posted 05-23-99 07:37 AM ET        

Bishop
---------------------------------------------
1. The possibility

Today it�s possible to use our collected knowledge and production resources to distribute Earth�s
resources fairly with consideration to the framework nature gives. It�s possible to give all people on
Earth food, housing, health care, education and good living conditions

2. Capitalism

The capitalist system that dominates our world stands in the way of this, however. The basic goal of
capitalism is the hunt for profit, a hunt that takes precedence over human needs and consideration for
the enviroment. It causes a gigantic waste, war, starvation, injustice and a destruction of natural
rescources.

3. The buorgeoisie

The bourgeoisie is the class that owns and controls society�s most important ekonomical assets,
large-scale companies, banks, insurance and finance companies, real estate- and building
companies, important natural rescources and the dominating mass media. Through their control over
these assets this little minority govern the society and it�s development and thruogh that the lifes of
billions of people.

4. Socialism

The wasting exploitation of capitalism must be replaced with socialist planning in order to give
humanity a chance to carry out their possibilities. To achieve this the most important assets of
society must be made common property. A real democratic control over these assets is a condition
for the governing of the people majority. Then and only then it�s possible to govern the national
economy so it benefits the majority of the people instead of short-sighted profit interests.

5. Peaceful revolution

To seize the power from the ruling class and start building the socialist society means that the
majority for the first time take over the governing of the whole society. This radical transformation of
society is called revolution, it can only be made by the majority and has nothing to do with coup d�etat
or anything like that. My will is that this shall be done in a peaceful manner, the prerequisite for this is
the organization, awareness, and resolution of the working class, and a will and resolution to take over
the governing of society.

6. Democracy

The bourgeoise order must be replaced by self-governing workingplace- and community councils that
are correlated locally, regionally and nationally. These councils are the backbone of the new socialist
society. On the national level the parlament is elected through free and direct elections.

[b]7. Internationalism[/]

posted 05-23-99 11:54 AM ET            

To quote from a favourite book of mine, "What is possible does not always coincide with what is wise." (100 bonus points if you know the title/author)
I really disagree with this point, since "fairly" and "with consideration" are rather vague terms, and I doubt you can get any two people to agree on them, much less over a hundred countries. Also, someone has to pay for this food, housing, etc. Are you volunteering to pick up the check?

--"2. Capitalism"

Capitalism is not the problem, although short-sighted capitalism is (short-sighted anything is a problem). A real capitalist wouldn't want to ruin the evironment or cause waste, war, starvation, etc. After all, if you kill a man you can only rob him once, but if you're careful you can rob him every year.

--"3. The buorgeoisie"

Little minority? Maybe if you're talking about the world's population (after all, there's rather more than a billion people in China, and I doubt many of them own much under a communist government), but if you're, say, talking about the US, then lots of people own small parts of those systems. It's called the stock market.
I notice these sort of communist and/or socialist speils always say "the rich" and never give specifics. Why? Perception. If they say "the richest 10 percent" they make it sound like the elite, but if you look at numbers, in the US you're in the top 10% if your entire household makes over $72,000 a year. If you and your spouse are earning $36,000 a year, you're considered rich by this definition. The top 5 percent? Over $127,000 a year, which means two mid-level civil servants. By saying "the rich" they can give the impression of Rockefellers and Gates running rampant, rather than reality.
Opposite this, let's look at the "poor". Again taking the US, since we're usually the target of these sorts of things. 2 out of 3 "poor" people have microwaves, and 3 out of 4 own VCRs for their color TVs. Our "oppressive" capitalist system has some of the best off poor people around.

--"4. Socialism"

Of course, you're assuming a centralized control over everything is somehow more efficient than distributed control. Well, let's look at Microsoft vs. Linux...
You're also assuming that the people placed in charge will look towards the best long term interest rather than their own best short term interest, and current experience would suggest this is more than slightly unlikely.

--"5. Peaceful revolution"

Do you have any plans for such a thing? For starters, you'd have to alter the founding documents of a several countries. Good luck.

--"6. Democracy"

Oh boy. Tyrrany of the majority, and more beuracracy than you can see from a very high hill on a very clear day. Councils for this that and the other, and heaven help the poor sod who disagrees.
The whole reason the US was set up as a Republic instead of a direct democracy was to prevent the uninformed masses from directly running things. And there's still nothing to prevent the producers from being just as short-sighted and selfish as what you call the owners.

--"7. Internationalism"

Ah, so not only does everyone in your country have to believe in your socialism, everyone in the world does too? Well, you've got the perfect right to preach all you want since this is a country that still harbors some respect for individual liberty.

posted 05-24-99 06:44 AM ET            

Wraith
Thanks for the response, a few remarks however:

1) "Fairly" and "with consideration" may be vague terms but what I intended was an equal system of distribution of the planets resources. As far as picking up checks go , that�s something that everybody does, i.e a collective payment. The question of agreement is a minor problem, after all if you manage to owerthrow capitalism on a global basis (with all the organization that requires) how hard can it be to agree on future policies ?

