Why do socialists want to take away the right to own private property?

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Why are you people not considering the other sides?

More government regulation isn't a good thing and people on the left do want to take away rights to private property. There are articles about it. I can't believe the ignorance in this thread...

Because when your busy picking sides you miss the chance to have an efficient, fair system for all that can't be coerced.

It is not about what political ideology works it's about making the system work, people say you can't have socialism and capitalism in the same system their wrong. Stop thinking in black and white and start thinking of how you will use any idea to achieve fairness and equality and incentive.

reply to post by tangoGorilla

I'm all for fairness and equality but do you really want the government to regulate more? Come on this is a conspiracy site. Why would we want the government to have more power?

reply to post by tangoGorilla


There have been socialists that have argued against the right to private property in the past. They have also argued for more government regulation of the free market system. Are you ignorant of this?

reply to post by ANOK


Okay... and how would that realistically work?

I understand the concept behind socialism however what works in theory doesn't always work in reality... I want to know how that would work in reality. How would the company make decisions if everyone owned the company?

In theory, a true socialist society would transcend into true communism - classless and stateless society. There would be no government.

Workers councils and assemblies would exist instead, deciding on production and labour. No ruling elite.

Abolishing private property is collective ownership - we all have an equal share. During the Spanish Civil War, collective ownership worked and the Kibbutz in Israel shows it's a manageable and a workable system.

The problem is, no true socialist or communist society has ever existed on a national or international scale. Most become authoritarian regimes with an elite cabal controlling capital and resources - no different from fascism. The proletariat dictatorship, the liberation of the working class, has never occurred - the poor were exploited much worse under the Soviet Union.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Why don't you think about it, you want everyone else to give you the answers?

You think people cannot organise themselves? Ridiculous.

I posted earlier about Spain in the 1930's and asked you to read it. Your answer is there, as well as proof it can be done. You should do a lot of reading, other than what you think you will agree with. Or are you a sociaphobe?

The only thing that stops us is our imagination. The system we live in is destroying that imagination. Capitalists will not be happy until we're all completely under their control and nothing but blind consumers.

The markets always become dominated by big business, where does it leave the rest of us as this happens? We are at the whim of these businesses and what they do to our economy.

The facts show that capitalist economies tend over time and with some interruptions to become more and more heavily concentrated. M.A. Utton, The Political Economy of Big Business, p. 186

...more concentrated industries generate a lower wage share for workers. Keith Cowling, Monopoly Capitalism, p. 106

The inevitable concentration of the economy, and thus the power to control, takes away any freedom you think you have. How does this benefit those of us who are not part of the capitalist class (those that own capital). The wealth, that we produce, is concentrated in ever smaller areas. Decisions are made by an ever smaller group of people, with even more incentive to maintain their power at any cost to the majority.

Take a look at history brother, Africa, for example, was once a very wealthy continent. But that wealth was redistributed by huge western companies, who monopolised the resources into the hands of the few in the west. Not to mention that the British caused the starvation of 30 million Indians due to their capitalist policies. And of course now in Iraq the same redistribution of resources to western companies is happening again.

They can only do this because we allow them, and you support them. We have the power to stop this madness. We just have to realise we don't need the PTB, and the state they set up to control us.

The only reason your country is so wealthy now is because of the theft of resources, including human slave labour, in your not so distant past. Not because capitalism is so great, no, it's because the west is, and always has been, ran by a bunch of crooks who set up the capitalist system to systematically rob the world of its resources in order to maintain their power over it.

Are you one of them Frank? Or are you just really that blind, and stubborn, that you can't see the reality?

Originally posted by infinite
The problem is, no true socialist or communist society has ever existed on a national or international scale. Most become authoritarian regimes with an elite cabal controlling capital and resources - no different from fascism. The proletariat dictatorship, the liberation of the working class, has never occurred - the poor were exploited much worse under the Soviet Union.

That's because the working class has never really been allowed to realise their own power.

The working class have been under the control of the elite the world over for centuries. So when, for example, the Russian revolution happened the average working class person didn't know to do anything different than bow to the new boss. If instead they didn't allow the new 'boss', and did as they did in Spain, organise themselves, the revolution might have succeeded.

The elite has had the power for thousands of years, through many revolutions, because we have been so conditioned to automatically give our power over to an authority. And of course the PTB use this to their advantage by creating war, terrorism etc., through manipulating the economy, culture, religion etc., of targeted regions. Keep us in fear and feeling powerless to act.

They've been running this scam for centuries.

reply to post by ANOK

So when, for example, the Russian revolution happened the average working class person didn't know to do anything different than bow to the new boss. If instead they didn't allow the new 'boss', and did as they did in Spain, organise themselves, the revolution might have succeeded.

