Liberty in Socialism?

[IrishSteel]

example of commodities produced independently: Milk, range feed beef producers, rice production, barley and grains production, organic produce suppliers, small-scale bio-diesel producers, show and saddle tack producers, about 5,000 small oil well owner/operators, numerous independent fishers/trawlers. The ownership, decision-making structure, ongoing operation, financing and repairs are all entirely independent - having spent a great deal of my time trying to fix broken equipment based on what you have not what you can buy while working in some of these industries - i can attest to the pure independence of their commodity production cycle. and those are just the easy ones I can name off the top of my head

Now, let’s deal with your base assumptions and your circular reasoning - you see the freely chosen and freely broken network of relationships as proof of the “collective” nature of the business cycle, From that you hope to extrapolate that all socialism proposses is to replace the “arbitrary” nature of capitalism with the “organized” nature of socialism to remove the “inherent injustices” of the capitalist system. And thus you bring the whole discussion full circle back to your generic talking points. All you’ve done is completely ignore the explanation provided to you, and circled back to your base assumptions about the “inherent injustices” of the capitalist system.

Let me try again to explain what has been obvious to mankind in general for ages . . . that “arbitrary” nature of capitalism is the freedom of every individual to make decisions that they determine to be in their best interest - all you are proposing is to replace that freedom of choice inherent in capitalism with a completely arbitrary decision making process implemented without regard for the will of the individuals affected by that decision.

As I have repeatedly tried to show you, there are no injustices inherent in capitalism - the injustices are perpetrated by humans! The same humans that will have free run of your socialist utopia and who will find ways of perpetrating injustices in that system too . . . socialism magnifies the economic problem, but the economic freedom to escape the injustices and move to another supplier, input provider or consumer has been removed.

If Marx’s analysis was so accurate - why is it no one has been able to use that accuracy to successfully implement his economic theories - that the point - accurate analysis results in accurate projections, which results in accurate system design, which results in tangible results - so far, Marx’s accurate “analysis” is a total failure . . .

social in nature - man is a primarily social nature - that does not extrapolate in the conclusion that we can incorporate everyone into a single economic and political system. Just because I can get along with Flo, doesn’t mean I’m going to buy your widgets. It is the leap from freely form associations to enforced single systems that is a logical fallacy.

Check your facts - three independent audits of the Florida votes all determined that Bush won the election.

Oh, so in your socialism, no one will be able to coerce, buy, intimidate or otherwise control votes of their fellow collective memebers? LMAO - really? you’re going to be able to solve crime, greed and corruption completely . . . would love to see that happen - you are talking out of your ass on that one . . .

No capitalism encourages man to put their own private interests regardless of profit/loss above all else. You cannot interpret the world without dollars, we just include them.

You cannot understand the need for willing participation of everyone involved in your system and the fact that you cannot have any greedy, mean, selfish, tyrannical, bullying, sadistic, self-interested, racist, bigots, theives, murderers, etc without them totally destroying your socialist utopia?

“let them leave?” Why don’t all of you socialist just leave our system and go somewhere else to start yours? Why do you have to ruin what we have just to make you happy?

“good thing votes don’t have to be unanimous” - so now who is being tyrannical to others?, it’s ok though, they’re just the minority opinion . . .

“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.” LMAO - wow - and you think that that does not require changing human nature? You hnestly collective ownership of production is going to stop people from trying to enslave, dominate and rule others? LMAO - I knew you had to be naive to be a socialist, but this . . . this is . . . hilarious! Yep, just one more regulation here and a few more laws there and then no one will ever try to take advantage of anyone else ever again! Yep, direct vote of the middle class will bring harmony and peace to the world! that will solve the evil and sadistic nature of the worst of us. . . indeed, all of the evil in the world was merely due to a lack of a voice in the political system . . . yep . . you done solved it all . . . why could we have seen the amazing wisdom enshrined in that simple idea . . .

More votes = less evil people!! the solution to the world’s problems!

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

IrishSteel wrote:example of commodities produced independently: Milk,[…]

Let me just take one of these as an example: milk.

So, the farmer builds the barn that houses the cattle? He designs, and builds himself the machinery that collects the milk? He produces the electricity that powers that machinery? He builds, and drives himself, the trucks that take his product to market?

Farming of any type is actually a terrible example, with all of the machinery involved these days which, of course, the farmer does not design or manufacture.

about 5,000 small oil well owner/operators, numerous independent fishers/trawlers.

So the oil well operators build their own machinery, build their own means of transportation, and operate all of it themselves?

The ownership, decision-making structure, ongoing operation, financing and repairs are all entirely independent - having spent a great deal of my time trying to fix broken equipment based on what you have not what you can buy while working in some of these industries - i can attest to the pure independence of their commodity production cycle. and those are just the easy ones I can name off the top of my head

None of these are even remotely independent. You see the web of social ties stretches far and wide. For an endeavor to be independent, the producer must build all of his equipment, utilize it in procuring the product by himself, and get it to market by himself using tools that he has built. If ANY of these criteria are NOT met, then he is a beneficiary of the social division of labor.

