[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
the thing is that I dont see freedom seperated from the collectiv/society. If humans lived alone in the forest and not in groups as we do no. nobody would talk about freedom, because they would be totally free from other humans, but also totally dependent on them self. as we know humans live in groups in some form. tribes, small willages, states etc. freedom becomes a concept when people live togheter and are depentent on each other. the term freedom/liberty is only interresting in a collectiv/society. freedom is the independence a individual has in the group/collectiv/society. to talk about freedom as something disconected from a group/collectiv/society is pointless and strictly abstract.
as an example of a abstract freedom concept, we can look to Sartre. Sartre said that humans = freedom. in others words, man is the manifistation of freedom. He said that we do always have the freedom to make a choice regardless of the conteks that choiche is taken. lets say you have no money and you have to get a job. the thing is there is only one job you can get, at that is a job is at a brothel as a gigolo. you offcourse dont want to be a gigolo, but its either that or starving. offcourse this is an extrem scenario, but its only to describe sartre. well sartre would say that you do have a choice, even do its beetwen death or daily rape. This is similar to the freedom concepts many in here have, and its not what I regard as a healthy freedom concept, I think it only serves to legitimate the exploiters and failures of the system of today. in other words it does not serve any purpose, because it says that you are always free regardless if you live in a fascist, capitalist or a socialist society.
I would then say that a freedom concept must be a properiory truth, it has to be conteks based.
when the burgeoise rebelled against the late feudalsystem, they fought for freedom from the feudal state. The feudal state with its priviligies for the nobility and its regulations was in direct opposition to the interrests of the burgeois class. So when they talked about freedom, they ment a society where trade where free of regulations and that there property was safe from confiscation. The american revolution was a revolt against british mercantilisme and for home rule. The american burgeois experienced many acts from the british that made them depentent on the british market. one example is the “hat act”. it made it illegal to produce hats in the colonies. So the freedom the american burgeois wanted was freedom from this unfair economic union beetwen america and england. This is an example that freedom is conteks based. Today we have had our burgeois revolutions in the west, and we have gotten rid of the aristocracy and its state. its marks as an progress in human history. but we still have unfreedom in the western society, but the enemy is not a aristocracy, a foreign colonial superpower or an unfair economic union. so it does not make sence to fight for freedom from this entitys I listed above. Whats make sense today in the western world is to fight for freedom from exploitation because its a real issue that hold the majority of the population down.
I answer your question about individual libertys in the socialist matrix later on.
ps. sorry for the wall of text.
[/quote]
You are absolutely correct that Liberty has context within the framework of human interaction - however, that interaction does not have to be conditional upon the existence of the collective or state. An individual can interact with a group/collective/state (GCS from now on) and not be a part of it - thus his liberty has context within that reference, but it is not conditional upon it. In his base state, the individual has liberty. His liberty moves with him as he comes into contact with the GCS, but should not be diminished by his contact with the GCS. At the point that he chooses to become a member of that particular GCS, he may have to surrender some of his liberty in accordance with the terms of the GCS (ie, rule of law in place of blood feud, etc).
I think this is an important factor - socialism focuses on the GCS/Capitalism focuses on the individual.
Here is where the interaction becomes more critical. Within a capitalistic society, the members prize liberty above result and so seek to minimize the surrender of individual liberty at all costs. Within a socialist society, the result is more important and individual liberty is place last on the list of priorities - something to be ignored if it diminishes the GCS result.
Your example illustrates the faulty premises of Marx and all resulting communist and socialist thought - the zero-sum scenario. In your illustration, the individual in a capitalistic society is forced to decide between two extremes: death/prostitution - life in a free society is never limited to such narrow scope - it’s a false analogy. No one in a free society ends up at a position like that without making other choices along the way. Didn’t pursue an education, never stayed at one job long enough to gain a needed skill or trade, wasted his family money on weed, etc. Satre is right that being a human does equal freedom at the base level, but it is a freedom that comes with responsibilities and choices.
I still do not see Liberty in a socialistic society - if I wanted to start a bakery that competes with the government bakery, I am not allowed. If I want to live in Chelsey instead of Berlin but there are no available housing units from the housing ministry, I am not allowed to simply go and build my own on a piece of property I own there. If I want to abandon the collective and go sell roses on the street corner, I am not allowed to do that . . .
