Liberty in Socialism?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

“You have nothing to say.” pshaw

You’re a joke.

[IrishSteel]

and your responses to the my 7 repsonses to your non-response is still absolute pablum . . . nothing but personal attack and no substance - there’s nothign to discuss if your conversational level is consistent with a door . . . when you actually have something of substance to say - try again

[joebassin]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
and your responses to the my 7 repsonses to your non-response is still absolute pablum . . . nothing but personal attack and no substance - there’s nothign to discuss if your conversational level is consistent with a door . . . when you actually have something of substance to say - try again[/quote]

I’m truly impress by your answer clearly involving pure logic of an unprecedented level and no personal attack as usual.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]joebassin wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
and your responses to the my 7 repsonses to your non-response is still absolute pablum . . . nothing but personal attack and no substance - there’s nothign to discuss if your conversational level is consistent with a door . . . when you actually have something of substance to say - try again[/quote]

I’m truly impress by your answer clearly involving pure logic of an unprecedented level and no personal attack as usual. [/quote]

just speaking the language he understands . . .

[joebassin]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]joebassin wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
and your responses to the my 7 repsonses to your non-response is still absolute pablum . . . nothing but personal attack and no substance - there’s nothign to discuss if your conversational level is consistent with a door . . . when you actually have something of substance to say - try again[/quote]

I’m truly impress by your answer clearly involving pure logic of an unprecedented level and no personal attack as usual. [/quote]

just speaking the language he understands . . . [/quote]

not what I would say looking through your post history…

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
and your responses to the my 7 repsonses to your non-response is still absolute pablum . . . nothing but personal attack and no substance - there’s nothign to discuss if your conversational level is consistent with a door . . . when you actually have something of substance to say - try again[/quote]

If it is nothing but pabulum, then you ought to have no trouble whatsoever in explaining why it is wrong. So do it, and quit dancing around the questions.

[IrishSteel]

herein lies the problem of discussing socialism, communism, marxism, national socialism - all the ideological children of that strain of leftist thinking . . . the historical examples that exists of all of these are denouncedas unpure examples. Since the historical examples are therefore no examples at all - the “theoretical” socialist can proudly stand undaunted by the corpses of the past failures of socialism and decry them as contemplible and pitiful excuses for “true” socialism.

From this lofty perch, they then survey the only truly successful economic system and the one enlightened political system (capitalism and democracy for the uninformed) and criticize freely all of the shortcoming, failures, dir epredictions about the future akin to something like the crazy old man with the “end of the world” sign downtown . . . no one can prove their ideology wrong, because their ideology has never actually been tested. So smug in the unverified supoeriority of their untested ideology they proudly and loudly claim that all of the ills of the present world can easily be remedied by their “trial” version of socialism - a little snake oil will do wonders for your gout - and if it turns out that that particular socialist trial were to fail as well, well then the problem was with the manner of implementation - not the theory itself.

It is the one perennial plant that despite all of the people it has poisoned and killed still claims to be the cure-all for what ails mankind - we’re just getting the dosage and manner of preparation wrong. If only we had added this, or removed that, it would not have had such disastorous results.

And so they march on - merrily dancing to their diabolical pied piper, blithely ignoring the dead and dying it leaves in its wake - each new batch of dewey-eyed sheep that it recruits from college campus happily join this sinisterly giddy band and being two steps removed from the horror and bloodbaths of the past attempts find this “new” comraderie so wonderfully stimulating that they blindly accept any amount of indoctrination their new masters will foist upon them.

And so we find ourselves, several generation removed from that self-loathing man whose dasterdly theorems and hate-creating prose has cuased so much death and suffering among mankind, still fighting the demon-spawned children of that dread master. We watch them grow and fester into another roiling mass of hatred-spewing venomous agents of doom, and we see where this road still leads, and we see the bodies it has left behind and we wonder will this madness never stop? Will truth never win out over this perniscious strain of ideological murder? How many deluded fresh-faced youths will fall under the spell of this inhumane way of classificaiton of mankind as nothing more than a worker, his value as nothing more than a unit of production capapcity . . . marx was the ultimate materialist - his entire world wrapped up in dollars and profits . . . and yet those who listen to the siren call of the socialist believe themselves to be above such petty thoughts, when their thought s are only and always about money - life for them is undefineable in any other language.

And yet as we fight this insidious creature, and fight it we must, we must always be mindful that it is only poor bequiled children on the other side - dangerous as they are - still only misguided children.

I can argue all day long about the ills and evils of the socialist’s experiments upon his fellow man. I can take you to the graves and the gulags, the ovens and the battlefields. I can remind you that every time this diseased riddden corpse of an idea is trotted out and forced upon humanity it is always at the point of a gun and always with the Rider of the Pale Horse as its companion. Aye, death and misery are the constants of any socialist expirement and thus it will always be - for if you will not dance for the diabolical pied piper you must surely swing.

To convince the deluded of these truths is to try to trap a ghost in your palm. They wistfully flit from idea to idea savoring the intoxicating nectar that is slowly poisoning them to death mindless of their danger and of the horrors that await. Like opium-addicts they will not stir from their hazy reflections even as the house burns down upon their heads. Leave me be, they say, you have not seen the wonders that I have seen. and so they remain in their stupor, little realizing that the visions that dance in their minds are no more real than the gods of Olympus. merely constructs of the imagination and nothing more.

