A quick question for communists before bed...

Originally posted by mee30
Capitalism is merely free exchange and it works perfectly, check out ebay...

Hypocritical. When someone tries to argue that communism is simply ??? you drag out all the evils committed in its name but when it comes to the system you promote then the simple definition is fine and all of the evils committed under it don't seem to apply.

reply to post by daskakik

Hypocritical. When someone tries to argue that communism is simply ??? you drag out all the evils committed in its name but when it comes to the system you promote then the simple definition is fine and all of the evils committed under it don't seem to apply.

Absolute rubbish... Money can not cause problems, freely exchanging with people can not cause problems... What does cause problems is people, especially people that have been given all the power! They like to make lots of problems and they also like to take big back handers in exchange for favours... But the money and the idea of exchanging things is not at fault here!

It is like saying, "a girl with a short skirt should expect to be raped" or maybe they deserved to be raped etc... People will see the short skirt as the problem! The skirt is not the problem here, it is people... It will happen under any system where people are given sole authority. As we do with the governments... Governments are the problem! Not exchanging goods and services with people...

You could say money causes greed, but that is just not true! Again you are looking at the skirt! Some people are just greedy with whatever they have... Before money people were pinching or hording cattle or food etc, it is just our way. Thankfully not everyone is like that... The economic woes you see are designed by people that want to keep POWER, they have money already! They love the fame and power!

Comparing capitalism to communism is just ridiculous... Communism says that there should be no private property, and that anok can go round to some poor farmers land and take it off him! For the good of the people obviously... It isn't anywhere near comparable...

Edit: another thing, capitalism doesn't set any rules for your life, other than you have to work to live, but you would have to do that anyway without money or capitalism... It doesn't tell you to do anything.. Governments, democracy on the other hand DOES effect your life! You have a tiny percentage of the population (taking children into account) that tell the majority what to do.. Now you can say it is their fault for not voting etc, but why should they have to and who would they vote for? Voting is immoral and that is why I do not vote... Voting is trying to force your will onto other people. And you use the government force to do it...

reply to post by mee30

Rant all you want but you are doing exactly what I pointed out.

I don't even care if you see it or not. I'm pointing it out for others to see.

reply to post by daskakik


Why don't you debate what I put forward? It's because you can't... Just wanted to point that out...

At least tell me which parts you refute, come on....

reply to post by mee30

There is nothing to debate. You want to tell people what definitions to use with what terms and nothing else counts. That is what makes your stance hypocritical. The content of your argument is neither here nor there.

reply to post by daskakik


No I fully comprehend and admit that there are plenty of subcategories of communism, I am using the most widely used term of it and one that anok talks about... I have said many times that I have no problem with any ideology that is voluntary. If you advocate a communism that is voluntary then you are fine by me and I would really advocate you go and live that life... I just want something different...

But communism as anok advocates is full on tyranny...

I stand by my take on capitalism... Basically we don't have capitalism in the wider context of the country. But we do when we go shopping or go down the pub etc... Can I ask you, do you think a banker bailout is a capitalistic venture?

Edit: sorry just had to add something here... When I say we have capitalism in the shops etc I mean in the sense that you are free to trade with whoever you like and there is competition and all that.. Now on the flip side we do not have capitalism even in the shops as the markets are skewed by government, they put tax on, that is number 1, they tax the company too (unless they are in bed together in the big boys club), they make companies pay for licenses etc etc... All of this is not capitalism... Then to top it all off they are spending more money than they get in so they sell bonds and the like and that drives up inflation!

You see the problem here? GOVERNMENT is the problem, not capitalism, they are 2 very different things.

reply to post by daskakik


Let me repost this vid that someone put up earlier... Maybe you have seen it? Perhaps this is how you think of communism? I totally endorse this lifestyle and it is something I would do in a heartbeat. A bonus would be having no government... It is capitalism basically but with people working together... What do you think about it?

reply to post by mee30

Why do you get to use the most widely used term of communism but choose the least realistic, in its implementation, definition of capitalism?

Personally I don't advocate anything. All systems are the same. You can come across dozens of posts by ElectricUniverse, who is strongly anti-communist, stating that in communist countries the party members and those with ties to them are better off than the rest. There are also many countries that are capitalist with oppressive governments. It would seem that political labels are not good indicators of content.

I'll play devils advocate and say the bailouts were pure capitalism. Why? Are the banks privately owned? Yes. Did the move help them increase profits? Yes. According to this definition:

Capitalism entails the private ownership of the latter two — natural resources and capital goods — by a class of owners called capitalists, either individually, collectively or through a state apparatus that operates to maximize profits or that serves the interests of capital owners.

it would seem that it was a capitalistic venture.

As for the video I hate to break it to you but that is what Anok means by socialism.