2)Capitalism IS the problem, capitalism is by definition "short-sighted", your opinions about "real capitalists" is as far-fetched as my opinions about global revolution. (i.e, a nice idea, but it will never come true. At least not in my lifetime).

What I want is a society where no one will "rob" his fellow man, one way or the other.

3)I don�t deny that common people hold a lot of shares in various companies and that they make money of it, but what kind of shares do they own ? There�s different kinds, A-shares with a large number of votes/share and B-shares with a small number of votes/share. In Sweden the Wallenberg-family controls most of the trade and industry, but they don�t own the majority of shares in the companies they control. They own like 10% of the total amount of shares in a company, but since these shares are A-shares they have like 51% of the votes on the annual meeting of shareholders. Now, does that sound fair or democratic to you ? Just because you�re allowed bread crums from the table of the rich and powerful doesn�t mean you�re allowed at the table or have any say on what shall be served for dinner !

4)The future socialist society isn�t ment to be a centralized monopoly, it will be more like a loose alliance of states with a common goal. And the people set in charge will of course be closely watched and replaced with regular intervals to prevent the abuse of power.

5)If there�s a possibility to seize power thruogh "proper" channels (i.e free elections to parlament) you should do that, if not the majority of people is free to seize power anyway they see fit. I�m not a categorically opposed to the seizure of power by force of arms, but I think and hope that the revolution can be accomplished without too much bloodshed (after all the bourgouisie is people just like us).

6) Rather the opposite, actually. If we do it this way we build the society from the bottom and up, instead of like today the other way around.

When you say "prevent the
uninformed masses from directly running things." it sounds like fascist(or stalinist) dictatorship. The masses must be well informed, this is the minimum requirement for revolution in the first place. Do you claim the US to be a democracy when it�s founded on priciples such as those ?

7)This depends on wether the majority of people in each land decides to shake of the shackles of capitalist oppression, if it isn�t a majority, then it�s not a "proper" revolution (as I explained earlier).

posted 05-24-99 08:14 AM ET            

Responses to your responses to Wraith:
1) I have yet to hear a viable way of making everyone pay the price tag of a socialist state without the Leninist favorite, genocide. How would the overthrow of capitalism look? Would you dismantle the courts, the laws, the legislative and executive bodies of government, the police and the army so that your friends the Socialists can rule the world? Or will it be a democratic government? What if the capitalists would be voted back into office? Or would private property made ILLEGAL? Give me a break, will you? How can someone be so naive as to think that everyone will bow to the completely illogical and unreasonable doctrine? Do you also know that without the consent of every one of the people affected by the "overthrow", you would be violating their individual rights? You know, rights - things the capitalists invented to "enslave" and "exploit". . .

2)"Capitalism ..by definition" - define capitalism, please, because I am now convinced you are completely ignorant about what you are babbling here. "What I want is a society where no one will "rob" his fellow man, one way or the other" - oh, great, you are a capitalist after all

3) Does Sweden have a special police unit that forces the general population to buy B shares at gunpoint? If yes, then it is undemocratic and unjust. If not, DO NOT BUY! And don�t give me the Vallenbergs - their empire is a result of a mixed socialist/capitalist economy and their good "relations" with the Swedish government, and NOT because they are great businessmen.

4) "The future socialist society isn�t ment to be a centralized monopoly, it will be more like a loose alliance of states with a common goal. And the people set in charge will of course be closely watched and replaced with regular intervals to prevent the abuse of power. " - hmmm� are you talking about present day USA? Or the Netherlands? Or UK? Well, the future is now, isn�t it? Is the world socialist? Not yet, thank God (not that imply there is one).

5)"If there�s a possibility to seize power thruogh "proper" channels (i.e free elections to parlament) you should do that, if not the majority of people is free to seize power anyway they see fit. I�m not a categorically opposed to the seizure of power by force of arms, but I think and hope that the revolution can be accomplished without too much bloodshed (after all the bourgouisie is people just like us)."

YESSS!!! GOTCHA!!! YOU ARE A BLOODTHIRSTY COMMIE AFTER ALL!!! I want everyone to note that, on the record, Bishop said he does not oppose the use of force and that he "hopes" the will not be "too much" bloodshed. Just a tiny bit of teeny-weeny bloodshed. A bucket or a full bathtub of blood? Gawd, only socialists can dehumanaze people like that. How do your socialist friends plan to keep the power, seized by force? I can tell you what they will have to do - they will have to use even MORE force, and end up in a dictatorship, hated by all. No wonder socialists oppose gun ownership - they would have a bloody civil war on their hands, instead of a revolution with not "too much" bloodshed.

Damn, I�m getting emotional�

6) Not that I want do defend the US, but Wraith is right - the masses are easy to control (just look at CNN), and I�m not sure you remember when I quoted The Economist about a virtual democracy where everything was up to the whole population to decide via internet, and what would happen if a Turkish (Black, Chinese, Polish etc.) guy raped and killed a young girl and then shot three cops. There would be a vote to expel all the Turks (Blacks, Chinese, Polish etc.). And by saying that the uninformed public being restricted to change the foundations of a country is Fascist or Stalinist policy, you once again demonstrate that you don�t know what you�re talking about. These restrictions ensure that the country does not make hasty blunders and/or wrong decisions, including Stalinism and Fascism. Hitler was VOTED into office, remember?