Now, let’s deal with your base assumptions and your circular reasoning - you see the freely chosen and freely broken network of relationships as proof of the “collective” nature of the business cycle, From that you hope to extrapolate that all socialism proposses is to replace the “arbitrary” nature of capitalism with the “organized” nature of socialism to remove the “inherent injustices” of the capitalist system. And thus you bring the whole discussion full circle back to your generic talking points. All you’ve done is completely ignore the explanation provided to you, and circled back to your base assumptions about the “inherent injustices” of the capitalist system.

Not at all–by demonstrating the fallacies of your reasoning, I have gotten to the bottom of the contradictions within capitalism. Without a clear idea of these, any analysis of capitalism will produce erroneous results, as you have demonstrated. It is the goal of socialism to recognize the social character of labor and production, and to align those activities with social goals. It is ONLY this realignment that can put an end to the crises and wars of capitalism.

Let me try again to explain what has been obvious to mankind in general for ages . . . that “arbitrary” nature of capitalism is the freedom of every individual to make decisions that they determine to be in their best interest

No no, you again seek a strawman argument by deliberately over-simplifying the situation. There is nonthing “arbitrary” about the relations of capitalism. Actually, you were the one who implicitly asserted that it was arbitrary, with your comment that “wealth-exchange” was the “engine” of capitalism. I proved how fallacious was your reasoning, and responded that it was profit-seeking that drove capitalism, which is the obviously correct answer. So again, your analysis proceeds from flawed premises.

- all you are proposing is to replace that freedom of choice inherent in capitalism with a completely arbitrary decision making process implemented without regard for the will of the individuals affected by that decision.

Hmmm…I’d say when the employment or unemployment of large groups of people are made solely on the basis of the effect on profitability, THAT is what is truly arbitrary. Socialism, on the other hand, recognized the right of all people to engage in labor to earn their livelihood.

As I have repeatedly tried to show you, there are no injustices inherent in capitalism - the injustices are perpetrated by humans! The same humans that will have free run of your socialist utopia and who will find ways of perpetrating injustices in that system too . . . socialism magnifies the economic problem, but the economic freedom to escape the injustices and move to another supplier, input provider or consumer has been removed.

Empty words! You AGAIN simply assert this. You have not even attempted to explain how either one happens. Meanwhile, there is a preponderance of real-world evidence, and piles of bodies that contradict you.

If Marx’s analysis was so accurate - why is it no one has been able to use that accuracy to successfully implement his economic theories - that the point - accurate analysis results in accurate projections, which results in accurate system design, which results in tangible results - so far, Marx’s accurate “analysis” is a total failure . . .

Because, ONCE AGAIN, Marx’s theories were CAPITALIST theories. They accurately explain and predict the recurring crises inherent in capitalism, and whine and cry all you want, it doesn’t change that fact. You STILL don’t have any idea what you’re talking about when you ask why Marx’s theories haven’t “resulted in a successful socialist system.” It’s because THAT’S NOT WHAT HIS THEORIES WERE ABOUT. Do you understand this?

social in nature - man is a primarily social nature - that does not extrapolate in the conclusion that we can incorporate everyone into a single economic and political system. Just because I can get along with Flo, doesn’t mean I’m going to buy your widgets. It is the leap from freely form associations to enforced single systems that is a logical fallacy.

What “freely formed associations” are you talking about? Again, you don’t even TRY to reconcile your talking points with reality, because whenever you do, I promptly show that you are wrong.

Furthermore, you bring up nothing that is not ALSO a problem under capitalism, yet you don’t even consider that fact.

Check your facts - three independent audits of the Florida votes all determined that Bush won the election.

Check YOUR facts. Gore won.

Al Gore | Biography & Facts

Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary

2000 United States presidential election

The point is, there is no such thing as real democracy in capitalism.

Oh, so in your socialism, no one will be able to coerce, buy, intimidate or otherwise control votes of their fellow collective memebers? LMAO - really? you’re going to be able to solve crime, greed and corruption completely . . . would love to see that happen - you are talking out of your ass on that one . . .

It will still be able to happen to an extent, but since no one privately owns the means of production, no one is in a position to be able to use significant resources to buy votes. That is what you are missing, and it trumps all your nice words about “dissipation of power.”

No capitalism encourages man to put their own private interests regardless of profit/loss above all else. You cannot interpret the world without dollars, we just include them.

You don’t get it: their private interests ARE their profits. What are you talking about?

You cannot understand the need for willing participation of everyone involved in your system and the fact that you cannot have any greedy, mean, selfish, tyrannical, bullying, sadistic, self-interested, racist, bigots, theives, murderers, etc without them totally destroying your socialist utopia?

It is laughable watching you try to criticize a system you don’t understand, and coming up empty-handed every time. None of these arguments have any legitimacy at all, for the reasons I have outlined, though no doubt you’ll continue to repeat them.

