception, not the rule. The spotlight shines on them, but not on the
>billions whom they rule.
>
Who said anything about millionaires? This is what ANYBODY AND
EVERYBODY does in a capitalist society, including the workers.
(Incidentally, if you are a true Marxist, you must surely claim that
what "rules" isn't the actual capitalists but the *class* and the
*system*, Capital itself with a capital 'C', and its "needs", which is
embodied not in individual capitalists but in the capitalist/worker
class relationship itself, in the sense of those social relations
logically demanded by the 'needs' of Capital?)
>
>Guru George wrote:
>> The only thing that prevents this procedure from working in other
>> areas than stuff like food, clothes, houses, vehicles and IT, is this
>> bloody thing called "duh government"'s being in the way (e.g. it takes
>> things like law, crime-prevention, etc., etc., upon itself, with the
>> wonderful results we see around us).
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>I will not defend big government, because I do not believe even in
>minimal government. Either people can govern themselves, or we are not
>worth being governed against ourselves.
>
Now you're talking!!! We'll make an anarcho-capitalist of you yet!
:-)
>
>Guru George wrote:
>> I don't mean to criticise you personally, Ron. You are one of the
>> most reasonable Marxists I've ever come across, and I respect that.
>
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>Thank you.
>
>Like so many ideas and ideals that have been badly defended and badly
>practiced, we must learn to judge every idea and every ideal on its own
>merits, and not on the demerits of its defenders, advocates and
>practitioners.
Agreed. It's hard to do that, though, when every known and
self-proclaimed attempt to implement something called "socialism" or
"communism" has turned to shit. But it *is* still possible that all
those attempts got it wrong, and that *you* (merely *another*
self-proclaimed "communist", no different from those who came before
you, BTW) are talking about something different, that *wouldn't* turn
to shit. I strongly doubt it, but my mind is not completely closed.
Victor Levis
> djarum wrote:
> > Social ownership means wealth is not appropriated by private persons,
> > but by society as a collective whole. Within the context of the
> > society, the word 'ownership' loses its meaning with respect to
> > material goods.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There will be ownership in a mature communist economy -- you will own
> the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the place you live in, etc.
> There will be private ownership of things. Communism is about ending
> private exploitation of the labor of others, private expropriation of
> the product of the labor of others, and private ownership of the means
> of production.
It seems to me that communism is about forcibly preventing people
from engaging in capitalist relations. If I may own a personal computer,
and if you are libertarian as you say, why can't I contract with Mr. Fryer
to perform work on my computer in exchange for a fixed return of some
kind?
> If, in a communist setting, you create a work of art,
> then that is your private property, unless and until you give it to
> someone as a gift for whatever reason. In some cases you may desire to
> give something you have created to the community. It will be your
> choice.
Why am I not allowed to create something that can be used to
create further somethings?
Why the double standard?
Or to turn your example around: I am an artist. I am capable of creating
works of art. But I am not very good at selling T-shirts.
So I make an agreement with you that I will make works of art and
EXCHANGE them for some food, clothing, shelter (or, some money
so that I can buy such things myself). I know full well as I make this
exchange that you will put my designs on T-shirts and sell them.
Why is this artistic contract illegitimate? After all, you said I have the
right to give my work to someone as a gift, so why can't I arrange for
a mutual 'gifting'?
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Victor Levis
Guru George <gurug...@alphanor.dircon.co.uk> wrote in
article <359311f...@NEWS.DIRCON.CO.UK>...
I'll settle for him tolerating anarcho-capitalism as practiced by willing
actors, all the while acting in a voluntary socialist manner himself.
darel
Ron Allen wrote:
> Robert Sparks wrote:
> > I see state ownership as that of ownership by FORCE (usually by a
> > few), ...
>
> Ron Allen snwers:
> State ownership is state possession and control of the means of
> production, which an army and police ready for service.
>
Means of production?
> Robert Sparks wrote:
> > ... private ownership as that of ownership by contract; ...
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> You seem able to separate contracts from force in your thinking. You
> seem unable to rack your brain in order to come up with forms of force
> other than state forms.
>
state? do you really mean organized society? and by society you really
mean anarchy (enlightened anarchy, that is)?
> Robert Sparks wrote:
> > ... but I do get lost in what "social ownership" means.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> First, you need to separate society from state. Imagine a society with
> no state. Imagine a society with no private ownership of the means of
> production. Imagine a community sharing ownership of the means of
> production, and sharing equally the product produced by the means of
> production.
>
this society - state thing.... you seem to be making a distinction that
isn't importantan individual IS a means of production, so are you talking
about communal slavery?
> Robert Sparks wrote:
> > If by contract, who signs; ...
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Imagine a society without contracts. Imagine a society where people
> promise and speak the truth when they promise.
>
now you have entered into an area that is not human. And even were people
to be honest in that way, situations oftenconspire to make liars of us
anyway.
> Robert Sparks wrote:
> > ... if by FORCE, by how many?
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Imagine a society without coercion, without police coercion or economic
> duress.
>
That society would be nice, but it is contrary to the nature of humans.
> Robert Sparks wrote:
> > If by contract and there is disagreement, how is it settled.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> No contracts. Disagreements will be settled in a mature manner worthy of
> free and reasonable people, sometimes with the help of go-betweens who
> are good at negotiating between differences.
disagreements that end in a reasonable way ARE contracts between those
people, even if the only enforcment of the contract
is the concious of those involved
djarum
> > Ron Allen answers:
> > There will be ownership in a mature communist economy
>
> Should I ask what happens between now and then ... i.e. the MATURE
> communist economy?
If I were you I wouldn't ask questions like that. ;)
djarum
In article <3591A6...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>,
ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net wrote:
> djarum wrote:
> > Social ownership means wealth is not appropriated by private persons,
> > but by society as a collective whole. Within the context of the
> > society, the word 'ownership' loses its meaning with respect to
> > material goods.
>
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There will be ownership in a mature communist economy -- you will own
> the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the place you live in, etc.
> There will be private ownership of things. Communism is about ending
> private exploitation of the labor of others, private expropriation of
> the product of the labor of others, and private ownership of the means
> of production. If, in a communist setting, you create a work of art,
> then that is your private property, unless and until you give it to
> someone as a gift for whatever reason. In some cases you may desire to
> give something you have created to the community. It will be your
> choice.
OK, I see what you're saying. I should have said 'ownership' would
undergo change, not lose its meaning altogether.
chow yun-fat
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:44:45 -0500, Robert Sparks <b...@indy.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Ron Allen wrote:
>
>> Jim Sarbeck wrote:
>> > ...the purpose of life under capitalism is to take, and the purpose of
>> life under communism is to give.
>>
>> Ron Allen answers:
>> There is a difference between capitalism and communism as to purpose.
>> Under the rule of capital, the purpose of every thing and every action
>> is private, which means that whatever is given is given privately with
>> the intention of personally taking more than is given.
>
>Mighty glib with YOUR view of intention. Probably there is this
>non-descript idea of "taking" and "giving" that is utterly confused by the
>idea of CREATING. After something is CREATED is it given or taken?
>
The capitalist argues that he/she CREATES wealth for the good of all.
In reality, the capitalist creates wealth by exploiting the working
class, which is not done for the benefit of that class.
>> The capitalist
>> gives jobs, but the capitalist gives jobs only in order to take back
>> more than was given.
>
>What would a capitalist want with MORE jobs. Cutsey and glib, but not very
>instructive or informative.The capitalist CREATES jobs, expects work in
>return, and gambles on the outcome. Some win, some don't. Not quite so
>neat a package as you make it out to be.
The capitalist takes from the worker, he does not take jobs. In order
to be profitable, the capitalist MUST pay a worker less then he/she
produces. Consequently, the capitalist does not take, he.she
EXPLOITES.
>> The capitalist gives capital value, but capital
>> value was not produced by the capitalist who owns that value. Capital
>> value is a product of past labor.
>
>As we carry this scenario further and further back into the past of
>capitalists vs laborers, we find that the only true workers and laborers are
>the dirty farmers scratching with their fingers. H-m-m-m-m....
One would be short-sighted to think that the only labor that has
existed in history has been farmers. Furthermore, for the capitalist
to think historically is oxymoronic.
>> Therefore, it is questionable whether
>> what the capitalist gives is really given by the capitalist.
>
>Boy, those gys (and gals) can't ever do anything right, eh....
As much as you would think that any Marxist would appreciate your
sarcasm, capitalist are doing something right. Capitalism increases
the producative capablilities of a State, and this increased
productivity is a neceassary precondition for communism/socialism. It
is the capitalists desire for money that eventually leads to the
ultimate condradiction within the capitalist argument. In order to
maximize profits, an employeer must pay his/her workers less then what
they produce. This causes a surplus in goods that cannot be consumed.
Capitalists then open new markets to sell their overproduced goods.
This will all work fine as long as there are new markets to open, but
the world is finite, and infinite expansion is impossible.
>> Meanwhile
>> the worker gives labor value.
>
>And that, too, is questionable..... or, at least there is some wonder about
>how much "labor" is involved in that steel-stamping machine operator vs the
>value of the finished product. Not likely that the "laborer" is the only ,
>or even the major, source of value.
I would love to see the capitalist class make profits without workers.
I don't think it is possible. On the other hand, a worker can make a
wage without the capitalist.
>> The capitalist takes back more capital
>> value and private profits, while the worker takes back a subsistence
>> wage and private poverty.
>
>Oh, yea, "subsistence" wages....????