On a sidenote: the argument of the gun-lobby in the US, IMO, should be that fine, let�s change the constitution. Not enough votes? Oh, sorry, then let us keep our guns because otherwise it would be unconstitutional. Enough votes (3/4, correct me if I�m wrong)? Fine, times have changed since 1776.

posted 05-24-99 12:12 PM ET            

If you had a chance to live in a commune that was well run and everything was just and distributed equally, would you? I would not, even though I can see the value of this kind of system. The alternative to me choosing this communal living is by me being forced to live on this commune. Then it comes down to principle. I am not going to give up my rights if somebody is trying to take them away.

I would suggest that the best way for socialism to ultimately prevail would be to set up a bunch of communes. Everybody has a choice to join or not to join. This would be "good" and no self-respecting citizen of the world would wish them ill. Once these communes have demonstrated that they can live "in the real world," governments would take notice (because they represent a serious voting block).

posted 05-24-99 05:57 PM ET            

" What if the
capitalists would be voted back into office?"
>>Well then I suppose we�ll have to give them the power back, as the good democrats we are

"Or would private property made ILLEGAL?"
>>Well, not ALL private property

"Do you also know that without the consent of every one of the
people affected by the "overthrow", you would be violating their individual rights?"
>>Well, Saras I would�ve never picked you out as an anarchist Do you know of a little system that violates these "rights" on a daily basis ? It�s called "democracy", in this horrible system 51% of the population can tell 49% of the population what they can do, and what they can�t.

2) Is there more than one definition of capitalism ? Come on Saras, don�t make yourself appear more stupid than you really are. But only for you here�s a definition of capitalism from a swedish dictionary: "Capitalism is the name for a order of society in wich the means of production -or an vast amount of them- is in private hands, where the work is being done by (at least formally) free wage workers and where operations on the free market plays a significant part. According to marxism kapitalism derives from from feodalism and shall be replaced by socialism"

3)I talk from swedish conditions here, and large companies in Sweden (like Astra) give their workers shares (b-shares that is) to give the illusion of worker-influence, and that�s exactly what they want them to think. Why give them real power when the illusion of power will suffice ?

4)The socialist society will not be all that different from todays society, with one or two major differences like worker controlled factories and workplaces and an equal distribution of the wealth. Oh, and did I mention better weather...

5)Yeah, so what ? If killing a few capitalists is the prize we have to pay for the revolution, then so be it ! But as I have stated before I don�t encourage this actions other than in dire circumstances.

6)Yes, an uninformed mass of people is often a problem, that�s why everyone should be well informed and kind to his fellow man, etc, etc...

7)" freedom to live, work, create and own the results of these
actions.
>>Socialism is all those things as well, you know...

DanS
Well it�s a nice thought, maybe I should start a commune of my own out in the woods near G�teborg

Spoe
Again refering to my trusted dictionary: "Communism is in it�s most general meaning a community of property"

"Socialism is a political view that demands that the means of production shall be transferred to a collective state of ownership"

Now does anybody see any differences between these two definitions, I don�t. I�ll have to check these two definitons in Encyclopedica Britannica or some other english-language dictionary, but I don�t think they will define it differently. What encyclopedias did you use Spoe ? Just curious

Bishop

Oh, I use "Bonniers Little Dictionary" since I don�t have the money to buy "The National Encyclopedia" on CD-ROM. (6000 kr or 750 $ !)

posted 05-24-99 05:58 PM ET            

" What if the
capitalists would be voted back into office?"
>>Well then I suppose we�ll have to give them the power back, as the good democrats we are

"Or would private property made ILLEGAL?"
>>Well, not ALL private property

"Do you also know that without the consent of every one of the
people affected by the "overthrow", you would be violating their individual rights?"
>>Well, Saras I would�ve never picked you out as an anarchist Do you know of a little system that violates these "rights" on a daily basis ? It�s called "democracy", in this horrible system 51% of the population can tell 49% of the population what they can do, and what they can�t.

2) Is there more than one definition of capitalism ? Come on Saras, don�t make yourself appear more stupid than you really are. But only for you here�s a definition of capitalism from a swedish dictionary: "Capitalism is the name for a order of society in wich the means of production -or an vast amount of them- is in private hands, where the work is being done by (at least formally) free wage workers and where operations on the free market plays a significant part. According to marxism kapitalism derives from from feodalism and shall be replaced by socialism"

3)I talk from swedish conditions here, and large companies in Sweden (like Astra) give their workers shares (b-shares that is) to give the illusion of worker-influence, and that�s exactly what they want them to think. Why give them real power when the illusion of power will suffice ?

4)The socialist society will not be all that different from todays society, with one or two major differences like worker controlled factories and workplaces and an equal distribution of the wealth. Oh, and did I mention better weather...

5)Yeah, so what ? If killing a few capitalists is the prize we have to pay for the revolution, then so be it ! But as I have stated before I don�t encourage this actions other than in dire circumstances.

6)Yes, an uninformed mass of people is often a problem, that�s why everyone should be well informed and kind to his fellow man, etc, etc...

