Poll: Winston Churchill on Socialism

[Svettypoo]

No way. It is illegal under certain conditions, that is all. And that's not even a trait unique to capitalism.

Property rights can exist alongside socialist economic policies.

What silhouette was saying is that the property which is also a means of production should be taken from individuals and given to the state, since owning the means of production is anti-communism. To that I just said that nobody is stopping him from owning a piece of land and sharing the fruits of his labor with people that believe in his system. Look at the Amish for example... Both systems can coexist like that. People outside of his community can live in capitalism, and people within his community can live in socialism.

[uglypeoplefucking]

sorry, i didn't mean to start building a strawman.

ultimately, i don't think the means of production should be handed entirely over to the state, but i do think the state should be given legal regulatory authority over the marketplace. balance is key, but those who reject socialism out of hand make acheiving that balance impossible because they turn socialism into this great scary monster that exists solely to take away everyone's stuff, which it isn't.

[Svettypoo]

sorry, i didn't mean to start building a strawman.

ultimately, i don't think the means of production should be handed entirely over to the state, but i do think the state should be given legal regulatory authority over the marketplace. balance is key, but those who reject socialism out of hand make acheiving that balance impossible because they turn socialism into this great scary monster that exists solely to take away everyone's stuff, which it isn't.

No problem.

The thing is. I don't hate socialism. In fact I think the Amish are admirable and good natured people. And I think its great that people want to support each other... I just don't think that this should be done through the state. I tend to think that letting people from the government appropriate public funds leaves a lot of room for corruption... And I hate corruption more than anything. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily thing corrupt politicians are bad people. It is just that when people are placed in a position where they have to appropriate public funds they tend to rationalize solutions that end up benefiting them. If you asked any corrupt politician they would tell you that they are not corrupt. Oh and I also hate hypocrisy. I hate seeing rich Hollywood celebrities and people like Michael Moore speak against the very system that they are profiteering from. If they believe in socialism, let them become socialists. (like the Amish have) Why should I have to live under their system. We can all do our own thing as long as we are not harming each other.

And I guess my point is... People are charitable and caring. They want to help causes that they believe in by donating money. I just don't think that this should be done through the government. Why force people who are against the war pay for the war, or people who are against a welfare state pay for a welfare state, or people who are fundamentalists pay for stem cell research, or people who are atheist pay for church subsidies?

[Silhouette]

We are all forced into economic systems, regardless of the particular ideology. And taking other people's things is what capitalism is all about.

Absolutely.

Capitalist advocates like to conveniently forget that when, for example, America was colonised, the immigrants didn't "earn" the land they invaded through some free, fair system of trade combined with hard work - NO - they physically took it from the natives by brutal force and violent, murderous bloodshed!
The same happened in African colonies, and colonialisation is something Africans have been passionately fighting against to this day.

Their system relies on force and fraud in order to become established, and a military/police/law court monopoly on force and fraud must continue to exist in order to maintain it (the class antagonism) - over everyone, whether we like it or not. (Or we can move to another country that actively imposes a similar or different oppression on us, hooray for freedom).

And then when progressive thinkers come along and challenge this, suddenly THEY are the ones advocating stealing, and they are disgraceful if they ever advocate doing so by through force...

Unbelievable.

It may come as a shock for a Capitalist advocate to take a history lesson and actually learn something like the fact that causing things to become publically owned is nothing more than reverting things to how they were before private ownership took over everyone's world.

No way. It is illegal under certain conditions, that is all. And that's not even a trait unique to capitalism.

Property rights can exist alongside socialist economic policies.

Also true.

Capitalism is a process of "legally" taking other people's things - and not just when setting it up, it's a condition of its very operation. This legal process is innocently called "profiting".

In terms of material, physical produce, without property laws, produce is everyone's: something gets produced and it's there for whoever wants or needs it. They are the literal physical "profits" of production, but this is not where the "legal" stealing comes in. That becomes possible when we try to quantify the literal profits, for example using money.
There is no objective monetary value for anything. Today's monetary values are based around a kind of average amount that people tend to be willing to part with in order to exchange their money for particular commodities (with many other factors coming into play also). Since it is all so vague and abstract, there are no objective grounds upon which to challenge the exchange value of anything. Power games sort this one out.

Someone with a lot of wealth can afford to lose a lot more than someone with little wealth. A free system just causes this wealth gap to widen, because the rich can simply afford to be more tight fisted. An employer and his employees may produce plenty of commodities for sale, but do they get anything like an equal share of what they make as a team? Nowhere near. Even if working times and difficulty of work was all similar - not a chance. Power games mean those with the wealth, who make the worker contracts, who "own" the means of production - they have all the sway. The worker has a massive pool of unemployed people to battle against, as well as other workers, in order to stay in the running of those who are entitled to a means to live - they have much more to lose.

Thus the employer and employee can come to a nice innocent voluntary agreement on how to share the wealth of the business they are both required to work in in order for it to run sufficiently, and it "somehow" still comes out massively in favour of the employer. I guess employees just like having much less wealth, right? Well, workers like me sometimes are fine having very little, but when everyone is collectively pushed to the limit of a liveable life - since money must flow away from us and towards employers in order to maintain the growth incentive for Capitalism to continue to exist... that goes too far. Not ok.

