Socialist Psychology: There Are Two Kinds of Socialism

Originally posted by indianajoe77
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

 

I beleive what your talking about is profit sharing, i.e. you own stock in the company you labor for. As a stockholder, you then recieve your share of the fruits of your labor as dividends.

On a side note, doesn't the AFL-CIO now own shares of GM & Chrysler? Wouldn;t that be the workers getting their share of the labor?

One more thing. If the workers get all the profits, then where is the profit for the people that run the company (office workers, clerks, managers, marketers, salesman, etc.)?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by indianajoe77]

No, I'm talking about Syndicalism.

Under such a system, the workers are those people.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I'm sure there was a point to you saying all that, but I must have missed it.

That's okay.

Sometimes people aren't capable of grasping everything that is written. I'm sure you'll come around and one day be able to understand this stuff.

reply to post by Exuberant1


I understood what s/he wrote, just not why s/he wrote it. Firstly, this is a thread on socialism, not laissez-faire capitalism. Secondly, showing that corrupt governments sometimes create monopolies in order to serve their own interests does not refute the claims that the free market will allow monopolies to be created if left to its own devices.

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Under a *true* free market everyone would share our fear of monoplies, as a monopoly directly counters our interests. Thus we, or at least a large portion of free humans, would choose not to contract with any company or entity that threatens a monopoly, because as rational human beings we know to do so would be against our individual best interest. Since one size fits all never fits for us as a species, aboslute monopolies, without protection, could never natuarally form without force.

Thus companies would be subject to us and our demands, and not protected from competition by the violent regulations of the State.

In a free society that agrees that the non initiation of force is as absolute as not enslaving folks, people would decide on their own to not contract a monopoly and thus alternatives would spring up to accomodate the non conformists.

Theres a reason McDonalds doesnt have the burger market cornered.

The fear of a monopoly (which is what you have currently anyways) taking over a free society is false, *unless* memebers of said free society *choose* monopoly.


[edit on 14-8-2010 by Neo_Serf]

reply to post by mnemeth1


THe problem with the collapse of socialism is ever single idiot/necrophile is rolling up to explain socialism. First there is a need to read the communist manifesto and understand it.

It would be easier to read the source documents than to go through numerous intermediaries each with their own hidden agenda. Most people are time-poor so I can understand the need to have pre-digested information but the catch is that much of it is rubbish.


[edit on 14-8-2010 by Tiger5]

reply to post by Tiger5


If our reasoning started at 'the non initiation of force' (ie dont hit) all of the 'isms' would join slavery in the dustbin of ethical reasoning. We'd be left with incentive and reasoning to solve problems, instead of coersion and violence. Then the world might make sense as it did when we were in kindergarten and understood the simple truths of 'dont hit, ask, your cookies belong to you, share ect.'

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

 

Under a *true* free market everyone would share our fear of monoplies, as a monopoly directly counters our interests.

Not necessarily. People are good with things such as brand loyalty.

Thus we, or at least a large portion of free humans, would choose not to contract with any company or entity that threatens a monopoly, because as rational human beings we know to do so would be against our individual best interest. Since one size fits all never fits for us as a species, aboslute monopolies, without protection, could never natuarally form without force.

Who says they wouldn't use force? There are also local monopolies to consider, where the market in an area is small enough to allow just one major corporation to do business.

Thus companies would be subject to us and our demands, and not protected from competition by the violent regulations of the State.

In theory.

In a free society that agrees that the non initiation of force is as absolute as not enslaving folks, people would decide on their own to not contract a monopoly and thus alternatives would spring up to accomodate the non conformists.

This sounds about as idealistic as Communism.

The fear of a monopoly (which is what you have currently anyways) taking over a free society is false, *unless* memebers of said free society *choose* monopoly.

Or just become apathetic.

reply to post by Tiger5


PS: The problem with socialists trying to explain socialism is that they cant admit their program is based on violence, which everyone knows is wrong. Since political socialists guise their true intentions of control in moralism (concern for the poor, elderly, ect), and well intentioned socialists believe the myth of their masters benevolent intent...

...Well none of them can admit that they must execute their plan from the safe side of a loaded gun. No one could possibly convince his neighbors of his benevolence and good intentions if he were to rob them all at gunpoint while telling his bound victims that he will use the loot to fund a souphouse. Especially if this were his fifth hood to rob and everyone knew he kept 70% of his ill gotten gain for himself and his cronies.