7)" freedom to live, work, create and own the results of these
actions.
>>Socialism is all those things as well, you know...

DanS
Well it�s a nice thought, maybe I should start a commune of my own out in the woods near G�teborg

Spoe
Again refering to my trusted dictionary: "Communism is in it�s most general meaning a community of property"

"Socialism is a political view that demands that the means of production shall be transferred to a collective state of ownership"

Now does anybody see any differences between these two definitions, I don�t. I�ll have to check these two definitons in Encyclopedica Britannica or some other english-language dictionary, but I don�t think they will define it differently. What encyclopedias did you use Spoe ? Just curious

Bishop

Oh, I use "Bonniers Little Dictionary" since I don�t have the money to buy "The National Encyclopedia" on CD-ROM. (6000 kr or 750 $ !)

posted 05-24-99 09:53 PM ET            

Main Entry: so�cial�ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of
goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and
controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work
done

Mainly looking at 1 and 2b, though 2a certainly doesn't rule out a totalitarian system where all property is government owned. 3 suggests a differentiation between true communism and socialism.

Same source:
Main Entry: com�mu�nism
Pronunciation: 'k�m-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of
government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered
away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

posted 05-25-99 02:32 AM ET            

"Capitalism is the name for a order of society in wich the means of production -or an vast amount of them- is in private hands, where the work is being done by (at least formally) free wage workers and where operations on the free market plays a significant part. According to marxism kapitalism derives from from feodalism and shall be replaced by socialism"

According to Marxism a lot of things are different from reality, you know. A lunatic can't write sensible things. Now, you said that by definition capitalism is short sighted, and, per my request, kindly provided the definition. Am I blind (after reading blank posts) or does no one else see the words short-sightedness in the definition? And Bishop, you also said that I make myself look more stupid than I really am. Think again about what you posted there. It becomes pretty obvious to me that you have no understanding of how businesses are run and on what principles value is being created in a society. By saying that capitalism is short sighted you clearly proved that you do not know what capitalism is (pretty obvious - you live in Sweden (sorry, Sir David)), therefore I asked maybe you had a different definition for it. Now, who looks stupid?

"freedom to live, work, create and own the results of these actions. - Socialism is all those things as well, you know."

Now I'm confused. Is socialism capitalism or is it vice versa? Look carefully, I said "OWN THE RESULTS". It means "property rights". BOOOOOO!!!

"Yeah, so what? If killing a few capitalists is the prize we have to pay for the revolution, then so be it!" - you know why I like you better than Hugo Rune and Magnus? You are a sincere socialist.

posted 05-25-99 03:33 PM ET            

OldWarrior_42
"Who
tells you whether you work on the farm or in the science lab or cutting meat...whatever. Shouldn't that
be a choice?"

>>Yes, it should be a choice, of course. But with due consideration to the common good.

"Also what if I bust my ass all day doing manual labor while you are in the air conditioned
building studying the stars or something. Do you not beleive in the jealousness of human nature ."

>>Yes, I do. I�ll guess we�ll have to work out some system to deal with that.

"Also
if I consider my job to be harder and worth more to society, then don't you think that I would feel the
need to reap more of the fruits of my labor than someone else whom might not be pulling his weight?

>>No job is more worth than another.

Saras
"Am I blind (after reading blank posts) or does no one else see the words
short-sightedness in the definition?"

>>Damn, I should have used my socialist encyclopedia

Now I'm confused. Is socialism capitalism or is it vice versa? Look carefully, I said "OWN THE
RESULTS". It means "property rights". BOOOOOO!!!

>>I haven�t said property rights shall be abolished after the revolution, you�re of course entitled to some property, like a house, a collective transport pass, a bicycle, TV, Radio, etc, etc. The smaller things in life, everything else is owned collectively for the greater good of the commune.

"Companies give workers shares to encourage them to work
better and share in the success of the company"

>>Do you really belive that ? Talk about propaganda. You�re far gone man, I�ll tell ya

" It's all about money. And after all, who cares about
control when they got money?"

>>Well, that�s true of course, we�re all a bunch of whores

posted 05-25-99 07:00 PM ET            

--"what I intended was an equal system of distribution of the planets resources."

Again, vague terms. Equal how? Equal as in everyone gets the same regardless? Equal as in everyone is given the same amount for each unit of work? If so, what's the definition of a unit of work? And who's doing the defining? Not to mention the deciding.

--"your opinions about "real capitalists" is as far-fetched as my opinions about global revolution."

No, there are plenty of what I called real capitalists out there. They're the smart ones. They know it's better to milk the cow and then butcher it than to butcher it and then try to milk it. If you said "stupid capitalists" are the problem, then I might agree with you, but I don't see "stupid socialists" as being any better.

--"What I want is a society where no one will "rob" his fellow man, one way or the other."

This is a very loaded comment, and as a Libertarian I can't possibly pass it by
Capitalism is not based on "robbing". It is based on fair and equitable trade, as, and this is important, defined by the parties involved. This is where the old barter economy got started. If you have something I want and I have something you want, hey, let's trade! We both come out ahead. This is certainly nothing like theft (unless you're thinking of a Discworldian anti-crime like breaking and redecorating).

