A quick question for communists before bed...

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by daskakik

 

Wait, so I use the definition YOU provided yet I'm just trying to FORCE my definitions onto people via the internet... You know what force is right? You know that it is not MY definition if YOU provided it right?

It is so crazy how you won't debate but just claim me as wrong...

Debate me on how I used YOUR definition in relation to the people in the video... PLEASE, I look forward to it...

I actually have no idea how your twisting things in your mind to turn socialist cooperatives into capitalist corporations.

One thing is true, systems can share characteristics, like making a profit exists in both capitalism and socialism. I don't know why you think it doesn't. I guess this makes you think you are using my definition but your just cherry picking the definition I posted to label things capitalism even if the other parts of the definition don't apply.

reply to post by daskakik

I actually have no idea how your twisting things in your mind to turn socialist cooperatives into capitalist corporations.

Erm because it operates in exactly the same way? Only the pay system is better...

One thing is true, systems can share characteristics, like making a profit exists in both capitalism and socialism. I don't know why you think it doesn't.

How about this?

A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit[5] driven by the accumulation of capital

Besides anok (your hero) has told me many times he is anti private property and anti profit making! Making profit is the crooks of all evil to him apparently...

I guess this makes you think you are using my definition but your just cherry picking the definition I posted to label things capitalism even if the other parts of the definition don't apply.

Tell me which parts of your definition did I miss out? If I "cherry picked" there would be parts I missed out... What are they?

I'm sorry but you are coming back with nothing... Just saying ad-homs and telling me I am wrong is not debating...

I have put forward my case as to why they are capitalist, please put your case as to what you think they are. Or better yet use the definition you provided of capitalism to show how that group of people are not capitalistic.

Originally posted by mee30
Erm because it operates in exactly the same way? Only the pay system is better...

Pay system?

Besides anok (your hero) has told me many times he is anti private property and anti profit making! Making profit is the crooks of all evil to him apparently...

I know he doesn't believe that. I have no idea how you have come to these conclusions.

Tell me which parts of your definition did I miss out? If I "cherry picked" there would be parts I missed out... What are they?

I'm sorry but you are coming back with nothing... Just saying ad-homs and telling me I am wrong is not debating...

I have put forward my case as to why they are capitalist, please put your case as to what you think they are. Or better yet use the definition you provided of capitalism to show how that group of people are not capitalistic.

Actually I see that what I posted was only part of a larger entry that addressed the question about the bailouts. So those two things mentioned, private ownership and making a profit are also part of socialism. The difference is that in socialism the workers always co-own the company and in capitalism there is an owner(s) and workers who may or may not own stock in the company but that is at the owner's discretion.

reply to post by daskakik

Pay system?

Oh you think they don't get paid? Didn't you hear one of the 7 owners saying that the left over PROFIT is devided up amongst everyone? Any way they get other benefits on top like room and board etc...

I know he doesn't believe that. I have no idea how you have come to these conclusions.

Clearly you do not... I have asked him and spoke about his beliefs many times in this thread and has he denied any of it?

I have a very long convo with him on here one time but I can't seem to find the thread... Any way he said that profit was bad because it causes greed basically... Oh and it was something about profit being money earned without having to work for it, I can't remember his exact wording... He was most definitely against making a profit... Ask him yourself...

He even said that he could go and "take back" any privately run business, because it should be for everyone basically and that companies don't give a "fair share"... He said that people built the buildings etc so they are theirs... I pointed out that the builders had been PAID, pretty well too... But that didn't seem to matter. I also told him that it's theft! He told me you can't steal something that has already been stolen... So say you worked real hard and bought yourself a small factory or something. Anok believes he can come and take it off you by force. It would either be by state force or mob with pitchforks!

Honestly it was absolutely vile what he was saying, it got me rather annoyed. lol

This is why I find it so funny that he is now appearing to be in support of these things and keep referencing him... You think if he didn't say these things that he would have me making false accusations against him? He said them and he advocates it...

Let's say he does advocate it, how would that make you feel?

reply to post by daskakik

Actually I see that what I posted was only part of a larger entry that addressed the question about the bailouts.

