If America Should Go Communist

orion · February 10, 2007, 12:13am

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism thrives on imperialism, it relies on it. its the creation of a new market.
[/quote]

So you did read the manifesto?

Don`t bother to read the “Capital” it is mostly BS.

[quote]
capitalism also rewards greed, corruption, and disregard for human life(see bayer selling aids contaminated medicine)

i dont think we have an agreement on what socialism is, could you please give an explanation of socialism so i can better understand your argument[/quote]

Socilialism is a collectivist idealogy that first claimed that by socialising the means of production it would outproduce capitalism and abolish poverty and class differences.

Since that did not work, socialists now claim that free market systems are inherently immoral which justifies re-distribution of wealth to “better” society (constructivism) and thereby institutionalises theft and produces laws that only breed contempt for the law.

Is has many signs of a surrogate religion, it is, fE, eschatological and gnostic.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · February 10, 2007, 1:04am

[quote]orion wrote:
I call that free trade on a market place.

What makes your idea a communist one?
[/quote]
Some schmuck like Donald Trump doesn’t end up owning it all.

Again, what does trade have to do with capitalism? How is trade magically abolished by communism? Do people no longer need goods and services for survival because they now share their productives means and ends? Could not communism exist purely in a democratic society where everyone had equal share in their politic as well as the means of their existence?

gladiatorsteer · February 10, 2007, 1:13am

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism thrives on imperialism, it relies on it. its the creation of a new market.

So you did read the manifesto?

Don`t bother to read the “Capital” it is mostly BS.

capitalism also rewards greed, corruption, and disregard for human life(see bayer selling aids contaminated medicine)

i dont think we have an agreement on what socialism is, could you please give an explanation of socialism so i can better understand your argument

Socilialism is a collectivist idealogy that first claimed that by socialising the means of production it would outproduce capitalism and abolish poverty and class differences.

Since that did not work, socialists now claim that free market systems are inherently immoral which justifies re-distribution of wealth to “better” society (constructivism) and thereby institutionalises theft and produces laws that only breed contempt for the law.

Is has many signs of a surrogate religion, it is, fE, eschatological and gnostic.

[/quote]

how does it institutionalize theft?

what are the laws that breed contempt and for who?

Zap_Branigan · February 10, 2007, 1:21am

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
First, I don’t believe it is possible to own land. …[/quote]

You cant “own” property man!

orion · February 10, 2007, 1:52pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
I call that free trade on a market place.

What makes your idea a communist one?

Some schmuck like Donald Trump doesn’t end up owning it all.

Again, what does trade have to do with capitalism? How is trade magically abolished by communism? Do people no longer need goods and services for survival because they now share their productives means and ends? Could not communism exist purely in a democratic society where everyone had equal share in their politic as well as the means of their existence?[/quote]

How does that work? How do I trade if I do not own the goods I trade? How can I claim that those goods are mine if I did not own the means of productions?

If everyone owns everything nobody takes care of it. It is called the “tragedy of the commons”.

What do you do if someone trades exceptionally well and ends up being the Donald?

What if I turn my back on socialised means of production and produce my own?

I do not get how socialising the means of producton makes us better human beings?

If Donald and Paris bother you so much even though the average worker earns more in the US than in socilaist systems you let envy and greed control you.

So what if they?re rich, Trump employes thousands of people.

orion · February 10, 2007, 1:56pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism thrives on imperialism, it relies on it. its the creation of a new market.

So you did read the manifesto?

Don`t bother to read the “Capital” it is mostly BS.

capitalism also rewards greed, corruption, and disregard for human life(see bayer selling aids contaminated medicine)

i dont think we have an agreement on what socialism is, could you please give an explanation of socialism so i can better understand your argument

Socilialism is a collectivist idealogy that first claimed that by socialising the means of production it would outproduce capitalism and abolish poverty and class differences.

Since that did not work, socialists now claim that free market systems are inherently immoral which justifies re-distribution of wealth to “better” society (constructivism) and thereby institutionalises theft and produces laws that only breed contempt for the law.

Is has many signs of a surrogate religion, it is, fE, eschatological and gnostic.

how does it institutionalize theft?

what are the laws that breed contempt and for who?[/quote]

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

And because I like the beginning so much:

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

thunderbolt23 · February 10, 2007, 3:02pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

what state? there is no state under communism.[/quote]

Hmmm - it is always a problem when the capitalists have read more Marx than the folks who advocate Marxism.

You can’t suddenly ‘de-state’ the society - even Marx thought that his plan needed a transition. Before you can get to stateless utopia, you have to have the megastate.

So if you want to shift to public ownership of everything, there must be the transition period. The transition period is where everything falls apart.