--"but what kind of shares do they own ?"

Although I'm not positive of it, the US stock market isn't set up quite that way.

--"And the people set in charge will of course be closely watched and replaced with regular intervals to prevent the abuse of power."

Who does the watching and replacing? Sounds suspiciously like a republic or democracy to me. Unless it's the military that does the deciding and replacing, in which case we've got a despotism... well, you see what I mean. This isn't specific enough to be a definition.

--"Do you claim the US to be a democracy when it�s founded on priciples such as those ?"

No, I claim the US to be a democratic republic or a constitutional republic (depending on which term you prefer). Those principles were addressed rather extensively by the Founding Fathers, in fact.
While information flow has become much more rapid since then, there is still no way for everyone to keep abrest of everything. Although the orginal problem was distributing enough info fast enough, the problem now is that too much info is being distributed too fast. It takes as much time to winnow out the chaff now as it used to find the grain in the first place. The system is democratic in that the people choose those that will represent them in the goverment, people who are presumably better informed on the issues (since it's their job) than Joe Sixpack. This is rather different from a dictatorship, since the people decide who's in the government rather than the ruler deciding he's the ruler.

--"Answers to your questions in order. No, No,"

So, you want to keep the courts and judicial systems, but throw the rest out? Who, then, decides what the laws are and who enforces them? Who does the punishing? Is this going to be a community effort?

--"here�s a definition of capitalism from a swedish dictionary"

A dictionary that is quoting Marx in it's definition of capitalism is not one to trust.

--"an equal distribution of the wealth"

Once again, this is vague. Do you mean everyone gets the same no matter what (ie. communism) or not?

--"Now does anybody see any differences between these two definitions, I don�t."

Your biggest problem is the dictionary you're getting these definitions out of. However, I'm sure a case can be made for a difference between the two you've given, although it's not worth the effort since they're not quite right

--"But with due consideration to the common good."

Who's idea of the common good? Someone may think that setting "bad people" on fire would be a common good.

--"I�ll guess we�ll have to work out some system to deal with that."

And here you have the problem. This is one of the single biggest sticking points, and it's the first time I've seen a socialist/communist supporter acknowledge it. This is a big stumbling block that absolutely must be addressed before a viable socialist or communist society can be created, and I've never seen a single supporter even attempt to outline such a system.

--"No job is more worth than another."

Really? Even taking into account the different amounts of training that have to go into the subject? It doesn't take nearly as much training to be, say, a courtesy clerk at a grocery store as it does to be a nuclear engineer. Does this mean that the clerk is just as valuable to the society as the engineer?

--"The smaller things in life,"

Again, vague definitions. What's some property? Why should some property be okay but some not? What differentiates the two?
Also, for houses in specific, are you granting the right to land ownership? Private lands just don't seem to fit the socialist model.

posted 05-26-99 04:10 AM ET            

I have to agree with Wraith (really, I do!) that this concept of socialism is so full of undefined terms and unelaborated systems that it is more like blahblahism...

posted 05-26-99 05:53 AM ET            

Anyway, there is a lot of differences between capitalism and communism/socialism, and that is; in capitalism everybody thinks other humans is bad, in communism/socialism we think that all humans are good. Only that says that communism/socialism is the best. ha!

A proof that capitalism doesnt work is that there are several thousands, maybe millions of ppl that is starving to death in africa...

And a question to all capitalists out there:

U always say that the human nature is to fight each other and make a profit of someone else, we have always done that and we always will. ok, my question is; do u have any proof for this? I mean in the stoneage i promise you that we did not fight each other, we lived in tribes, and we helped each other with gathering food, hunting, and watching the fire. The succes of the humans is verry much thanks to that we have helped eachother, we have cooperated. It is in our human nature to cooperate, to help each other!! Not to fight each other! And one more thing; now we dont live in the stone age, so even if ppl fought each other then, we shall not do that now, we are civilized, we should cooperate, we can cooperate, we all live on the same planet, and we are all the same, so why shold person A have more than person B? No ppl are lazy, what makes Person A have more is bcs he is simply bcs he is thought how to make money, and person B isnt, but they are still both humans, and are "worth" the same kind of living conditions... I think that capitalism is a kind of racism, u dont think that your race is better, but u think that all dumb ppl are not good.

posted 05-26-99 06:20 AM ET            

Anyway, there is a lot of differences between capitalism and communism/socialism, and that is; in capitalism everybody thinks other humans is bad, in communism/socialism we think that all humans are good. Only that says that communism/socialism is the best. ha!

I don't think other humans are bad. One question: if socialism is based on the assumption that all humans are (equally ?) good, why do you, according to bishop, have to tell people to choose their job "with due consideration to the common good" and why do you "have to work out some system to deal with that." (ie jelousness) ?

A proof that capitalism doesnt work is that there are several thousands, maybe millions of ppl that is starving to death in africa...

Fnord! Show me a free market system in Africa, and I'll show you a country without starvation. Do you think Ethiopia, Somalia, Niger etc have free market systems ? In which free market economy do you see starvation ?