The only freedom that Socialism promises the same thing that we saw in the US in the 60’s - freedom from consequence of action. That is the socialist concept of freedom. Don’t want to work really hard - no problem - The freedom of Union promises a mandatory 5 day work week and maximum 8 hour day with mandatory breaks at the maximum amount of pay with 2 months of vacation time plus lifetime healthcare free and retirement pension 100x your salary - sounds like a great deal - except that this “freedom” requires you to do whatever the Union says you must do. You have given up your individual liberty for the freedom of consequence and the security of dependency.
No successfully business person has ever built a personal fortune based on those kind of work conditions. They work hard - 60 to 100 hours a week, every day of the week if necessary, they sacrifice security, risk failure - but the reward is immense and they never have to surrender their liberty. and many fail! yes - there is danger in freedom, there is consequence to action, there is reward for effort.
The socialist ideal ignores the fact that actions have consequences - for instance, let’s examine Greece - social upheaval and riots by UNIONIZED workers upset that they can no longer suck the teat of government money because the government has run out of money. In a capitalist mindset, we simply say ok - let’s balance the budget, makes the cuts we need to make, tighten our belts and work through it. The socialist mindset says - NO! force the government to continue to pay our extravagant wages and funding our overly generous pension regardless of the debts, because we should never have to face the consequences of our laziness and greed - oops!!
What are the Unions seeking as a solution in Greece? Why riot? Why attack the government they have bankrupted? Because the government owes them their salary, their healthcare, their pensions, their everything. They have surrendered their freedom for a payoff and DAMIT! they want their payoff!
[/quote]
ok first I want to say I havent slept for 24hours because of a examen, so this reply can be a bit funky:P
the scenario was not to illustrait real life in capitalisme ( even doe such scenarios have happend ), but to illustrait the freedom concept of sartre.
I do set the individual very hig, and I think that the societys purpose is to improve the individuals life. remember I am a marxist, not a fascist. the fascists said that the individual is for the state. I think that is stupid. a state is just a entity that governs society with a gun, offcourse the individual are more importent that the state. But as a marxist I am an materialist not a idealist. So I look at how the society today are. The society today is a higly collectivist form of organisation. People live in groups( families ) it works in groups, and everybody is dependent on each other because of the industrial market economy, the irony is that, even doe society is collectivist, the importent decisions are taken by the few. the profit are taken by the few, even doe the society produced it collectively( the factory worker is only able to take the time to work at the factory, if someone else are producing the foods he consums and this goes for everybody in a modern industrial capitalist society ). We marxist say, hey this is not right. Why should only 20% of the team get the most of the fruits of the effort, when the entire team made it togheter. This is the thougt behind the socialist perception of explotation btw. this thus maybe not have so much to do with liberty. but ok, the logic statement for this is: collectiv matters should be taken by the collectiv. and the fruits of the collectiv labour should be shared by the collectiv. and to follow it trough the logic takes us here: individual matters should be taken by the individual. and the fruits of the individual labour should be enjoyed by the individual.
a picture of individual labour in socialisme could be this: let say you play and sing on the street for money, that money is yours. or lets say you bake some breads at home, and sell them to your neigbours, that money is yours alone. When we say means of production, we meen factorys, natural resources( gas, oil a.s.), forests, big farms, collectiv traffic, schools, hospitals etc. in other words big production and services. While stuff you can create at home and so one is still private. ( maybe there are some socialists that will make selling of home made bread illegal, but I dont see the reason for this ). To make it relevant to T-Nation. you can still be a personel trainer in socialisme.
hope this gave you irish steel a better understanding of my political philosophi.
[/quote]
The reason 20% of the “team” gets the majority is because that 20% took the time save money to buy the resources so you could work as a team to create something. Because they took the risk of not working for five years while they built the infrastructure of a business in order to provide a consumer product. All you did was agree to work for him for a wage and use his tools to create a product out of material he bought. You bring nothing to the table but your labor and knowledge. He brings everything else, since he puts in the majority of the input, he gets the majority of the output.[/quote]
ah not this argument again!!
have can you create profit without labour?
I can turn it around, the workforce takes the materials and tools, and trough labour they increases its value. the capitalist could not get that profit without the labour of the workers.
still the post I made back there about the team, was about the entire society. without all the combined effort from the society, the capitalist would not be able to by the tools and materials, and the workers would not be able to increase its value trough labour.