Well it didn't even do that did it? lol... Do you agree then that the quote you came with fits the people in that commune?
As you didn't refute it I take it you concede?

How about the rest of what I said? You continue to say socialism includes profit even though I have posted a quote on socialism that says it isn't? Socialism is supposed to be about meeting peoples needs WITHOUT making a profit, according to the definition...

reply to post by daskakik

The difference is that in socialism the workers always co-own the company and in capitalism there is an owner(s) and workers who may or may not own stock in the company

Sorry, I missed this little chestnut! LOL

So more proof that the people in the video are NOT socialist! 7 people owned that commune! The guy says it himself for god sake! The best example put forward for a socialist business has an 85% as worker members and they hold only 2 billion worth of shares for a company with assets of over 30 billion! That is just the assets too, obviously companies are not only valued by their assets but also the profitability, so the business will be worth way more than 30 billion.

As you have said there are many companies that offer shares...

Originally posted by mee30
Oh you think they don't get paid? Didn't you hear one of the 7 owners saying that the left over PROFIT is devided up amongst everyone? Any way they get other benefits on top like room and board etc...

Like I said it isn't particularly about the example in the vid.

I have a very long convo with him on here one time but I can't seem to find the thread... Any way he said that profit was bad because it causes greed basically... Oh and it was something about profit being money earned without having to work for it, I can't remember his exact wording... He was most definitely against making a profit... Ask him yourself...

I have read/participated in dozens of threads where he has posted. I believe that you have taken his stance against private ownership of the means of production and profit from the exploitation of workers to mean that he is against all private property and all forms of profit.

ETA;

As you have said there are many companies that offer shares...

Well that one difference of having to share the company and the profits and being able to chose to do it or not is basically the difference between the two. Rather slim and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the other actions that a government may take.

reply to post by daskakik

Like I said it isn't particularly about the example in the vid.

Sorry you have lost me here, are you backing away from calling them socialist now? Are they or aren't they an example of socialism in your mind. Just so I am clear...

I have read/participated in dozens of threads where he has posted. I believe that you have taken his stance against private ownership of the means of production and profit from the exploitation of workers to mean that he is against all private property and all forms of profit.

Right so now you know that he is against private ownership of the means of production? Something I have said many times! (Btw he is against other forms of private property too but we'll leave that for the moment...)

The people in the video had private ownership... What do you not get about that? But old anok didn't seem to mind on THIS occasion (read he is a liar)... Profit from the exploitation of workers, well you do realize that profit is charged to the CUSTOMER not the worker...

I'm sorry but it is all non-sense...

Tell me honestly what you think about anok saying he can go steal the means of production off somebody? Basically steal someones business and livelyhood that they have worked damn hard to build?

reply to post by daskakik

Well that one difference of having to share the company and the profits and being able to chose to do it or not is basically the difference between the two. Rather slim and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the other actions that a government may take.

You are becoming very confusing now... That first sentence makes no sense... Then you mention government, what does that have to do with anything? We are talking business and shareholders etc...

Besides you are ignoring huge amounts of what I am saying... A tactic anok loves to use, lol

reply to post by daskakik


Right I'm off to bed now, will get back to you tomorrow, have fun and have a good think about all of this.

Originally posted by mee30
Sorry you have lost me here, are you backing away from calling them socialist now? Are they or aren't they an example of socialism in your mind. Just so I am clear...

I assumed they were because of what you initially wrote about it. From the info now available I would say that they are not socialist. What I mean by it not being particularly about that company is in reference to the discussion in general.

Right so now you know that he is against private ownership of the means of production? Something I have said many times! (Btw he is against other forms of private property too but we'll leave that for the moment...)

I have known his stance on the private ownership of the means of production before this thread even started. I know that he is not against other forms of private property.

Profit from the exploitation of workers, well you do realize that profit is charged to the CUSTOMER not the worker...

It is charged to the customer in exchange for a product that the worker helped create. The worker gets an amount and this along with other overhead is deduced and the resulting net profit is kept by the owner(s).