“let them leave?” Why don’t all of you socialist just leave our system and go somewhere else to start yours? Why do you have to ruin what we have just to make you happy?

Because socialism cannot exist in isolation and furthermore, capitalism is global. You cannot escape it without completely abandoning society. Furthermore, this is not “your” country. We all seek to influence it in our own way. Our way is simply better for the vast majority of people.

“good thing votes don’t have to be unanimous” - so now who is being tyrannical to others?, it’s ok though, they’re just the minority opinion . . .

So, “not unanimous” = “minority” now? Is there no end to your logical fallcies?

LMAO - wow - and you think that that does not require changing human nature?

Of course it does not. If you think it does, you are obliged to explain to how, as I have explained how it does not.

You hnestly collective ownership of production is going to stop people from trying to enslave, dominate and rule others?

Not that it will stop them from trying, but that it will take the power out of their hands.

LMAO - I knew you had to be naive to be a socialist, but this . . . this is . . . hilarious!

What is actually hilarious and naive is a person who thinks a democracy, that physically removes oppressive power from the hands of the minority, is destined to be despotic, while a system that vests absolute power in the hands of a minority and tells them to use it to make as much money as they can, results in peace and rainbows. It simply becomes sad when he STILL believes this against the backdrop of the horribly destructive wars of the 20th century directly caused by this system, and the ongoing brutal occupation of foreign countries that it maintains. Doublethink anyone?

Yep, just one more regulation here and a few more laws there and then no one will ever try to take advantage of anyone else ever again! Yep, direct vote of the middle class will bring harmony and peace to the world!

And you cement your stupidity. AGAIN you imagine that I just want to “regulate.” What part of ABOLISH CAPITALISM do you not understand?

that will solve the evil and sadistic nature of the worst of us. . . indeed, all of the evil in the world was merely due to a lack of a voice in the political system

No, you dolt, how do you not understand this? What we need is democracy in the ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

Still waiting on your answer to the previous questions that you avoided.

[Sloth]

I don’t understand why having a direct vote over the use of the means of production would necessarily be a good thing. What if the majority of the people just have no idea how to run a business, much less a country? What if the majority just want to maximize their pensions, paid leave, and health-care, and ect? Leaving a huge bill for the some future generation. I realize they’d be able to vote for managers and supervisors who’d supposedly have the know-how. However, I’m tempted to believe human nature would most likely lead to voting in the guy offering the most perks. That is, not necessarily the guy willing to make the hard choices to keep a workplace solvent. Heck, I see it today on a national scale. Democracy seems to breakdown to buying votes from the present generation, at the expense of the future.

[IrishSteel]

Milk - yes, he did build the barns, and yes, he did design his own original milking apparatus, and the cows produced the commodity - and an independent trucker who has established a contract with the co-op comes to collect the milk - so the milk he produces is entirely independently produced. You don’t jack about farming . . .

again let’s step back to the basic concept - being connected by freely formed and freely broken business relationships does not negate the independence of the individual owner/operator. He is free to make any decision he chooses to, by any rationale he chooses, for any motivation he chooses. The fact that the whole systems works because of the relationships does not mean that the individual ownership should be sacrificed to the collective ownership of society. Your plan moves from private property and individual freedom to the collective property and no individual freedom (as you said, good thing votes don’t have to be unanimous). The individual is not free to disagree and choose what he believes is best for himself.

Look at the logical fallacy of your reasoning - since there in inherent injustice in capitalism, “the tyranny of the minority”, we wil replace it with “the tyranny of the majority” - except, in the current system, that minority does not have absolute control, or absolute power whereas under your system the majority will have absolute power and absolute control - how is the individual better off with a majority of people forcing him to do something he doesn’t want to do, when at least under the current system he has the ability to avoid the minority’s attempt to control him since they lack that absolute control?

“it is the goal os socialism to recognize the social character of labor and porduction, and to align those activities with social goals.” whose social goals? we don’t agree on them now, why would we agree to the same ones just because you say so? democracy in economics is going to make all of the differences of viewpoints we have just disappear? really?

Capitalism also recognizes the right of all people to engage in labor (or not if they so choose) to earn their livelihood - and we leave it up to them to make the choices they see fit. Just because ABC company doesn’t want to hire you doesn’t mean you can’t engage in labor - it just means you can’t engage in labor working for ABC company - go find something else, learn a new trade, start your own business - your free, do what you want. You’re not offering anything that doesn’t already exist.

His analysis was the basis for the marxist/socialist/communist economic theories, thsoe theories then are encapsulated into practice - if the analysis was so perfect, the economic theories it spawned that were supposed to correct all of those inherent problems and their resultant practices should have been perfect too . . .

Ohh, there won’t be any really really wealthy people with the financial resources to buy votes . . . yeah sure, and the scale of wealth relative to the current economic realities will not produce any capacity for a reevaluaiton of what constitutes wealth within a particular system. In prison there is the perfect proof that your idea is nonsense - people still control others without any private ownership of the means of production. Just by removing that ownership you have not changed the nature of man - and you can’t even see it . . .and what about those who just use violence and intimidation to control votes - that would never happen . . . they have democracy in the economic system so no one will be mean or evil towards anyone else . . . my god you are so naive!!