Thus sums up the constant and inherent process of capitalist stealing. And as long as this is declared to be ok by law, it remains legal and we find ourselves in an economy that keeps fucking up time and time again "and no one can figure out why(!)"

[Svettypoo]

Your socialism can exist in a free market. You would be able to round up your buddies, buy a piece of land and share the fruits of your labor there. All we are asking is don't try and take other people's things and justify why your socialist state should have them. Just don't force people to be part of your system.

Is that too much to ask?

Stop conveniently ignoring the issue and answer the above question.

[Silhouette]

Your socialism can exist in a free market. You would be able to round up your buddies, buy a piece of land and share the fruits of your labor there. All we are asking is don't try and take other people's things and justify why your socialist state should have them. Just don't force people to be part of your system.

Is that too much to ask?

Stop conveniently ignoring the issue and answer the above question.

Svetty.

I am getting to you, I've not been ignoring you. There's just so much to cover with you, and I have other things to do in my life than post on here. Be patient.

I don't hate socialism. In fact I think the Amish are admirable and good natured people. And I think its great that people want to support each other... I just don't think that this should be done through the state. I tend to think that letting people from the government appropriate public funds leaves a lot of room for corruption... And I hate corruption more than anything. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily thing corrupt politicians are bad people. It is just that when people are placed in a position where they have to appropriate public funds they tend to rationalize solutions that end up benefiting them. If you asked any corrupt politician they would tell you that they are not corrupt. Oh and I also hate hypocrisy. I hate seeing rich Hollywood celebrities and people like Michael Moore speak against the very system that they are profiteering from. If they believe in socialism, let them become socialists. (like the Amish have) Why should I have to live under their system. We can all do our own thing as long as we are not harming each other.

Oh the pain.

The Amish are some ascetic reactionary religious group that suffers from a small gene pool. They are not free of costs from the world around them, and I don't just mean the massive fee they would be required to pay in order to "buy" the necessary amount of land that it takes in order to be a small self-sufficient community. They are affected by the capitalist world around them, they are not free.
If your vision of Socialism or Communism is "the Amish" then no wonder you're so scared of it!

If Socialism magically appeared tomorrow, with everyone somehow being ok with it, we wouldn't suddenly be transported back into some rural agricultural scene from the past, nor would all our towns and cities become grey and unmaintained. Many things would be much the same. Maybe with a lot less adverts and brandnames trying to shout louder than the others - with, instead, information in known outlets for you to consult if you felt the need to. No call centres and fliers, nor pointless employees to smile and greet you at the door of some shop you just want to look around, or pushy salesmen trying to get you to buy stuff you don't want etc. etc....

Businesses would all still be there, though perhaps streamlined in number to get rid of the huge massive surplus of the same thing under a different name, some of which exists in the world, ready for consumption, but just doesn't sell for whatever reason. Any surplus could go straight to charity or whatever, depends what workers vote to do about it.

And yet despite the streamlining of businesses to an appropriate, yet still rich amount, people wouldn't be losing jobs but GAINING jobs. People wouldn't have to work so long, giving them more time to train and get education to freely go from job to job without the pressure to compete against the unemployed. They would still need the adequate skills to start a skilled job (though they'd have time and money to earn them), and there would still be benefits organised (by workers) for attracting workers to jobs that needed more help.

You STILL have it in your head that the Socialist State is comprised of "them corrupt ones over there", no. It is comprised of you, your family and friends and all other workers.

If you are not pulling your weight, you can be damn sure that others would notice and confront you - just as a manager in a Capitalist-run business would. Managers would still exist, and everyone would still want a high amount of work from you - there would be no room for slackers. But why would you want to slack when the work pace was an appropriate level with all the extra help from people formerly in pointless roles to try and get you to shop "here" rather than "there" or giving financial advice on where to invest, or formerly being unemployed. And you would actually have a share of public ownership of your workplace and its property instead of none at all! There is SO much inefficiency in a Capitalist system!!!

Seriously, get all this misinformation out of your head! Think in terms of the real, current world of today.

[Svettypoo]

Your socialism can exist in a free market. You would be able to round up your buddies, buy a piece of land and share the fruits of your labor there. All we are asking is don't try and take other people's things and justify why your socialist state should have them. Just don't force people to be part of your system.

Is that too much to ask?

Oh the pain.

The Amish are some ascetic reactionary religious group that suffers from a small gene pool. They are not free of costs from the world around them, and I don't just mean the massive fee they would be required to pay in order to "buy" the necessary amount of land that it takes in order to be a small self-sufficient community. They are affected by the capitalist world around them

Land has value. In order to own land one must create and give up sufficient value. You can't just take things... Also, I'm sure the Amish would accept you if you show that you can be useful... You wouldn't have to pay for the land in such a case.

If you don't like the Amish, than I am afraid you are going to have to work, creating value, and save up so you can buy your own piece of land. Stealing it just wouldn't be right...

That way you can live in socialism and I can live in capitalism. And best of all, I would be free. Everybody wins?