Only the foolish would think it was anything more than a shakedown if the local mafia beat the hell out of someone and then offered them protection from further beatings, for a price of course. Every thinking person would know they werent giving up huge sums for anything other than fear.

And yet when the most successful organised crime faction, ie the 'government' does exactly these things, suddenly theres some unsigned yet equally enforceable 'social contract' that somehow binds us from birth without so much as a nod from the contractee. Somehow this monopoly of violence is allowed to extract 50, 60, 70, 90+% of our incomes. (when all taxes and fees are factored in, through each step in production, nevermind inflation) Somehow this one group is permitted to pass hundreds of thousands of laws that intrude on our day to day lives with increasing frequency. This gang, that we all are *forced* to pay for, engages in wreclkess spending, uneneding wars, unending handouts to select groups, and facilitates the free market mutation of capitalism (voluntary exchange) into the plague that is corperatism (monopoly capitalism) that destroys the average man. And thats just a short list that government intervention allows and demands.

But the deluded socialist is a moral man at core, like most of us. We have the same basic goal in mind. To live a good life. The problem arrises because the sociopathic elite *know* we value this. They themselves, being cunning predators, have studied their prey and know our basic desires and short comings. They know that, like wild hogs, if they gain our trust through fake benevolence that we can be made dependant and thus controllable. Once controllable we are more easily conquerable and therefor more easily slaughterable.

Thus the modern welfare handout state was born. Suddenly governments existed to serve the people for the common good, and not to dominate the masses, as even the common serf understood. Suddenly the socialist philosopher kings were born, whose theories were not subject to the human certainty to become corrupt when trusted with power. Certainly these lofty minded idealists aimed at the good of the common man, and not their own empowerment, as every other human did before. To give all the power necessary to the men with guns becomes the only solution to problems when you believe the men with guns are just.

So since most socialists will tell you that they support their system because it feeds the poor, helps the needy, redistibutes wealth for the better prevents harmful business conditions ect, we can know that their argument is mainly a moral one, not to get into the practicality of such a scheme. Since they actually are well intentioned people for the most part and abhor violence, they simply cannot accept that everything they 'vote' for, advocate and submit to is based on VIOLENCE! Since we all know aggressive violence is wrong, we can also know that any moral system that *requires* aggressive violence to operate is not a moral system at all, but instead a might = right scenario where the professed good intentions of the socialst, or statist, simply cannot stand.

So in my long winded conclusion, I believe that those who advocate a just and eithical society, while condoning the exact opposite (initiation of force)to achive their stated goals are in the exact opposite moral alignment vs that which they openly advocate. They want to make peace through war and freedom through slavery. When exposed to the coersion in the system they support, the honest ones will reject violence in all its forms, including the formally hidden violence of government. Most will retreat into doublethink, giving endless justifacations and outright denial in the face of the truth - that the system that has raised them and has given them identity is indeed evil and based on that which they claim to oppose.

Its just plain nieve to think that a monopoly of violence can be given the exclusive rights to steal, counterfit, inprison and murder with basic impunity, and not fall to corruption and thus turn on the well intentioned folks who allowed its monopoly in the first place. Thus coercive socialism, which advocates *more* power for the monopoly = a big fat daddy fail, as we are witnessing today.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

 

Not necessarily. People are good with things such as brand loyalty.

Yes but is everyone loyal to one brand always?

Who says they wouldn't use force? There are also local monopolies to consider, where the market in an area is small enough to allow just one major corporation to do business.

Have you ever been forced at gunpoint to shop at WalMart? How about tied up and forced to buy a pair of Nikes?

Locality? The internet destroys this notion. Even if the private corp who supplied my water decided to jack the rates to 500% my local community would buy water from companies humping it in on their backs who charged less. Thus evil water tyrant would shortly go broke and a less destructive and sustainanble firm would move in. Oh and Id only contract with them if they promised to keep prices low and flow abundant.

In theory.

You cant just throw out an 'in theory' and pretend it stands alone as absolute. This comment carries no information and thus i cant form a rebuttal. You might aswell say 'says Youuuu foooooo~'.

This sounds about as idealistic as Communism.