Tell me honestly what you think about anok saying he can go steal the means of production off somebody? Basically steal someones business and livelyhood that they have worked damn hard to build?

I think he sees it as taking something back which they were not entitled to in the first place. Plus, I doubt he means stripping them of everything but just the portion which rightfully belonged to the worker in the first place.

You are becoming very confusing now... That first sentence makes no sense... Then you mention government, what does that have to do with anything? We are talking business and shareholders etc...

The first sentence lays out the small difference between "bare bones" capitalism and "bare bones" socialism. In capitalism you may choose to allow workers to own shares in the company and dictate the form and the amount or you may choose not to and in socialism its a given.

The thread did touch upon the shortcomings of communist systems, like oppression, which were not direct products of the economical system. The same types of tyrannical actions have been carried out in capitalist systems so those shortcomings are not unique to communism and therefore, it is wrong to lay the blame on the economical system.

I'm done going around in circles with people who fail to understand what they're reading, and seem to have brought all their emotional baggage to the discussion.

So here are some relevant quotes, food for thought I hope...

Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

Albert Einstein, from his article "Why Socialism?", published in 'Monthly Review' 1949.

As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people.

From the book 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908

Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois
economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form?
For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the
State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not
fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone
else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both.

From 'The Capitalist System' p.1, Michael Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.

Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without
freedom is slavery and brutality.
The League [for Peace and Freedom] loudly proclaims the necessity of a radical social and economic reconstruction, having for its aim the emancipation of people's labor from the yoke of capital and property owners, a reconstruction based upon strict justice - neither juridical nor theological nor metaphysical justice, but simply human justice - upon positive science and upon the widest freedom.

From 'Stateless Socialism: Anarchism', Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.

The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism, which argues that property in land, natural resources, and the means of production should be held in mutual control by local communities, federating for innumerable joint purposes with other communes. It differs from state socialism in opposing the concept of any central authority. Some anarchists prefer to distinguish between anarchist-communism and collectivist anarchism in order to stress the obviously desirable freedom of an individual or family to possess the resources needed for living, while not implying the right to own the resources needed by others.

Anarcho-syndicalism puts its emphasis on the organized industrial workers who could, through a ‘social general strike’, expropriate the possessors of capital and thus engineer a workers’ take-over of industry and administration.

Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.1 p.2, 1995

The 20th century experienced or witnessed every variety of state socialism, and learned that if its rulers are ruthless enough, they can impose, for a while, the most bizarre regimes and describe them as socialism. As socialism has been grossly misrepresented, so anarchism suffers from the widely held view that it is simply another variety of millenarianism, the belief in the eventual arrival, ‘after the revolution’, of a period of ultimate happiness when all the problems that beset humanity will have been solved, permanently.

Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.3 p.31, 1995

Let us not destroy those wonderful machines that produce efficiently and cheaply. Let us control them. Let us profit by their efficiency and cheapness. Let us run them for ourselves. That, gentlemen, is socialism...

...There were writers of the early twentieth century who spoke for socialism or criticized the capitalist system harshly-not obscure pamphleteers, but among the most famous of American literary figures, whose books were read by millions: Upton Sinclair, Jack London, Theodore Dreiser, Frank Norris.
Lipton Sinclair's novel The Jungle, published in 1906, brought the conditions in the meatpacking plants of Chicago to the shocked attention of the whole country, and stimulated demand for laws regulating the meat industry. But also, through the story of an immigrant laborer, Jurgis Rudkus, it spoke of socialism, of how beautiful life might be if people cooperatively owned and worked and shared the riches of the earth. The Jungle was first published in the Socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason; it was then read by millions as a hook, and was translated into seventeen languages...