Right - but how does the government decide what to produce? Stop speaking abstractly - if the ‘people’ suddenly decide they like pink camouflage sneakers, does the government start making them if there is a 51% majority of people wanting them? A supermajority of 66%? Unanimity? Do you hold a referendum?

Pricing and profit in the private sector can make these decisions collectively with stunning quickness and efficiency. But state controlled production can’t give the people what they want.

Even if you assume a benign and thoughtful megastate that wants to do right on behalf of its people - a fanciful assumption to begin with - the megastate simply has no ability respond to what the people want. When that breaks down, there is one of two choices available:

Give the people a system that can respond and give them what they want in terms of goods (capitalism)
Ignore the people’s demands and decide from the top down what will be produced with the limited resources available (real communism)

Which one sounds like the one that respects the wishes of the ‘people’?

That is communism’s great failure - despite its claims to be anti-elitist and egalitarian, it always morphs into a system where a powerful few start telling the ‘people’ what they want and what they are going to get.

This is a meaningless phrase. ‘People’ and their tastes are quite diverse, and resources are always limited. You clearly haven’t thought about this seriously because you can’t argue away what happens when your fantasies run into the facts on the ground.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · February 10, 2007, 7:27pm

[quote]orion wrote:
How does that work? How do I trade if I do not own the goods I trade? How can I claim that those goods are mine if I did not own the means of productions?
[/quote]

You don’t trade–your commune trades. You live within your commune and get all you need for your existance from it. Symbiotic mutualism. This is the same way Native Americans were able to trade–they didn’t own the land. They lived off of it and traded with the white man and other native groups.

orion · February 11, 2007, 12:26pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
How does that work? How do I trade if I do not own the goods I trade? How can I claim that those goods are mine if I did not own the means of productions?

You don’t trade–your commune trades. You live within your commune and get all you need for your existance from it. Symbiotic mutualism. This is the same way Native Americans were able to trade–they didn’t own the land. They lived off of it and traded with the white man and other native groups.[/quote]

Ah, now I get it.

You want small groups that act like individuals on the free market.

Why not very small groups that work together voluntarily ?

Like friends and families?

Are you a paleo conservative ;-)?

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · February 11, 2007, 9:38pm

[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, now I get it.

You want small groups that act like individuals on the free market.

Why not very small groups that work together voluntarily ?

Like friends and families?

Are you a paleo conservative ;-)?
[/quote]

I wish I had a better grasp of politics and economics so I could explain it. I do not necessarily see the individual “capitalist” as a bad thing but I do see ownership of land as the first step toward enslavement. Not allowing individuals to own the means of production is the first defense against tyranny. I am in favor of individuals, communities, and co-ops taking stewardship of land and being able to produce usable goods from it. In return they would pay taxes from their profits which would go towards maintenance and or governance, etc. This is something like they way it is now except individuals can profit from ownership of real estate. I am totally against this idea. As productive lands become scarce it goes up in price (thus affecting the entire chain of production) and can be used as a means to hold the people attached the land hostage. Real estate in this way is the only form of currency.

In the US it is driven into our heads to be one of influence we must own real estate. For most this is not a reality. Only a very few can own property depending on where they choose to. I am not talking about a few acres out in the suburbs or a corner lot in the city. I am talking about property which is used in the production of goods or is rented to individuals who own their own business which rent is paid to. This does not mean people cannot own their own homes or business either. I know this seems a bit counterintuitive. If one doesn’t own the land how do they own a home or a business on the land? The same way people own condos and town-homes.

All lands would have to be incorporated into some form of government ownership. This would most naturally occur at a very local level like a county or township which would be “leasing” the land at the state and or federal level. As a bonus, democracy would be more effective; especially since people would be expected to interact with their communities.

In a way, I would like to see cities and towns take on a more communal role. This is not a far-fetched idea. It is the most natural governmental concept humans have ever come up with. It is the most ancient form of living around and many if not most communities around the world already live this way. Westerners tend to think of it as backwards because we are used to having our own individual living space and being able to ignore our neighbors when and if we so choose. While I tend to agree with this sentiment it doesn’t make much sense to me. How can we expect to live with each other and get along if we don’t show up and we don’t participate with one another? In other words, we should not expect others to govern us but should want to govern our selves. This is every man’s right, privilege, and responsibility.

But, it has to be voluntary.

orion · February 11, 2007, 10:15pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Ah, now I get it.

You want small groups that act like individuals on the free market.

Why not very small groups that work together voluntarily ?

Like friends and families?

Are you a paleo conservative ;-)?