So at least we agree that communism aka SOCIALISM (according to Marx) is idealistic.

Not that idealism is invalid. Idealism is why the blacks arent captive slaves anymore. The issue is practicality vs pie in the sky, starry eyed delusions.

So if McDonalds startys charging 10$ a burger, and theres no law saying I cant open my own burger stand, whats to stop me charging 2$ and undercutting the evil monopoly? Right, Im free, nothing is stopping me.

The fear of a monopoly (which is what you have currently anyways) taking over a free society is false, *unless* memebers of said free society *choose* monopoly.

Or just become apathetic.

If it is your will to become apathetic and thus a slave, then you shall have your monopolies. I for one choose rational self interest and thus FREEDOM.

Well I must thank you for a sensible response to my post. I was fully expecting a Tea Party type right wing idiot. Yes I have made socialism as serious study and yes I am a moral person.

There is an issue with the theory and the practice. That is why there is a broad spectrum of socialists running from the social demeoicrats to the Social-fascists.

Sometimes I wonder if American ever got over the Mcarthyite era? Still britiain got a wealth of America artistic talent.

Following Marx, Lenin and Trotsky’s line of thought I really believe that everything points to a revolution. Some of the soviet-funded socialists followed the parliamentary road to socialism in the UK yet their mindless support for the Tankies (i,e, Stalinists was morally repugnant).

Frankly I dislike some of the rhetoric behind those who advocate violent revolution. Most of these are just suffering from the “infantile disorder” as Marx wrote in his little essay. Of course when we consider what James P Cannon wrote about the quality of people drawn to the left it becomes clear the social problems of sociopaths joining leftwing organisations. Most of these advocates of violence have never had to shoot a human being and see the real consequences. Most of these people have never even attended a funeral and seen the fall out of the death of a loved one. If so how can anyone blindly justify violence giving the injured may be someone’s husband, wife , or child?

Anyway the issue of violence e must be considered in the context of self-defence. Left wingers and trade unionists have repeatedly been beaten by the forces of the state. Some like Blair Peach in the UK were killed simply for attending a demonstration against Neo Nazis. So much for democracy...I do not believe that the TPTB will just give up power when 90% of the population are converted to a socialist agenda of some kind of redistribution of wealth. Still America had a revolution and it was violent so perhaps violence as a last resort can be justified at times.

The British welfare state grew out of the fear of revolution that came out of the spontaneous radicalisation of those who had suffered years of war. Don’t forget that the role of women was expanded to traditionally do men’s jobs and many men had combat training. Believe me the ruling clases did have a genuine need to appease the working class. Hence the welfare state was born.


A more interesting analysis is why aparatchniks appear in all socialist movements.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Tiger5]

reply to post by Tiger5


The only sensible difference I can see between those that propose solutions is between those that propose violence and those that dont. Those that point the gun, and those that offer the hand. Thus classes are not split into rich or poor, lord or serf, right or left, but instead productive and parasite.

I believe socialism, and statism, prefers and allows the later. A parasite offers no benefit to its host, while a symbiotic, aka the productive, offers consentual mutually benefitial trade to those it interacts with. The parasite is a zero sum game, always growing at the expense of its host, while the symbiot always gains through the growth of its partner.

Government, then, is a parasite by every definition. It takes wealth from the productive and transfers it, at immense cost (because it is not subject to the laws of efficientcy) to another parisite body. Thus 100$ is the productive classes exchange is worth far less in a coercive parasitical exchange because the echange is forced and not mutual, and therefor is not subjected to the efficientcy principal of supply and demand.

Thus if i take 100$ from you and give it to my friend, or *special interest* that 100$ is only changing directions, of course at great cost as the exchange does not have to be efficient. If I trade you 100$ for something you consider as valuble then maximum efficiency of the exchange is garanteed because youll be selling it for the highers price you can get and ill be buying it for the lowest price youll offer. Unlike the goverment telling you exactly how much youll pay, and for what. Must not have read the 'social contract', funny, dont remember signing up for that.

Thus the exchange is completed with minimal 'friction' or energy loss, and it is not zero sum so we have both benefitted, otherwise we wouldnt have made the trade in the first place. Thus the 100$ used as a medium gets used with the least possible waste and thus maximum output for us all.