[uglypeoplefucking]

The thing is. I don't hate socialism. In fact I think the Amish are admirable and good natured people. And I think its great that people want to support each other... I just don't think that this should be done through the state. I tend to think that letting people from the government appropriate public funds leaves a lot of room for corruption... And I hate corruption more than anything. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily thing corrupt politicians are bad people. It is just that when people are placed in a position where they have to appropriate public funds they tend to rationalize solutions that end up benefiting them. If you asked any corrupt politician they would tell you that they are not corrupt. Oh and I also hate hypocrisy. I hate seeing rich Hollywood celebrities and people like Michael Moore speak against the very system that they are profiteering from. If they believe in socialism, let them become socialists. (like the Amish have) Why should I have to live under their system. We can all do our own thing as long as we are not harming each other.



And I guess my point is... People are charitable and caring. They want to help causes that they believe in by donating money. I just don't think that this should be done through the government. Why force people who are against the war pay for the war, or people who are against a welfare state pay for a welfare state, or people who are fundamentalists pay for stem cell research, or people who are atheist pay for church subsidies?

one of the unfortunate facts of living in a free society is that you don't get to stop paying for the government just because you don't like everything it does. you still benefit in very fundamental ways from the govt's active hand in the market (for example, anytime you collect a paycheck or go shopping for some new thing you want), and so you are obligated to contribute to its continued existence.

it is the state, not the free market, that enables you to have property rights.

and i'm with Silhouette on the Amish thing.

[Silhouette]

I'm going to explain this again... In the first post I described two people sharing their innovations through a "deal," such as rent. You say that everybody should be able to make these deals and be better off.... That is anti communism and pro capitalism. Such a transaction means that an individual owns the means of production. Do you not get it?

You are being really naive when saying that communism is individualistic... The government has to force individuals to do what you want. If I want to do a transaction and the government wants to stop me... that is not individualistic. The fact is, socialism can and does exist in capitalist societies... look at the Amish... However, capitalism can't exist in a socialist soceity because you wont allow it... even if people want to do it because it makes them better off. You want to force people to do something that not all of them want to do. You can gather up your friends from occupy wall-street, buy a piece of land, and live in your socialist society. Nobody is going to stop you. Why do you have to try and force smart people in your society? I know you want the smart people to produce nice material things for you to use in your socialist society... but you can't force them... smart people work better in free societies.

Svetty, I do understand what you mean - no need to repeat yourself. In your Capitalism-only mindset the guy who thought of the innovation has private ownership of it and can rent it as he pleases. In your nicely unrealistic example, he is 20 pieces of cotton better off and the other guy is 80 pieces of cotton better off. Lovely stuff.

Now, with Socialism or Communism, he would not be forced to do anything, but the poor guy would have no incentive to do anything but share his innovation with other workers... meaning every single worker can adopt the innovation and be 100 pieces of cotton better off. All of them. But why would he want to do that when he can rent his one privately claimed tool to one other guy and be 20 pieces of cotton off with the other guy 80 pieces of cotton better off?

Even if he did mass produce the tool under Capitalism, he would only choose to rent or sell it to however many people it was profitable to rent or sell it to, at a price that only some would be able to afford - still meaning not everyone is 100 pieces of cotton better off by a long shot.
But in reality, if all cotton fields were initially being fully harvested, the extra 100 pieces of cotton that the inventor would be able to pick would have to be from the plots of others. Others would not be able to pick as much cotton, and would have to turn to the inventor to make up their numbers. The inventor would rent his tool to the others so they could make up their numbers in exchange for picking some extra cotton for the inventor from the plots of others - with the help of this fancy new tool. Obviously this would continue until some people were left without any plot at all, and therefore having nothing to sell to the inventor and having nowhere left to pick cotton.

If the cotton fields were not initially being fully harvested, with the above pattern we can easily see how they would easily come to be fully harvested. And the more tools the inventor produces, the faster and more decisively this would occur. We see the inventor doing nothing and amassing vast amounts of cotton for himself, with others having none and dying from cotton starvation or whatever. Though what the unfortunate COULD do is offer to work even harder for the inventor to replace his other workers, harvesting even more cotton for him, and so we get a really "efficiently" run cotton industry with workers working as hard as they can to stay in work, harvesting all the cotton in the shortest possible time, with the smallest amount of workers achieving this, and our inventor doing nothing but "be cotton rich".

Adding in some more reality, other people would attempt to come up with similar or better tools, winning our cotton society an oligopoly instead of a monopoly - still with many unused workers, forced into starvation.
More reality still, and our inventors are selling their cotton on the market, except most of the workers have died or have no wage in order to buy any cotton. With our new oligarchy, our inventors might employee these unfortunates in advertising or customer service, so the other inventors who actually have money are encouraged to buy from particular inventors instead of others - they all do this, some get more popular pushing others out of business, but at least more jobs are created to entitle some extra unfortunates with a minimal wage to life on - all competing against one another to not be in the pool of the dying unemployed.

We have 100% of cotton harvest at maximum efficiency, lots of incentive to come up with a better tool, massive surplus for some and nothing for others, with minimal wage for some... I'm sorry - what part of this is good?

With Socialism/Communism, nobody died, nobody was rewarded with decadence, everyone got twice as much as before and the entire cotton fields weren't harvested out of balance and eventually existence (killing our Capitalist society out of their surplus and excess exploitation).

The tool never was inherently private property, the respect earned, the satisfaction of nationwide increased richess, and creative reward in itself were. There was no monetary "transaction" that required private property in order to complete - he just told people about something he thought of/created... it never was Capitalist to share it for the benefit of everyone.

Am I wasting my time, asking you to question your assumptions like a philosopher is supposed to be able to do?