That brings up another point: we both know the people of the world have been conditioned as you say, so what would make them react differently today, should your ideal Socialist nation be set up? Would they not act the same way as they did in Russia, the way they have been conditioned?

TheRedneck

video.google.com...


O ungrateful Americans ! O forgetful Yankees !

reply to post by Rigel

You do realize that's a 74 minute video... how about a little more than a generic teaser line, maybe a little about why we should spend over an hour watching it?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by ANOK

So when, for example, the Russian revolution happened the average working class person didn't know to do anything different than bow to the new boss. If instead they didn't allow the new 'boss', and did as they did in Spain, organise themselves, the revolution might have succeeded.

That brings up another point: we both know the people of the world have been conditioned as you say, so what would make them react differently today, should your ideal Socialist nation be set up? Would they not act the same way as they did in Russia, the way they have been conditioned?

TheRedneck

Because History serves as a lesson.

Because Bolchevism was, even as formally different, a Pyramidal Society just like are USA in many ways.

Because Anarchists Thinkers have steadily, thouroughly, philosophically, pragmatically and pratically* developped all the parameters for an ANARCHIST LIVABLE SOCIETY to be developped.

*

• The Godin's Familistères of XIXth century, operational working units of economically and geographically gathered workers and families, based on Charles Fourriers former proposal of "Phalanstères" as a way for implementing what he called "Le Nouveau Monde Amoureux" ("The New Amorous World" - sounds exotic ?!)...
  
• Makhno and the "Makhnovitchna" ukrainian movement, 1917-1922, finally mashed by a coalition of Bolchéviks and Whites -Tsarist -Russians -
• Spain 1936 ;
  
• kibboutzim-type organisation that set up the modern Israel.
  

reply to post by TheRedneck


If you're really in a hurry, just have some thoughts for Nicola Sacco and Bart Vanzetti... maybe while listening to "Here's to You" by Joan Baez.

More speedily, just know that USA used to have a tradition of active active anarchists.


Edit : url

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Rigel]

reply to post by Rigel

Not really in a hurry per se, just would be nice to know what it is I am supposed to be looking for for 74 minutes. Textbooks even have a cover that says something about what's inside.

More speedily, just know that USA used to have an Anarchists tradition.

Really? Please elaborate?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Rigel

More speedily, just know that USA used to have an Anarchists tradition.

Really? Please elaborate?

TheRedneck

Sure :

That's why just died Nicola Sacco and Bartholomeo Vanzetti. Do you think MacCarthysm was casual about Communists in the 50s ?... Well... The same thing had happened to Anarchists for the precedent 50 yrs. Yeah : inside America.

Sort of Genocid if you prefer - you know, that kind of AngloSaxon special skill ?

May you dig the case : alas or not, I'm not in your head to get yourself convinced.





[edit on 15-3-2009 by Rigel]

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by tangoGorilla

 

I'm all for fairness and equality but do you really want the government to regulate more? Come on this is a conspiracy site. Why would we want the government to have more power?


There have been socialists that have argued against the right to private property in the past. They have also argued for more government regulation of the free market system. Are you ignorant of this?

I read your signature you understand

The government should not be our enemy, the government should work for us, it doesn't. If government did work for the people then they should be given every power they needed to bring us fairness, equality and incentive.

What is the truth here, I'm not ignorant, those who think one political ideology works are wrong.

We need the incentives of the free market economy so we continue to strive to better ourselves, however without protection from those who take advantage of the system we need the ideology of socialism to temper those who are self serving capitalists.

In my book there is no greater crime than to take advantage of the people, it requires the most severe punishment.

Ownership of property is a right that should never be taken away, and running contrary to that protectionism is needed to save us from those who are a detriment to society.

People fail to understand it's not about how we are predisposed to be conservative or liberal, capitalist or socialist it will always be about the end result, it's about the outcome. And it seems retarded to think that one policy will see us progress as a species.

Don't you think?

reply to post by Rigel

Ah, yes, now we are more in line with each others' thoughts. It works better that way.

I wasn't around during the 50 years preceding McCarthyism, but I do remember McCarthyism itself a bit, as well as being familiar with the treatment of lauyal American citizens of Asian descent during WWII and the treatment of the Germans, the Irish, and Lord-knows-who before that. So it's no big leap for me to believe that Anarchists were once treated shabbily.

Next question: what does this have to do with the philosophy of Socialism or the removal of private property rights?

I will have to take a little exception with your referral to Anglo-Saxon's, however. Discrimination, stereotyping, and prejudice seem to be more of a human trait than limited to any one class or race.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Rigel

Ah, yes, now we are more in line with each others' thoughts. It works better that way.

I wasn't around during the 50 years preceding McCarthyism, but I do remember McCarthyism itself a bit, as well as being familiar with the treatment of lauyal American citizens of Asian descent during WWII and the treatment of the Germans, the Irish, and Lord-knows-who before that. So it's no big leap for me to believe that Anarchists were once treated shabbily.