..One of the influences on Upton Sinclair's thinking was a book, People of the Abyss, by Jack London. London was a member of the Socialist party. He had come out of the slums of San Francisco, the child of an unwed mother. He had been a newsboy, a cannery worker, a sailor, a fisherman, had worked in a jute mill and a laundry, hoboed the railroads to the East Coast, been clubbed by a policeman on the streets of New York and arrested for vagrancy in Niagara Falls, watched men beaten and tortured in jail, pirated oysters in San Francisco Bay, read Flaubert, Tolstoy, Melville, and the Communist Manifesto, preached socialism in the Alaskan gold camps in the winter of 1896, sailed 2,000 miles back through the Bering Sea, and became a world-famous writer of adventure books. In 1906, he wrote his novel The Iron Heel, with its warning of a fascist America, its ideal of a socialist brotherhood of man. In the course of it, through his characters, he indicts the system...

...Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership...

...When the Declaration of Independence was read, with all its flaming radical language, from the town hall balcony in Boston, it was read by Thomas Crafts, a member of the Loyal Nine group, conservatives who had opposed militant action against the British. Four days after the reading, the Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered the townsmen to show up on the Common for a military draft. The rich, it turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for substitutes; the poor had to serve' This led to rioting, and shouting: "Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may."

A People’s History of the United States, 1492-Present, section 13, By Howard Zinn, American historian and political science professor at Boston uni. He described himself as 'Something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist.

Communism that requires a leader, a boss, or even a board of people to perform that role, is doomed to fail entirely. As it happens, many former soviets made a hell of a lot of money in business.

reply to post by daskakik

I assumed they were because of what you initially wrote about it. From the info now available I would say that they are not socialist. What I mean by it not being particularly about that company is in reference to the discussion in general.

I'll take that as a stand down and I respect that... Look that company as well as all the others remember have been presented to me by other people as examples of socialism or communism at work... Thing is it turns out non of them really are socialist or communist, but hey they are a great idea all the same and fairer for sure, which is defo a good thing.

I have known his stance on the private ownership of the means of production before this thread even started. I know that he is not against other forms of private property.

So I'll ask you again... How do you feel about anok and his crew turning up at that commune and telling them they are taking back the land for the good of everyone! Not just these filthy capitalists... THAT is a major problem for me... I find communists and socialists like to sugar coat these issues with fancy terminology and such. I was rather taken aback by how anok was so open about wanting to steal from hard working people...

You say you know he is not against other forms of property? You are wrong because anok doesn't like like it when people have what HE would deem too much... He also doesn't like the fact people can choose to buy a load of junk, such as iphones etc... I can't remember his exact wording but that was the gist... I did try to push him on it but talking to him is such a chore because he just simply ignores much of what you write. I do seem to remember him saying something like socialism or communism would provide what we NEED rather than all the junk etc... So who would decide what we NEED? Didn't get a straight answer... All of this is sooo anti freedom.

It is charged to the customer in exchange for a product that the worker helped create. The worker gets an amount and this along with other overhead is deduced and the resulting net profit is kept by the owner(s).

Yes, and that is what inspires companies to build huge businesses that provide all sorts of wonderful things for us. Also everyone can choose what they do in life. There is no forced labor other than in prison, which is a government problem as always but that is another issue... As anok himself has said there are more co-ops that union ran companies. So people have a fantastic choice then? Hell you can even choose to run your own business or be self employed. This is all freedom... In anoks world you could not choose to have your own business, he would want to take it from you... The only thing that is ruining the economy etc is government, they are the problem, not capitalism...

I think he sees it as taking something back which they were not entitled to in the first place. Plus, I doubt he means stripping them of everything but just the portion which rightfully belonged to the worker in the first place.

LOL The worker already gets his portion, it is the salary he/she voluntarily agreed upon when they took the job... If the wanted more why didn't they look for something else or start up on their own? Lots of people do it and become very successful... There would be even more of it if government didn't keep interfering... He doesn't mean taking a portion anyway, he wants to take the whole lot!

I mean look many people work very hard to get their businesses up and running and it takes guts and there are risks involved... It takes countless sleepless nights and a boat load of stress... But you think that someone who just walks in off the street should be paid the same? Or if not the same how much? Isn't that up to the individual to decide how much they will accept?

The first sentence lays out the small difference between "bare bones" capitalism and "bare bones" socialism. In capitalism you may choose to allow workers to own shares in the company and dictate the form and the amount or you may choose not to and in socialism its a given.