Growing number of people living at or below the official poverty line
(which is set artificially low- familty of 3, $12,000); vanishing
middle class; rise of temporary jobs/underemployment. There is some
question whether wages are even at the subsistence level.
>> In capitalism the give-and-take is private.
>> The benefits and the privations of capitalism are privatized and make no
>> distinction based upon personal needs. In capitalism, for example,
>> those who have lots of money and good health get more medical care than
>> those with a lot less money and bad health. This is taking more than
>> one needs, and this is unfair.
>
>Would you care to define "fair" vs "unfair" in these instances. I think we
>eventually find that you will be running in circles around fair-unfair /
>capitalism/communism. Fair????? h-m-m-m-m. I'm willing to listen....
Fair is a subjective term, just like it is subjectively necessary for
the capitalist to maximize profits at the expense of workers, the
environment, etc.
>>
>>
>> In a communist setting, the purpose of every thing and every action is
>> social, which means that whatever is given is given cooperatively with
>> the intention that the entire community receives more than was initially
>> invested.
>
>THere are those intentions again. Would you care to define how one might
>interpret your use of the term "social" in "every action is social" (vs the
>other side "every action is private)"?
The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. Just like the
intention of capitalism is to provide everyone with an EQUAL
opportunity to succeed. This is so obviously mythical, that I won't
waste my time explaining.
>> From a few seeds planted the community will receive much more
>> new seed from the harvest.
>
>That's sort of the way it works for capitalist farms. H-m-m-m... what is
>the distinction?
Under communism/socialism, all benefit equally. This is not true
under capitalism.
>> From a few machines employed by human labor
>> the community will produce a lot more goods for itself.
>
>The community will??? Well, if you lump them altogether as you do without
>definitions, yea,; but Just calling a collect of people a community doesn't
>make the" individual" labor "community labor." THere is no community
>without the individuals, and yet there can easily be individuals without
>community. You elevate the non-esstenial above the essential. That's
>turning the world upside-down alright.
But can there be production without a community? What good is an
individual without a community?
>> Communism is
>> all about giving your fair share and taking your fair share.
>
>Ahhh, is communism wonderful!!!!! Please..... Again with the "fair"
>word. Fair according to whom??
See above...
>> Every
>> producer is also a consumer.
>
>Yikes, we're back on the farm, again.
I wonder how this is not the case today...
>> You give your fair share based upon a need
>> to do productive work, a need to express yourself in your work, and a
>> need to enjoy a lot of time off in order to have the benefits of leisure
>> which labor affords us.
>
>I guess I'm just not getting it. I work at what I do because its fun and
>people pay me money for it. Hey, that's a good living. (I wonder,
>though,... is it "fair" to enjoy it and be a capitalist?I have no need to
>express myself in my work, even though I do express myself. But htere's no
>NEED to do it, its just a fun thing to do. I've had jobs that required that
>I develop some personal expression, but that was in community jobs that
>didnt have enough satisfaction in the mere production of a valuable item.
When a communist says that people express themselves in their work,
he/she means that the person finds FULFILLMENT in work, as opposed to
just money.
>Another thing. I seem to enjoy my job so much I prefer to do it even when
>no one pays me for it. (Some might decide to psychologizes that to
>"work-a-holic." But then they are probably the ones who are doing a job
>they don't really like....and they are the ones who ought to reconsider what
>they are doing for a living. But I like being a capitalist, and individual,
>a person.
You would scarcely be any of those things without a community that
affords you the luxury of being a capitalist, an individual, and a
person.
>> You take your fair share based upon differences
>> in need.
>
>*I* on the other hand get what I can in exchange for my labor, spend some,
>save some, and hope that tomorrow there's more to do.... after all, what fun
>would there be when IT ALL GETS DONE.
Do you believe that it all gets done under communism. Communism is
not the end of history, it is the beginning of a new phase of history.
>> In communism, a few can consume far more value than they produce,
>> because they have more need than than others who do more of the
>> producing. The inequalities of consumption in capitalism are based upon
>> inequalities of wealth. The inequalities of consumption in communism
>> would be based upon inequalities of need. For example, those who need
>> more medical care will receive more medical care.
>
>Medical care provided by whom? All that medical care for the many produced
>by the few???? I imagine your communists would all be getting pretty sick,
>and the number of physicians, nurses and health care providers wold dwindle
>to a preciaous few. Ah, but then you wouldn't have to prove that it would
>be different, you can just say so, eh?
>
By your argument then, a doctor heals for himself?
I have no hope of convincing you that you are wrong and I am right;
that is not what I am attempting to do. I can never be sure of one or
the other. But you, too, must be open to the notion that you may be
wrong. People have grown so comfortable with the notion of
capitalism, that they forget that it did not exist for the bulk of
human history. Just because we have lived in a world dominated by the
theories of John Locke and Adam Smith, doesn't mean that we always
will.
I know I am not the one that your response was aimed at, but I felt
the need to answer. I hope that is okay,
Kendall Bader
chow_y...@hotmail.com
Swartzer
Take the Communist Manifesto, replace the word Proletariat with Race, and
Bourgeous with Jew. Wahlah, a very good approximation of Nationalist
Socialism.
Look, Marxist-Lenninist style communism is not about the working class any
more than fascism is about a balance between business and labor. They are
both about the complete submission of everyone, worker and capitalist, to
the state.
[snip]z
Ron Allen
Ron Allen wrote:
> State ownership is state possession and control of the means of
> production, which an army and police ready for service.
Correction:
State ownership is state possession and control of the means of
production, with an army and police always ready for service.
Alex Vange
Ron Allen <ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<3591B9...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > The communists believed in class warfare.
>
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Communists do not "believe in" class warfare as one "believes in" Jesus.
> Communists do not believe class warfare is redemptive. For the
> communist with a marxist slant, class warfare is a fact of history, not
> the saving of history. In my opinion, as a marxist, class warfare
> simply discloses the conflict in history between those who rule and
> those who are ruled. I believe the conflict has existed as long as
> there have been class differentiations, but I do not "believe in" class
> struggle.
But you believe there is a class conflict and that it is justified.
You want everyone to to equal but in fact people are not equal. Not
everyone could invent windows 98 or something like that and people who do
things like that deserve more wealth than others. But there should be laws
to stop the greed and make sure working people get a fair share of the
wealth.
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > They were against the business leaders.
>
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Communism is not against the business leaders as people, because an
> intelligent marxist understands that business leaders have simply
> succeeded in working within the system as it exists. The marxist wishes
> to see the system overthrown so that the kind of people who are
> successful business leaders in a capitalist context will be free to be
> pioneers and pathfinders in a communist context, using their talents for
> the good of the community.
>
Maybe that is your theory but in practice business leaders didn't
fare to well when communism took over. Anyway, the capitalist arguement is
that these successful people do what they do for the motive of profit and
wouldn't do it just for the good of the commmunity. There is a lot of truth
to that but not in the accompanying theory that their should be no laws to
restrict their greed.
>
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > This is wrong. Business leaders are superior and they are the ones who
> > create the jobs for people.
>
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Business leaders are not superior people. And they do not create jobs.
> Business leaders create positions with their business enterprises where
> people can do jobs for a wage. In a capitalist context, demand creates
> jobs, and often jobs that have very little or nothing to do with
> producing the real needs of human beings.
>
> A business leader who hires plumbers to work for a plumbing company does
> not create the job of plumbing. There were plumbers before the company
> was started, and there are plumbers who work for other plumbing
> companies. In a capitalist economy, as long as plumbers are needed
> there will be plumbers.
>
>
Someone invented the wrenches they use and the newest types of
pipes. Equality may sound nice to you but it is not reality. Here is a
quote form Mein Kampf:
"All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its
technical developements and discoveries, are the products of the creative
activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their first beginnings
must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of civilization is wholly
dependant on such peoples. Should they perish, all that makes this earth
beautiful will descend with them into the grave."
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > But the communists were correct that the capitalists were too greedy.
> > There is nothing to stop the Ebenezer Scroodge types in a capitalist
> > system and the system encourages this type when it considers
> > selfishness to be a good thing.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> We agree here.
>
>
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > The answer to communism was not to defend capitalism but to show a
> > better way, namely National Socialism and Fascism. The communist ideas
> > of class warfare and opposing private property should be rejected and
> > replaced with fair laws that protect the worker.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> I regard fascism as a form of state capitalism. Do you agree?
>
Not at all. Mussolini was very anti-communist but this doesn't mean
he was opposed to helping working people. Capitalists are like the social
liberals because they don't want any laws. Social liberals say there should
be no laws against drugs and prostitution and things like that. Capitalists
use the exact same reasoning to say there should be no laws against greed.
An example of Fascism was their law against slums. Capitalists would
say that the state has no right to tell someone they can't have a slum
building. Fascists consider the good of nation first and something ugly
like a slum has to go. Good people can have all the freedom they want but
there needs to be laws for the less responsible people and laws against
such things as greed.
Alex Vange wrote:
> > In Amerca there are many good laws that protect working people. There
> > are laws regarding retirement and overtime pay after forty hours etc.
> > These are good laws and capitalism would be opposed to them because of
> > its flawed principles and philosophy. But there is no law in America
> > to prevent companies from firing American workers and hiring people in
> > Mexico and China who will work for starvation level wages. They say we
> > must compete to see who will work for the fewest pennies per hour.
> > This philosphy is wrong and needs to be replaced.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Communism tends to be internationalist. In other words, the communist
> ideal is a global economic community organized around cooperation
> between geographical regions, rather than competition.
>
>
Needless to say National Socialism is opposed to that. There are
differnent races and cultures in the world and we should each have our own
and not mix them together.