“Socialism cannot exist in isolation” - WTF?!, so we ALL have to be socialists or socialism can’t exist? Well, good, then socialism will never exist. Thanks for explaining how to defeat you. We just don’t become socialists and you can’t do jack about it . . . go play with your tiddlywinks . . . we don’t want any

You implied that the will of the majority will overrule the voices of the dissenters, so now you are introducing the tyranny of the majority . . . a perfectly logicla conclusion - do you even understand the words that you are typing?

Does not require the changing of human nature? Becouse collective ownership of the resources will prevent people from bullying, intimidating, violently oppressing other people? LMAO - one evil man will have the run of the place in no time flat. You are so naive its truly pathetic . . . you have not seen true evil. Must be nice in your cozy little dream world. POWER over people does not come from ownerhsip of the means of production - it comes from the ability to coerce people, and the ability to coerce people can use any means or method from bribery to love to hate to violence to degradation to pride to laziness to apathy to bigotry . . . it is so patently obvious that humanity will pervert your utopia and you can’t see it . . . its scary that you can’t see it . . .

Ohh, sorry, democracy in the economic system will remove all evil from the hearts of men and we will all live happily ever after in the socialist pink pillow world . . . . PPPFFFTTTT LMAO - what a clown

[IrishSteel]

ROTF LMAO!!! Ryan, until you can explain to me how democracy in economics is going to alleviate or prevent the evil deeds of men, then we can talk some more . . . until then . . you’ve hit a whole new plateau of naive . . . there’s nothing else to discuss . . … . .

STILL LMAO, oh my god - i have not laughed this hard in years - everyone around my cube had to come over to find out what I was laughing so hard about!!!

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t understand why having a direct vote over the use of the means of production would necessarily be a good thing. What if the majority of the people just have no idea how to run a business, much less a country? What if the majority just want to maximize their pensions, paid leave, and health-care, and ect? Leaving a huge bill for the some future generation. I realize they’d be able to vote for managers and supervisors who’d supposedly have the know-how. However, I’m tempted to believe human nature would most likely lead to voting in the guy offering the most perks. That is, not necessarily the guy willing to make the hard choices to keep a workplace solvent. Heck, I see it today on a national scale. Democracy seems to breakdown to buying votes from the present generation, at the expense of the future.[/quote]

The means of production must be brought under collective control so that they will fulfill the purpose for which they were designed–the satisfaction of needs. At present, they do so only insofar as it is profitable to satisfy these needs. In addition, socializing the means of production means that no narrow class can control society’s resources to their own benefit. They would be unable to use the company’s resources to buy off politicians. They would be unable to move jobs overseas to exploit more docile workforces.

Firms will still be accountable to society (or rather, newly accountable to society) for meeting their quotas on budget. If a workforce decides to too generously remunerate themselves, and does not meet their quota on budget, they can all be replaced.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Milk - yes, he did build the barns, and yes, he did design his own original milking apparatus, and the cows produced the commodity - and an independent trucker who has established a contract with the co-op comes to collect the milk - so the milk he produces is entirely independently produced. You don’t jack about farming . . .[/quote]

Oh really? Every milk producer builds his own barn? You mean these?

http://www.adicattlecorp.co.uk/uploads/images/Arethusa%20Milking%20barn%20Global%20Glamour%20sale%20day.jpg

He designs and build his own machinery? You mean these?

http://www.agricultureinformation.com/photos/data/1/milking_machine.jpg

Well then what the hell are these?

http://www.portablemilkers.com/page/page/1576325.htm

Why are they for sale if every farmer builds them himself?

He builds his own truck? How fucking stupid are you? Show me one farmer who built his barn, milking machines, and any cars or trucks used in transportation. If he is helped AT ALL by the division of labor (which he clearly is–no farmer builds all that AND does all the milking by himself, you fucking liar), it is social. For god’s sake, sack up and admit you’re wrong. Everyone knows it anyway.

again let’s step back to the basic concept - being connected by freely formed and freely broken business relationships does not negate the independence of the individual owner/operator.

Yes it does you moron. That EXACTLY what negates it. It’s independent production. LOOK AT THE WORD. IF ANYBODY ELSE IS INVOLVED, IT’S NOT INDEPENDNT. If not for those relationships, he would not be able to produce as efficiently. This has physical, concrete ramifications.

He is free to make any decision he chooses to, by any rationale he chooses, for any motivation he chooses. The fact that the whole systems works because of the relationships does not mean that the individual ownership should be sacrificed to the collective ownership of society.

No one is making that argument at this point. That’s why you’re confusing two different arguments, and making quite the ass of yourself in the process. It’s a physical question–does anyone assist anywhere in the process? Of course they do. He does not build his own barn. He buys his milking equipment. He pays someone to transport his product. If he had to do all these things himself, he likely would not be able to, and at the very least his efficiency would suffer greatly. This is not a hard question.