Next question: what does this have to do with the philosophy of Socialism or the removal of private property rights?

I will have to take a little exception with your referral to Anglo-Saxon's, however. Discrimination, stereotyping, and prejudice seem to be more of a human trait than limited to any one class or race.

TheRedneck

The difference between English and French Colonization was primarily that Anglos used to range in a row of rifles to methodically decimate all of a given problematic (or not) population, - when French used to treat with local potentates before annexing them in a peacefull and civilized an manner.


On the Anarchist matter, you don't seem to see that the question of Private Property is at its very core as an all paradim.

But still the question is not such about the individual property, which is well admitted by most of anarchist thinkers as a livable mean on the long run. That truly is about private PRODUCTIVE poperty, as well stated by Anok before. Please digest the thread before anything all, btw.

USA are based upon the CULT of private property understood in its entire extent of all kinf of goods - except for some decades human beings. All the rest is "buyable". And ye men finishes all screwed by the very system where just a few men at theend possess 90 % of all firms, corps, plants - all economic strenght all in all.

SOCIALIST in the European Sense (a strong European Party acts daily at the EU parliament) means using the STATE to garantee the PEOPLE that ECONOMIC POWER is not sold out to some MONOPOLIST, PRIVATE FEWS MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION which :
1/ don't give a damn of the live of the average citizen who happens to be a part of their system
2/ Act for down-leveling all kind of working-right through a/ Immigration b/ Social Dumping c/Transational, if not Over-National Policies.
SOCIALISTS opposingly consider that at least the biggest Services, Industries and Economic Structures must be own by the STATE as IT STANDS FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE. Then you always are sure that basic products and services are provided to you, NOT BY SOME PRIVATE BAND OF CROOKS, but by an ENTITY WHICH IS RULE BY THE PUBLIC SUFFRAGE AND THE PEOPLE'S LAW.

Now, the ANARCHISTS.

Anarchy comes froms 3 influences :


1. French/German/Russian thinkers that emersed at the corner of european revolutions to implement some brand-new organisation based on the right of the weakest citizen taken as the benefital center of the entire social system

2. The developpemet of unions, left-lead movement of workers and social revolutions which appeared thoughout the XIX and eraly XXth century, where many activism leaders became influential political figure, which oftenly merged SOCIALISM with Anarchist Ideal, the latter being also re-evaluaed by new thinkers also redefining the anarchist views toward more practicality. So what happened in the German Revolution of 1919 and what went on in Spain fifteen yrs later.

3. Christian Mysticism and Catholics or Orthodox views about the Kingdom, the Future Jerusalem, and other view taught by the eraly christians text (Gospell, see the Sermont of the Mount - ; Act of Apostles (communist or anarchist if you read it plately and/or open-mindly).

See Leon Tolstoï christian anarchism or Russian Mystic Anarchism of early XXth century.

- continued -

edit :


The common denominator is that of ABOLISHING :

A. POWER as a hierarchy, ie a (etym. 'SACRED', 'HOLLY') scale of power.

B. PRIVATE PROPERTY on an ECONMIC SCALE.

C. MONEY on the LOCAL SCALE. Many systems have been proposed to replace it. One of the best one would be from our economic current system to progressively make that every WORKED HOUR be paid the SAME WAGE whatever the activity (or you could begin with a 3 or 5 levels scale for all salaries)

D. AUTOGESTION, AUTOMANAGEMENT as in organising the productions units. Again, this point has been brightly expressed sooner in this thread by fellow ANOK.


From there , may the true debate somewhat begin.



[edit on 15-3-2009 by Rigel]

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Rigel]

reply to post by Rigel

That's truly about private PRODUCTIVE poperty, as well stated by Anok before. Please digest the thread before anything all, btw.

If you read through the thread, you will see I have been steadily reading and responding for several pages.

I understand (some of) what ANOK has been carefully explaining to me, especially about the concept of productive property. I am at somewhat of a loss to comprehend how certain things will occur, as they are needed in order to accomplish this society. One would be the construction of factories in the first place. It is one thing to say that the factory which already exists should belong to those who run it, but where do new factories come from then? If there is no profit in them, who builds them? Is this responsibility delegated to a group of people who wish to work in a factory, that they must build the factory in order to work in it? And should that factory, built for, say, 100 units production per day, need to have more workers to increase production to 1000 units per day, do the new workers share equally in the profit, even though they had no hand in constructing the factory?