Libertarian socialism is a western philosophy with diverse interpretations, though some general commonalities can be found in its many incarnations. Its proponents generally advocate a worker-oriented system of production and organization in the workplace that in some aspects radically departs from neoclassical economics in favor of democratic cooperatives or common ownership of the means of production (socialism).

You said it yourself "It would of been better if they ALL owned it". I think Anok would agree.

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by Trustfund

 

There are numerous employee owned, democratically controlled companies in the USA. Some of these were featured in Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story.

Okay that is great, do you happen to know the name of any of them so I can look into them? Do they have a hierarchy though? Like bosses and supervisor? Only the are elected in? I think the system would be rife for old boys club mentality. I am totally anti democracy/mob rule...

Don't know the names off hand... I do remember them saying everything they do is voted upon, so presumably equal.

But this still isn't socialist because these companies exist under capitalist worlds.

Originally posted by Unrealised
Sorry, but you have no idea how real, structured communism works.



Real communism doesn't have any need for money.


The work is done either because it needs to be done, or because one has a passion for it.

Oh ok, great. We have a lot of work that needs to be done, so get to it. And you'll be doing it for free too, so thanks in advance.

reply to post by daskakik

Why do you get to use the most widely used term of communism but choose the least widely used, and probably never seen, definition of capitalism?

Then you haven't seen much? You quote something that talks about ownership, yes we own things... You don't think that is a good idea? Come on now... You work, you buy something and then you own it... You really have a problem with that? It wasn't brought up because it is a non issue!

Personally I don't advocate anything. All systems are the same. You can come across dozens of posts by ElectricUniverse, who is strongly anti-communist, stating that in communist countries the party members and those with ties to them are better off than the rest. There are also many countries that are capitalist with oppressive governments. It would seem that political labels are not good indicators of content.

I'm not talking about what is going on here today though, I'm talking about the bare bones ideology... We do not have capitalism... If you take anoks version of communism and it seems pretty popular lol... Then I think you can argue that some of it has been done with disastrous effect but anyway it is immoral to steal off people wouldn't you say?... True free market capitalism has never been done, except for perhaps at the beginning of foundation of america, it worked perfectly until the government started to grow... What a surprise!

I'll play devils advocate and say the bailouts were pure capitalism. Why? Are the banks privately owned? Yes. Did the move help them increase profits? Yes. According to this definition:

You are not playing devils advocate you are playing statist advocate lol... Your definition says nothing about the government stealing off people and then giving to the banks though does it? It says " or through a state apparatus" through is the important word here... It is talking about sub-contracting for the government or on behalf of them.

it would seem that it was a capitalistic venture.

Only if you misinterpret the definition...

As for the video I hate to break it to you but that is what Anok means by socialism.

I have not talked with anok about socialism all too much so I don't exactly see what you are breaking to me? Anok would HATE these people because they collectively OWN the land and means of production, just like a damn corporation would! Anok and his merry men couldn't just go there and work, it is private property, one of the 7 owners says that himself...

Tell me, how are these 7 owners any different from 7 shareholders?

You said it yourself "It would of been better if they ALL owned it". I think Anok would agree.

Well it seemed actually that non of the workers owned it, 7 people did, shareholders... This is capitalism with a more generous laid back boss! Tell me, what is there to stop those 7 owners selling up?

Anok doesn't believe in ownership so he would not approve! He thinks everyone should own that land and means to production... So these 49 families nor the 7 shareholders could own this land... It belongs to all the people of the country... He also doesn't like people that work for profit, as these guys do.


Edit: Oh I see your stealth edit there lol... least realistic? basically I am taking it from the other side of the glass but it is the same... I'm talking about purchasing and you are talking about selling, simple as that really... But yes I wholeheartedly advocate property rights.

reply to post by Trustfund

Don't know the names off hand... I do remember them saying everything they do is voted upon, so presumably equal. But this still isn't socialist because these companies exist under capitalist worlds.

Why socialist? We're talking communist...

Where is the capitalist world? Please show me and I'll be off, lol

reply to post by mee30

Again you only want to use your definition for terms while you admit that others exist and, in the case of capitalism, that they are in fact what is actually in place, being this the popular definition.

Your definition says nothing about the government stealing off people and then giving to the banks though does it?

Actually it does:

a class of owners called capitalists, either individually, collectively or through a state apparatus

You're too caught up in being right that you miss what is right in front of you.

I have not talked with anok about socialism all too much so I don't exactly see what you are breaking to me?

Well it is what he advocates and what is in that video is an example of that, even if not to a tee.

Worker ownership is the "bare bones ideology" of socialism and you stated that it would be good if all the workers were to have ownership of their workplace so you seem to be agreeing without wanting to be wrong. Odd.

Originally posted by daskakik
As for the video I hate to break it to you but that is what Anok means by socialism.

Libertarian socialism is a western philosophy with diverse interpretations, though some general commonalities can be found in its many incarnations. Its proponents generally advocate a worker-oriented system of production and organization in the workplace that in some aspects radically departs from neoclassical economics in favor of democratic cooperatives or common ownership of the means of production (socialism).