Now compare to the parasitical transfer where wealth is stolen through involuntary taxation. I tell you I will use the money ive stolen wisely and honestly. You know since youre not an idiot that since im not subject to efficiency, since I *forced* you to trade your money for something you may or may not agree with, that we will have a 'friction' or energy loss right off the bat. Now youve added in the inescapable factor of human corruption and you can see that every dollar ive *taxed* from you must be mainly paid out to my enforcers that allowed me to take your money in the first place.

So since I have a monopoly of the initiation of force and no competition, you can know that every dollar I take from you will be spent far less efficiently than if you had that dollar to spend on your own, voluntarily. You can see that since Im a monopoly that efficiency means nothing to me since I can simply tax you more for shortfalls. Im the government, I cant go out of business and I have no competition. Im made up of humans who are largely sociopaths.

A socialist would want me to have more power to steal your money and gunpoint and spend it in ways that freedom would never allow. To fund wars, to allow inflation (and profit from it at your expense), and to selectively regulate any potential competition out of existence. Only a large state can facilitate such obviously bad deals. Try not paying for wars. See what (I) the State, would do to you.

Not saying you advocate, cuz obvioulsy you see these problems. They are plain for anyone to see. But having studied socialism myself, and even having been a bit of a commie in my younger years, doesnt it seem apparent that these isms must destroy freedom in order to compete?

Doesnt that imply that top down command and control is inferior to a free system? Doesnt it seem as if money taken at gunpoint is just plain evil, regardless of stated intentions, that are almost always a cover for more government, red tape, and control?

When can we all agree that hitting is wrong?

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Yes but is everyone loyal to one brand always?

Not always, no. However, for a decent laissez-faire system to operate, the people need to be perfectly informed and acting totally rationally at all times. This is unlikely, to say the least.

Have you ever been forced at gunpoint to shop at WalMart? How about tied up and forced to buy a pair of Nikes?

No, because the government's monopoly on force prevents them doing anything like that to me.

Locality? The internet destroys this notion. Even if the private corp who supplied my water decided to jack the rates to 500% my local community would buy water from companies humping it in on their backs who charged less. Thus evil water tyrant would shortly go broke and a less destructive and sustainanble firm would move in. Oh and Id only contract with them if they promised to keep prices low and flow abundant.

You hope, anyway.

You cant just throw out an 'in theory' and pretend it stands alone as absolute. This comment carries no information and thus i cant form a rebuttal. You might aswell say 'says Youuuu foooooo~'.

I'm just saying, things usually don't work out in practice as they do in theory. Ask Karl Marx.

So at least we agree that communism aka SOCIALISM (according to Marx) is idealistic.

They're not the same. I've always maintained that both Communism and Socialism are far too idealistic in the present climate. I'm not sure they'd be desirable even if they were realistic.

Not that idealism is invalid. Idealism is why the blacks arent captive slaves anymore. The issue is practicality vs pie in the sky, starry eyed delusions.

Precisely.

So if McDonalds startys charging 10$ a burger, and theres no law saying I cant open my own burger stand, whats to stop me charging 2$ and undercutting the evil monopoly? Right, Im free, nothing is stopping me.

Why on earth would they do that? However, fi nothing was stopping them from stopping you, I'm sure they'd be able to hire more guys with guns than you could.

If it is your will to become apathetic and thus a slave, then you shall have your monopolies. I for one choose rational self interest and thus FREEDOM.

What, you think people usually choose to become apathetic?

And yeah, yeah, spare me the propaganda.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


Why do you believe that violence is always wrong?

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Violence must be part of our personal toolkit. It is like the small device that I keep in my car that is designed for me to cut myself out of my seatbelt (seat belts are a good thing). I pray that I never ever have to use the cutter.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

Why do you believe that violence is always wrong?

Why are you pretending that he said violence is always wrong under all circumstances?

Why would you do such a thing?

reply to post by Exuberant1


Okay, in what circumastances would you (and Neo_Serf) say that violence is okay in? Why/why not?

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Do i REALLY have to explain to you why aggressive violence, ie the initiation of force, is wrong? REALLY? Notice I said the initiation of force, not self defence, which is a universal right and duty of all living beings. Dont get me wrong, if you jumped me in an alley I wouldnt debate the moral pros and cons of stomping you into the ground. But I would never myself attack another person, and thus I cannot support any person, group, gang or government who does the same.