[Svettypoo]

The thing is. I don't hate socialism. In fact I think the Amish are admirable and good natured people. And I think its great that people want to support each other... I just don't think that this should be done through the state. I tend to think that letting people from the government appropriate public funds leaves a lot of room for corruption... And I hate corruption more than anything. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily thing corrupt politicians are bad people. It is just that when people are placed in a position where they have to appropriate public funds they tend to rationalize solutions that end up benefiting them. If you asked any corrupt politician they would tell you that they are not corrupt. Oh and I also hate hypocrisy. I hate seeing rich Hollywood celebrities and people like Michael Moore speak against the very system that they are profiteering from. If they believe in socialism, let them become socialists. (like the Amish have) Why should I have to live under their system. We can all do our own thing as long as we are not harming each other.



And I guess my point is... People are charitable and caring. They want to help causes that they believe in by donating money. I just don't think that this should be done through the government. Why force people who are against the war pay for the war, or people who are against a welfare state pay for a welfare state, or people who are fundamentalists pay for stem cell research, or people who are atheist pay for church subsidies?

one of the unfortunate facts of living in a free society is that you don't get to stop paying for the government just because you don't like everything it does. you still benefit in very fundamental ways from the govt's active hand in the market (for example, anytime you collect a paycheck or go shopping for some new thing you want), and so you are obligated to contribute to its continued existence.

it is the state, not the free market, that enables you to have property rights.

and i'm with Silhouette on the Amish thing.

What part of the "amish thing" are you with Silhouette on? You don't have to pay income tax if you don't have income. You don't have to pay sales tax if you don't buy things from the market.

[Svettypoo]

I'm going to explain this again... In the first post I described two people sharing their innovations through a "deal," such as rent. You say that everybody should be able to make these deals and be better off.... That is anti communism and pro capitalism. Such a transaction means that an individual owns the means of production. Do you not get it?

You are being really naive when saying that communism is individualistic... The government has to force individuals to do what you want. If I want to do a transaction and the government wants to stop me... that is not individualistic. The fact is, socialism can and does exist in capitalist societies... look at the Amish... However, capitalism can't exist in a socialist soceity because you wont allow it... even if people want to do it because it makes them better off. You want to force people to do something that not all of them want to do. You can gather up your friends from occupy wall-street, buy a piece of land, and live in your socialist society. Nobody is going to stop you. Why do you have to try and force smart people in your society? I know you want the smart people to produce nice material things for you to use in your socialist society... but you can't force them... smart people work better in free societies.

Svetty, I do understand what you mean - no need to repeat yourself. In your Capitalism-only mindset the guy who thought of the innovation has private ownership of it and can rent it as he pleases. In your nicely unrealistic example, he is 20 pieces of cotton better off and the other guy is 80 pieces of cotton better off. Lovely stuff.

Now, with Socialism or Communism, he would not be forced to do anything, but the poor guy would have no incentive to do anything but share his innovation with other workers... meaning every single worker can adopt the innovation and be 100 pieces of cotton better off. All of them. But why would he want to do that when he can rent his one privately claimed tool to one other guy and be 20 pieces of cotton off with the other guy 80 pieces of cotton better off?

Even if he did mass produce the tool under Capitalism, he would only choose to rent or sell it to however many people it was profitable to rent or sell it to, at a price that only some would be able to afford - still meaning not everyone is 100 pieces of cotton better off by a long shot.
But in reality, if all cotton fields were initially being fully harvested, the extra 100 pieces of cotton that the inventor would be able to pick would have to be from the plots of others. Others would not be able to pick as much cotton, and would have to turn to the inventor to make up their numbers. The inventor would rent his tool to the others so they could make up their numbers in exchange for picking some extra cotton for the inventor from the plots of others - with the help of this fancy new tool. Obviously this would continue until some people were left without any plot at all, and therefore having nothing to sell to the inventor and having nowhere left to pick cotton.

If the cotton fields were not initially being fully harvested, with the above pattern we can easily see how they would easily come to be fully harvested. And the more tools the inventor produces, the faster and more decisively this would occur. We see the inventor doing nothing and amassing vast amounts of cotton for himself, with others having none and dying from cotton starvation or whatever. Though what the unfortunate COULD do is offer to work even harder for the inventor to replace his other workers, harvesting even more cotton for him, and so we get a really "efficiently" run cotton industry with workers working as hard as they can to stay in work, harvesting all the cotton in the shortest possible time, with the smallest amount of workers achieving this, and our inventor doing nothing but "be cotton rich".

Adding in some more reality, other people would attempt to come up with similar or better tools, winning our cotton society an oligopoly instead of a monopoly - still with many unused workers, forced into starvation.
More reality still, and our inventors are selling their cotton on the market, except most of the workers have died or have no wage in order to buy any cotton. With our new oligarchy, our inventors might employee these unfortunates in advertising or customer service, so the other inventors who actually have money are encouraged to buy from particular inventors instead of others - they all do this, some get more popular pushing others out of business, but at least more jobs are created to entitle some extra unfortunates with a minimal wage to life on - all competing against one another to not be in the pool of the dying unemployed.

We have 100% of cotton harvest at maximum efficiency, lots of incentive to come up with a better tool, massive surplus for some and nothing for others, with minimal wage for some... I'm sorry - what part of this is good?