I wish I had a better grasp of politics and economics so I could explain it. I do not necessarily see the individual “capitalist” as a bad thing but I do see ownership of land as the first step toward enslavement. Not allowing individuals to own the means of production is the first defense against tyranny. I am in favor of individuals, communities, and co-ops taking stewardship of land and being able to produce usable goods from it. In return they would pay taxes from their profits which would go towards maintenance and or governance, etc. This is something like they way it is now except individuals can profit from ownership of real estate. I am totally against this idea. As productive lands become scarce it goes up in price (thus affecting the entire chain of production) and can be used as a means to hold the people attached the land hostage. Real estate in this way is the only form of currency.

In the US it is driven into our heads to be one of influence we must own real estate. For most this is not a reality. Only a very few can own property depending on where they choose to. I am not talking about a few acres out in the suburbs or a corner lot in the city. I am talking about property which is used in the production of goods or is rented to individuals who own their own business which rent is paid to. This does not mean people cannot own their own homes or business either. I know this seems a bit counterintuitive. If one doesn’t own the land how do they own a home or a business on the land? The same way people own condos and town-homes.

All lands would have to be incorporated into some form of government ownership. This would most naturally occur at a very local level like a county or township which would be “leasing” the land at the state and or federal level. As a bonus, democracy would be more effective; especially since people would be expected to interact with their communities.

In a way, I would like to see cities and towns take on a more communal role. This is not a far-fetched idea. It is the most natural governmental concept humans have ever come up with. It is the most ancient form of living around and many if not most communities around the world already live this way. Westerners tend to think of it as backwards because we are used to having our own individual living space and being able to ignore our neighbors when and if we so choose. While I tend to agree with this sentiment it doesn’t make much sense to me. How can we expect to live with each other and get along if we don’t show up and we don’t participate with one another? In other words, we should not expect others to govern us but should want to govern our selves. This is every man’s right, privilege, and responsibility.

But, it has to be voluntary.[/quote]

What is fascinating is that you see some problems very clearly and your solutions are completely off.

Yes owning the “means of production” is the road to tyranny.

If you own other peoples means of making a living, you truly, finally and completely have them by the balls…

So there is a link between private property,i.e economic freedom and at least personal, if not political freedom.

In the capitalist system you can choose between 1000s of masters, if you try to socialise means of production you serve only one, an allmighty bureaucracy.

The capitalists need to behave, they have competition, a government owning everything does not have to do shit.

Your idea that everyone should govern himself is also not compatible with a system that takes away the majority of what you produce.

Quite frankly, you have the instincts of a libertarian and all the answers of a socialist.

Wait till you realize that forced solidarity, humanity and altruism
kills their real equivalents, because forced virtue means only to be enslaved by the fear of the law.

pat · February 12, 2007, 5:12pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
pat36 wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Ok, so the question of the day…Where has communism/socialism worked? Ummmm…Hang on let me think…Ummmm. Oh Yea! NO-FUCKING-WHERE!

has there ever been a cure for aids? no, ok so lets no try to achieve it.

you argument does not hold water.

We haven’t succeeded at raising the dead either. Should we keep trying that failed idea too?

so you are saying that we should stop looking for a cure for aids?[/quote]

Nope, I am saying you should bother beating the dead-horse of Socialism. I hasn’t worked and it won’t work unless you manage to clone a bunch of altruistic sheeple that don’t mind working for nothing.
It hasn’t worked, and it won’t work. Oh, you can babble about it’s virtues all you want. But it’s a failed idea whose time has come and gone. It has been tried many times and failed many times. If it is tried again, it will fail again.
It trumps the natural instinct to suceed. In socailism, “…all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

gladiatorsteer · February 12, 2007, 7:55pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

what state? there is no state under communism.

Hmmm - it is always a problem when the capitalists have read more Marx than the folks who advocate Marxism.

You can’t suddenly ‘de-state’ the society - even Marx thought that his plan needed a transition. Before you can get to stateless utopia, you have to have the megastate.

So if you want to shift to public ownership of everything, there must be the transition period. The transition period is where everything falls apart.

in communism the government cannot ignore what the consumers want since the government is made up of the consumers (the people)

Right - but how does the government decide what to produce? Stop speaking abstractly - if the ‘people’ suddenly decide they like pink camouflage sneakers, does the government start making them if there is a 51% majority of people wanting them? A supermajority of 66%? Unanimity? Do you hold a referendum?

Pricing and profit in the private sector can make these decisions collectively with stunning quickness and efficiency. But state controlled production can’t give the people what they want.