U always say that the human nature is to fight each other and make a profit of someone else, we have always done that and we always will. ok, my question is; do u have any proof for this?

No proof, cause I don't endorse the statement.

I mean in the stoneage i promise you that we did not fight each other, we lived in tribes, and we helped each other with gathering food, hunting, and watching the fire.

Ooh... romantic, isn't it ? However, the tribes fought other tribes, and would you want to "enjoy" stone age living quality ?

The succes of the humans is verry much thanks to that we have helped eachother, we have cooperated. It is in our human nature to cooperate, to help each other!! Not to fight each other!

Yes, that's why there are "cooperations". In a free market system, people don't fight each other. The free market is a system of cooperation: bring your resources to the market (labor, capital, goods), and use them in the most effective way.

...we are all the same, so why shold person A have more than person B? No ppl are lazy, what makes Person A have more is bcs he is simply bcs he is thought how to make money, and person B isnt, but they are still both humans, and are "worth" the same kind of living conditions... I think that capitalism is a kind of racism, u dont think that your race is better, but u think that all dumb ppl are not good.

It has nothing to do with thinking that "dumb" people are not good. Just that the smart ones can contribute more in the process of cooperation, and should be rewarded to keep them doing so.

Socialism is the future, thats a fact. we cant go on living in capitalism! Yes - socialism will take away freedom, but only from the 5% richest, the rest of the earths 95% will get so much much more freedom!

posted 05-26-99 09:06 AM ET            

>>Well, I�d like to think that we have evolved since 1848... Even Lenin saw the necessity of some private property to keep peoples spirits up, happy people is more productive than unhappy people.

"What is to stop a member from deciding he
needs more than anyone else and to take it?

>>The workplace council will have to enlighten him about the error of his ways and set him straight one way or the other.

"The problem with this is that any such system, unless made so rigidly
inflexible as to destroy the very concept of responding to a member's needs, is prone to corruption and
will turn itself into a bourgoise phoenix.[...]men are too often susceptable to selfishness."

>>Yes, that is true. That�s why people(including myself) has to be set under strict social control to prevent selfish acts that may/or may not prove harmful to the commune.

Wraith
"Again, vague terms. Equal how? Equal as in everyone gets the same regardless?"

>>Yes, basically so. Although I�ll admit there�s a problem here, the ideal would be for people to shift jobs now and again, to relieve feelings of injustice(as described earlier), boredom and to minimize the risk of damage done to the body in unhealthy enviroments and working conditions. However a rocket scientist or a doctor can easily take the place of a janitor but not the other way around. Now, should the rocket scientist or doctor be rewarded with extra credits for this ? I�m not so sure about that. But then again I�ll not be the only one in charge after the revolution (no, really).

"No, there are plenty of what I called real capitalists out there. They're the smart ones. They know it's
better to milk the cow and then butcher it than to butcher it and then try to milk it."

>>That may be so, but what about future generations ? We�re exploiting Earth�s rescourses to the brink of disaster today, the rainforest in Amazonas is being cut down so MacF**kingDonalds can feed their cows so fat americans can get even fatter. The oceans is practically fished-out, only the 10 largest fishing areas contain fish in normal quantities, people in Africa and Asia are starving to death while we in the rich west consume ourselves silly. A recent survey about world hunger stated that it should take approx. 11 billion dollars to get rid of world starvation, 11 billion dollars is what we europeans spend on icecream a year !! It does make one think, doesn�t it ?

"If you said "stupid
capitalists" are the problem, then I might agree with you, but I don't see "stupid socialists" as being
any better.

>>Anything stupid is a bad thing...

" It is based on fair and equitable trade, as, and this is important,
defined by the parties involved."

>>Hey, I�m all for fair and equitable trade as long as it�s done in accordance with current laws and regulations.

"Who does the watching and replacing?"

>>The united secreteriat of communes(USC), or whatever it will call itself. A sort of directly elected surveilance committe, made up by (hopefully)especially unimpeachable citizens. But I�ll guess we�ll never get by the old problem "who watches the watchmen".

"The system is democratic in that the people
choose those that will represent them in the goverment, people who are presumably better informed on
the issues (since it's their job) than Joe Sixpack."

>>But don�t you see a problem in the fact that only about 50% (I don�t know the exact numbers) of the citizens entitled to vote actually do it ? And that those who don�t is often members of the minority groups ?

"So, you want to keep the courts and judicial systems, but throw the rest out? Who, then, decides
what the laws are and who enforces them? Who does the punishing? Is this going to be a community
effort?"

>>The laws are passed by voting in the workplace, with 3/4 majority, but has to be ratified by the USC, with an election in between. The enforcing of laws is up the "The citizens defence force" (or whatever) which is a conscript police force. The matter of punishing is decided by your local commune court (death penalty is of course abolished).

(i]"A dictionary that is quoting Marx in it's definition of capitalism is not one to trust."[/i]
>>Well, you�re entitled to an opinion

"Once again, this is vague. Do you mean everyone gets the same no matter what (ie. communism) or
not?"

>>See my response to your first question.

"Who's idea of the common good? Someone may think that setting "bad people" on fire would be a
common good."