You said it yourself "It would of been better if they ALL owned it". I think Anok would agree.

Good reply, and yes that is what I mean. That is what socialism really is.

Being owned by ALL is common ownership, so yes I would agree. We are all workers, unless you are a capitalist. Worker ownership is the common ownership by ALL people who work. If you choose not to work that is your right, in Spain [during the revolution] for example those who didn't want to join a collective were given a plot of land big enough for them to live off.

Unlike in Soviet Russia, collectivisation was not forced on people and those who did not wish to join the collectives were allowed to do so on one condition: they could keep only as much land as they and their family could work and could not hire anyone to work for them. People who refused to join collectives were called "individualists".

In keeping with the anarchist principle that there is no freedom unless everyone is free, people believed that participation in the collectives should always be voluntary. The collectivists were by far the majority in the countryside, however they made special efforts to respect the choice made by the individualists and they were not condemned. In many areas the individualists, encouraged by the example set by the collective, eventually joined the collectives voluntarily and their numbers declined.

The freedom to succeed: The Anarchist Collectives in the Countryside during the Spanish Civil War

reply to post by Unrealised


I know you're not coming back to see this, as you stated. You're probably curled up in a corner somewhere crying and stroking a collage of pictures of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-Sung, Jong-Il and Jong-Un, Castro, Che Guevara, Nicolae Ceausescu, and Gorbachev. It's a very pretty, and red, collection you got there, kid.

But you failed to do one thing: make communism attractive. You came straight out of the gate bearing your teeth. Instead of civility, you used insults and failed to make a your point. If anything, your attitude that you portrayed in your posts will be associated with communism. Communists think they're cream of the crop intelligent people that will only respond to others who disagree with hostility.

Maybe you should better illustrate the fine points of communism without being condescending to us capitalist pigs. Oh, by the way, you're quite the hypocrite, aren't you? You'll have to perform quite the miracle to convince me that you do not WILLINGLY participate in capitalism. Consumer.

reply to post by mee30

Where is the capitalist world? Please show me and I'll be off, lol

Most countries.

But let me guess, you're one of those people that say things like "real capitalism"? lol

reply to post by mee30

Most of OWS are of the communist persuasion, so there are no shortage of people with the same ideology.

Some are, most aren't.

In fact I know many people that do not profess to be communist but would agree that everyone should get paid the same etc...

I've never met anyone in my entire life that thinks such, or thinks that is what communism means. I think you should probably learn the variations of Leftist Ideologies from actual Leftists.

Communism I completely believe is designed to fail for the workers and merely has the workers transfer power to a new oligarchy that dress up tribalism and institutionalize it as communism. . Communism works on a small tribalistic/communal scale because of the connections people make that drive them to do things they don't want to do (work) for the benefit of their friends and family. Once you have institutionalized these tribalistic concepts and adapted them for a large populace you remove that connection and you end up with the reason why it will always fail on a mass scale.

There are examples of businesses though that could be considered communist-esque. Churches and non-profits probably fall in here as well as co-ops and such but they aren't successful if placed in a capitalist system because they lack the resources to compete (ad revenue, R&D, personnel etc). Other comparable systems are usually military or theocracy based these are systems that use internal senses of duty etc to instill the bonds that family and tribe also create but eventually the guys who hold the keys to the food make all the rules and become corrupt.

The goal should be to decentralize as much as possible so that no one entity has control and have opposition/competition counter their influence this would be almost a neo-tribalist move from the current and former models of "Big Government/The State"

Originally posted by NihilistSanta
Communism I completely believe is designed to fail for the workers and merely has the workers transfer power to a new oligarchy that dress up tribalism and institutionalize it as communism.

That's basically what happened in all so called "communist" countries.

That is why it is important to understand what it actually is, or what all economic and political systems are. So that those seeking power cannot trick you into supporting something that isn't what they claim it is.

Communism wasn't designed that way, there is no 'design' for communism. Those seeking power simply used a bastardised version of Marxism to take state power. Calling themselves "communist" doesn't mean they actually were. Too many people are easily lead by authority, no more so than in today's society.

BTW we know you're a communist comrade Santa, no need to be coy, you're among friends.

reply to post by mee30


Look at the Mondragon Corporation in the Basques Region of Spain for an example of a 'collective' that works well.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are several models for collective businesses that do work quite well but I'm too tired to list many.

But I think you are confusing Communism with Democratic Socialism. Strict Communism isn't truly possible and what we call Communism is really a single party autocratic rule with central economic comtrol. The various forms of Socialism are more decentralized and democratic. As I said I don't want to go into a diatribe - I'm tired and I'll make mistakes that the nit-pickers will tear apart to say I'm wrong and not listen to a word.

Try looking up Collective business, employee-owned business, kibutzim, there are endless examples but Mondragon may be the most successful.