Even if you assume a benign and thoughtful megastate that wants to do right on behalf of its people - a fanciful assumption to begin with - the megastate simply has no ability respond to what the people want. When that breaks down, there is one of two choices available:

Give the people a system that can respond and give them what they want in terms of goods (capitalism)
Ignore the people’s demands and decide from the top down what will be produced with the limited resources available (real communism)

Which one sounds like the one that respects the wishes of the ‘people’?

That is communism’s great failure - despite its claims to be anti-elitist and egalitarian, it always morphs into a system where a powerful few start telling the ‘people’ what they want and what they are going to get.

in communism the government is made up of the people, the entire community (whichever that may be).

This is a meaningless phrase. ‘People’ and their tastes are quite diverse, and resources are always limited. You clearly haven’t thought about this seriously because you can’t argue away what happens when your fantasies run into the facts on the ground.[/quote]

anarchist theory states that the transition period is not necessary and in fact they oppose it. if i remember correctly the “dictatorship of the proleteriat” is a marxist belief and is not inherent in communism. once the state is eliminated, the danger of centralized power is greatly reduced and the power falls into the hands of the masses.

ideally there would still be some form of organizational structure which would be under the complete control of the masses.

in order for this work people would have to make politics and economics part of their daily lives. this is not to say that everyone would have to be an economist as there would be people with more knowledge and experience and these people would serve to inform the population.

in my opinion the only kind of society that would want pink camouflage sneakers is a capitalist society. capitalist society creates artificial wants. capitalism has lead to a marketing machine that now dictates what the people want.

gladiatorsteer · February 12, 2007, 8:15pm

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism thrives on imperialism, it relies on it. its the creation of a new market.

So you did read the manifesto?

Don`t bother to read the “Capital” it is mostly BS.

capitalism also rewards greed, corruption, and disregard for human life(see bayer selling aids contaminated medicine)

i dont think we have an agreement on what socialism is, could you please give an explanation of socialism so i can better understand your argument

Socilialism is a collectivist idealogy that first claimed that by socialising the means of production it would outproduce capitalism and abolish poverty and class differences.

Since that did not work, socialists now claim that free market systems are inherently immoral which justifies re-distribution of wealth to “better” society (constructivism) and thereby institutionalises theft and produces laws that only breed contempt for the law.

Is has many signs of a surrogate religion, it is, fE, eschatological and gnostic.

how does it institutionalize theft?

what are the laws that breed contempt and for who?

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

And because I like the beginning so much:

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it. [/quote]

i agree that a state that can excersize its power over the people is dangerous and can violate people’s right to liberty and property, even if that state claims to be working for the benefit of the nation. however in bastiat’s definition of socialism i think he is implying that there is still some form of bureaucracy and this implies that there is a separation between the people and the state.

in my opinion it would be better to eliminate the such a state and replace it with a new form of government which is directly controlled by the people.

however i cannot argue against the state socialism which is now being seen in Venezuela for example. the exploitation of the country by foreign industries was obvious and the new socialist measures are benefiting the working class which makes up the majority of the population.

gladiatorsteer · February 12, 2007, 8:44pm

[quote]pat36 wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
pat36 wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Ok, so the question of the day…Where has communism/socialism worked? Ummmm…Hang on let me think…Ummmm. Oh Yea! NO-FUCKING-WHERE!

has there ever been a cure for aids? no, ok so lets no try to achieve it.

you argument does not hold water.

We haven’t succeeded at raising the dead either. Should we keep trying that failed idea too?

so you are saying that we should stop looking for a cure for aids?

Nope, I am saying you should bother beating the dead-horse of Socialism. I hasn’t worked and it won’t work unless you manage to clone a bunch of altruistic sheeple that don’t mind working for nothing.
It hasn’t worked, and it won’t work. Oh, you can babble about it’s virtues all you want. But it’s a failed idea whose time has come and gone. It has been tried many times and failed many times. If it is tried again, it will fail again.
It trumps the natural instinct to suceed. In socailism, “…all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.” [/quote]

its time has not come and gone. in latin america there has been a big move to the left.

pat · February 12, 2007, 9:43pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
its time has not come and gone. in latin america there has been a big move to the left. [/quote]

Yes, and the intellectuals, the weatlhy and a good chunk of the middle class are leaving in droves. He WILL have to shut the border down to keep knowledge in that country.

thunderbolt23 · February 12, 2007, 10:07pm

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

anarchist theory states that the transition period is not necessary and in fact they oppose it. if i remember correctly the “dictatorship of the proleteriat” is a marxist belief and is not inherent in communism. once the state is eliminated, the danger of centralized power is greatly reduced and the power falls into the hands of the masses.

ideally there would still be some form of organizational structure which would be under the complete control of the masses.

in order for this work people would have to make politics and economics part of their daily lives. this is not to say that everyone would have to be an economist as there would be people with more knowledge and experience and these people would serve to inform the population.

in my opinion the only kind of society that would want pink camouflage sneakers is a capitalist society. capitalist society creates artificial wants. capitalism has lead to a marketing machine that now dictates what the people want.[/quote]

You realize that you simply aren’t providing answers to the problems I am raising - I don’t care who lays claim to a given theory, I want to know what the practical solution in a given production problem.