It is in great sorrow that we watch them in their tireless march. But it is only they themselves who can rouse themselves from their stupor and lift their eyes to the light of reality and to their immediate danger.
Sadness surrounds them and it will follow them all the way to the graves of the next socialist expirement.

“We told you so” will ring as hollow then as it does now, alas what are we to do?

Marx has doomed us all to share this fate and until the day that God wipes every tear from our eyes, I fear this evil will tarry and torment us always . . .

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

Let’s just start with 1A. Foundational flaw = Not all resources, production or products are collectively produced.

I responded:

Inputs are commodities too, but your model treats them as if they fall from heaven. Today’s division of labor guarantees that everything is collectively produced, and in a sense must be, to maintain a high level of efficiency.

This is not a personal attack (my, your feelings are easily hurt–perhaps the politics forum is not the place for you). Respond, or quit being a coward and admit that you are wrong.

You miss the foundational principles of capitalism and in doing so you fail to understand the inherent equality built into the structure.

I responded:

Look around you: bankers, who used other people’s money to speculate on risky assets, and then lost their shirts get bailed out and receive record-breaking bonuses to boot. The oil industry is responsible for one of the biggest environmental disasters in history, and they begin lobbying for more drilling. It was even worse in the 19th century, and in developing countries today, to which we have exported many of the important functions of capitalism. Do you think the workers in the “dark satanic mills” of the 19th century (which was much closer to your pined-for pure capitalism, and was commensurably fuller of flaws and contradictions for it) saw any “inherent equality” in the system that made them work 16 hours a day beside their children for meager wages that many times were not even paid in cash?

And then, I gave you a chart demonstrating the inaccuracy of your statement:

These are facts, not opinions and not insults. Respond, or admit your error and change your opinions to conform with reality.

In a capitalist society, the means of production are available to be privately owned by any individual or any legal entity representing a group of people bound together in common interest. The freedom of private property.

I responded:

Take another look at the chart I provided, and in light of that information, please explain to me how average people are supposed to become owners of means of production with a dwindling share of society’s total wealth.

A legitimate question, which you of course ignored.

You wrote:

Next foundational flaw of 1A = profits are not just collected by a small group. This is based on a misconception of profitability. The generic term profits used by corporations (which is the definition socialism bases it criticisms of capitalism upon) is that money remaining after all expenses of operation are paid.

I responded:

[quote]Sorry, again you are flat wrong:

“Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries (based on a comparison of corporate sales and country GDPs).”

http://www.corpwatch.org/....php?id=377#key

You attempt to get around this via a weasely definition of “profits,” i.e., you expand the definition from its traditional denotation of the returns on investment to include all sort of other things. But this doesn’t help you either, because wages in this country have been stagnant for the last 30 years. Chart:

http://www.eoionline.org/...1_ProdWages.jpg[/quote]

Notice the two links I gave you, to substantiate my claims. They stand out conspiculously against your lack of any documentation or supporting evidence whatsoever. Respond, or admit your mistake.

It quickly becomes apparent, when reviewing the course of the discussion, that all you offer are propaganda points, divorced from the reality of the capitalist system, and then you insult me when I dare to question them, and sulk when I demonstrate their insufficiency.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

Strong words for someone who has been utterly refuted and humiliated. You still have nothing to say? You have been comprehensively proven wrong in every respect and you know it (hence your extreme evasiveness and unwillingness to answer any questions) yet you cling to your delusions like a frightened child. Very few people in this world have the strength of character to seriously question their long-held beliefs. It comes as no surprise that you are not one of them. Have a nice life knowing you are just another spineless automaton, who swallows everything he is told from birth.

[joebassin]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
herein lies the problem of discussing socialism, communism, marxism, national socialism - all the ideological children of that strain of leftist thinking . . . the historical examples that exists of all of these are denouncedas unpure examples. Since the historical examples are therefore no examples at all - the “theoretical” socialist can proudly stand undaunted by the corpses of the past failures of socialism and decry them as contemplible and pitiful excuses for “true” socialism.

From this lofty perch, they then survey the only truly successful economic system and the one enlightened political system (capitalism and democracy for the uninformed) and criticize freely all of the shortcoming, failures, dir epredictions about the future akin to something like the crazy old man with the “end of the world” sign downtown . . . no one can prove their ideology wrong, because their ideology has never actually been tested. So smug in the unverified supoeriority of their untested ideology they proudly and loudly claim that all of the ills of the present world can easily be remedied by their “trial” version of socialism - a little snake oil will do wonders for your gout - and if it turns out that that particular socialist trial were to fail as well, well then the problem was with the manner of implementation - not the theory itself.

It is the one perennial plant that despite all of the people it has poisoned and killed still claims to be the cure-all for what ails mankind - we’re just getting the dosage and manner of preparation wrong. If only we had added this, or removed that, it would not have had such disastorous results.

And so they march on - merrily dancing to their diabolical pied piper, blithely ignoring the dead and dying it leaves in its wake - each new batch of dewey-eyed sheep that it recruits from college campus happily join this sinisterly giddy band and being two steps removed from the horror and bloodbaths of the past attempts find this “new” comraderie so wonderfully stimulating that they blindly accept any amount of indoctrination their new masters will foist upon them.