With Socialism/Communism, nobody died, nobody was rewarded with decadence, everyone got twice as much as before and the entire cotton fields weren't harvested out of balance and eventually existence (killing our Capitalist society out of their surplus and excess exploitation).

The tool never was inherently private property, the respect earned, the satisfaction of nationwide increased richess, and creative reward in itself were. There was no monetary "transaction" that required private property in order to complete - he just told people about something he thought of/created... it never was Capitalist to share it for the benefit of everyone.

Am I wasting my time, asking you to question your assumptions like a philosopher is supposed to be able to do?

The inventor has no incentive to innovate if he has little to gain from it. If he were able to mass produce the tool and rent it out to the total population he can become wealthy. He will also have an incentive to produce the tool as efficiently as possible to maximize his profit. By not allowing the inventor to have ownership over his invention, you are discouraging innovation.

Also, if somebody is able to make their cotton picking 100 pieces of cotton more efficient than the inventor would sell it to them. If one was only 19 pieces of cottom more efficient it would cost more to provide the tool for him than the use he would get from it. If a second individual was able to mass produce the tool cheaper, than everybody would buy from him. With the government tho, there is no self correction mechanism if the tool is being produced inefficiently...

Your socialism can exist in a free market. You would be able to round up your buddies, buy a piece of land and share the fruits of your labor there. All we are asking is don't try and take other people's things and justify why your socialist state should have them. Just don't force people to be part of your system.

Is that too much to ask?

Oh the pain.

The Amish are some ascetic reactionary religious group that suffers from a small gene pool. They are not free of costs from the world around them, and I don't just mean the massive fee they would be required to pay in order to "buy" the necessary amount of land that it takes in order to be a small self-sufficient community. They are affected by the capitalist world around them

Land has value. In order to own land one must create and give up sufficient value. You can't just take things... Also, I'm sure the Amish would accept you if you show that you can be useful... You wouldn't have to pay for the land in such a case.

If you don't like the Amish, than I am afraid you are going to have to work, creating value, and save up so you can buy your own piece of land. Stealing it just wouldn't be right...

That way you can live in socialism and I can live in capitalism. And best of all, I would be free. Everybody wins?



On a side note. Please respond to the above already ^^

[Silhouette]

On a side note. Please respond to the above already ^^

Fuck's sake, Svetty, I've already told you:

I am getting to you, I've not been ignoring you. There's just so much to cover with you, and I have other things to do in my life than post on here. Be patient.

Land has value. In order to own land one must create and give up sufficient value. You can't just take things...

I guess you didn't read what I said to UPF - fair enough, it wasn't in direct response to you and I don't blame you for not keeping up with everything I write, there's just SO MUCH that you don't seem to know that I'm having to explain to you, that you need to know in order to have an informed opinion on the whole Capitalist/Socialist thing...

Here:

Capitalist advocates like to conveniently forget that when, for example, America was colonised, the immigrants didn't "earn" the land they invaded through some free, fair system of trade combined with hard work - NO - they physically took it from the natives by brutal force and violent, murderous bloodshed!
The same happened in African colonies, and colonialisation is something Africans have been passionately fighting against to this day.

Their system relies on force and fraud in order to become established, and a military/police/law court monopoly on force and fraud must continue to exist in order to maintain it (the class antagonism) - over everyone, whether we like it or not. (Or we can move to another country that actively imposes a similar or different oppression on us, hooray for freedom).

And then when progressive thinkers come along and challenge this, suddenly THEY are the ones advocating stealing, and they are disgraceful if they ever advocate doing so by through force...

Unbelievable.

It may come as a shock for a Capitalist advocate to take a history lesson and actually learn something like the fact that causing things to become publically owned is nothing more than reverting things to how they were before private ownership took over everyone's world.

you can live in socialism and I can live in capitalism. And best of all, I would be free. Everybody wins?

Whenever anyone's trying to set up Socialism beside Capitalism, it's either turned the same country into a mixed economy that can't work because of the Capitalism part, or it's been in a separate country that capitalist nations have waged war with in order to prevent Socialism from ever getting off the ground.

When they try they just seem to turn into Totalitarian dictatorships, without the international support that Capitalism currently relies on to maintain its current (lack of) efficiency. Without international support today, you're pretty stuffed. But at least more and more people are rightly getting pissed off with Capitalism.

So no, as much as I'd like to play a capitalist society off against a Socialist one - to prove my point - capitalists never seem to allow this to happen.

It's a shame, right? But at least once Socialism manages to get off the ground, narrow minded uneducated capitalists will realise their folly and be nice and free to change to an even freer society than Capitalism.

[Svettypoo]

No capitalist is stopping you from rounding up your buddies, buying a cheap piece of land (Midwest and Canada have very cheap land) and living in a society where you share the fruits of your labor... Or as I mentioned earlier, ask the Amish if you can join their society. They will welcome hard working new comers. How is it fair that you want to force me to live within your system which I believe to be inefficient and unfair?

[Silhouette]

The inventor has no incentive to innovate if he has little to gain from it. If he were able to mass produce the tool and rent it out to the total population he can become wealthy. He will also have an incentive to produce the tool as efficiently as possible to maximize his profit. By not allowing the inventor to have ownership over his invention, you are discouraging innovation.