>
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > The situation is illustrated in the old black and white movie called
> > Metropolis. First it showed the problems in capitalism, and then it
> > showed that class warfare was the wrong answer.
>
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Allow me to reiterate the point that marxism does not regard class
> warfare as "the answer". Class warfare is a fact brought into existence
> with the existence of classes. When human society became organized into
> social stratums, with social rank, that is when class struggle began.
>
>
National Socialism rejected the view that considered manual labor
inferior. It also opposed judging people only on how well they succeed in
business or how much money they have. But in all succesfull things there is
a chain of command. In an army the general makes the decisions because he
is the most qualified. If they had every private argueing about what should
be done it wouldn't be a good army.
>
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > When the business leader shook hands with the working leader at the
> > end, this was National Socialism.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> As long as there are business leaders shaking hands with labor leaders
> you retain non-democratic arrangements of production, with labor leaders
> serving capital rather than labor.
>
>
National Socialism was for fairness between businessmen and labor. It
was not against either of them. Laborers should have a fair wage and
holiday time. The capitalist notion that laborers have to compete to see
who will work for the least was rejected. But the business leaders are
still leaders. I mean no disrespect to the people who sweep the floors but
the business leader should be in charge because he is more qualified.
There are very many reasons why Hitler was right. For one thing
there is the fact that Jews control the media. Here are the facts on it:
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of Their
Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment". It is
subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are from the Aug
1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power
and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential
pruduction executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a
heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney,
a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic attitudes, now
features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner. On
studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to undermine the
unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and all Jewish -
management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media and
Rule America"
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting System
(CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these three has
been under the absolute control of a single man over a long enough period
of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff the corporation at
every level with officers of his choosing and then to place his imprint
indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities Communications,
Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer
(CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a Jew...In an interview
in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek, Goldenson boasted 'I built this
company (ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than half
a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the Jewish
"profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the contrary, new
Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at CBS is
Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of reality,
of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior are Jews. In
particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is Tartikoff. Littlefield
is the only Gentile who has had a significant role in TV entertainment
programming in recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment companies
and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross, Jew) Walt
Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top entertainment CEOs
listed above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a lack of
real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also illustrates the
insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of opinion... The
Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several large and important
ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the
New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's largest trade book publishing
conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsideries; Newhouse
Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87
cable-TV systems, including some of the countries largest cable networks-
the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million
copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker,
Vogue, Madamoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's
Quarterly, Self, Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and
management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines for
nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what
isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the news; the
others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands...The
Suzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co. 36 other
newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the Daily
News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish real-estate developer
Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern,
the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the United
States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO of Time
Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post
Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled by
Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the president is
Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens books,
with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard
Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on
our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are
giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
Ron Allen
darel wrote:
> Means of production?
Ron Allen answers:
A factory, for example, is a means of production.
darel wrote:
> state? do you really mean organized society?
Ron Allen answers:
A society can organize itself without a state. Anarchism assumes that
human beings can organize themselves freely in productive associations
in order to produce those material things they need, but that there is
no need to organize society slavishly in hierarchical positions in order
to support a ruling class.
darel wrote:
> by society you really mean anarchy (enlightened anarchy, that is)?
Ron Allen answers:
In my thinking, the ideal society would be a society whose mature and
responsible members are free and reasonable, and able to get along quite
well without the tutelage of an authoritarian state, and without the
guardianship of police authorities.
darel wrote:
> this society - state thing.... you seem to be making a distinction
> that isn't important an individual IS a means of production, so are
> you talking about communal slavery?
Ron Allen answers:
A machine is only a means of production. It's purpose is the serve
human need. A person is not a means of production, but the purpose of
production, the end and reason for production. In a communist
arrangement, people will employ machines to serve the needs of people,
but no group of people will employ another group of people to serve the
greed of those who employ others. In capitalism, labor serves capital.
In communism, capital serves labor.
darel wrote:
> now you have entered into an area that is not human. And even were
> people to be honest in that way, situations often conspire to make
> liars of us anyway.
Ron Allen answers:
Is that the way you see yourself? I do not see myself as a compulsive
liar. I do see myself as a very typical human being. I want to be
free. I want more free time.
darel wrote:
> That society [a society without coercion, political or economic] would
> be nice, but it is contrary to the nature of humans.
Ron Allen answers:
I read this a lot from libertarians defending capitalism. The freedom
libertarian capitalists believe in is market freedom, but they doubt the
ability of people to live in moral freedom. You are saying that human
beings must live in a coercive society, because of human nature; and
there are capitalists who, like you, esteem human freedom, but believe
that people cannot live freely. According to capitalist ideology, we
ought to be more free, but ... According to communist ideology, we
ought to be more free, period. Capitalists want to preserve coercion
because they know a ruling class must be able to use coercive force in
order to rule the lower classes, and in order to protect the private
wealth of the ruling classes from the lower classes.
darel wrote:
> disagreements that end in a reasonable way ARE contracts between those
> people, even if the only enforcment of the contract is the concious of
> those involved
Ron Allen answers:
A contract is enforceable by law, and law if enforceable by police. In
an anarchic society, there can be no law, and no police, and no
contracts.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Courageous wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>> Why do you regard this as a possibility in a communist setting? In a
>> communist setting, one receives according to need.
>
>But the problem with this is that everything that is given,
>"according to need", first has to be taken away by coercive
>force. Often extermely, so. Coercive, that is.
Also often extremely forceful.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Jeffrey N Woodford wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>On 18 Jun 1998 16:46:10 EDT Salisar (sal...@concentric.net) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: Only when governments
>: attempt to intervene with the intent to favor certain individuals or
>: industries, do we find that markets become skewed.
>
>This is incorrect. Markets can become "skewed" even without
>government intervention. A key quality of a free market is that each
>individual consumer has the choice to select from any number of
>competing brands of goods or services in the market, OR may choose not
>to purchase anything at all in the market. The health care market,
>for example, is not a free market, nor will it ever be a free market,
>because none of us realistically has this latter choice.
While you are correct that the health care market is not a free
market, you are incorrect in your theoretical claim. We have no
choice about whether to participate in the information market, or in
the food market either. The ability to opt completely out of a market
is *not* required of a free market.
The health care market is not a free market specifically because the
government has chosen to heavily regulate it and to create a number of
economic distortions, beginning with making it a CRIME to practice
medicine without the approval of a SPECIFIC certifying agency -- a
legislatively-created monopoly; and then continuing with giving
employer-provided medical-cost insurance a tax treatment different
from other forms of employment compensation and not available to any
other means of paying for medical care; and later adding massive
subsidies to selected portions of the medical-care market; and
numerous other, comparatively minor, government distortions have also
crept in through the years.
Drink SoBe
In article <359351f1....@news.blarg.net>, postm...@127.0.0.1 (Warrl
kyree Tale'sedrin) writes:
>The ability to opt completely out of a market
>is *not* required of a free market.
And why is that?
darel
actualy Mr. Allen, I appreciate the response. I have always found the ideas
of Communism alien.
I still get a totally confused by your concept of means of production. It
seems to be a total contradiction to have a society that is so "free" and
yet must, in essence be so coercive. It seems anal to deny screwdrivers for
private ownership simply because a tool or machine is a means of production
and is therefore community property or, in real-world instances, property of
the state.
I do understand, though, the desire for a communistic setting, but I do not
think such a thing possible. And I would not want it even if it were. I
prefer my freedom even in my poverty.
In all actuality, I am more of a monarchist than I am a capitalist, even
though moarchy is often associated in peoples minds with slavery. Yet I
prefer the capital model to live in, since it seems to be the only
"self-healing" "self-correcting" system with working, real world, examples.
While I admire your intentions, I cannot accept the solutions offered by
communism.
Robert Sparks
> > I'm willing to listen to the differences (as you might see them). I see
> > state ownership as that of ownership by FORCE (usually by a few), private
> > ownership as that of ownership by contract; but I do get lost in what
> > "social ownership" means. If by contract, who signs; if by FORCE, by how
> > many? If by contract and there is disagreement, how is it settled
>
> Social ownership means wealth is not appropriated by private persons, but
> by society as a collective whole. Within the context of the society, the
> word 'ownership' loses its meaning with respect to material goods.
Well, now I'm really in the gray areas....!! Could you define your glossy terms
"wealth," "appropriate," and "society as a collective whole" in relationship to
"apprpriate?" That might help in understanding the differnece between
"appropriate" and "own" (as in owner, ownership which has lost all meaning?????)
chow yun-fat
>Take the Communist Manifesto, replace the word Proletariat with Race, and
>Bourgeous with Jew. Wahlah, a very good approximation of Nationalist
>Socialism.
>Look, Marxist-Lenninist style communism is not about the working class any
>more than fascism is about a balance between business and labor. They are
>both about the complete submission of everyone, worker and capitalist, to
>the state.
Communism is not about everyone submitting to the state, it is about
giving everyone access to public space. Furthermore, Lenin was not a
communist/Marxist no matter what he said. The differences between the
two are too significant.
Hitler was also not a socialist. He hated Russian socialism
(Leninism, not communism, Marxism, or socialism), and the only respect
he had for Stalin regarded his ability to rule with an iron fist. As
for the National "Socialist" Party, the only reason the word
"socialist" got into the name was to appeal to the working class.
Hitler was no socialist and Lenin was no Marxist.
Alex Vange
chow yun-fat <chow_y...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<35945c4...@news.inreach.com>...