Your plan moves from private property and individual freedom to the collective property and no individual freedom (as you said, good thing votes don’t have to be unanimous). The individual is not free to disagree and choose what he believes is best for himself.

This is pure grade A bullshit. You’re so indoctrinated that you have no idea how any of these “denials of freedom” would come about (they wouldn’t), and you can’t say for sure, but you claim they will anyway. EXACTLY what you turn around and accuse me of. Will you finally admit that you are a hypocrite?

Look at the logical fallacy of your reasoning - since there in inherent injustice in capitalism, “the tyranny of the minority”, we wil replace it with “the tyranny of the majority” - except, in the current system, that minority does not have absolute control, or absolute power whereas under your system the majority will have absolute power and absolute control - how is the individual better off with a majority of people forcing him to do something he doesn’t want to do, when at least under the current system he has the ability to avoid the minority’s attempt to control him since they lack that absolute control?

But they cannot force him to do anything against his will. We’ve already established, and you’ve already admitted that you don’t know anything at all about socialism, so what would make you think you’re right here, especially when you’ve been wrong about EVERYTHING else?

whose social goals? we don’t agree on them now, why would we agree to the same ones just because you say so? democracy in economics is going to make all of the differences of viewpoints we have just disappear? really?

What kind of logical fallacy is this? Do you think at all before you blurt this stuff out? How about more doctors and affordable medical care instead of two wars that the public doesn’t support? How about more green energy instead of dirty coal and oil? These are the types of social goals that the market has been unable to address.

Capitalism also recognizes the right of all people to engage in labor (or not if they so choose) to earn their livelihood - and we leave it up to them to make the choices they see fit. Just because ABC company doesn’t want to hire you doesn’t mean you can’t engage in labor - it just means you can’t engage in labor working for ABC company - go find something else, learn a new trade, start your own business - your free, do what you want. You’re not offering anything that doesn’t already exist.

Moron. In case you haven’t noticed, the unemployment rate is 10%. I guarantee that not all those people are just taking a holiday.

His analysis was the basis for the marxist/socialist/communist economic theories, thsoe theories then are encapsulated into practice - if the analysis was so perfect, the economic theories it spawned that were supposed to correct all of those inherent problems and their resultant practices should have been perfect too . . .

But this goes back to another question that you’ve been dodging for weeks: how was the USSR socialist? You WILL NEVER ANSWER THIS QUESTION, despite the fact that it is critical for your argument. If Russia did NOT do things the way Marx suggested, then your entire criticism falls flat. In order to be right, you HAVE TO STOP DANCING AROUND THIS QUESTION: explain how Russia met any of the requirements for Marxian socialism. Put up or shut up.

Ohh, there won’t be any really really wealthy people with the financial resources to buy votes . . . yeah sure, and the scale of wealth relative to the current economic realities will not produce any capacity for a reevaluaiton of what constitutes wealth within a particular system. In prison there is the perfect proof that your idea is nonsense - people still control others without any private ownership of the means of production. Just by removing that ownership you have not changed the nature of man - and you can’t even see it . .

Well then it’s a good thing that representatives can be removed at any time and their votes rescinded. Democracy.

.and what about those who just use violence and intimidation to control votes - that would never happen . . . they have democracy in the economic system so no one will be mean or evil towards anyone else . . . my god you are so naive!!

Ha, you wish. It’s hilarious watching your desperation as your fallacies fall off one-by-one, and the magnitude of your error becomes apparent to you. What is naive is thinking that the system that produced WWI and WWII, Hitler’s oven and gas chambers, the atrocities of the Vietnam War, and the countless illegal killings and invasions of other countries witnessed in the 20th century and saying, “This system is our best hope for peace!” What is naive is thinking that giving greedy men absolute power will produce more just results than a system that gives the public the power to defend itself.

“Socialism cannot exist in isolation” - WTF?!, so we ALL have to be socialists or socialism can’t exist? Well, good, then socialism will never exist. Thanks for explaining how to defeat you. We just don’t become socialists and you can’t do jack about it . . . go play with your tiddlywinks . . . we don’t want any

Once again, you are totally wrong. All you have to do to guarantee a socialist revolution is to insist on capitalism. “What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers.”

You implied that the will of the majority will overrule the voices of the dissenters, so now you are introducing the tyranny of the majority . . . a perfectly logicla conclusion - do you even understand the words that you are typing?

Usually, the word “constitution” is close to your lips, but now you don’t seem to be able to find it.

Does not require the changing of human nature? Becouse collective ownership of the resources will prevent people from bullying, intimidating, violently oppressing other people? LMAO - one evil man will have the run of the place in no time flat.

Please explain how. You NEVER explain how.

You are so naive its truly pathetic . . . you have not seen true evil. Must be nice in your cozy little dream world.

Are you really so feeble-minded that you actually believe in evil?