And so we find ourselves, several generation removed from that self-loathing man whose dasterdly theorems and hate-creating prose has cuased so much death and suffering among mankind, still fighting the demon-spawned children of that dread master. We watch them grow and fester into another roiling mass of hatred-spewing venomous agents of doom, and we see where this road still leads, and we see the bodies it has left behind and we wonder will this madness never stop? Will truth never win out over this perniscious strain of ideological murder? How many deluded fresh-faced youths will fall under the spell of this inhumane way of classificaiton of mankind as nothing more than a worker, his value as nothing more than a unit of production capapcity . . . marx was the ultimate materialist - his entire world wrapped up in dollars and profits . . . and yet those who listen to the siren call of the socialist believe themselves to be above such petty thoughts, when their thought s are only and always about money - life for them is undefineable in any other language.

And yet as we fight this insidious creature, and fight it we must, we must always be mindful that it is only poor bequiled children on the other side - dangerous as they are - still only misguided children.

I can argue all day long about the ills and evils of the socialist’s experiments upon his fellow man. I can take you to the graves and the gulags, the ovens and the battlefields. I can remind you that every time this diseased riddden corpse of an idea is trotted out and forced upon humanity it is always at the point of a gun and always with the Rider of the Pale Horse as its companion. Aye, death and misery are the constants of any socialist expirement and thus it will always be - for if you will not dance for the diabolical pied piper you must surely swing.

To convince the deluded of these truths is to try to trap a ghost in your palm. They wistfully flit from idea to idea savoring the intoxicating nectar that is slowly poisoning them to death mindless of their danger and of the horrors that await. Like opium-addicts they will not stir from their hazy reflections even as the house burns down upon their heads. Leave me be, they say, you have not seen the wonders that I have seen. and so they remain in their stupor, little realizing that the visions that dance in their minds are no more real than the gods of Olympus. merely constructs of the imagination and nothing more.

It is in great sorrow that we watch them in their tireless march. But it is only they themselves who can rouse themselves from their stupor and lift their eyes to the light of reality and to their immediate danger.
Sadness surrounds them and it will follow them all the way to the graves of the next socialist expirement.

“We told you so” will ring as hollow then as it does now, alas what are we to do?

Marx has doomed us all to share this fate and until the day that God wipes every tear from our eyes, I fear this evil will tarry and torment us always . . .[/quote]

You should write a book and the title could be : Gibberish thoughts

[IrishSteel]

don’t know why I am bothering, must be because I love you man . . .

You stated that “Inputs are commodities too, but your model treats them as if they fall from heaven. Today’s division of labor guarantees that everything is collectively produced, and in a sense must be, to maintain a high level of efficiency.” - I respond that my “model” was a generic example fo how resources can be privately owned and utillized - your introduction of inputs rightly points out that any contributed input into the production stream is also a commodity, but that does not alter the base construciton of my argument at all. It merely points out that there are mor ecomplex models of my basic example at work in various forms throughout the economic system. I point i readily concede, but also emphatically insist that it doe snot alter the basic argument. You merely introduced a more complex version and somehow assume that this proves the “collectivity” of all production. - this is a descriptive that oversimplifies a very complex interaction of multiple (thus independent) item producres, resource providers, and product consumers plus many other non-collective memebers. All your doing is making the case that since we all live on the sma eplanet we are connected and thus collective - when in reality we are divided but all sorts of barriers, divisions and borders not to mention our own individual freedom of inaction/action.

you stated “Look around you: bankers, who used other people’s money to speculate on risky assets, and then lost their shirts get bailed out and receive record-breaking bonuses to boot. The oil industry is responsible for one of the biggest environmental disasters in history, and they begin lobbying for more drilling. It was even worse in the 19th century, and in developing countries today, to which we have exported many of the important functions of capitalism. Do you think the workers in the “dark satanic mills” of the 19th century (which was much closer to your pined-for pure capitalism, and was commensurably fuller of flaws and contradictions for it) saw any “inherent equality” in the system that made them work 16 hours a day beside their children for meager wages that many times were not even paid in cash?” - you speak of each group as acting as a single organism when there are again a variety of independent actors, investors, regulators, and a myriad of other actors upon each aspect of your “description”. you appealed to the worst examples of human nature as indictments of capitalism while ignoring the fact that the same human nature that caused those horrible conditions resulted in the deaths of millions under socialism and capitalism around the world. You point to the system as the source of evil when we point to the humans in the system as the source of evil. Socialism will not cure the evil in mens hearts and the same exploiters that took advantage of capitalism did and will take advantage of socisliam in ANY form as well. You hav eonly proven the dark depths of the human souls, not an inherent weakness of capitalism.

you said “Take another look at the chart I provided, and in light of that information, please explain to me how average people are supposed to become owners of means of production with a dwindling share of society’s total wealth.” - to which i respond by saying that you are seeing the affect of socialist policies on a free-market as government regulation strangles the life out of it. The only thing your chart proves is that a restricted market trending towards socialism destroys wealth. You chart only proves that capitalism is to be preferred to restrictiv egovernment control of the free market.

you said “You attempt to get around this via a weasely definition of “profits,” i.e., you expand the definition from its traditional denotation of the returns on investment to include all sort of other things. But this doesn’t help you either, because wages in this country have been stagnant for the last 30 years. Chart:” - to which i reply that the stagnant level of wages again reflects the realities of increased government stricture on a system designed to be free of such birdensome barriers like “minimum wage levels”. Your chart of wage stagnation does not prove my definition and explanation fo rpofits wrong - it is only descriptive of the affects of government interferenc einthe market place.

you see, you answers were unrelated to my posts - that’s why i posted such abbreviated answers to them the first time. Ayone could see that they were not connected and that they did not estblish anything that you thought they did.