> Hitler was also not a socialist. He hated Russian socialism
> (Leninism, not communism, Marxism, or socialism), and the only respect
> he had for Stalin regarded his ability to rule with an iron fist. As
> for the National "Socialist" Party, the only reason the word
> "socialist" got into the name was to appeal to the working class.
> Hitler was no socialist and Lenin was no Marxist.
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the situation
offered him for the future. While on the one hand he organized capitalistic
methods of exploitation to their ultimate degree of efficiency, he curried
favour with the victims of his policy and his power and in a short while
became the leader of their struggle against himself. 'Against himself' is
here only a figurative way of speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies'
knows how to appear in the guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on
others. Since he had the impudence to take a personal lead among the
masses, they never for a moment suspected that they were falling prey to
one of the most infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it
actually was."
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to mind
the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months
past."
Alex Vange
Ron Allen <ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<35930E...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
> Ron Allen answers:
> In my thinking, the ideal society would be a society whose mature and
> responsible members are free and reasonable, and able to get along quite
> well without the tutelage of an authoritarian state, and without the
> guardianship of police authorities.
In democracy money talks and those who have it are the real rulers.
In the authoritarian state money is reduced to its proper place and good
people rule.
> darel wrote:
> > this society - state thing.... you seem to be making a distinction
> > that isn't important an individual IS a means of production, so are
> > you talking about communal slavery?
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> A machine is only a means of production. It's purpose is the serve
> human need. A person is not a means of production, but the purpose of
> production, the end and reason for production. In a communist
> arrangement, people will employ machines to serve the needs of people,
> but no group of people will employ another group of people to serve the
> greed of those who employ others. In capitalism, labor serves capital.
> In communism, capital serves labor.
>
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were repeatedly
stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was due to the
stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every demand put
forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to making an effort
towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to adopt measures which
would insure the workmen in case of accidents in the factories, the refusal
to forbid child labour, the refusal to consider protective measures for
female workers, especially expectant mothers--all this was of assistance to
the Social Democratic leaders, who were thankful for every opportunity
which they could exploit for forcing the masses into their net. Our
bourgeois parties can never repair the damage that resulted from the
mistake that was made. For they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed
all efforts at social reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent
grounds to justify the claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely
that they alone stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral justification of
the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that the labour organizations
became from that time onwards the chief political recruiting ground to
swell the ranks of the Social Democratic Party."
Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf
chow yun-fat
Are these passages to refute or support my claim that Hitler was not a
socialist. Either I am totally missing the point, or this passage
states overtly that HItler hated socialists. He says above:
Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to
> read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
> so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
> something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous stuff.
> From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews.
This, to me, is Hitler expressing a very anti-socialistg doctrine.
Furthermore, even if we were to accept the hypothesis that Hitler was
a socialist (which I don't believe), in what way did Nazi Germany
resemble a socialist country. Germany's economic recovery centered on
war production (much like the US at the end of WWII). There was no
trace of socialism in Germany during the rain of HItler.
Kendall Bader
Ron Allen
chow yun-fat wrote:
> Communism is not about everyone submitting to the state, it is about
> giving everyone access to public space.
Ron Allen answers:
I agree. Communism is anarchist. If there is no state, then there will
be no submission of the people to the state. Communism is about the
people, the authority of the community, self-government. Statism is
about the state, political authoritarianism, big government.
chow yun-fat wrote:
> Furthermore, Lenin was not a communist/Marxist no matter what he said.
Ron Allen answers:
We call Lenin's ideas marxism-leninism because Lenin himself knew he had
made some very significant changes to the ideas of Marx. But Lenin
believed the times justified the changes. What remains an open question
is whether or not Lenin's changes were honorable and praiseworthy
changes. I believe Lenin discounted popular democracy too much with his
doctrines of democratic centralism and a vanguard party leading the
masses into a communist future.
chow yun-fat wrote:
> The differences between the two [between Lenin and Marx] are too
> significant.
Ron Allen answers:
I agree.
chow yun-fat wrote:
> Hitler was also not a socialist. He hated Russian socialism
> (Leninism, not communism, Marxism, or socialism), and the only respect
> he had for Stalin regarded his ability to rule with an iron fist.
Ron Allen answers:
Hitler hated Russian socialism because he hated Russians and he hated
Jews. Hitler was an anti-socialist who used the word "socialism" with
the qualified limitation of "nationalism". A socialism that is
nationalist ceases to be authentic socialism. Russian socialism was
also very nationalistic, and therefore was more like fascism than
authentic socialism.
chow yun-fat wrote:
> As for the National "Socialist" Party, the only reason the word
> "socialist" got into the name was to appeal to the working class.
> Hitler was no socialist and Lenin was no Marxist.
Ron Allen answers:
I agree.
Ron Allen
Swartzer wrote:
> Take the Communist Manifesto, replace the word Proletariat with Race,
> and Bourgeous with Jew. Wahlah, a very good approximation of
> Nationalist Socialism.
Ron Allen answers:
Show us an example, using a real textual case illustration from the
Manifesto.
Swartzer wrote:
> Look, Marxist-Leninist style communism is not about the working class
> any more than fascism is about a balance between business and labor.
> They are both about the complete submission of everyone, worker and
> capitalist, to the state.
Ron Allen answers:
Marx was not a leninist, and not every marxist is a leninist. Although
Lenin had some good ideas, I do not agree with many of Lenin's ideas.
And I have lots of problems with his politics, and even more with the
politics of Stalin.
Ron Allen
Ron Allen wrote:
> A contract is enforceable by law, and law if enforceable by police.
> In an anarchic society, there can be no law, and no police, and no
> contracts.
Correction:
> A contract is enforceable by law, and law is enforceable by police.
Ron Allen
Ron Allen wrote:
> ... and private ownership of the means of production.
Robert Sparks wrote:
> Yikes! Now there is private ownership of everything including
> "means." What exactly is the difference between capitalism and
> communism in this case? Good intentions?
Ron Allen answers:
Allow me to put back the original entire sentence:
"Communism is about ending private exploitation of the labor of others,
private expropriation of the product of the labor of others, and private
ownership of the means of production."
As you can see, when the sentence is put back together, I am asserting
that communism is about ... ending private ownership of the means of
production.
tom.norback
Ron Allen wrote in message <359531...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> ... and private ownership of the means of production.
>
>
>Robert Sparks wrote:
>> Yikes! Now there is private ownership of everything including
>> "means." What exactly is the difference between capitalism and
>> communism in this case? Good intentions?
>
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way
around.
Regards,
Tom.
Alex Vange
chow yun-fat <chow_y...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<35951cb...@news.inreach.com>...
It refutes it. The falsehood is that there are only two choices,
capitalism and communism. But those who see the problems of capitalism need
not allow leftists to take over society. National Socialism is the answer.
You miss the point because you think the only options are capitalism and
communism.
> Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to
> > read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
doing
> > so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
> > something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous stuff.
> > From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews.
>
> This, to me, is Hitler expressing a very anti-socialistg doctrine.
> Furthermore, even if we were to accept the hypothesis that Hitler was
> a socialist (which I don't believe), in what way did Nazi Germany
> resemble a socialist country. Germany's economic recovery centered on
> war production (much like the US at the end of WWII). There was no
> trace of socialism in Germany during the rain of HItler.
>
In NS Germany employers had to pay their employees a fair wage. The
standard of wages were carefully regulated and observed by reliable workers
themselves. Under capitalism workers compete to see who will work for the
least. Germany was not capitalist.
The Germans opened up for working people all the best sources of
entertainment, opera, theatre, and concert hall. Intellectual resorts that
were once only for the wealthy were made available to all Germans.
The Germans had many socialist programs to help people. There were
inexpensive classes held for those who wanted to advance their calling or
study their trade more. People were assisted in buying houses.
If Socialism means the government doing things to help people then
Germany was socialist. But it rejected Marxist class warfare and hatred.
Alex Vange
Ron Allen <ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<35952B...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> I agree. Communism is anarchist. If there is no state, then there will
> be no submission of the people to the state. Communism is about the
> people, the authority of the community, self-government. Statism is
> about the state, political authoritarianism, big government.
>
Communism is power from below. It is opposed to having the best
statesmen lead the nation.
Here are some quotes form Mein Kampf:
"Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of the
individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it or not,
are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through their work
millions and indeed billions of human beings have been provided with means
and resources which facilitate their struggle for existance.
"Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishes
to-day we always see individual persons. They supplement one another and
one of them bases his work on that of another. The same is true in regard
to the practical application of those inventions and discoveries. For all
the various methods of production are in their turn inventions also and
consequently dependant on the creative faculty of the individual. Even in
purely theoretical work, which can not be measured by a definate rule and
is preliminary to all subsequent technical discoveries, is exclusively the
product of the individual brain. The broad masses do not invent, nor does
the majority organize or think; but always and in every case the individual
man, the person."
"Therfore not only does the organization possess no right to prevent men
of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the contrary, it must use
its organizing powers to enable and promote that ascension as far as it
possibly can. It must start out from the principle that the blessings of
mankind never came from the masses but from the creative brains of
individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of humanity. It is in
the interest of all to assure men of creative brains a decisive influence
and facilitate their work. This common interest is surely not served by
allowing the multitude to rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor
are they efficient and in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted.
Only those should rule who have the natural tempermant and gifts of
leadership."
"Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the
creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass
which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its appearance
only in the administration of the national community especially in the
higher grades; and from their downwards the poison gradually filters into
all branches of national life, thus causing a veritable decomposition. The
destructive workings of Judaism in different parts of the national body can
be ascribed fundamentally to the persistant Jewish efforts at undermining
the importance of personality among the nations that are their hosts and,
in place of personality, substituting the domination of the masses. The
constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus displaced by the
destructive principle of the Jews. They become the 'ferment of
decomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad sence, the wreckers
of human civilization.
"Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewish endeaver
to eliminate the dominant significance of personality in every sphere of
human life and replace it by the numerical power of the masses. In politics
the parlimentary form of government is the expression of this effort. We
can observe the fatal effects of it everywhere, from the smallest parish
council upwards to the highest governing circles of the nation. In the
field of economics we see the trades union movement, which does not serve
the real interests of the employees but the destructive aims of
international Jewry."
"If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the
fundamental importance of the essential principle, if it should merely
varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority
principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its
own ground."
"The best constitution and the best form of government is that which
makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of dominant
importance and influence in the community."
Russian socialism was more like a gang of bandits running the country
than any kind of socialism.
John VanSickle
Guru George wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 00:21:24 GMT, Ron Allen
> <ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Guru George wrote:
> >> Sorry, but these excuses are bathetic.
> >
> >
> >Ron Allen answers:
> >Bathetic or not, the reasons given for the failures of socialism/
> >communism are honest and valid reasons.
The only reason any communist or socialist has given was "That wasn't
real communism/socialism."
>>>Guru George wrote:
>>> Libertarians at least (I don't know about the "right", which I don't
>>> consider myself a part of) understand very well the failures of
>>> socialism and communism, which: a) economically, have to do with the
>>> fact that central authorities (of whatever stripe) cannot centrally
>>> control an economy economically efficiently, because the knowledge
>>> that would be necessary to do so is essentially dispersed; ...
>>
>>Ron Allen answers:
>>Why is the knowledge dispersed?
>
Guru George:
> It is essentially dispersed because a lot of it is *tacit* in
> individuals, a lot of it couldn't be articulated and gathered
> centrally even with the best will in the world - it exists in the way
> we do things, in traditions that are passed on in families, in jobs,
> etc., etc., peoples' ability to form "hunches" when faced with
> patterns, stuff like that.
More to the point, a modern economy involves millions of decisions,
each of which requires knowledge of a unique set of circumstances.
Some would argue that these decisions should be made by an expert,
forgetting that no lettered-and-deputized commissar can have the
information needed to make the right choices for more than a tiny
fraction of the populace, and that making the decisions subject to
majority votes--whether of committees or of the populace at large--
does not improve the quality of the decisions made.
Ron Allen again:
> >How can the knowledge be better
> >gathered? Part of what disperses knowledge is the inability of demand,
> >expressed via money, to express real needs -- because although money
> >supply is very often a variable, human needs do not vary a lot.
The knowledge is dispersed by consequence of the fact that there are
millions of people, all different, and there needs vary far more than
socialism takes into account.
> >If a
> >lot of people in a community become unemployed, for example, the loss of
> >wage income means their ability to communicate their real material needs
> >is diminished, even though their real material needs remain in fact
> >undiminished.
This is nonsense. They are fully able to communicate their needs.
They are also able to pick up the want ads and start looking for other
work.
> >In fact, a market economy expresses its information
> >breakdown in the fact that demand sometimes increases because of a
> >shortage of supplies, or supplies sometimes increase because of a
> >shortage of demand. The fluctuations of price are an expression of
> >communication breakdown, rather than an expression of equilibrium
> >between demand and supply.
> >We are told often that capitalism is better than socialism because
> >socialism implies a centralized clearinghouse of information showing
> >levels of demand and levels of supply.
Not exactly; the criticism is that centralized planning requires
a clearinghouse of information that is far larger in scope than human
endeavor can create. It requires a database of information that
becomes less useful with every birth, death, and haircut in the
populace, every change in weather, and every scientific discovery and
technological advance.
The comparatively far simpler task of conducting a major
war requires enormous volumes of information, and decision-making
cannot lie solely in the hands of the general, or the colonel, or the
major, the captain, or the lieutenant, or the sergeant, but as the
circumstances require, must extend down to the lowest private in the
muddiest ditch, and any attempt to centralize decision-making will
more than likely result in the right man in the right place being
bereft of the power to make the decisions required. Germany's
war on the Ostfront in WWII made this abundantly clear. German
soldiers who were free to make decisions as the circumstances
required worked near miracles of military success against better-
equipped, better-fed, better-clothed, and numerically superior
Soviet forces.
> >And yet in capitalism, market
> >research is conducted by or for private businesses, and the data
> >gathered is often kept secret in order to increase the chances of more
> >profits for those with the most information. This kind of secrecy
> >serves the interests of those who profit most from undisclosed
> >information, but it cannot be said to serve the interests of the human
> >community.
And in what cases would publishing this information be of any
help, or even of marginal interest, to anybody but the competition
of the firm that commissioned the research?
> >When the interface between supply and demand is arbitrated
> >by private marketeers who profit most from either misinformation or
> >disinformation, then we can count upon a regular shortage of supplies
> >and a regular swelling of demand, all in the interest of private
> >profits.
And since the US economy is not marked by perpetual shortages or
overages of supply, whereas every form of socialism has been so
marked, your theory shows a serious disconnect with reality.
Regards,
John
k522...@mindspring.com
When a member of a majority group screws up, we attribute it to character.
When a member of a minority group screws up, we attribute it to race.
And you have displayed this error in thinking here.
So . . . what do you say about the white journalists fired for doing
exactly the same thing?
In article <358D37...@earthlink.net>, catt...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Fired Boston Globe columnist Patricia Smith is a credit to her...well,
> you know what I mean.
>
> Here we have a black woman who is given a job as a columnist(yes,
> "given"...because affirmative action "gives" jobs, it doesn't require
> they be "earned").
>
> A job as a columnist is the most plum assignment a reporter can be
> given. Your picture rides atop your columns--which only require that
> you pontificate about 15 inches of copy 2-3 times a week.
>
> What does the spoiled Patricia Smith do with this gift job? She fakes
> quotes, makes up sources and generally creates a column that is a lie.
>
> Yep, makes you proud that quotas for minorities are in place to assure
> that inner city frauds and fakes like Patricia Smith get precidence for
> jobs over deserving mainstream journalists.
chow yun-fat
On 27 Jun 1998 21:31:14 GMT, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
I think some things need to be clarified as to the
capitalism/communism/facism debate. First, capitalism is an economic
system. Communism and facism refer to doctrinal arguments about the
function of governments. The general economic spectrum runs from
socialism to laissez-faire capitalism. The governmental spectrum runs
from communism to facisim. Though these are minor points, it would
help me better understand the arguments that are being made. It is
perfectly possible, though not very likely, that capitalism and
communism could exist at the same time and place.
Though the workers in Nazi Germany may have been paid a decent wage, I
still insist that the economy was more or less capitalistic- though by
no stretch of the imagination was it laissez-faire. In socialism, the
means of production are publically owned, in capitalism they are
privately owned, though there are different shades of ownership that
can exist along the spectrum. The NSP may not have been pure
capitalism, but they were far from socialism.
Kendall Bader
chow yun-fat
On 27 Jun 1998 23:02:47 GMT, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
> Communism is power from below. It is opposed to having the best
>statesmen lead the nation.
>
Communism is not about power ffrom below, it is about everyone sharing
in power. It is opposed to having a statesman lead the nation because
there is no way to diffinatively test what qualities make the best
statesman. When you say that the opposite of communism has the best
statesman lead the nation, what exactly do you mean by the best
statesman. As often as Mein Kampf has been quoted, I think there is
OVERWHELMING evidence against Hitler as the best statesman. I just
want to know what qualities make a great statesman, and how can these
qualities be tested as to not give an advantage to any person or group
of people.
Kendall Bader
Alex Vange
chow yun-fat <chow_y...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<3595d095...@news.inreach.com>...
> On 27 Jun 1998 23:02:47 GMT, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Communism is power from below. It is opposed to having the best
> >statesmen lead the nation.
> >
>
> Communism is not about power ffrom below, it is about everyone sharing
> in power. It is opposed to having a statesman lead the nation because
> there is no way to diffinatively test what qualities make the best
> statesman. When you say that the opposite of communism has the best
> statesman lead the nation, what exactly do you mean by the best
> statesman. As often as Mein Kampf has been quoted, I think there is
> OVERWHELMING evidence against Hitler as the best statesman. I just
> want to know what qualities make a great statesman, and how can these
> qualities be tested as to not give an advantage to any person or group
> of people.
>
Your overwhelming evidence is only the opinions of the Jewish
controlled media, and they are proven liars.
The best statesman always comes forward in life through the competion
of ideas and organizations. In Germany it was HItler, In Italy it was
Mussolini. If there is any doubt as to who the best stateman is then time
will tell. In Spain it was Franco, even though he wasn't quite as good as
Hitler he had a huge following in Spain and the right wing should support
him unless they want the anachists and the communists to win. In Britain
the best statesman in clearly Tyndal in France it is LaPen.
The best statesman of the Blacks is Farrakhan. What would happen if the
Blacks had communism and they all shared power? Can you picture a great
nation as the result? Their best plan is give Farrakhan the power to get
things done. It is always individuals who make the progress for mankind.
The masses are the lowest common denominator and can never achieve
greatness.
Alex Vange
Ron Allen <ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<35952E...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
Anarchists are saying here that there should be no police. Would
this make a good nation? A good nation has law and order.
Ron Allen
tom.norback wrote:
> Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way
> around.