POWER over people does not come from ownerhsip of the means of production - it comes from the ability to coerce people, and the ability to coerce people can use any means or method from bribery to love to hate to violence to degradation to pride to laziness to apathy to bigotry . . . it is so patently obvious that humanity will pervert your utopia and you can’t see it . . . its scary that you can’t see it . . .

Once again your willful blindness is truly pathetic. What enables men to subjugate populations are MATERIAL resources. Guns, weapons, control of vital resources. It is these that your flowery words and naive idealizations LEAVE IN THE HANDS of these men, and it is these that socialism places in the hands of the community.

Is this seriously the best you can do?

[IrishSteel]

ROTF LMAO!!! Ryan, until you can explain to me how democracy in economics is going to alleviate or prevent the evil deeds of men, then we can talk some more . . . until then . . you’ve hit a whole new plateau of naive . . . there’s nothing else to discuss . . … . .

[THE_CLAMP_DOWN]

for you, my diet soda addicted friend.

Perhaps this will help you understand why striving for a socialist state is a contradiction in terms. Perhaps not.

You may be lost.

[Plot_Device]

I have been following this thread for a while now with great interest. Ryan, I think you have been very articulate and I have some questions and comments on a few things you said. I am approaching this as a neutral observer, and, though I have my own set of beliefs, I am trying to keep them out of it. So first:

“The means of production must be brought under collective control so that they will fulfill the purpose for which they were designed–the satisfaction of needs.” -Ryan

If all production is under collective control it strikes me as a detriment to innovation. I am wondering how you think this works in a socialist society. Profit, while it may be wrong in your eyes, does provide a certain motivation to accomplish things, albeit a self interested one. I find it hard to imagine an iPod being invented in a socialist nation. Imagine trying to justify utilizing the means of production for something that people clearly don’t need.

Secondly, if the collective controls production, they also control what needs are met. They get to decide what to produce after all. Essentially, you will have a majority telling a minority what they need. It strikes me as hard to maintain individual freedom in such an environment. I realize that such a thing may not be your goal, but you talk about fulfilling needs and it makes think about how people need to feel like they have control over their lives in order to lead a healthy one.

“again let’s step back to the basic concept - being connected by freely formed and freely broken business relationships does not negate the independence of the individual owner” -Irish

“Yes it does you moron. That EXACTLY what negates it. It’s independent production. LOOK AT THE WORD. IF ANYBODY ELSE IS INVOLVED, IT’S NOT INDEPENDNT. If not for those relationships, he would not be able to produce as efficiently. This has physical, concrete ramifications.” -Ryan

Its fine if you want to criticize Irish’s vocabulary, but surely you can see what he was getting at, sloppy terms aside. The nature of the network of free association in capitalism is different from that of the collectivism that would exist under socialism, and that the capitalist version was better. That is how I interpreted it. Are you saying there is no difference?

“Your plan moves from private property and individual freedom to the collective property and no individual freedom (as you said, good thing votes don’t have to be unanimous). The individual is not free to disagree and choose what he believes is best for himself.” -Irish

“This is pure grade A bullshit. You’re so indoctrinated that you have no idea how any of these “denials of freedom” would come about (they wouldn’t), and you can’t say for sure, but you claim they will anyway. EXACTLY what you turn around and accuse me of. Will you finally admit that you are a hypocrite?” -Ryan

I am not sure how this is hard to imagine. Those in the minority are going to be denied the freedom to do what they want with the means of production. In a capitalist society if an individual has his own means of production could do what he wanted with it. I don’t think we are talking about throwing people in a cage with out a key here with regards to the denials of freedom, just the choices that make us feel like we have the ability to exercise control over your own lives.

I also wanted to clarify that by disagreeing with Irish’s statement, are you implying that an individual does have as much freedom in the socialist model as in the capitalist model?

“Look at the logical fallacy of your reasoning - since there in inherent injustice in capitalism, “the tyranny of the minority”, we wil replace it with “the tyranny of the majority” - except, in the current system, that minority does not have absolute control, or absolute power whereas under your system the majority will have absolute power and absolute control - how is the individual better off with a majority of people forcing him to do something he doesn’t want to do, when at least under the current system he has the ability to avoid the minority’s attempt to control him since they lack that absolute control?” -Irish

“But they cannot force him to do anything against his will. We’ve already established, and you’ve already admitted that you don’t know anything at all about socialism, so what would make you think you’re right here, especially when you’ve been wrong about EVERYTHING else?” -Ryan

I am not sure why you jump to this extreme of forcing someone to do something. That is not the only way to control. It seems like it will limit the decisions people will be able to make as an individual rather than force them to do things they don’t want to. Fewer personal choices means less individual freedom.

“How about more doctors and affordable medical care instead of two wars that the public doesn’t support? How about more green energy instead of dirty coal and oil?” -Ryan

In the first sentence, who doesn’t want affordable medical care? Whether the capitalist system caused or can solve these problems, and whether socialism can do better, is this issue. In context, it seems like you are implying that Irish wants war and high medical costs. Is this the case? If so, why do you think that?