Again, I ask you to please tone down the rhetoric. I am a proud American, yes, but that does not mean you can lump me into some second-rate class simply because I do not yet understand something you ascribe to. Any more than I would be correct in having a condescending attitude toward you for not understanding the theory behind a simple MOSFET transistor. You will find that the old saying is very true: you really can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

Anarchy comes froms 3 influences :

1. French/German/Russian thinkers that emersed at the corner of european revolutions to implement some brand-new organisation based on the right of the weakest citizen taken as the benefital center of the entire social system

2. The developpemet of unions, left-lead movement of workers and social revolutions which appeared thoughout the XIX and eraly XXth century, where many activism leaders became influential political figure, which oftenly merged SOCIALISM with Anarchist Ideal, the latter being also re-evaluaed by new thinkers also redefining the anarchist views toward more practicality. So what happened in the German Revolution of 1919 and what went on in Spain fifteen yrs later.

3. Christian Mysticism and Catholics or Orthodox views about the Kingdom, the Future Jerusalem, and other view taught by the eraly christians text (Gospell, see the Sermont of the Mount - ; Act of Apostles (communist or anarchist if you read it plately and/or open-mindly).

All three of these groups expound some kind of government, as bolded by me in the first two. The third, the early Catholic Church, was in effect a de-facto government of its own at one time.

I looked up Anarchism in Wikipedia and found this definition:

Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable.[1][2] Specific anarchists may have additional criteria for what constitutes anarchism, and they often disagree with each other on what these criteria are. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."

So, you consider the state (governmental authority) to be harmful in any respect, correct? Whereas my personal philosophy is it is an evil, but a necessary evil that should be maintained at the minimum level necessary to accomplish certain specific ends. It would appear that my personal preference would be more in line with the sources you have given, rather than a complete removal of all authority.

Or is the definition I found of Anarchism incorrect? If so, please give yours so we can be talking about the same thing.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


To be honest, I somehow knew you were a potential Born-Again Anarchist. While ANOK used the pedagogical way, I thought okay to shake you out, or in the matter of a sort of straigth feeling about the all thing...

I don't think there would be any need to build any factory, at least no more than usual in any healthy national economy.

The question is much more about the WHO.

If i read you well, you sympatises with libertarian views - the less the state the better, this if this state is strictly lead as a public service. Well, in this manner, I'm all for a hybridish Socialist(social cover and social organization)/Etatist(universal suffrage)/Liberal(free market with regulation of the 2 latter) model, just like we have here in France. Here "socialism" is much more about public services that are garanteed by several State structures aimed to redistribute taxes in a charitable, useful manner, often directly in form of cash, : the less you make cash, the more you're covered. Methinks in USA that's the very opposite : the more rich you are, the better your health...

Anarchist go farther : they propose an economic system where all worker is empowered with what he truly is : a CITIZEN + a WORKER + ... ?

... + A SHAREHOLDER.

... + A DECIDER (depending of the system used, mutualism for example).


In common Capitalism, the Shareholder gives money at the begining to receive some as a result of the working people's strenght and production skills. Finally, the incomes of any economic structure is shared between A/ INVESTORS & SHAREHOLDERS B/ CEO and upper employes in diffferents forms (stock-option, bonuses etc) C/ Wages of all the working staff

In Anarchism, this treasure is redistributed between A/ THE CAPITAL (as the total value of the factory tools of production B/ THE WORKERS.

The Workers are all payed the same wage, from CEO to the part-time worker, while all are payed on an hour-based wage, equal to the sum of dsposable money in a time given divided by the number of hours worked by the all staff.

Then the economic staff of the firm still continue to do the same job.? The difference is just that any working person is considered as invested by the same dignity.

Upon such a sysem, all greed, speculation, need for power and conquest are tammed by a human, equalist, participative system that profit anyone according to one's good and free will to contribute the system. As stated before, in such a system, "social security" would be of no use.



[edit on 15-3-2009 by Rigel]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
That brings up another point: we both know the people of the world have been conditioned as you say, so what would make them react differently today, should your ideal Socialist nation be set up? Would they not act the same way as they did in Russia, the way they have been conditioned?

Well yes of course they would if first the population is not educated. But I'm not here to set up any 'ideal socialist nation', just to make commentary. And yes I do recognise the contempt in that comment.

There are no 'ideal nations'. Everything is a compromise, and trust me, socialists do realise this. It seems to me that it's capitalists who think their 'ideal nation' is perfection, like nothing else matters. That economy is more important than society etc...

It's up to every single individual to come to the conclusion that they don't need to be coerced and exploited any more. Maybe even you, if you REALLY think about it... Personally I believe it will be a natural progression, no need for revolution, or any other violent methods.
Your capitalist system will finally fail people one too many times, and they will search for alternatives. As is already happening.

So please no stereotypes, it's one of the very methods used to control. Not all socialists are itching for violent revolution, far from it. I don't wear a red star and I don't hug trees.

[edit on 3/15/2009 by ANOK]