Ron Allen answers:
Under any name a few human beings can exploit the rest of humanity --
even under the name of christianity. But that fact does not mean names
exploit human beings, nor does that fact mean that ideas and ideals that
speak out against exploitation are themselves naturally or congenitally
exploitative if used by a few unprincipled human beings as a defense or
justification of exploitation. Exploitation under any name is still
exploitation, and both socialism and communism have resolutely taken a
stand against every form of exploitation -- even exploitation by
socialists of socialist ends. In principle, socialism believes that
only socialist methods can achieve socialist goals. Bolshevik schemes
and stalinist programs cannot succeed in bringing about authentic
socialist intentions or communist objectives.
Just because the name "socialism" and "communism" have been employed by
exploitative governments does not mean that the ideas and ideals of
socialism and communism are thereby made blameworthy. The ruling
classes are made more comfortable in their wealth and power over others
as long as most people think that the failure to realize the prospects
of socialism/communism is a judgment against ideas and ideals rather
than a judgment against human beings in power over other human beings.
A reprehensible socialist does not and cannot make authentic socialism
reprehensible. A criminal communist does not and cannot make every
communism criminal. We have yet to overcome those habits of mind that
are the result of centuries of class struggle and the dehumanization of
those without wealth and power. Those ideological habits of mind are
what Lenin's bolshevism retained, and what Stalin's socialism-in-one-
country maintained.
Centuries of class differentiation, where members of the lower classes
were enslaved, insulted and made different from the members of the
ruling classes, have maimed the human and social spirit. Lenin thought
he could lead those wounded spirits into achieving a real community, but
instead we have learned that good ideas must first become a popular
habit of thinking through education that is for freedom before such
ideas can become a public habit of conduct. Rather than the democratic
centralism of Lenin, socialism->communism must be established on
socialistic and communistic principles -- democratic principles.
The USSR was never a community based on socialistic principles. The
official documents of the USSR professed a belief in the future of
socialism and communism, and this was why the USSR identified itself as
a union of socialist republics. The mistake so many make is to take the
name "socialism" and equate that name with the reality of anti-socialism
in the Soviet Union. Rather than establishing the beginnings of a
classless society, the USSR ended up establishing the prolongation and
the hardening of class society. Like social conditions in the USA, the
social conditions in the USSR were seriously affecting creativity until
the creative resources of the former Soviet Union were all but dried up.
Although the Soviet Union's lack of a democratic tradition made its
class society more abusive and dehumanizing, our own amnesiac
obliviousness to our best democratic traditions will make our class
society just as abusive and dehumanizing in the near future. The Soviet
Union may well have fallen, but we ourselves may very well revive the
spirit of stalinism in our own home-grown version of state capitalism or
state socialism -- it does not matter which since both are a form of
statism.
Americans vote more for economic security and less for democratic
security. We seem unwilling to take the risks needed to maintain our
best democratic traditions. The more forgetful we become of our
democratic principles the easier it will be for big government to give
us economic security while relieving us of the insecurities of human
liberty.
Only if we judge the present intelligently and morally can we truly
control the future. Thinking and doing what is customary and acceptable
is no longer excusable. Mistaking the nature of capitalism as a class
society is no longer excusable. And neither is mistaking Russian
communism with authentic communism.
The foundation of every totalitarianism is organized lying, and so each
of us must learn to think differently and reason better with a moral and
social purpose always in mind, and thereby regain the capacity to judge
the present and control the future.
chow yun-fat
On 28 Jun 1998 14:02:13 GMT, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
> Your overwhelming evidence is only the opinions of the Jewish
>controlled media, and they are proven liars.
>
> The best statesman always comes forward in life through the competion
>of ideas and organizations. In Germany it was HItler, In Italy it was
>Mussolini. If there is any doubt as to who the best stateman is then time
>will tell. In Spain it was Franco, even though he wasn't quite as good as
>Hitler he had a huge following in Spain and the right wing should support
>him unless they want the anachists and the communists to win. In Britain
>the best statesman in clearly Tyndal in France it is LaPen.
>
> The best statesman of the Blacks is Farrakhan. What would happen if the
>Blacks had communism and they all shared power? Can you picture a great
>nation as the result? Their best plan is give Farrakhan the power to get
>things done. It is always individuals who make the progress for mankind.
>The masses are the lowest common denominator and can never achieve
>greatness.
>
For overwhelming evidence not written by, as you say it, "the Jewish
controlled media," might I recommend "Inside the Third Reich, Memoirs"
by Albert Speer. In case you don't know, Speer was Hitler's
architect, and later, Hitler's Minister of War Production. It is
clear through the account of one of HItler's most trusted Ministers
that Hitler was not the best statesman. In fact, if Hitler hadn't
been in charge, Germany may very well have won the war. I wish I had
more information about Mussoluni, but the Italian people seemed pretty
happy to see him go.
Ron Allen
Alex Vange wrote:
> Anarchists are saying here that there should be no police. Would
> this make a good nation? A good nation has law and order.
Ron Allen answers:
To an anarchist, the existence of police implies the existence of force
to enforce a law and order which all the people do not respect. If the
basis of law and order is protection of property rights for the wealthy
and the powerful, then such a law and order is favorable to the ruling
class only. The failure of capitalistic law and order, like the failure
of capitalistic democracy, has a lot to do with the goals of its laws
and its order -- the defense and preservation of class privileges.
Anarchists believe people that are capable of self-government are also
able to police themselves.
Ron Allen
Ron Allen wrote:
> Exploitation under any name is still exploitation, and both socialism
> and communism have resolutely taken a stand against every form of
> exploitation -- even exploitation by socialists of socialist ends.
Correction:
> Exploitation under any name is still exploitation, and both socialism
> and communism have resolutely taken a stand against every form of
> exploitation -- even exploitation by socialists for socialist ends.
Ron Allen
Robert Sparks wrote:
> Should I ask what happens between now and then ... i.e. the MATURE
> communist economy?
Ron Allen answers:
That depends upon whether or not old habits can be educated away sooner
or later. At this time socialism and communism must be a theoretical
and practical -- that is to say, a philosophical -- rejection of the
continual centralization of power and wealth. Such resistance to the
protraction and extension of concentrated centers of political and
economic power may take the form of passive non-compliance or armed
struggle, but whatever form such resistance takes it must be a positive,
constructive force. At present socialism and communism are the
opposition, the gathering and ordering of democratic ideas and
humanistic ideals. There are those who resist capitalism by defying
capitalistic society through the action of embracing failure. Although
in the eyes of a libertarian capitalist such action may seem
self-destructive, it is the intention of such actors to better
discover themselves. After all, there is nothing in contemporary
society to equal most of the natural gifts and special abilities that
have been repressed and prevented by the class system which has always
perpetuated imperialism, poverty and the money code.
Between now and then, between late capitalism and mature communism,
while we remain caught between two worlds, one decayed and the other
delayed, every socialist and every communist must stand upon these
democratic socialist principles and more: belief in the decency of
human beings, respect for freedom of speech and appreciation for freedom
of the press, belief in legality against legalism and a respect for
well-founded law, tolerance of unpopular opinions, recognition of the
genuine virtues of the middle class as well as the general virtues of
the common people, resistance to totalitarianism and the elimination of
all class barriers. Socialists must ask and find an answer to the
question: How do we convert the ideas and ideals of socialism into a
workable political program? How are the people to be brought to power?
With the fall of unprincipled Russian socialism and unscrupulous
bolshevik communism, the social gains made during this century in
capitalist countries will disintegrate more and more, until the common
people will feel more and more politically helpless. Without a
powerful communist ally -- even though Russian communism was
subordinate to Russian nationalist interests -- there is no commanding
criticism of the realities of capitalism, and no effective global
challenge to imperialism and the politics of exploitation. Under the
pressures of the capitalist system the moral character of human beings
has deteriorated to such a degree that what is second nature to us seems
to be our only nature, and there are those who believe human freedom
does not include the moral freedom to be honest people with the common
decency needed to form a more decent society. Our diseased society is
itself a product of a diseased economy. If economic exploitation of
others who are powerless and penniless is OK, then it is no wonder that
sexual exploitation of others who are weak or immature has become so
common. We are fools if we think the disease of exploitation cannot
spread from economic relations to every other form of human relations.
Those who cannot make for themselves an admissible successful identity
in a legal market economy can find success in a perverted identity in a
black market economy -- as a pusher or a pimp. Exploitations of the
black market are just forms of exploitation not allowed by capitalist
governments.
Between now and then, we who believe in socialism->communism as the only
cure for, and replacement of, capitalism must be content to articulate
what socialism->communism is not, and what capitalism->fascism are.
Ron Allen
chow yun-fat wrote:
> The capitalist argues that he/she CREATES wealth for the good of all.
> In reality, the capitalist creates wealth by exploiting the working
> class, which is not done for the benefit of that class.
Ron Allen answers:
It is said by those who beat the drum for capitalism that the capitalist
class contributes to production by doing mental work. But to be more
precise, the capitalist class, as the employer class, hires other people
to do both the mental and the manual labor. I know of no formula or
data that delineates what a capitalist employer contributes to the
success of a business, and what employees contribute to the success of a
business. Employers hire employees to do mental and manual labor, and
so employers very often take credit for the mental labor that has helped
in bringing about the successes of a business enterprise.
Why do employers get more credit than they really deserve? Because of
some mythical belief that employers are the intellectual foundation and
backbone of a business. Even many of the decisions made in the ongoing
mission of a business enterprise are made by hired specialists. The
capitalist at the very pinnacle of a corporation often simply decides
between opposed opinions, or makes decisions that influence the overall
mission of the enterprise. Bill Gates does a lot of creative thinking,
according to the information we receive from the mass media. But I
really do not know exactly what Mr. Gates has creatively thought up as
opposed to what his hired experts and advisory staff have thought
up together. Ted Turner has a team of hired consultants, and when Mr.