The second sentence is ironic because it is an example of the disagreement on social issues Irish mentioned. You may think one side of that argument is not credible, and that’s fine. I am not here to debate the issue, but again you will arrive at a majority deciding what a minority should do to address the problem. No where in this will an individual be free to approach the problem in his own way.

"Are you really so feeble-minded that you actually believe in evil? " - Ryan

Your a little quick to dismiss a concept that has been around much longer than us. I was wondering if you could expand on why you don’t think evil exists.

There was that other point about defanging the baser aspects of human nature. I admit I have trouble seeing how socialism does this. Perhaps you could expand on this a bit more? I may very well be ignorant about it, but perhaps you could give me an overview at least.

[tGunslinger]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t understand why having a direct vote over the use of the means of production would necessarily be a good thing. What if the majority of the people just have no idea how to run a business, much less a country? What if the majority just want to maximize their pensions, paid leave, and health-care, and ect? Leaving a huge bill for the some future generation.

I realize they’d be able to vote for managers and supervisors who’d supposedly have the know-how. However, I’m tempted to believe human nature would most likely lead to voting in the guy offering the most perks. That is, not necessarily the guy willing to make the hard choices to keep a workplace solvent. Heck, I see it today on a national scale. Democracy seems to breakdown to buying votes from the present generation, at the expense of the future.[/quote]

Bingo.

I made a post waaay back in this thread discussing this.

We can set aside the fact that cap ex is a very difficult job that requires full-time specialists (i.e., it is simply impossible to “just have the workers vote on it” and get effective capital management).

But another problem still remains: you need to link the workers’ capital decisions to their own personal finances to ensure they are voting with the firm’s best interests in mind. The only (or easiest, at a minimum) way to do this is to grant workers an equity share in the firm.

But of course, equity shares are worthless in a socialist world where direct labor is the only allowable source of income. So there goes that idea.

Even if we assume that workers would vote wisely just because they value their jobs (which empirical evidence suggests is not the case), then we have merely needlessly tied together the labor and capital markets.

At an absolute minimum, socialism in its purest sense (commonly owned means of production) would result in severely less efficient capital deployment.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ROTF LMAO!!! Ryan, until you can explain to me how democracy in economics is going to alleviate or prevent the evil deeds of men, then we can talk some more . . . until then . . you’ve hit a whole new plateau of naive . . . there’s nothing else to discuss . . … . .
[/quote]

I will, once you answer one of the many questions you continue to dodge, Matrix-like.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]Plot Device wrote:“The means of production must be brought under collective control so that they will fulfill the purpose for which they were designed–the satisfaction of needs.” -Ryan

If all production is under collective control it strikes me as a detriment to innovation. I am wondering how you think this works in a socialist society. Profit, while it may be wrong in your eyes, does provide a certain motivation to accomplish things, albeit a self interested one. I find it hard to imagine an iPod being invented in a socialist nation. Imagine trying to justify utilizing the means of production for something that people clearly don’t need.[/quote]

Good question, but think on it a little bit, and I believe you will find the flaw in this reasoning. The vast majority of innovations are made by people who do not profit from it. All the tech innovations we have today are invented by engineers by scientists, who usually receive a salary. A company then markets it and profits from it.

Furthermore, look into antiquity. The human race had already come quite a long way before the introduction of capitalism, which didn’t really get underway in earnest until about the 17th century, and would not take what you would call a modern form until the 19th century. Think of all the innovations we had before then. All the science (which, in some areas, was already fairly advanced), all the material things. Machines made possible modern capitalism, they were not invented by capitalism (of course there were many more invented after capitalism had taken root). In fact, collectivization of the means of production could enhance innovation, as there would no longer be patent laws to stifle creativity. A good example is the Android operating system for cell phones. It is open-source, and as a result, there is all kinds of stuff that you can do with it, and all manner of all applications have been and are being developed.

Secondly, if the collective controls production, they also control what needs are met. They get to decide what to produce after all. Essentially, you will have a majority telling a minority what they need. It strikes me as hard to maintain individual freedom in such an environment. I realize that such a thing may not be your goal, but you talk about fulfilling needs and it makes think about how people need to feel like they have control over their lives in order to lead a healthy one.

Well, think of it this way: they are told what to produce now, with no input. Profitability is the criterion. You don’t seem to be bothered by things now. What would be the difference? Except that now you would have a way of addressing things of importance to you. Need new schools? New roads? Want a new clean energy power plant? Better working conditions? You can make your voice heard, and likely many citizens share you concerns.

The rest of your questions are good as well, and I will get to them, but not right now.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ROTF LMAO!!! Ryan, until you can explain to me how democracy in economics is going to alleviate or prevent the evil deeds of men, then we can talk some more . . . until then . . you’ve hit a whole new plateau of naive . . . there’s nothing else to discuss . . … . .
[/quote]

I will, once you answer one of the many questions you continue to dodge, Matrix-like.
[/quote]

Nope, sorry- you aren’t getting away from this one. The whole premise of the superiority of your socialism is that it will fix the problems “inherent in capitalism” by “defanging and rendering powerless the baser instincts of human nature” - so until you can prove how legislative measures and “democracy in economics” via the collective ownership of resources are going to alleviate and prevent the evil deeds of men- there is no going forward or backward on this conversation. This is the lynch-pin of your philosophy and it is what sinks your whole world-view.