Any and all just moral systems are based on the principal of not harming others. Since you are proposing a moral system of social oranization, your proposal must be subject to base concepts. Since we know that hitting is wrong for you, and hitting is wrong for me, we must, if we are to be logically and morally consistent, find that hitting is also wrong for 'government', as 'government' is just a collection of people.

You have kids? What would you tell them if they asked you the same question? The answer is obvious. You engage in doublethink, as usual, to defend one group of people who initiate force while condeming it for the rest of us on the opposite side of the gun.

I hope you were just trolling me with that question, if so good job.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

Not always, no. However, for a decent laissez-faire system to operate, the people need to be perfectly informed and acting totally rationally at all times. This is unlikely, to say the least.

This touches on the root of your ideology, I think. A distain for your fellow mans intellectual capabilities. You seem to think we are fundamentally irrational, and I, and others, think man is fundamentally adaptive. If raised in decadence and dependance, of course youll end up with a herd of sheep. If allowed to make their own decisions, well, we might just start making our own decisions.

No, because the government's monopoly on force prevents them doing anything like that to me.

No, your governments monopoly of force makes you buy inefficient healthcare, use inflated and increasingly worthless currency, support a welfare state that only perpetuates poverty, pay for wars that destroy societies including your own, buy the largest per capita serveillance state in the world ect ect ect...

...but one thing it doesnt do is protect you from buying a 3 pack of jockeys at WalMart. Again you misunderstand what freedom means.

I'm just saying, things usually don't work out in practice as they do in theory. Ask Karl Marx.

So you AGREE that socialism doesnt work in practice?

Why are you wasting our time?

They're not the same. I've always maintained that both Communism and Socialism are far too idealistic in the present climate. I'm not sure they'd be desirable even if they were realistic.

So what the hell ARE you saying?

Why on earth would they do that? However, if nothing was stopping them from stopping you, I'm sure they'd be able to hire more guys with guns than you could.

No, they couldnt. Why? Because no one wants to pay for guys with guns. (more guns that are necessary for self defence) Only GOVERNMENT can FORCE you to pay for an aggressive military state! In a truly free society, anyone who began to build up massive offensive forces simply would go out of business. Why? Try jacking up the prices of your hamburgers to pay for black helicopters. Not only would your customers flee, but your shareholders would block such decisions knowing it will cost them business.

Would you do business with a militant McDonalds?

What, you think people usually choose to become apathetic?

A free person CHOOSES to be whatever the hell he wants to be. A government slave tends to become a little apathetic. Afterall, why try if your efforts are confiscated?

And yeah, yeah, spare me the propaganda.

If logic is propaganda to you, then LIES have become your TRUTH.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

Do i REALLY have to explain to you why aggressive violence, ie the initiation of force, is wrong? REALLY?

Yes.

Notice I said the initiation of force, not self defence, which is a universal right and duty of all living beings.

I don't believe in 'universal rights'. The only rights you have are those which you are willing to protect, and those which others are willing to protect for you.

But I would never myself attack another person

Why not?

Any and all just moral systems are based on the principal of not harming others.

I'm sure there are exceptions.

Since you are proposing a moral system of social oranization, your proposal must be subject to base concepts. Since we know that hitting is wrong for you, and hitting is wrong for me

Why is it wrong for you and me?

we must, if we are to be logically and morally consistent, find that hitting is also wrong for 'government', as 'government' is just a collection of people.

Not really. For example, when I was a child, my father could (and would) hit me and nothing would happen to him. If I did the same (to anybody) and he found out, I'd be punished. Sometimes violence from those at the top is necessary to keep order.

You have kids? What would you tell them if they asked you the same question?

I'd tell them that hitting is bad because somebody with a bigger stick than them (AKA the government) will hit them harder.

You engage in doublethink, as usual, to defend one group of people who initiate force while condeming it for the rest of us on the opposite side of the gun.

It's not doublethink. The government (in any reasonable democratic nation) aren't just any people, they're specifically elected to carry out the sentencing and occasionally use violence in order to protect people from those who would do us harm. The alternative is social anarchy and survival of the fittest.

I hope you were just trolling me with that question, if so good job.

I never 'just troll'.