>>Well, as long as it gets a 3/4 majority I guess it�s OK No, actually this is a another problem that we�ll have to work on, contact me after the revolution.

"And here you have the problem. This is one of the single biggest sticking points, and it's the first time
I've seen a socialist/communist supporter acknowledge it. "

>>Well thank you ! I take great pride in my connection to reality (?!)

"Does this mean that the clerk is just as valuable to the society as the engineer?"

>>Yes, in a way he is I suppose. Why shouldn�t selling groceries to engineers be worth as much as designing computer chips for cash registers ? Yes, I know that you probably can explain this with national economic terms, but national economy has always been the instrument of the bourgoisie.

"Again, vague definitions. What's some property? Why should some property be okay but some not?
What differentiates the two?

>>I think you have to separate "personal property" from "collective property". Personal property is mundane things, things which you own that doesn�t affect the collective as a whole, i.e if I own a bicykel for instance that�s not something that will affect the collective. But if someone owns a factory or a bank, etc. Then this someone control certain aspects of my life, aspects that I myself should be in control over.

"Also, for houses in specific, are you granting the right to land ownership? Private lands just don't seem
to fit the socialist model."

>>All lands are owned collectively and administred by the local commune council, the house is yours however, to do with as you please (within certain guidelines).

Saras
I have some economical knowledge and I have studied Economic history at the University of Gothenburg. I don�t think deeper studies in national economy will change my views of the capitalist system.

Roland
I�ve tried to gather my thoughts and deliver a more organized view of my future society in my answer to Wraith, hope you can get something out of it. But really, can you plan Utopia in detail, doesn�t that counteract the purpose of a Utopia in the first place ?

Bishop

posted 05-26-99 09:06 AM ET            

Woo-hoo! Roland agrees with me for once

--"in capitalism everybody thinks other humans is bad,"

Well, Roland partialy addressed this, and we really tried to pound this into your head last time you were in a communist/capitalist arguement, but here goes again: You don't have to think someone is evil to compete with them, and if you think someone is evil there's almost no chance you're going to be trading with them. This veiw of capitalism is horribly wrong.

--"that is starving to death in africa..."

And we can't forget the poor repressed people of China, or the... wait... they're not capitalists! If you're trying to attack capitalism by pointing out where it's not working, try Russia. Only thing is that it isn't capitalism qua capitalism that's the problem there.

--"ok, my question is; do u have any proof for this?"

Okay, in the example I gave of barter, where do you see people fighting each other? As I said (repetition is the key to learning) capitalism is based on the theory that things are worth different amounts to different people, and therefor people can profitably trade with each other. In a good deal, both people come out ahead. In most deals, in fact, both people come out ahead. It's not a matter of one guy screwing the other. Please stop this irritating stereotype, it doesn't advance the cause of communism or socialism.

--"Not to fight each other!"

Oh, I forgot, the nuclear bomb was created so we could help each other out better, wasn't it? Face it, most of our technological advancment has been because we were fighting each other.

--"so even if ppl fought each other then, we shall not do that now,"

Shall not? As in "Thou shalt not kill"? That's been around a couple thousand years, it hasn't sunk in quite yet.

--"No ppl are lazy,"

What? I know that's wrong, cause I happen to be really lazy :P

--"I think that capitalism is a kind of racism,"

Capitalism is racism? By saying the people who are best at making money will make the most money? That's an odd definition. So, by this rationale, saying that the pilots who are the best at flying fly better than anyone else, is that racism too?

--"Yes - socialism will take away freedom,"

Ah, you admit that socialism will take away freedom, and yet you still want it. I don't care what percentages you quote, you can't possibly back them up. How much freedom are you willing to sacrifice for someone else?
Look at the world right now. Poor people in communist China certainly don't have the same level of rights that poor people in the US do. Which would you rather be? Poor in China or poor in the US?

posted 05-26-99 02:32 PM ET            

As we have come to learn, capitalism is not only about competition. It's also about "coopetition" whereby individuals and companies cooperate as they compete. I suspect there is much more coopetition than straight competition, even in a capitalist society.

posted 05-26-99 03:46 PM ET            

You speak as if you have an army of strong, selfless people by your side. How many people can you find that will not take the first opportunity to better themselves and their position. I am sure that you can find truly pious and noble men and women out there, but would they ever be the majority? You speak of majority rule, yet the masses of drones in our society are not as selfless and far-seeing as you would have them be. What of forcing them? Creating a dictatorship of the proletariat? Where has that led to in Cuba and North Korea? They starve and die under a depraved and corrupt government. True, Marx never gave a prediction as to when the totality of Utopia would be realized, but such 'Marxist' countries as forementioned are going nowhere fast.

Unlike the communist economic system--never truly created, even under the USSR and especially not China, except perhaps in France during the French Revolution--capitalism arose out of convenience, not idealism. Thus, it was and is a tried and true method. Marx went rambling along in his Das Kapital (which, in any instance, needs a good editor) about his vision for the ideal society. Fourier and others tried to establish communes that all ended in ruin. Then, Lenin creates his Soviet Union which ultimately ends up becoming a big flop.
The only socialist system that worked--that I am aware of--was that of France during the Revolution of 1789. France was under attack from all sides, domestic and abroad. French nationalism arose, strong and powerful, in the people. They selflessly gave their lives and energies for the preservation of their homeland. History shows, however, that this powerful economic system was short-lived, and it eventually burned out.