Now you can admit you were wrong . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Strong words for someone who has been utterly refuted and humiliated. You still have nothing to say? You have been comprehensively proven wrong in every respect and you know it (hence your extreme evasiveness and unwillingness to answer any questions) yet you cling to your delusions like a frightened child. Very few people in this world have the strength of character to seriously question their long-held beliefs. It comes as no surprise that you are not one of them. Have a nice life knowing you are just another spineless automaton, who swallows everything he is told from birth.[/quote]

LMAO - wow, you sure are full of yourself . . . I have yet to be proven wrong by a single statement of yours. You make unconnected responses sound like pearls of wisdom when in reality they merely illustrate your inability to actually and honestly discuss this issue. Your are one of the saddest examples of deluded socialists I have ever seen. the personal venom just spews out you like a fountain of bile. There is no shred of humanity left inside of that oversized ego of yours is there? You don’t know me from Adam and yet you have the gaul to make statements like “you are just another spineless automaton, who swallows everything he is told from birth.” <— this is the prime example of a “little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” someone filled your head with some pretty sounding words and on you go parroting like a parakeet on speed thinking all the while that arrogance is the same as confidence, deragatory remarks are the same as proving a point and hoping no one notices your utter lack of civility and true independence of thought . . . much luck to you, my friend. you’re going to need it.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]joebassin wrote:
You should write a book and the title could be : Gibberish thoughts
[/quote]

just so long as you will let me quote you . . .

[PAINTRAINDave]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
…something like the crazy old man with the “end of the world” sign downtown[/quote]

You have one too? lol

But seriously, very entertaining post with some excellent points. +1

[joebassin]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]joebassin wrote:
You should write a book and the title could be : Gibberish thoughts
[/quote]

just so long as you will let me quote you . . .[/quote]

If you want to put some sense in it, it’s your book after all.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
don’t know why I am bothering, must be because I love you man . . .[/quote]

It is probably because the cognitive dissonance is beginning to weigh on you.

You stated that “Inputs are commodities too, but your model treats them as if they fall from heaven. Today’s division of labor guarantees that everything is collectively produced, and in a sense must be, to maintain a high level of efficiency.” - I respond that my “model” was a generic example fo how resources can be privately owned and utillized - your introduction of inputs rightly points out that any contributed input into the production stream is also a commodity, but that does not alter the base construciton of my argument at all. It merely points out that there are mor ecomplex models of my basic example at work in various forms throughout the economic system. A point i readily concede, but also emphatically insist that it doe snot alter the basic argument. You merely introduced a more complex version and somehow assume that this proves the “collectivity” of all production.

It does not “merely” complicate the situation, it fundamentally alters its nature. I am not arguing that independent production is impossible, but that it does not occur in capitalism. For markets to be responsive to market forces, and thus for them to function correctly, inputs need to be for sale. The fact then, that labor is linked in this way alters the dynamics of the system, much as allowing the particles of a gas to interact with each other alters the dynamics of that system. At any rate, it certainly disproves your allegation that “not all items are collectively (i.e., socially) produced.”

You merely introduced a more complex version and somehow assume that this proves the “collectivity” of all production. - this is a descriptive that oversimplifies a very complex interaction of multiple (thus independent) item producres, resource providers, and product consumers plus many other non-collective memebers.

How exactly does introducing a variable that you neglect oversimplify the situation? You are speaking unintelligibly again. On the contrary, it is you who ignores the vast number of interactions in the economy when you want to pretend that producers are atomized. In attempting to get away from anything that might cause you to inadvertently acknowledge the accuracy of Marx’s analysis, you seperate yourself from reality and wander into all sorts of errors. This is the problem with formulating your conclusions before analyzing the facts.

All your doing is making the case that since we all live on the sma eplanet we are connected and thus collective - when in reality we are divided but all sorts of barriers, divisions and borders not to mention our own individual freedom of inaction/action.

Not at all. I am not connected in any way with isolated, primitive tribes in South America. They are not part of the global capitalist economy. However, you again drift into absurdity when you deny the manifest relationships and interdependencies of the market.

you stated[…]you speak of each group as acting as a single organism when there are again a variety of independent actors, investors, regulators, and a myriad of other actors upon each aspect of your “description”. you appealed to the worst examples of human nature as indictments of capitalism while ignoring the fact that the same human nature that caused those horrible conditions resulted in the deaths of millions under socialism and capitalism around the world. You point to the system as the source of evil when we point to the humans in the system as the source of evil.