Also, if somebody is able to make their cotton picking 100 pieces of cotton more efficient than the inventor would sell it to them. If one was only 19 pieces of cottom more efficient it would cost more to provide the tool for him than the use he would get from it. If a second individual was able to mass produce the tool cheaper, than everybody would buy from him. With the government tho, there is no self correction mechanism if the tool is being produced inefficiently...

I guess inventions didn't exist before Capitalism then?
I'm pretty sure those Chinese who seem to have invented everything didn't have any incentive to invent everything they invented because they've only just turned a bit Capitalist...
If you were the inventing type, you'd realise that profit incentive has nothing to do with the inspiration that just seems to hit you seemingly randomly - as opposed to any time someone waves a dollar bill in front of your face...
You would know that your invention is yours, whatever monetary distribution and copyright laws say - and so would others.
We know that pre-Capitalist Leonardo da Vinci made all his inventions and artworks and so did he.

And stop with this "with the government" bullshit - we aren't talking about mixed economy governments or Totalitarian States!!!!

How many times do I have to tell you this?!!!! We are NOT talking about that, we are talking about Socialism and Communism

Workers know whether something is inefficient far better than any price mechanism, because there are right there on the front line of all work and able to communicate far better than percentages.
They have no reason to hide their inventions from competitors, they cooperate. All inefficiency is completely public to all workers, with anyone able to take the credit for pointing it out and rectifying it, earning whatever other workers of the same economic class (THEY are the government, not some corrupt removed rich clowns) vote to reward them with through direct democracy.

No capitalist is stopping you from rounding up your buddies, buying a cheap piece of land (Midwest and Canada have very cheap land) and living in a society where you share the fruits of your labor... Or as I mentioned earlier, ask the Amish if you can join their society. They will welcome hard working new comers. How is it fair that you want to force me to live within your system which I believe to be inefficient and unfair?

Ok Svetty, now you're just repeating points I've already refuted.

Either get with the program or I'm done trying to explain things to you.

[Svettypoo]

Sigh...

Both you and the Amish are socialist that's for sure... But do you know what the difference between you and the Amish is?

1. The Amish are willing to give up the luxuries produced by capitalism.
2. The Amish don't believe in taking what isn't theirs.


Also.. This... I don't like repeating myself but it is really important that you understand this and answer the question at the bottom.

No capitalist is stopping you from rounding up your buddies, buying a cheap piece of land (Midwest and Canada have very cheap land) and living in a society where you share the fruits of your labor... Or as I mentioned earlier, ask the Amish if you can join their society. They will welcome hard working new comers. How is it fair that you want to force me to live within your system which I believe to be inefficient and unfair?

[Svettypoo]

And stop with this "with the government" bullshit - we aren't talking about mixed economy governments or Totalitarian States!!!!

If I invent something and don't want to give it up to everybody... That goes against your system! How will you force me to give it up if not for the government?

[Silhouette]

If I invent something and don't want to give it up to everybody... That goes against your system! How will you force me to give it up if not for the government?

I won't. Nor will anyone. You just won't have anything to gain from keeping it to yourself, and everything to gain from sharing it... I don't think you're ever going to understand this until you see it. There's nothing about Socialism or Communism that forces you to share it.

Both you and the Amish are socialist that's for sure...

<Sigh>
Already argued this one.

But do you know what the difference between you and the Amish is?

1. The Amish are willing to give up the luxuries produced by capitalism.
2. The Amish don't believe in taking what isn't theirs.

1. So am I. Except I won't have to if the change is Socialist.
2. Nor do Socialists and Communists. (I've explained why Capitalists do).

Also.. This... I don't like repeating myself but it is really important that you understand this and answer the question at the bottom.

No capitalist is stopping you from rounding up your buddies, buying a cheap piece of land (Midwest and Canada have very cheap land) and living in a society where you share the fruits of your labor... Or as I mentioned earlier, ask the Amish if you can join their society. They will welcome hard working new comers.

All Capitalists are stopping me from doing this. Anything that isn't Capitalist and challenges the supremacy of the current elite minority who get richer under Capitalism gets attacked before it can get off the ground. See history.
The Amish are harmless. They're just a bunch of ascetic reactionary Christians who continue to fail to escape the modern Capitalist world. The American Amish, for example, have had to pay off the land they had to buy - land that was forcefully seized by the immigrants who established Capitalism in America. Without that, they would have just lived off the land without charge like the pre-colonial native Americans did.
It's not "pure" Capitalism that continually pesters them with taxes and laws about education, road safety and whatnot, but Capitalism has never been able to survive without government (inherent class antagonism etc.). And they certainly do pay taxes, despite not benefiting from any of them, just not Social Security ones anymore.

Please stop asking me to repeat myself - I don't like repeating myself either. It's really important that you go away, learn about what you're talking about, and then come back here to talk about it. We're getting nowhere while you're stuck in your narrow uninformed mindset.

How is it fair that you want to force me to live within your system which I believe to be inefficient and unfair?

I won't force you to. Me and my Socialist pals will just revolutionise the State to be run by workers, establish the supremacy of a worker economy and you are "free" to not join in if you don't want to. Sound familiar? It should do - that's what Capitalists did 200 years ago.

I've already told you that Socialism beside Capitalism either means a mixed economy or Capitalism waging war on anything that doesn't, at base, bow down to Capitalism. Not good enough.