Nothing else matters - this is the heart of the whole socialist concept - your criticisms of capitalism are all based on the way that evil men are able to use the system to cause injustices on other people. And your fix is to take away their 'control" of resources/production and that alone is going to solve all of the evil in the hearts of men. Once socialism is in charge - no more greed, cheating, slavery, robbery, bullying, intimidation, coercion, violence - it’s all going to magically disappear just like that . . .

LMAO - its amazing! it really is . . . I’m still getting a kick out it . . .

[jj_dude]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

Nothing else matters - this is the heart of the whole socialist concept - your criticisms of capitalism are all based on the way that evil men are able to use the system to cause injustices on other people. And your fix is to take away their 'control" of resources/production and that alone is going to solve all of the evil in the hearts of men. Once socialism is in charge - no more greed, cheating, slavery, robbery, bullying, intimidation, coercion, violence - it’s all going to magically disappear just like that . . .

LMAO - its amazing! it really is . . . I’m still getting a kick out it . . .
[/quote]

Sorry, been away for a bit. Boy has this thread grown.

I think what we are hitting on is what I call the “Agency Fallacy” which is very common to a lot of conspiracy theories (which Socialism/Communism frequently turns into in less capable hands.) It runs as follows:

A certain event involving many independent parties occurs, such as prices for a commodity rise. Since the action was so widespread, there must have been an organizing force behind it.

Since this assumes that nothing happens by chance, there must always be an agent, hence the name Agency Fallacy. The Socialist argument has been that Capitalists are running the show and that the state must therefore be granted equal power to stop the outrageous abuses. Sound good? Think again. The claim is for equal powers against an agent but this is the origin of totalitarianism: the powers required to do this would be vast and far more comprehensive that any ever used. Attempts to fix the issue show that control is incomplete, so consistency demands even more sweeping powers and the realization that the opposition’s hold must be so strong that even more drastic action by the state is needed, such as gulags. The issue with failed Socialist states in my opinion is precisely that they tried carry out their programs in good faith.

Before we all pat ourselves on the back for seeing this, there is another manifestation of this very fallacy which gets its own thread frequently: Intelligent Design. The entire argument there is that something must be making specially adapted creatures. The moral outrage Creationists feel towards Evolution is identical in origin to the outrage a dedicated a Communist feels towards the abuses of Capitalism. The difference is that, by gum, the Communists have a plan for fixing creation…

(FWIW there is, in point of fact, no actual bona fide theological reason against Evolution. But that really is another thread.)

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj

[IrishSteel]

JJ! great to have you back in the thread. And right off the bat, you bring the conversation back up to an adult level. You . . . you’re good you . . .

Aye, the fallacies of agency . . . great line of reasoning, but I was going for the more detailed point of that argument in that he has misidentified the agent responsible for the “injustices inherent in capitalism” as being capitalism, when in reality the agent is not the system being acted upon, but the agents acting upon the system. Regardless of the system (capitalism, feudalism, Marxism, socialism, communism, mercantilism), the origin of any injustices are found in the agent working within that system. He postulates that socialism will not have injustices because the system will completely alleviate them by simply removing individual input in the use of resources and means of production.

You correctly identify that this necessarily results in totalitarianism. But even totalitarianism will not remove the evil deeds of men - on both sides, the controllers and the controlled, evil deeds will still be committed and injustices will be done. That is why Socialism is dependent on perfect and totally altruistic humans to be successful in eliminating injustices - of which none exist . . . .

So then the question becomes, why should we sacrifice personal freedom for totalitarianism (tyranny of the majority) when it will not solve the “problems” it will supposedly be put into place to solve? There is no justification for such a change . . . socialism as a single economic and political system is pointless, meaningless and a detriment to humanity not to mention a deadly danger to freedom.

[Brother_Chris]

I’m not sure why these kids cannot see that socialism leads to despotism.

[florelius]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’m not sure why these kids cannot see that socialism leads to despotism.[/quote]

since we kids dont see it, then maybe all-knowing-you could explain why it does?

[jj_dude]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’m not sure why these kids cannot see that socialism leads to despotism.[/quote]

since we kids dont see it, then maybe all-knowing-you could explain why it does?[/quote]

In theory it never does. The real problem with “Theory and Practice” is that, in theory, there is no difference between the two. :o)

As a simple empirical fact, countries that have tried to be completely Socialist/Communist have done very, very poorly and those who have lived in such systems have overwhelmingly rejected them. As Lech Walsea put it so well, “Communism was the experiment where the state turned the fish tank into fish soup. Reversing the process is proving somewhat harder.” Any more the only avowed purely Socialist countries are baroque dictatorships (North Korea, Cuba) or trying to be one (Venezuela).

That make sense?

– jj