Well, well, well! What do we have here? All of a sudden, you’re hesitant to put the blame on the system! Where does this come from? Only one or two posts ago you were sobbing for the millions of “victims of socialism,” but now you want to make a closer inspection when it is capitalism on trial? Do I have to point out what enormous hypocrisy this is? Do you really not get it? Does it not eat at you to know how dishonest you’re being?

And, almost the worst part is, your analysis is juvenile at best. Of course human nature is a problem. That is why socialists and communists propose to dispense with the failed notion of one class “benevolently” ruling over all others, and to put the power in the hands of the citizenry. When the citizens are the government, the government has no reason to oppress anyone. It is precisely the aim of socialism and communism to defang, and render powerless the baser aspects of human nature, which capitalism is not capable of doing.

Socialism will not cure the evil in mens hearts and the same exploiters that took advantage of capitalism did and will take advantage of socisliam in ANY form as well. You hav eonly proven the dark depths of the human souls, not an inherent weakness of capitalism.

I’ll again take this time to point out how hilariously duplicitous you’re being. I assume you retract your statements about the “victims of socialism?”

But to the point, as I stated above, it is not the intent of socialists or communists to “reform” human nature. Rather, it is to construct a system that does not allow the human nature of a minority to exploit the majority, by investing the majority with the capacity to defend itself by overruling narrow interests. Capitalists, on the other hand, have instituted such exploitation, and made it policy.

you said “Take another look at the chart I provided, and in light of that information, please explain to me how average people are supposed to become owners of means of production with a dwindling share of society’s total wealth.” - to which i respond by saying that you are seeing the affect of socialist policies on a free-market as government regulation strangles the life out of it. The only thing your chart proves is that a restricted market trending towards socialism destroys wealth. You chart only proves that capitalism is to be preferred to restrictiv egovernment control of the free market.

Well, despite the fact that this strange allegation immediately raises the question, of what exactly is socialist about our policies of tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of industry, and cuts to social services, but I won’t ask it. Instead, I’ll concentrate on the successes of our socialist economy. We have the highest standard of living in the world, and our GDP far exceeds that of our closest rival. You asked for examples of successful socialism–how about the biggest, most successful economy in the world?

[quote]you said[…]- to which i reply that the stagnant level of wages again reflects the realities of increased government stricture on a system designed to be free of such birdensome barriers like “minimum wage levels”. Your chart of wage stagnation does not prove my definition and explanation fo rpofits wrong - it is only descriptive of the affects of government interferenc einthe market place.[/quote][

Well then I again direct you to the resounding successes of socialism.

I trust you see the problem with trying to blame everything on socialism. In addition, you have some ‘splainin’ to do, in order to clarify how exactly socialism prevailed in the most staunchly capitalist, anti-socialist country in world. Conspiracy theory?

you see, you answers were unrelated to my posts - that’s why i posted such abbreviated answers to them the first time. Ayone could see that they were not connected and that they did not estblish anything that you thought they did.

Simply because you are unable to comprehend all of the implications of a statement does not mean that others share your shortcomings. Rather, it just means that your theories are full of holes you didn’t see.

Or, it could have just been a pathetic attempt to dance around questions that you have no answers for.

Now you can admit you were wrong . . .

Don’t worry, if you even come close to refuting me, I’ll admit it.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

IrishSteel wrote:LMAO - wow, you sure are full of yourself . . .

He says this, after writing the most contrived attempt at an eloquent, emotional, profound post that I have ever seen. And still the irony escapes him.

I have yet to be proven wrong by a single statement of yours.

You almost have yet to make a statement that I have not proved wrong. From your contention that the USSR was truly socialist when it had 0 of 100+ years old agreed upon properties of socialism, to your asinine death toll estimates, to your palpably absurd statements that the Soviet economy was unimpressive and left the Russians “poorer in many ways” than they were under the czar. EVERYTHING you have said is wrong to some degree, andI have given you ample documentation to prove it, which you comprehensively ignored, and then claimed wasn’t there because you “didn’t see it.”

You make unconnected responses sound like pearls of wisdom when in reality they merely illustrate your inability to actually and honestly discuss this issue.

Such as? Care to give an example? By my count, most of my responses were highly relevant and usually point out a fundamental error or logical fallacy in your statement. If this weren’t the case, why is it like pulling teeth to get you to answer a question? Why won’t you respond to any of my posts? Why do you revert back to 7 years old and copy what I say to you? Answer this question: do you seriously contend that you are not full of shit? If so, why?

By the way, does “honestly discussing the issue” include ignoring provided facts and refusing to answer questions?

Your are one of the saddest examples of deluded socialists I have ever seen. the personal venom just spews out you like a fountain of bile. There is no shred of humanity left inside of that oversized ego of yours is there? You don’t know me from Adam and yet you have the gaul to make statements like “you are just another spineless automaton, who swallows everything he is told from birth.” <— this is the prime example of a “little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” someone filled your head with some pretty sounding words and on you go parroting like a parakeet on speed thinking all the while that arrogance is the same as confidence, deragatory remarks are the same as proving a point and hoping no one notices your utter lack of civility and true independence of thought . . . much luck to you, my friend. you’re going to need it.