Without pricing, profit, and private owernship, how does the collective state decide what to produce and when?

And your attempt to hide behind the “no one would ever want pink camouflage sneakers” hypothetical is weak - modern humans have all kinds of wants outside of bread, water, and shelter. Again, how does the collective state decide in a way that responds to the ever-changing desires - whatever they be - of the masses?

Do you have an answer?

gladiatorsteer · February 12, 2007, 11:50pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

anarchist theory states that the transition period is not necessary and in fact they oppose it. if i remember correctly the “dictatorship of the proleteriat” is a marxist belief and is not inherent in communism. once the state is eliminated, the danger of centralized power is greatly reduced and the power falls into the hands of the masses.

ideally there would still be some form of organizational structure which would be under the complete control of the masses.

in order for this work people would have to make politics and economics part of their daily lives. this is not to say that everyone would have to be an economist as there would be people with more knowledge and experience and these people would serve to inform the population.

in my opinion the only kind of society that would want pink camouflage sneakers is a capitalist society. capitalist society creates artificial wants. capitalism has lead to a marketing machine that now dictates what the people want.

You realize that you simply aren’t providing answers to the problems I am raising - I don’t care who lays claim to a given theory, I want to know what the practical solution in a given production problem.

Without pricing, profit, and private owernship, how does the collective state decide what to produce and when?

And your attempt to hide behind the “no one would ever want pink camouflage sneakers” hypothetical is weak - modern humans have all kinds of wants outside of bread, water, and shelter. Again, how does the collective state decide in a way that responds to the ever-changing desires - whatever they be - of the masses?

Do you have an answer?[/quote]

bread, water, and shelter are not a want they are a need.

what kind of ever-changing desires are you talking about? if you are talking about useless consumer products, then the only reason there is a demand for those is because the demand is created by whoever is trying to make a profit.

for example, how many blades does a razor really need? if schick tells you 3 blades are better than 2 then the consumer will buy the one with three blades. the truth is men would have been just fine with one blade. this is artificial want.

some will argue that this will put a halt to innovation and the invention of new products.

i think this will shift the focus from inventing products for the sole purpose of making a profit to inventing products that will actually benefit our lives.

but lets say that a demand for pink camouflage shoes arises, then the people organize and set a plan for the production of the shoes.

thunderbolt23 · February 13, 2007, 12:18am

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

what kind of ever-changing desires are you talking about? if you are talking about useless consumer products, then the only reason there is a demand for those is because the demand is created by whoever is trying to make a profit.[/quote]

Well, you have talked yourself out of your own argument. First of all, those ever-changing desires include such things as software and protein powder supplements - sound all that radical to you? It shouldn’t - you are on T-Nation after all.

Second, you are doing exactly as predicted - now you are deciding what consumer products are important and which are not. If you respect the wishes of the ‘masses’, you don’t get to decide what is a ‘usless consumer product’ and what is not.

You have made my point for me - in order to the state to control the production, suddenly we need people to decide which products are ‘useless’ and which are not.

Fantastic - and once again, you are showing me exactly what I want. Now you are deciding what consumers should and shouldn’t have - so stop pretending to honor the wishes of the masses when it is clear your utopian society needs important managers to correct the masses’ muddled thinking on ‘wrong’ products.

[quote]some will argue that this will put a halt to innovation and the invention of new products.

i think this will shift the focus from inventing products for the sole purpose of making a profit to inventing products that will actually benefit our lives.[/quote]

Laughable to the point of absurdity. And I can’t say this enough - you know better than the masses what they need and want, so an authoritarian government is what is required to make sure the ‘people’ don’t waste their time on useless products and get products that truly benefit them.

That is a complete non-answer. This still ignores all the concerns I raised - when do you start making them? When a bare majority of the people wants them? A supermajority? Unanimity? Will there be a referendum to check the demand of the people? Better still, when do you stop making them? What if half the original majority that wanted them don’t want them anymore, but the other half does?

Do you have any thoughts other than generic platitudes that crumble under the scrutiny of practical application?

‘The people will organize’ is no answer - and I suspect I am wasting my time asking for one.

gladiatorsteer · February 13, 2007, 5:20pm