[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:You see?
Just as I said, you socialists are, when it comes down to it, thieves taking by armed force.[/quote]
It’s about time you quit pretending to have this high ethical standard, Bill. How do you think capitalism was established? The enclosure of the commons, the expropriation of peasant holdings, and the establishment of markets was all accomplished by force. Capitalism has continually spread through one type of coercion or another.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The second part of your post seems to be based on some mysterious idea that I would like to regulate interpersonal relationships.[/quote]
You do. You just do not realize it. There is no such thing as a non-interpersonal relationship.
The degree of intimacy or familiarity in a relationship does not change its value to society as a whole. Even relationships are subjectively valued.
Furthermore, you do not understand there is no group of people better capable than the market to direct production precisely because the market is nothing more than relationships.[/quote]
All of this post is words standing in for thought. It is only relationships of production with which we are concerned. You are confused by the term “relationship” and you thus mistakenly attempt to expand it beyond its logical scope.
In your slavish devotion to ideology, you attempt to “naturalize” an inverted relationship, i.e., the market, which is properly only an accessory to society, becomes the director of society, with predictably disastrous results.
[quote]florelius wrote:
ok, socialisme is not theft, its the workers who has produced all the welth who are claiming whats rightfully theres. please read proudhons “property is theft”[/quote]
So once a person or persons have built up their business, paying their employees all the while for their labor according to mutual, voluntarily-arrived-at agreement and paying every penny agreed, the business “really” belongs to the employees not to them, you say.
You socialists are fundamentally no different than thieves who say that my furniture, or whatever possessions, are “rightfully theirs.” The only detail difference is that instead of stealing furniture, your system steals means of production from those who built them up and – contrary to your thieving, take-by-force belief – are the rightful owners, as a result of mutually-voluntarily transactions with others and putting their own wealth at risk ultimately resulting in the successful business being built.
Hey, what’s your address and license plate number? I feel like taking your car: it rightfully belongs to me and my friends, I say – we need it, and all you did was put in capital, you added no value – and I’ll get a mob to back me up if you want to try to resist. Who are you to think that you own it?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:However with socialism we get Wall Street creeps being bailed out.
Now, reevaluate your position and tell me exactly how I am wrong.[/quote]
You are wrong in your blatantly dishonest and pathetic attempt to pass off capitalism’s ill effects on socialism. If I blamed the USSR’s numerous human rights violations on capitalism you’d howl, yet this is exactly what you try to do in the other direction. Interestingly, though you did not intend it, you’ve brought up a good point: if capitalism is to survive, if must come up with a new form of “socialism.”
This post is actually a very good illustration of your mentality: you will always believe what you want to believe. You will always find some machination by which to transfer the blame for the problems your ideology always and inevitably creates onto something else, no matter how ridiculous the result.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
ok, socialisme is not theft, its the workers who has produced all the welth who are claiming whats rightfully theres. please read proudhons “property is theft”[/quote]
So once a person or persons have built up their business, paying their employees all the while, it “really” belongs to the employees not to them, you say.
You are no different than thieves who say that my furniture, or whatever possessions, are “rightfully theirs.”
[/quote]
Once again, I am not interested in your bakery. Keep it. We’re talking large-scale industry here.
And you are a thief too, you simply have the advantage of being in the majority.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Socialism is the political expression of unselfishness (altruism). It therefore drains the productive for the benefit of those who aren’t. It is the exact opposite of a meritocracy.[/quote]
It is no such thing. You don’t work, you don’t eat. I’m not sure how else to say this so that you can understand it.
[/quote]
Interesting. What happens if someone doesn’t want to share what they have? Suppose a farmer simply keeps his milk, eggs, and corn for himself and his family?
[/quote]
It depends upon the arrangements which the community and/or farm have agreed upon. If the holdings are his, he can keep them, but hopefully socialism does not entail a return to subsistence farming.
[quote]harduser wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
this is typicall utopian socialisme. you cant start an island of socialisme in a capitalist sea. its been tried many times and it does not work. it is obvius why it doesnt work.