You realize that choice is freedom right? Like I said there are plenty of options available for everyone right now... If a person doesn't want to share the business he/she worked so hard to build then that is their prerogative, wouldn't you say? People are also free to shun him/her and refuse to work there... This is freedom...

reply to post by daskakik

The thread did touch upon the shortcomings of communist systems, like oppression, which were not direct products of the economical system. The same types of tyrannical actions have been carried out in capitalist systems so those shortcomings are not unique to communism and therefore, it is wrong to lay the blame on the economical system.

Yes it did but I do not agree because some socialist and communist ideals are anti freedom, even ones that don't involve a state ran version.. The people do not know it, and their heart is in the right place, I don't hate them even if they refuse to listen to me and ask me questions rather than jump straight down my throat lol... In my opinion they are the ones that have been deceived... Like for instance if capitalism was what TPTB want why do they operate so many social programs? A lot of what the government does is verging on socialism, like the redistribution of wealth, ie tax and social security.Minimum wage, National health services, social services etc etc.. These are certainly not capitalistic ideas, where is the profit in them?

To me we have socialism now, dressed up in a fake capitalistic skirt with a fake democratic bra on, and fake free market lipstick. A lot of people keep pointing at the skirt and the bra and the lipstick while ignoring what really lies beneath... Whenever the government gets involved it ALWAYS runs up tons more debt for very little results... Like the drug war as a classic example... There is so much waste and corruption it is beyond a joke!

You see I actually advocate people leave these company run jobs, but not because of the contract between employer and employee but because of the contract between the employer and government... The company is stealing off you then giving to the corrupt lying immoral government. I would NEVER work for anyone that did that to me...

Any way, glad things cooled off a little and we could get down to business.

To me seams like Marxism, socialism and Communism are getting mixed up.

Originally posted by definity
To me seams like Marxism and Communism are getting mixed up.

Yes they are completely confusing Marxism with Communism. Socialism and communism are the same thing.

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism.

The Terms “Socialism” and “Communism”

Marxism was a movement for communism, it's not communism itself people. Communism came before Marxism and exists outside of it.

Anarcho-Communism, or Libertarian Communism, is a political ideology related to Libertarian socialism. However, the terms Anarcho-Communism and Libertarian Communism should not be considered synonyms for libertarian socialism. Anarcho-Communism is a particular branch of libertarian socialism...

Anarcho-Communism

Anarcho-communists support a gift-economy...

A gift economy is an economic system in which goods and services are given, rather than traded. This should in theory be beneficial because needs can be satisfied immediately, as opposed to economic stagnation caused by adverse or inappropriate trade conditions, as such in a poverty-stricken area. This is thus often the proposed solution to the poverty cycle, such as in Anarcho-Communism.

In Anarcho-Communism, there is no money or market—only a gift economy. Products are given away and freely distributed. However, gift economies can co-exist with planned economies, market economies, and barter economies.

gift economy

Originally posted by mee30
So I'll ask you again... How do you feel about anok and his crew turning up at that commune and telling them they are taking back the land for the good of everyone! Not just these filthy capitalists... THAT is a major problem for me... I find communists and socialists like to sugar coat these issues with fancy terminology and such. I was rather taken aback by how anok was so open about wanting to steal from hard working people...

You say you know he is not against other forms of property? You are wrong because anok doesn't like like it when people have what HE would deem too much... He also doesn't like the fact people can choose to buy a load of junk, such as iphones etc... I can't remember his exact wording but that was the gist... I did try to push him on it but talking to him is such a chore because he just simply ignores much of what you write. I do seem to remember him saying something like socialism or communism would provide what we NEED rather than all the junk etc... So who would decide what we NEED? Didn't get a straight answer... All of this is sooo anti freedom.

Yes, and that is what inspires companies to build huge businesses that provide all sorts of wonderful things for us. Also everyone can choose what they do in life. There is no forced labor other than in prison, which is a government problem as always but that is another issue... As anok himself has said there are more co-ops that union ran companies. So people have a fantastic choice then? Hell you can even choose to run your own business or be self employed. This is all freedom... In anoks world you could not choose to have your own business, he would want to take it from you... The only thing that is ruining the economy etc is government, they are the problem, not capitalism...