Turner has an idea it may very well have come from an employee of his.
Of course, I suppose both Mr. Gates and Mr. Turner have had an original
idea or two. But are their ideas really worth the incomes they receive?
The greatest share of the mental work of the employer class contributes
nothing substantial or important to the effective production of goods
and services. One could say that the greater part of the brain work
contributed to production by the capitalist class consists in thinking
up ways to create artificial needs for the consumer, ways to squeeze
more labor value out of the work force, and ways to drive out the
competition; but even here the capitalist class depends a lot upon those
whose mental and research labor they engage to work for them. The
capitalist employer engages the mental labor of skilled advertisers,
who create the propaganda that creates simulated or stimulated needs.
The employer class also retains the mental labor of expert management
technicians, who create the methods that stimulate worker productivity.
If and when the capitalist class does pitch in to contribute to the
mental and manual work necessary for production, this insignificant
sacrifice is but the modest contribution of a few wealthy individuals
among the many working people whose daily contributions and sacrifices
and labors are far more necessary, in aggregate and in association, to
the creation of needed goods and necessary services.
In the context of capitalism, all who work should receive appropriate
wages in remuneration; but capitalism itself resists such a notion of
fair and just wages. There is a very understandable capitalist reason
for paying subsistent wages: private profits. The best way to carry on
commerce more effectively in a capitalist context is to retain as much
capital or obtain as much money as is possible, and whatever serves
these ends is both excellent business and an admirable application of
the arts of negotiation. The lower the wages paid, the more profits the
capitalist gets to keep for both re-investing in the business and
private enjoyment. Under capitalist market despotism, we have learned
to evaluate productive success based upon successful profits -- and we
do not understand this, nor do we recognize it for what it is, nor do we
seem to give a damn.
Ron Allen
chow yun-fat wrote:
> The capitalist takes from the worker, he does not take jobs. In order
> to be profitable, the capitalist MUST pay a worker less then he/she
> produces. Consequently, the capitalist does not take, he.she
> EXPLOITES.
Ron Allen offers a typographic correction:
The capitalist takes from the worker, he does not make jobs. In order
to be profitable, the capitalist MUST pay a worker less then he/she
produces.
chow yun-fat wrote:
> Consequently, the capitalist does not take, he.she EXPLOITES.
Ron Allen answers:
I think this pericope is a typographical error. The capitalist exploits
labor by taking a measure of value produced by labor in the form of
private profits. What is allowed in capitalist relations is that a
capitalist owner of a factory can never do a two cents' worth of work
and still receive from the output of his/her factory a profitable return
of, say, more than two million dollars per week -- money the capitalist
can pocket while each of the workers in the factory may pocket less than
two hundred dollars per week.
Ron Allen
chow yun-fat wrote:
> One would be short-sighted to think that the only labor that has
> existed in history has been farmers. Furthermore, for the capitalist
> to think historically is oxymoronic.
Ron Allen answers:
Interestingly well stated point. Capitalists do not see capitalism as a
product of history, relative to the powerful forces of the present,
related to the injustices and class struggles of the past, and unrelated
to the better possible future -- except perhaps as an interesting
artifact of past structures of inhumanity.
Victor Levis
> I know of no formula or
> data that delineates what a capitalist employer contributes to the
> success of a business, and what employees contribute to the
> success of a business.
Give the man a gold star!!
You're right, Ron, there is no formula. There are cases where the
employer (not always the capitalist, by the way) makes GOOD
decisions and contributes to the creation of value, and cases where
he makes poor decisions, and cases in between.
In any cooperative endeavour, there must be some agreed means
of directing the effort. One way, and it's not the only way, but it
seems to be preferred in many cases, is to have specialists in
direction-giving who arrange to give directions to those willing to
take directions.
Another way to direct cooperative effort is by one-man, one-vote.
A third way is by monarchical tradition.
There are probably many more ways of arranging the direction of
cooperative enterprises, as well.
> Why do employers get more credit than they really deserve? Because of
> some mythical belief that employers are the intellectual foundation and
> backbone of a business.
Of course, it is merely your opinion that employers get more credit than
they deserve.
Entrepreneurs ARE the directing force of their business, and if they
have help-for-a-fee, then they are employers as well.
> The greatest share of the mental work of the employer class contributes
> nothing substantial or important to the effective production of goods
> and services.
Entrepreneurs' function is to make decisions regarding their productive
efforts and those of their helpers. You don't need to measure the exertion
in order to find what value is created. In general, profit is a good
estimate
of the value created by the entrepreneur, so long as you don't ignore
pollution
and other torts or harms to third, non-contracting, parties.
And before you ask, I'll concede that sometimes the value created (or
destroyed) by an entrepreneur has a 'luck' element to it, as well.
> One could say that the greater part of the brain work
> contributed to production by the capitalist class consists in thinking
> up ways to create artificial needs for the consumer, ways to squeeze
> more labor value out of the work force, and ways to drive out the
> competition; but even here the capitalist class depends a lot upon those
> whose mental and research labor they engage to work for them. The
> capitalist employer engages the mental labor of skilled advertisers,
> who create the propaganda that creates simulated or stimulated needs.
However, countless products and services have been both heavily
advertised and, yet, TOTAL BUSTS. There is nothing automatic about
the processes you describe. Of course, if you look only at the most
successful businesses in your analysis, you will see more profits than
is the norm or average.
> In the context of capitalism, all who work should receive appropriate
> wages in remuneration; but capitalism itself resists such a notion of
> fair and just wages.
Perhaps it is your notion of what is just, informed as it is by the
false labour theory of value, that is the problem.
> There is a very understandable capitalist reason
> for paying subsistent wages: private profits. The best way to carry on
> commerce more effectively in a capitalist context is to retain as much
> capital or obtain as much money as is possible
In the capitalist context, subsistence wages are rarely paid. Usually,
the wages paid are much higher than subsistence level.
>Under capitalist market despotism,
How is the free market despotic?
> we have learned to
> evaluate productive success based upon successful profits -- and we
> do not understand this, nor do we recognize it for what it is, nor do
> we seem to give a damn.
I certainly understand how (economic) profit, that is the residual remaining
after deducting (economic) costs from revenues, is a measure of productive
success. I just don't think it's a bad thing, so long as torts are avoided.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Ron Allen
chow yun-fat wrote:
> Capitalist are doing something right. Capitalism increases the
> producative capabilities of a State, and this increased productivity
> is a neceassary precondition for communism/socialism. It is the
> capitalists desire for money that eventually leads to the ultimate
> condradiction within the capitalist argument. In order to maximize
> profits, an employeer must pay his/her workers less then what they
> produce. This causes a surplus in goods that cannot be consumed.
> Capitalists then open new markets to sell their overproduced goods.
> This will all work fine as long as there are new markets to open, but
> the world is finite, and infinite expansion is impossible.
and
> I would love to see the capitalist class make profits without workers.
> I don't think it is possible. On the other hand, a worker can make a
> wage without the capitalist.
Ron Allen answers:
I believe that labor under the rule of capital produces value as wage
workers or wage earners. It is as wage slaves that capital is able to
exploit labor. It is with the appearance of capitalism that labor
becomes wage labor, and it will be with the disappearance of capitalism
that labor itself will become free and rewarding to all equally.
Without the capitalist class, workers will no longer make a subsistence
wage in return for their productive abilities; but all people will
receive whatever they need, and according to their needs, rather than
according to their ability to pay.
Ron Allen
chow yun-fat wrote:
> Growing number of people living at or below the official poverty line
> (which is set artificially low- familty of 3, $12,000); vanishing
> middle class; rise of temporary jobs/under-employment. There is some
> question whether wages are even at the subsistence level.
and
> Fair is a subjective term, just like it is subjectively necessary for
> the capitalist to maximize profits at the expense of workers, the
> environment, etc.
Ron Allen answers:
We have minimum wage laws because elected politicians know that the
subjective capitalist viewpoint, or the class point of view of those who
are members of the capitalist class, regarding a fair and just wage does
not often, if ever, agree with the subjective viewpoint of the workers,
or the class point of view of those who are participants in the actual
production of goods and the real provisioning of services. And elected
politicians have enough practical wisdom to understand that workers'
votes outnumber capitalists' vote by a far greater amount -- even
though many, or most, workers avoid voting.
Darel Finkbeiner
chow yun-fat wrote:
> On 27 Jun 1998 21:31:14 GMT, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>
> I think some things need to be clarified as to the
> capitalism/communism/facism debate. First, capitalism is an economic
> system. Communism and facism refer to doctrinal arguments about the
> function of governments. The general economic spectrum runs from
> socialism to laissez-faire capitalism. The governmental spectrum runs
> from communism to facisim. Though these are minor points, it would
> help me better understand the arguments that are being made. It is
> perfectly possible, though not very likely, that capitalism and
> communism could exist at the same time and place.
>
I agree that the words, and phraseology are getting in the way of a deeper
discussion of the subject.
After reading the many posts here (most notably by Mr. Allen) I think I
now have a better understanding of the idea of communism. As a form of
government, I would ask how it differs from democracy. I understand its
differences from representative democracy, but not from a purer form of
democracy in which each man has an equal say. In fact, at this time, the
descriptions of communism I have seen look quite a bit like a "base"
democracy.