The only way to establish socialisme is trough a revolution, it meens the majority ofthe people abolish the capitalist state and create there owne, and that they nationalize big bussines and give the control to the workers. This can offcourse fail, but if the average person is educated of some sort it has a possibility to sucseed. this meens that a country like the usa or norway can have socialisme because the people have basic education.
[/quote]
I am sorry I don’t understand why it wouldn’t work. Please explain it to me.
The socialist commune should do just fine in my mind, if it works the way socialism says it will. The workers will get more money, they should be producing plenty and competing well, they will be happy and motivated. This commune should lead by example and I’m sure more and more people would hop on the train. But, if as you say, it has been tried many times and it failed, that sounds like a problem. I am interested in learning why exactly it failed.[/quote]
It is interesting to note that this is the way it is supposed to work under capitalism, too, yet it doesn’t, and orion (surprise!) has no problem with that.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
ok, socialisme is not theft, its the workers who has produced all the welth who are claiming whats rightfully theres. please read proudhons “property is theft”[/quote]
So once a person or persons have built up their business, paying their employees all the while for their labor according to mutual, voluntarily-arrived-at agreement and paying every penny agreed, the business “really” belongs to the employees not to them, you say.
You socialists are fundamentally no different than thieves who say that my furniture, or whatever possessions, are “rightfully theirs.” The only detail difference is that instead of stealing furniture, your system steals means of production from those who built them up and – contrary to your thieving, take-by-force belief – are the rightful owners, as a result of mutually-voluntarily transactions with others and putting their own wealth at risk ultimately resulting in the successful business being built.
Hey, what’s your address and license plate number? I feel like taking your car: it rightfully belongs to me and my friends, I say – we need it, and all you did was put in capital, you added no value – and I’ll get a mob to back me up if you want to try to resist. Who are you to think that you own it?[/quote]
you say take away from those who built up the industrys. thats whats capitalisme is all about. we want to give the means of production to those who built it up, the workers. Do you think the owners of general motors can build there automobils alone?
Here is a picture of have capitalisme works: the workers ( most people ) work there ass of, and most of there labor becomes profit who then goes to the wallstreet boys. Then the wallstreet boys fuck up, and the capitalist state juse the peoples money( taxdollars ) to help them out.
I dont have a car, I take the bus.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]harduser wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
this is typicall utopian socialisme. you cant start an island of socialisme in a capitalist sea. its been tried many times and it does not work. it is obvius why it doesnt work.
The only way to establish socialisme is trough a revolution, it meens the majority ofthe people abolish the capitalist state and create there owne, and that they nationalize big bussines and give the control to the workers. This can offcourse fail, but if the average person is educated of some sort it has a possibility to sucseed. this meens that a country like the usa or norway can have socialisme because the people have basic education.
[/quote]
I am sorry I don’t understand why it wouldn’t work. Please explain it to me.
The socialist commune should do just fine in my mind, if it works the way socialism says it will. The workers will get more money, they should be producing plenty and competing well, they will be happy and motivated. This commune should lead by example and I’m sure more and more people would hop on the train. But, if as you say, it has been tried many times and it failed, that sounds like a problem. I am interested in learning why exactly it failed.[/quote]
It is interesting to note that this is the way it is supposed to work under capitalism, too, yet it doesn’t, and orion (surprise!) has no problem with that.[/quote]
I guess that is what you would call idealisme or ron paulisme 
Taking against their will from a person or persons who own something is not, as you would have it, simply “giving” it to someone else, but involves stealing it from the owner first.
You seem to continually neglect the fact that the workers are paid according to a mutually-agreeable plan voluntarily arrived at.
Their deciding, or you and other socialists deciding later that they on top of what was agreed are now going to take the means of production “because it’s theirs” is theft.
I’m not surprised you don’t own a car: it fits.
'Nuff said, I’m done. You’ve given your best answer after many times ignoring what I’d said (though of course you’re free to continue to assert that socialism does not involve stealing means of production by use of force or credible threat of force) and I think everyone will be free to see how bogus your claims are.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Taking against their will from a person or persons who own something is not, as you would have it, simply “giving” it to someone else, but involves stealing it from the owner first.