Well then what a strange coincidence that all the facts support my statements, not yours. How did that happen, I wonder? Also, wha are the chances that here in the US, in Tennessee of all places, I have been brainwashed into becoming a communist? What are the chances that you have actually, honestly questioned your fundamental beliefs, and emerged with all of them completely intact! Happy day! I guess it’s just a fortunate accident that after all your soul-searching, the right answers turned out to be the ones you’ve were spoon-fed your entire life. How lucky! You didn’t have to do anything hard! You were right about everything all along!

Like I said, few people in this world have the courage to be completely honest with themselves. It’s why most Indians are Hindu, most Americans are Protestant, not Catholic, and it’s why you’re a capitalist.

[IrishSteel]

LOL - why yes, the cognitive dissonance of your explantions is defnitely weighing on me. It’s very hard to hear this socialist economic nonsense touted as genuine thought. . .

You’re merely introduced a more complex picture of the model i used to demonstrate the freedom of private ownership in a vain attempt to introduce your “talking point” of dependent production. The guy who sells watermelons and tomoatoes on the route 221 is proof that independent production is entirely possible and a regular occurrence in capitalism. He owns his land, the water that he uses for irrigation and the seeds and seed plot that his produce comes from - there is an easy example of perfectly independent production within capitalism. I make deerskin boots and jackets, I load my own shells, I hunt on public land, I skin and tan my own skins, I’ve made my own tools, and I produce my own products - another simple example of independent production within capitalism. That is why I called your introduction of your standard talking point an oversimplification - there are countless examples of exactly the same thing happening all around the world in capitalism daily! You cannot understand the world apart from how it has been explained to you because you have not bothered to actually get out and see how the world actually functions. And regardless of whether or not there is “truly independent” production - it does not negate the actual concept demonstrated by my model which was that of individual freedom within the capitalist system. That is why it is unrelated. You are sticking to your talking point without actually addressing the point proven by the generic model. You only have your indoctrination and rely on it to the exclusion of the reality of the conversation.

The accuracy of Marx’s analysis? PUleeezz! PROVE IT WITH A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE OF WHERE HIS “ANALYSIS” PRODUCED ANY TANGIBLE POSITIVE RESULTS ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF CAPITALISM!!

Nobody is denying the relationships existing within the multiple facets of the capitalist economic system - they are right there! To term these relationships as a collective fails to meet the following basic criteria of a collective: 1. Collective ownership - fail, independent ownership; 2. collective sets all standards - fail, independent standards; 3. collective price controls - fail, independent pricing; 4. collective distribution of resources - fail, independent distribution of resource - and those are just the basics. Do they function well together and exist within a mutually beneficial network - yes. But a network is not a collective in the standard definition of a collective. Your trying to pound a square peg through a round hole. Again, because you are merely parrotting socialist talking points without comnprehending the actual nature of the system you are criticizing.

No, I’m not being dishonest - I freely admit that there are evil mean who take advantage of both systems. However, within capitalism and its myriad of independent operators and with its emphasis on freedom of the individual, the evils of man are more dissipated in their overall affect due to this ability to freely sever relationships, choose new partners, etc. In a socialist system, the evils of man are magnified, because the whole system is self-contained - there is no escape, there is no alternative there is no freedom to choose another way. If evil men rise to a position of prominence within a capitalist market, they can be thwarted, negated, avoided and removed from that position of prominence because they are not the single collective. Within a collective, if evil men rise to a position of prominence there is no capacity for thwarting them, negating them, avoiding them or removing them from that position of prominence. The systems are neutral in regards to evil or good - they are just systems. Once you plug in humanity to them though, the differences are stark and terrifying. As I said, a single system of controls + the evil of man = tyranny each and every time! A multiplicity of systems and system controls thwarts the tyranny of evil men. That is the fatal flaw that you are blind too. Socialists have to have two things for success - the willing participation of everyone (never going to happen) and a perfect human (never going to exist) - without those two ingredients all of your theory and speculation is just that . . words. You cannot build a socialist model that evil men cannot easily dominate and control to the ruination of everyone else.

Your concept of citizen rule is as failed as the anarchy that will result. You said “when the citizens are the government, the government has no reason to oppress anyone.” What about those of us who don’t want to be part of your system? While verbally acknowledging the nature of mankind, you blindly walk by it here. Humanity will not and cannot agree on a single system of government, a single system of beliefs, a single set of shared values, a single anything - we are as diverse as we can possible be! there is no capacity in us for us to be united under a single system of controls.

This one is the height of stupidity - - - > You are going to “defang and render powerless the baser aspects of human nature!” what? are you gods now? do you honestly believe a set of laws will change the nature of mankind? You are unbelieveable! Millenia of human existence proves you wrong in a heartbeat! no sytem of regulation will ever change the heart of man! An economic and political system cannot change people! We will still be evil, we will still cheat, we will still rob and rape and murder and steal and trick and destroy, and dominate each other and we will still do all sorts of unspeakable things to each other.