Besides, once you have seen what Socialism ACTUALLY is, and once you've finished eating your words, you'll realise all your fuss was for nothing and it's actually much better. See ya then!

[Svettypoo]

If I invent something and don't want to give it up to everybody... That goes against your system! How will you force me to give it up if not for the government?

I won't. Nor will anyone. You just won't have anything to gain from keeping it to yourself, and everything to gain from sharing it... I don't think you're ever going to understand this until you see it. There's nothing about Socialism or Communism that forces you to share it.

Communism means that individuals can't control the means of production. If I keep it for myself and sell it to other people I can get filthy rich. = the current system. What if my invention was a factory and everybody wanted to work in it because we would all be better off since we are producing 3 times as much... even if I am also getting filthy rich. Your communist pals wont like that one also. How is communism different than capitalism if individuals can own the means of production and get rich that way??

How is it fair that you want to force me to live within your system which I believe to be inefficient and unfair?

I won't force you to. Me and my Socialist pals will just revolutionise the State to be run by workers, establish the supremacy of a worker economy and you are "free" to not join in if you don't want to. Sound familiar? It should do - that's what Capitalists did 200 years ago.

Hypothetically, if you and your pals bought a piece of land in the US where you could share the fruits of your labor, and didn't have to pay any taxes. Would that satisfy you?

[Fent]

Silhouette wrote
Surely there aren't REAL people actively taking to the streets, protesting against how their own society doesn't work for them? But they don't matter anyway because they're "just jealous" and they're actually complaining about nothing, right? You tell us since you know each of their lives exactly.

It's just those bored with their plasma tvs, wines, coffees, playstations, and spectator sports. Plus a couple of misfits who rebel against authority for no other reason other than it being there.

I know these people because I used to be a leftist; not only that, I've been working and researching amongst them for 8 years.

Silhouette wrote
Communism doesn't bloody need hippy harmony or christian love to glue it together! All you gullible fools swallow the same ideological bullshit, praising the profit motive and all that - and yet HOW MANY WORKERS EVER SEE THE PROFIT MOTIVE IN THEIR LIFE?! All they see is the other end of it that keeps them down and demoralised.... AND YET THEY STILL WORK. Capitalist incentive my fucking arse.

Stop with the god damn strawman arguments and get a clue. It really is telling that Capitalist supporters can't make any other sense of progressive thinking than "oh they're just jealous/vengeful"...

If communisim doesn't need universal love to glue it together, then what does glue it together?
Of course it needs universal love as an ideal to perpetuate it. Yet, no one is going to help millions of people they have never met for no gain other than a warm fuzzy feeling inside. And at bottom this is why it is, and was, doomed to failure.


For as long as you have it in your head that the world owes you something, you will forever be disappointed.

[Silhouette]

It's just those bored with their plasma tvs, wines, coffees, playstations, and spectator sports. Plus a couple of misfits who rebel against authority for no other reason other than it being there.

I know these people because I used to be a leftist; not only that, I've been working and researching amongst them for 8 years.

I'll let you in on a little secret, and I'm rhetorically going to assume you've never been on a protest before.

They're actually a lot of fun! Sometimes I hear people making arrangements with others to attend one, and it's almost interchangeable with arranging to go to see a live band or go out to have fun in some other way. People dress up much more fancily and make their own creative props specially for the event - last time I saw a vulture, propped up high with poles (also used to flap its wings), with a pair of scissors as its head/beak - to symbolise the public sector cuts. And once you're actually there, it's the epitome of rabble rousing, it's absolutely about herd mentality and going along with the crowd - heckling those who support what you are protesting against and everything... It's disgraceful and contemptible behaviour, no question - but is it meaningless beyond these superficial boons for the masses, who are voluntarily getting up early and leaving their bored plasma tv/wine/coffee/playstation/spectator sport lifestyle for the day?

Absolutely not. We here may not be or feel part of the herd, but if you do not understand them you know very little.

Group dynamics are infamous for irrationality and inhumanity, earning them an association with the detrimental - when in fact they are simply ill understood. Research indicates that irrational choices are better made than rational ones IF the variables are many and complex. Rationality is limited, but superior (only) within its limits, whereas irrationality is like a mediocre failsafe - even on an individual level, for example, neither fight nor flight may be the best option, but it is often wise. In a group, there exists a phenomenon known as "the wisdom of the crowd", where the group somehow arrives at a wise answer without necessarily using much rationality at all.

In short, there is a reason for group dynamics that is deeply ingrained in human evolution and survival through not only less rational times, but even to this day. An irrational mob can congregate for irrational reasons and still be onto something that not even the most rational minds might be able to understand. Individual mob members may even be pretty thick and clueless, yet with their collective cause particularly shrewd. So despite any thickness, they should not be patronised and disregarded - especially since they comprise the work force that keeps our economy going. They are not to be disregarded.

Invariably, protests involve anarchists who are often young teens who have issues with authority. They go off and cause some trouble, break some stuff and get arrested - and usually that's all you hear about the protest (which is one reason why they do it).
Most are just there for the organised bits in peaceful obedience, devoid of individual ideas, just adding to the numbers really (a very important role).
You also get Left Wing academics, who I attend with. The sharpest people you're ever likely to meet and very widely read. I'm not an academic but I fit in with them none the less, except when they keep referring to authors I've never heard of.