You seem to continually neglect the fact that the workers are paid according to a mutually-agreeable plan voluntarily arrived at.
Their deciding, or you and other socialists deciding later that they on top of what was agreed are now going to take the means of production “because it’s theirs” is theft.
I’m not surprised you don’t own a car: it fits.
'Nuff said, I’m done. You’ve given your best answer after many times ignoring what I’d said (though of course you’re free to continue to assert that socialism does not involve stealing means of production by use of force or credible threat of force) and I think everyone will be free to see how bogus your claims are.[/quote]
its not I who take the means of productions, its the workers. If the revolution is going to be a succsess it has to be done by the majority of the workers. but ok, we agree to disagree. cheers man 
OK!
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
All of this post is words standing in for thought…[/quote]
I am merely considering all the possibilities that you blatantly ignore.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Taking against their will from a person or persons who own something is not, as you would have it, simply “giving” it to someone else, but involves stealing it from the owner first.
You seem to continually neglect the fact that the workers are paid according to a mutually-agreeable plan voluntarily arrived at.
Their deciding, or you and other socialists deciding later that they on top of what was agreed are now going to take the means of production “because it’s theirs” is theft.
I’m not surprised you don’t own a car: it fits.
'Nuff said, I’m done. You’ve given your best answer after many times ignoring what I’d said (though of course you’re free to continue to assert that socialism does not involve stealing means of production by use of force or credible threat of force) and I think everyone will be free to see how bogus your claims are.[/quote]
The people that claim the free market would be best to dictate the prevailing wage , do not grasp that America is not a free market in regards to labor , we import labor from Mexico , so that we can start way below a wage any intelligent American would work
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
All of this post is words standing in for thought…[/quote]
I am merely considering all the possibilities that you blatantly ignore.[/quote]
Well then this is quite new behavior on your part.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]harduser wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
this is typicall utopian socialisme. you cant start an island of socialisme in a capitalist sea. its been tried many times and it does not work. it is obvius why it doesnt work.
The only way to establish socialisme is trough a revolution, it meens the majority ofthe people abolish the capitalist state and create there owne, and that they nationalize big bussines and give the control to the workers. This can offcourse fail, but if the average person is educated of some sort it has a possibility to sucseed. this meens that a country like the usa or norway can have socialisme because the people have basic education.
[/quote]
I am sorry I don’t understand why it wouldn’t work. Please explain it to me.
The socialist commune should do just fine in my mind, if it works the way socialism says it will. The workers will get more money, they should be producing plenty and competing well, they will be happy and motivated. This commune should lead by example and I’m sure more and more people would hop on the train. But, if as you say, it has been tried many times and it failed, that sounds like a problem. I am interested in learning why exactly it failed.[/quote]
some of the first socialist talked about this. they belived that they could start a commune in the middle of the society, and some of them did. after a short time they did not exist anymore. The problem with this form of socialisme is that it dont realize that a small commune most interact with the rest of the society to survive, and if the rest of the society is capitalist, then they most play by the rules. in other words they most produce for profit so they can trade with the big society. In socialisme you dont produce for profit, you produce only what the people need and wants. So therfor they had to become capitalist or shut down. Thats why you need a revolution of the society. ps the revolution thus not need to be violent, but the capitalistclass will often defend there power with guns.
[/quote]
Excuse me, how do you think companies make profits?
By producing what people need and want.
The more profit, the more succesful they were in producing what people need and want.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]harduser wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
this is typicall utopian socialisme. you cant start an island of socialisme in a capitalist sea. its been tried many times and it does not work. it is obvius why it doesnt work.
The only way to establish socialisme is trough a revolution, it meens the majority ofthe people abolish the capitalist state and create there owne, and that they nationalize big bussines and give the control to the workers. This can offcourse fail, but if the average person is educated of some sort it has a possibility to sucseed. this meens that a country like the usa or norway can have socialisme because the people have basic education.