OH, you only mean that a minority will not be able to do that to the majority - LMAO, seriously? since you cannot reform the heart of man, how will you prevent man from perverting your perfect utopia? After all - every expirement with socialism has ended with disastorous results so far . . . but next time . . . yeah, next time, you’ll get it right. There will be no evil allowed!! that should do it . . . ROFLMAO - this is absurd on its face. Socialism cannot prevent evil men’s actions - it magnifies them!! Capitalism provides the individual with options - Socialism has no options - how does it correct for that evil in man? Specifically explain to me what set of regulations you will have in place to prevent an evil minority from exploiting the evil majority or vice versa? I would love to see that list . . . . Your theory is nothing but pretty words wrapped up in pink ribbon . . . its all specualtion and hopes . . . its unicorns and rainbows in a world filled with demons and death.

The resounding successes of socialism?? independet of capitalism? WHERE!! LMAO - thought so . . .

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

IrishSteel wrote:You’re merely introduced a more complex picture of the model i used to demonstrate the freedom of private ownership in a vain attempt to introduce your “talking point” of dependent production.

Wrong again. Please give examples of these commodities that are produced independently.

The guy who sells watermelons and tomoatoes on the route 221 is proof that independent production is entirely possible and a regular occurrence in capitalism.

So, to explain global industrial capitalism, you’re going to talk about a guy who sells produce by the side of the road? What percentage of the economy do you think that accounts for? When you have something to say about the rest of the 99.999999999% of the economy, let me know.

That is why I called your introduction of your standard talking point an oversimplification - there are countless examples of exactly the same thing happening all around the world in capitalism daily!

It is far from a talking point to correct your fundamentally very flawed conception of the economy. You cannot give any real examples of this supposed independent production. All of them are merely trivial, or do not occue at this point in time. As I was saying earlier, I do not deny the possibility of independent production, but it is totally irrelevant in the modern globalized economy, a statement which you have yet to address.

You cannot understand the world apart from how it has been explained to you because you have not bothered to actually get out and see how the world actually functions.

Oh I see. So our economy actually consists of independent tomato growers and deer trappers? My mistake.

And regardless of whether or not there is “truly independent” production - it does not negate the actual concept demonstrated by my model which was that of individual freedom within the capitalist system. That is why it is unrelated. You are sticking to your talking point without actually addressing the point proven by the generic model. You only have your indoctrination and rely on it to the exclusion of the reality of the conversation.

How exactly am I the one who is indoctrinated when you refuse to discuss anything but tomato farmers when talking about our modern economy? Please, answer a question for once, and do attempt to distract the discussion.

The accuracy of Marx’s analysis? PUleeezz! PROVE IT WITH A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE OF WHERE HIS “ANALYSIS” PRODUCED ANY TANGIBLE POSITIVE RESULTS ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF CAPITALISM!!

How can an analysis produce tangible, positive result? It’s painfully clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Will you just admit it?

Nobody is denying the relationships existing within the multiple facets of the capitalist economic system - they are right there! To term these relationships as a collective fails to meet the following basic criteria of a collective: 1. Collective ownership - fail, independent ownership; 2. collective sets all standards - fail, independent standards; 3. collective price controls - fail, independent pricing; 4. collective distribution of resources - fail, independent distribution of resource - and those are just the basics.

You like your word games, don’t you? Until you can explain to how commodities, made using the products of many people’s labor and then assembled by many people working together in a division of labor, are not inherently social in nature, then stop confusing the issue.

Do they function well together and exist within a mutually beneficial network - yes.

Well, well! Marx was right after all! So you’re not completely stupid.

But a network is not a collective in the standard definition of a collective.

No one ever said they were produced “in a collective,” you moron. “Collectively produced” does not mean they were made in a kibbutz. Will you please use your context clues?

No, I’m not being dishonest - I freely admit that there are evil mean who take advantage of both systems. However, within capitalism and its myriad of independent operators

Stop right there. You haven’t named any independent operators. In your blind devotion to ideology, you merely parrot the nice-sounding phrases about individual liberty and so forth, without checking whether or not it agrees with concrete reality. This is why you are so consistently wrong about the real world.

and with its emphasis on freedom of the individual, the evils of man are more dissipated in their overall affect due to this ability to freely sever relationships, choose new partners, etc.

I repeat, “Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries (based on a comparison of corporate sales and country GDPs).”

“The evils of man are more dissipated.” One of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. Explain this fact then.

In a socialist system, the evils of man are magnified, because the whole system is self-contained - there is no escape, there is no alternative there is no freedom to choose another way. If evil men rise to a position of prominence within a capitalist market, they can be thwarted, negated, avoided and removed from that position of prominence because they are not the single collective.

You mean, such as George W. Bush, who lost the 2000 election, but was selected as president anyway? Everything you say is negated by reality.

Within a collective, if evil men rise to a position of prominence there is no capacity for thwarting them, negating them, avoiding them or removing them from that position of prominence.

Except that, for one, they are only one member of the polity to which they belong, and two, consituents have the power of instant recall at any time. So sorry, you’re wrong again. But you knew that, didn’t you?

The systems are neutral in regards to evil or good - they are just systems. Once you plug in humanity to them though, the differences are stark and terrifying.

Yes indeed. Capitalism encourages men to put private gain above all else, while socialism says that one man must never be allowed to coerce the majority.

As I said, a single system of controls + the evil of man = tyranny each and every time!

An excellent argument against capitalism.

A multiplicity of systems and system controls thwarts the tyranny of evil men.