These 2 points get the same answer. I'm sure he wouldn't do that and unless you can come up with the thread where he said that, I am going to have to think you misinterpreted what he said.

LOL The worker already gets his portion, it is the salary he/she voluntarily agreed upon when they took the job... If the wanted more why didn't they look for something else or start up on their own? Lots of people do it and become very successful... There would be even more of it if government didn't keep interfering... He doesn't mean taking a portion anyway, he wants to take the whole lot!

I mean look many people work very hard to get their businesses up and running and it takes guts and there are risks involved... It takes countless sleepless nights and a boat load of stress... But you think that someone who just walks in off the street should be paid the same? Or if not the same how much? Isn't that up to the individual to decide how much they will accept?

You are oversimplifying it and honestly I don't really feel like getting into it because once you realize that, no matter what a revolution claims to be getting rid of and what they are replacing it with, the truth is that what is being put in place is an oligarchy.

You realize that choice is freedom right? Like I said there are plenty of options available for everyone right now... If a person doesn't want to share the business he/she worked so hard to build then that is their prerogative, wouldn't you say? People are also free to shun him/her and refuse to work there... This is freedom...

Actually it is the illusion of freedom. Taxes are the way that they are being forced to share their company.

That is why I don't care what they call it. You will never have what you consider real capitalism and supporters of socialism or communism will also never see real examples of their systems put in place.

reply to post by ANOK

Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Oh here we go, here come the darwinism comments I was referring too... So old, so tired... People operating in voluntary mutually beneficial transactions is NOT predatory. I have given you plenty of examples of how you can make it WITHOUT working for a big nasty corp, you yourself told me there are more (what you would consider socialist but are in fact capitalist) companies than union ran ones... I point out that you have a good choice then and now you don't want to talk, AGAIN... I deem wanting to steal of hard working people rather predatory!!!

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

Bunch of gibberish... Stealing off people is NOT socially ethical! I really do not know why they are mixing science in here...

As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people.

Great so old albert was on the side of anarchism which is great! (and something I actually didn't know so thanks for that) He seemed to be comparing it's origins, the people... That is fine, "the people" are not always right though are they? The people still CHOOSE to vote and go along with the corrupt immoral government... He said that it will be full of life and creative, Just look at the 'hardcore' libertarian community.

I will say it again, I am not against your right to have socialism for YOU, but that does not mean that I must have it or want it too... This is about freedom! You do not like freedom of choice... You try to make out there is no choice for people and that nasty capitalist control EVERYTHING but then go on to prove that they indeed do! LMAO, classic bait and switch. (although it wasn't intended)...

Why can't you accept peoples freedom of choice? You say you are for workers rights but you will not give them the right to even choose! Just so silly... Why are you afraid of the free market of philosophies? Why can't anarcho capitalists live and work amongst anarcho socialists? Even we can both just accept each other then there will be no problem, our only task is to remove government... I really hope you read this and think it through a little... Hey and you never know, if the socialist side of things worked so well why wouldn't the capitalists convert? Or even maybe it would go the other way, or perhaps it would go in a completely new direction. If only we had the freedom to let these ideas flourish....

reply to post by ANOK

For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working.

This is just crazy talk I'm afraid... This does not take into account anarcho capitalism, does it? It makes this statement null and void...

So much of this is actually hard to read because I can't believe it has suckered you in and you actually believe it... I'll leave it there in the hope we can focus on my previous comment a bit more and see if we can't move this on to some more common ground...

Like here is another example, If you could have plenty of those communes from the video to choose from would you be happy with that? Why don't you start something up? I think it would be a great adventure. No need to force it onto everybody else though is there? You admit that more people want socialism, that is fantastic because you should have no trouble getting some people on board of your project... If I was near by I would even come lend you a hand,

I'm a nice capitalist like that... I do commend your eagerness to want people to have a better life but lets not be hasty and start stripping people of their right to choose in the process... That is all I am saying,

I see no reason why both our philosophies can't go side by side.