I get the feeling that you've forsaken the Left Wing largely due to its individual proponents. I don't blame you, the Left is not without its fools - the trick is to find the ones who really understand it rather than just use it to justify their feelings of revenge and inferiority. That's when you realise the real value of the Left. Otherwise you're just stuck in a scene which feels like it's going nowhere, and that's frustrating if you just want to get things done. I also wonder if you abandoned your original way of thinking due to an inability to find compatibility between it and Nietzsche? I toyed with siding with the obvious right wing interpretation of Nietzsche for a while myself, but then I finally saw through it. Perhaps you can straighten this one out for me?

If communisim doesn't need universal love to glue it together, then what does glue it together?
Of course it needs universal love as an ideal to perpetuate it. Yet, no one is going to help millions of people they have never met for no gain other than a warm fuzzy feeling inside. And at bottom this is why it is, and was, doomed to failure.

For as long as you have it in your head that the world owes you something, you will forever be disappointed.

Well, consider this. If the vast majority of people in a society never ever see the profit incentive in their entire life, simple working class folk who own nothing in their work environment at all - and little in their home life beyond a few material trinkets - what the hell keeps them glued together?! Lol.

They find work with people they've never met before, and yet they learn to work with and compete against them just fine. They work damn hard too and get things done, even if just in return for a vaguely liveable proportion of the value they work to add to their product/service...

The ONLY thing Capitalism has that Socialism and Communism do not is the profit incentive from the ownership of the means of production - and that's only for the relatively very few. Anything else is utterly compatible with Socialism and Communism.
But to gain there is direct democracy rather than indirect (or none at all), a stake in the means of production that you are operating while at work (rather than none at all), more incentive to cooperate which is deeply ingrained in human social psychology - yet squandered under Capitalism in favour of relentless stress and competition (which can still be arranged under Socialism and Communism, without being mandatory for all like under Capitalism), access to much more levels of wealth than before with the greater levels of efficiency that would result from streamlining an overly competitive and inappropriately unequal economy - all sorts. There is a huge amount of flexibility.

So if the vast majority of people can be held together in a Capitalist economy, despite never seeing the benefits that are exclusive to Capitalism, and there is all this to gain from Socialism and Communism, then just what exactly is holding us back other than falling for the misinformation, cleverly spun by those in power?

[Silhouette]

Communism means that individuals can't control the means of production. If I keep it for myself and sell it to other people I can get filthy rich. = the current system. What if my invention was a factory and everybody wanted to work in it because we would all be better off since we are producing 3 times as much... even if I am also getting filthy rich. Your communist pals wont like that one also. How is communism different than capitalism if individuals can own the means of production and get rich that way??

To your first sentence: Communism means that individuals don't privately OWN the means of production.
To your last sentence: Communism is different to Capitalism since individuals don't own the means of production and get rich that way.

If your invention was a factory that was so good that everyone wanted to work in it because they would all be better off producing 3 times as much, then you could keep it to yourself but you wouldn't get filthy rich off it. If you shared it, the entire economy would benefit from that invention being used everywhere and your entire society would be better off, lifting you up along with everyone else to filthy richness - I'm talking wealth here, relative to the past (growth) rather than relative to others. And all my communist pals would be thrilled, showering you with praise, fame and directly democratically voted rewards that would surpass any Capitalist reward because instead of just boosting yourself you were boosting the entire economy which would thereby be doing better as a whole for you (and everyone else).

But if you don't like that, if you prefer to be held back, then you are free to not join in.

Hypothetically, if you and your pals bought a piece of land in the US where you could share the fruits of your labor, and didn't have to pay any taxes. Would that satisfy you?

Covered this one already.

[Svettypoo]

Well thanks for looking up what communism means. At least you know now... What you just wrote goes against your other claim that I have everything to gain from sharing my invention and that I would be allowed to make rental transactions.

[Silhouette]

Well thanks for looking up what communism means. At least you know now... What you just wrote goes against your other claim that I have everything to gain from sharing my invention and that I would be allowed to make rental transactions.

Looking up what Communism means? Don't you mean reiterating what I've been saying to you over and over to you for the past couple of days?

Learn the difference between private ownership and public control over sharing stuff that exists, I've said nothing contradictory. Renting isn't the only form of sharing. Think birthday gifts or something: a transaction without any rent/sale/anything. Imagine that! Let's say you pick a flower from public property and you give it to your girlfriend, there's no difference between mining some resources or coming up with an innovation - it's not automatically "privately owned property", it's just an object or idea that has come into existence and you're involved in putting it "here" rather than "there". Say it after me: "No privately owned property laws needed".

[Svettypoo]

Hypothetically, if you and your pals bought a piece of land in the US where you could share the fruits of your labor, and didn't have to pay any taxes. Would that satisfy you?

Covered this one already.

The more we talk, the more I realize that this is less and less about living in socialism, and more and more about taking other people's wealth.

[Silhouette]

The more we talk, the more I realize that this is less and less about living in socialism, and more and more about taking other people's wealth.

Then the less and less you understand. I think I'm done here, I've written fuck loads and you've gotten nothing from it. I don't want to live under Capitalism whether I'm the richest guy in the world or the poorest, whether everyone keeps their money according to one definition or loses it according to another. If you don't understand it's ONLY about living with Socialism by now then you're a lost cause.