Oh really? We had the slave trade, the Indian removal and genocide, the Phillipine occupation, the annexation of Texas, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Reagan’s death squads in El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc. the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and capitalism more generally brought us the First and Second World Wars. How is it exactly that capitalism “thwarts the tyranny of evil men?”

That is the fatal flaw that you are blind too. Socialists have to have two things for success - the willing participation of everyone (never going to happen) and a perfect human (never going to exist) - without those two ingredients all of your theory and speculation is just that . . words.

Well then please do explain why these are required, because I’ve thought about it quite a lot, and they don’t seem necessary to me.

You cannot build a socialist model that evil men cannot easily dominate and control to the ruination of everyone else.

Perhaps not, but we’ve seen for a fact that it is impossible to build a capitalist model that evil men (such a stupid phrase) cannot easily dominate and control to the ruination of everyone else.

Your concept of citizen rule is as failed as the anarchy that will result. You said “when the citizens are the government, the government has no reason to oppress anyone.” What about those of us who don’t want to be part of your system?

What about those people NOW who don’t want to be part of the system? Doesn’t seem to be a problem. Let them leave.

While verbally acknowledging the nature of mankind, you blindly walk by it here. Humanity will not and cannot agree on a single system of government, a single system of beliefs, a single set of shared values, a single anything - we are as diverse as we can possible be!

Well good thing votes don’t have to be unanimous. And again, your double standard is staggering. ALL of these “problems” would be problems for a capitalist democracy as well, yet you don’t acknowledge it. Is it THAT difficult for you to be honest with yourself?

This one is the height of stupidity - - - > You are going to “defang and render powerless the baser aspects of human nature!” what? are you gods now? do you honestly believe a set of laws will change the nature of mankind?

And again you fail to grasp the point. Let me spell it out clearly for you:

NO ONE PROPOSES TO CHANGE HUMAN NATURE.

THE GOAL, is to construct a government that is impossible for one person or small group of people to capture to use to subjugate the rest. In other words, it actually accomplishes what capitalism sets out to do, and fails. It is only once the means of production are ALSO subjected to democratic rule that true democracy can take root.

OH, you only mean that a minority will not be able to do that to the majority - LMAO, seriously? since you cannot reform the heart of man, how will you prevent man from perverting your perfect utopia?

It’s actually very simple–REALLY GIVE the citizens a say. The middle and lower classes have gotten the shaft over the past few decades. Under capitalism, they have simply had to grin and bear it, because they have no power. Under socialism, they will be invested with the same authority as any other group which would seek to oppress them.

After all - every expirement with socialism has ended with disastorous results so far .

Actually, the same is true about capitalism. But aside from that, I would like you to explain how the USSR was socialist, a question you have avoided many times now. The only examples I see of socialism, such as Cuba, or the communes of the Spanish Civil War, have been quite successful.

Your theory is nothing but pretty words wrapped up in pink ribbon . . . its all specualtion and hopes . . . its unicorns and rainbows in a world filled with demons and death.

Well aside from the observation that it must irritate you to be unable to refute me if all I have are “pretty words,” I will observe that it was capitalism which gave us the world wars, the bombing of Hiroshima, the millions dead in the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, and the scores of other occupations and suppressions we have been involved in over the years.

The resounding successes of socialism?? independet of capitalism? WHERE!! LMAO - thought so . . .

Well, first of all, you’re going to have settle on one definition of socialism, instead of your current policy of calling whatever you don’t like “socialism.”

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

Irish, you’ve been doing nothing but dancing around questions for a long time. Put up or shut up.

[quote]Just to keep you focused, since you inevitably drift into comic indignation when cornered with an inconvenient fact, let me keep track of the questions you have yet to answer, but must answer to hold your account together:

This chart clearly indicates the extreme unevenness of income distribution in the United States, which directly belies your romantic claim about “the inherent equality of capitalism.” Please explain, since this is a giant hole in your argument (ironically, it’s the same case of the rhetoric not matching the reality that you accuse me of). It is further underscored by this chart:

which leads me to the next question. You went on about individuals not being coerced into anything, yet this data perfectly supports my contention that employers and employees do not bargain from equal positions. You have not answered this question, but it is essential in order for your claims to stand up to scrutiny.

You said “profits are not collected by a small group,” but that statement is severely called into question, if not outright refuted, by these three documents:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=377#key

http://www.eoionline.org/images/constantcontact/wpr/2009/fig1_ProdWages.jpg

Some excerpts from the first link that directly contradict you:

“In 1999, more than half the sales of the Top 200 were in just 4 economic sectors: financial services (14.5 percent), motor vehicles and parts (12.7 percent), insurance (12.4 percent), and retailing/ wholesaling (11.3 percent)”

This contradicts your claim that capitalism dissipates power.

You have repeatedly claimed that “socialism has failed every time it has been tried,” using the USSR as an example. Please explain how it was socialist when:

1.) the means of production were not collectively owned
2.) it did not arise from an advanced capitalist state
3.) the revolution was not a popular uprising
4.) the vast majority of the population were not workers, but farmers

Furthermore, please explain how the current US economy is socialist, specifically what elements it shares in common with the former USSR. Also explain how putting these two economies in the same category does not make your definition of socialism uselessly broad.[/quote]