[/quote]
I am sorry I don’t understand why it wouldn’t work. Please explain it to me.
The socialist commune should do just fine in my mind, if it works the way socialism says it will. The workers will get more money, they should be producing plenty and competing well, they will be happy and motivated. This commune should lead by example and I’m sure more and more people would hop on the train. But, if as you say, it has been tried many times and it failed, that sounds like a problem. I am interested in learning why exactly it failed.[/quote]
It is interesting to note that this is the way it is supposed to work under capitalism, too, yet it doesn’t, and orion (surprise!) has no problem with that.[/quote]
That is precisely how it works and that is why orion likes it.
Orion is just not 20 anymore and has realized that some things take time.
Or are you honestly believing that working conditions are not far better than they were 200 years ago?
Because before the industrial revolution they had become worse for centuries in Europe.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Taking against their will from a person or persons who own something is not, as you would have it, simply “giving” it to someone else, but involves stealing it from the owner first.
You seem to continually neglect the fact that the workers are paid according to a mutually-agreeable plan voluntarily arrived at.
Their deciding, or you and other socialists deciding later that they on top of what was agreed are now going to take the means of production “because it’s theirs” is theft.
I’m not surprised you don’t own a car: it fits.
'Nuff said, I’m done. You’ve given your best answer after many times ignoring what I’d said (though of course you’re free to continue to assert that socialism does not involve stealing means of production by use of force or credible threat of force) and I think everyone will be free to see how bogus your claims are.[/quote]
The people that claim the free market would be best to dictate the prevailing wage , do not grasp that America is not a free market in regards to labor , we import labor from Mexico , so that we can start way below a wage any intelligent American would work[/quote]
Are Mexicans not human people?
Because it seems that the free market works for them.
I find it interesting that a " market" fails in your eyes if it diverts resources from the relatively rich to the dirt poor.
Excuse me, but I am not that cynical, Mexicans need to feed their families too.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]harduser wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
this is typicall utopian socialisme. you cant start an island of socialisme in a capitalist sea. its been tried many times and it does not work. it is obvius why it doesnt work.
The only way to establish socialisme is trough a revolution, it meens the majority ofthe people abolish the capitalist state and create there owne, and that they nationalize big bussines and give the control to the workers. This can offcourse fail, but if the average person is educated of some sort it has a possibility to sucseed. this meens that a country like the usa or norway can have socialisme because the people have basic education.
[/quote]
I am sorry I don’t understand why it wouldn’t work. Please explain it to me.
The socialist commune should do just fine in my mind, if it works the way socialism says it will. The workers will get more money, they should be producing plenty and competing well, they will be happy and motivated. This commune should lead by example and I’m sure more and more people would hop on the train. But, if as you say, it has been tried many times and it failed, that sounds like a problem. I am interested in learning why exactly it failed.[/quote]
some of the first socialist talked about this. they belived that they could start a commune in the middle of the society, and some of them did. after a short time they did not exist anymore. The problem with this form of socialisme is that it dont realize that a small commune most interact with the rest of the society to survive, and if the rest of the society is capitalist, then they most play by the rules. in other words they most produce for profit so they can trade with the big society. In socialisme you dont produce for profit, you produce only what the people need and wants. So therfor they had to become capitalist or shut down. Thats why you need a revolution of the society. ps the revolution thus not need to be violent, but the capitalistclass will often defend there power with guns.
[/quote]
Excuse me, how do you think companies make profits?
By producing what people need and want.
The more profit, the more succesful they were in producing what people need and want.
[/quote]
oh really?
Do you know that the 3 biggest industrys in the our capitalist world is the weapon industry, sex industry and the drug industry!
This Chinese report quite legitimately notes that the US government â??releases Country Reports on Human Rights Practices year after year to accuse other countries, and takes human rights as a political instrument to interfere in other countriesâ?? internal affairs, defame other nationsâ?? image and seek its own strategic interests. This fully exposes its double standards on the human rights issueâ?¦â??
…i don’t think it really matters what system is in place. Either you are a “have”, or you’re a “have-not”…