Also, I would ask what you (all of you) think of Plato's vision of the
perfect government. I can see many similarities between those ideas and
the communist ideas expounded here (although I have seen a completely
confusing contradiction in the posts).
on another part of this, the contradiction:
I have read the same writer (sometimes in the same post) saying that in
communism people are free in their labor, not exploited, etc. and then
also that everyone is provided with their needs without respect to their
ability to produce. I see this as a contradiction because the idea of
providing for those that cannot provide for themselves involves taking
production from one point and redistributing it to another. That SOUNDS
very much like the first part is lie if the second part is the truth.
I ask the question simply here (makes it easier to respond):
How can you guarantee freedom of labor while still providing the needs of
all the people? By "freedom of labor" I have taken it to mean that the
labor of a worker is not "exploited", so that "private expropriation" does
not occur. So when "labor" in area A has its production "expropriated" to
area B, who makes the decision that area B is in need of the product or
service, or, in the case of luxury, who might be more deserving of the
product or service. Or in a more individual sense, if a man works a farm
to produce a certain quantity of food, who makes the decision to
"expropriate" some or all of that product to another person? And if the
man decides it would be prudent to eat what he needs and then store the
rest, then some other person must take it by force in order to
redistribute it, so that the community is served. Or so that the workers
of a single factory do not decide to amass amounts of their product for
themselves, thus depriving the rest of equal amounts of the product.
I think above I have stated my most fundamental argument with communism,
that is how the community deals with the individual, or even the small
group.
Ron Allen
chow yun-fat wrote:
> The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. Just like the
> intention of capitalism is to provide everyone with an EQUAL
> opportunity to succeed. This is so obviously mythical, that I won't
> waste my time explaining.
and
> Under communism/socialism, all benefit equally. This is not true
> under capitalism.
and
> But can there be production without a community? What good is an
> individual without a community?
and
> When a communist says that people express themselves in their work,
> he/she means that the person finds FULFILLMENT in work, as opposed to
> just money.
Ron Allen answers:
We express ourselves in our labor when our labor is such that we can be
proud of it and we can share it with others. An artist expresses
herself in her art, and a worker expresses himself in his art. If I am
trustworthy, my work will be trustworthy. If I am honest, my work will
be honest. If I am beautiful inside, my product will express beauty.
If I am cheerful, my product will express joy.
If I am a wage slave, my work will express my condition. If I am an
automaton chained to a machine, my work will express mass production.
If I am an assembly line cog, my work will express my alienation from
the final product. If I am an overworked worker, my labor will be the
labor of a sleepwalker. If I am paid a subsistence wage, my work will
be substandard.
Ron Allen
chow yun-fat wrote:>
> You would scarcely be any of those things [a capitalist, an
> individual, a person] without a community that affords you the luxury
> of being a capitalist, an individual, and a person.
and
> Do you believe that it all gets done under communism. Communism is
> not the end of history, it is the beginning of a new phase of history.
and
> By your [Robert Sparks] argument then, a doctor heals for himself?
> I have no hope of convincing you that you are wrong and I am right;
> that is not what I am attempting to do. I can never be sure of one or
> the other. But you, too, must be open to the notion that you may be
> wrong. People have grown so comfortable with the notion of
> capitalism, that they forget that it did not exist for the bulk of
> human history. Just because we have lived in a world dominated by the
> theories of John Locke and Adam Smith, doesn't mean that we always
> will.
> I know I am not the one that your response was aimed at, but I felt
> the need to answer. I hope that is okay.
Ron Allen answers:
I appreciate your posted messages and reflective responses, and hope you
will contribute more to this newsgroup (alt.philosophy.debate).
Ron Allen
darel wrote:
> actualy Mr. Allen, I appreciate the response. I have always found the
> ideas of Communism alien.
Ron Allen answers:
Even to a communist, the ideas and ideals of communism are alien.
darel wrote:
> I still get a totally confused by your concept of means of production.
> It seems to be a total contradiction to have a society that is so
> "free" and yet must, in essence be so coercive.
Ron Allen answers:
Means of production = productive resources. Whatever things human
beings employ in the process of production are called the means of
production. Most productive resources are also products of human labor.
To employ a machine (means of production) in a factory (productive
resource) is to employ a product of past labor in order to produce a new
product for consumption.
darel wrote:
> It seems anal to deny screwdrivers for private ownership simply
> because a tool or machine is a means of production and is therefore
> community property or, in real-world instances, property of the state.
Ron Allen answers:
When a socialist/communist talks about the abolition of private
ownership of the means of production what is being referred to are those
factors of production which individual labor cannot afford and which can
turn out mass produced products of such a quantity as to force labor
into the factory. Every socialist and communist understands that
factories are what drive labor into factories, because a private
producer of goods simply cannot compete with the cheaper products of a
factory. The goal of socialism and communism is to adapt the factories
(factors of production) in such a way that factory production will
return to production of quality as well as quantity, and factory work
will become humanized rather than dehumanizing.
In socialism and communism, private ownership of a screwdriver is not,
and will not be, a problem. But private ownership of a factory, with
the right of private appropriation (expropriation) of an unequal share
of the total output of factory labor in the form of private profits is a
problem. The factory was made by labor, and the factory is engaged by
labor in producing goods, and yet labor receives less reward from the
total output or value created. Labor receives only some of the
appropriated value earmarked by the capitalist employer to be returned
to hired factory labor in the form of a subsistence wage. Private
ownership of a screwdriver does not imply exploitation of the labor of
others, nor does it imply expropriation of value created by the labor of
others.
darel wrote:
> I do understand, though, the desire for a communistic setting, but I
> do not think such a thing possible. And I would not want it even if
> it were. I prefer my freedom even in my poverty.
Ron Allen answers:
Capitalist ideology has taught us that poverty and freedom can be in
agreement in a human life. But, in fact, where there is poverty freedom
is greatly reduced. Socialism and communism believe that as we reduce
private and social poverty we will increase private and social freedom.
darel wrote:
> In all actuality, I am more of a monarchist than I am a capitalist,
> even though monarchy is often associated in peoples minds with
> slavery.
Ron Allen answers:
I tend to associate monarchism with primitive mercantile capitalism.
darel wrote:
> Yet I prefer the capital model to live in, since it seems to be the
> only "self-healing" "self-correcting" system with working, real world,
> examples.
Ron allen answers:
Interesting preferences you have.
darel wrote:
> While I admire your intentions, I cannot accept the solutions offered
> by communism.
Ron Allen answers:
The ideas and ideals of democratic socialism and anarchic communism do
not need a patronizing indulgence. What these ideas require is the
patronage of idealists with both the intelligence and the intestines to
get the work done. Freedom is yet to be. Justice is yet to be. Unity
is yet to be.
Alex Vange
Ron Allen <ral...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<3596C5...@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>...
> Ron Allen offers a typographic correction:
> The capitalist takes from the worker, he does not make jobs. In order
> to be profitable, the capitalist MUST pay a worker less then he/she
> produces.
>
>
People who start a business create jobs. There is nothing wrong with
profit but there needs to be some limit on how much profit.
> chow yun-fat wrote:
> > Consequently, the capitalist does not take, he.she EXPLOITES.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> I think this pericope is a typographical error. The capitalist exploits
> labor by taking a measure of value produced by labor in the form of
> private profits. What is allowed in capitalist relations is that a
> capitalist owner of a factory can never do a two cents' worth of work
> and still receive from the output of his/her factory a profitable return
> of, say, more than two million dollars per week -- money the capitalist
> can pocket while each of the workers in the factory may pocket less than
> two hundred dollars per week.
That is too much profit and something should be done about that.
The workers should have a fair share of the profit. So we could make laws
that insure that. There is no need to abandon the whole idea of private
profit.
>
Alex Vange
Swartzer <chsw...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SGI.3.95.980625...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>...
> Take the Communist Manifesto, replace the word Proletariat with Race, and
> Bourgeous with Jew. Wahlah, a very good approximation of Nationalist
> Socialism.
> Look, Marxist-Lenninist style communism is not about the working class
any
> more than fascism is about a balance between business and labor. They
are
> both about the complete submission of everyone, worker and capitalist, to
> the state.
>
Fascism does not interfere in people lives unless there is a good
reason. The stop light at an intersection is fascist. The state is telling
people they have to stop when it is red. Horrors.
Alex Vange
chow yun-fat <chow_y...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<359667de...@news.inreach.com>...
> For overwhelming evidence not written by, as you say it, "the Jewish
> controlled media," might I recommend "Inside the Third Reich, Memoirs"
> by Albert Speer. In case you don't know, Speer was Hitler's
> architect, and later, Hitler's Minister of War Production. It is
> clear through the account of one of HItler's most trusted Ministers
> that Hitler was not the best statesman. In fact, if Hitler hadn't
> been in charge, Germany may very well have won the war. I wish I had
> more information about Mussoluni, but the Italian people seemed pretty
> happy to see him go.
I don't plan to read it but you can quote from it if you want.
Hitler may have made some mistakes in the war. I don't like war anyway. I
like HItler's views on National Socialsim. Germany was a real mess before
Hitler came to power and made things right.
This is what Hitler wrote about Mussolini in Mein Kampf:
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principle weapons, the profound reasons for which may not of been
consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes the
best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends all State
boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way. The prohibition
of Freemasonry and secret societies, the supression of the supernational
Press and the definate abolition of Marxism, together with the steadily
increasing consolidation of the Fascist concept of the State--all this will
enable the Italian Government, in the course of some years, to advance more
and more the interests of the Italian people without paying any attention
to the hissing of the Jewish world-hydra.
"The English situation is not so favourable. In that country which
has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost unrestrained
but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."