What of happiness? People are happier when the burden of decision is no longer on their shoulders. True freedom is not to waste away in glorious materialistic ecstasy, but to liberate yourselves from the tyranny of the things around you. (I know, I sound like a Buddhist monk, but really, I am only a sophomore in high school).

You also talk of combining Socialism with Democracy. The Social Democrats rule in Britain, under Prime Minister Tony Blair. They seek for the welfare of all, yet they are not quite what you describe. They stay within the bounds of pragmatism, and thus, they survive. They could not radically transform society.

And of your revolution, how would you fundamentally redesign society as you have described without mass revolt and 'coup d'�tat'? Imposing such measures would undoubtedly arouse protest among the bourgeoisie majority (especially in the U.S., where I live, where bourgeoisie as it is generally described can be counted as the majority).

posted 05-26-99 04:05 PM ET            

"'A dictionary that is quoting Marx in it's definition of capitalism is not one to trust.'
>>Well, you�re entitled to an opinion"

To put it in terms you understand, it'd be like asking Stalin for and objective description of what Trotsky advocated. :P

"The workplace council will have to enlighten him about the error of his ways and set him straight one way or the other.

and

"Yes, that is true. That�s why people(including myself) has to be set under strict social control to prevent selfish acts that may/or may not prove harmful to the commune."

And that is why I don't like a primarily communist system. It is neccessarily authoritarian and limits freedoms.
"Oh, you have a real talent for painting, but we have plenty of painters. You need to be a delivery boy. We don't have enough of those." I ask you, Bishop, how is that freedom? To paraphrase Henry Ford, "You're free to do anything you want as long as it's what we want you to do.".

posted 05-26-99 06:37 PM ET            

Roland
In which free market economy do you
see starvation ?

>>How about the good ole US ?

OldWarrior_42
"You are talking about
genocide to make an idea happen."

>>I would prefer a peaceful revolution every time, but I don�t turn my back on violence in order to guarantee the sucess of the revolution. By this I don�t mean any sort of "red terror", only enough to get control over things. There is however a significant difference between the form of the political struggle in Sweden and say, Colombia. In Sweden I don�t have to fear for my life if I�m politically active, which is the case in Colombia. From that follows that FARC in Colombia fight the government with weapon in hand while in Sweden there�s no need for such drastic actions. I hope I�m making sense here but what I am trying to say is that if there�s a chance to avoid bloodshed in the political struggle for freedom or whatever, then you should take it.

"Neither of these living conditions will ever
be attained globally. Such is the nature of the being."

>>That�s precisely what the capitalist system want people to think, that there is no alternative to capitalism. Hell, the last years attacks on Lenin and the russian revolution has just this in mind. Is it a coincidence that these rabid attacks comes in a time of trouble for global capitalism and neo-liberalism ?

Ronbo
"The instant a child tried to sneak a bigger piece
of cake, or complained that their brother/sister/friend got more than them or a better piece or more
frosting or whatever, they have violated the spirit of communism, and that is simple human nature."

>>Not necessarily, that�s what schools are there for. To learn children proper values, it may be the pledge of allegiance and salute the flag or learning about your place in the collective and that no man is better than another.

Veracitas
"How many people can you
find that will not take the first opportunity to better themselves and their position."

>>Maybe 10 or 20 in my near vicinity, all to few though :<

"You
speak of majority rule, yet the masses of drones in our society are not as selfless and far-seeing as
you would have them be."

>>Well, it�s up to us socialists to enlighten them about the true state of things (which I do on an almost daily basis)

"What of happiness? People are happier when the burden of decision is no longer on their shoulders.
True freedom is not to waste away in glorious materialistic ecstasy, but to liberate yourselves from the
tyranny of the things around you."

>> Everyone of us has a responsibility for the society, you can�t walk away from it.

"The Social Democrats rule in Britain, under
Prime Minister Tony Blair. They seek for the welfare of all, yet they are not quite what you describe."

>>Yeah, right.. Tony Blair is almost as social-democratic as Bill Clinton...

" And of your revolution, how would you fundamentally redesign society as you have described without
mass revolt and 'coup d'�tat'? Imposing such measures would undoubtedly arouse protest among the
bourgeoisie majority"

>>Through parlamentary channels, assuming there is a parlament you can make your voice heard in, if that doesn�t work it�s only violence left I�m afraid.

Spoe
""Oh, you have a real talent for painting, but we have plenty of painters. You need to be a delivery boy.
We don't have enough of those." I ask you, Bishop, how is that freedom? To paraphrase Henry
Ford, "You're free to do anything you want as long as it's what we want you to do.".

>>Well, we�ll have to work out some type of time-share thing I suppose...

posted 05-26-99 07:13 PM ET            

This takes us right back into the old communist/capitalist arguements, and I'm pretty sure I was never able to change anyone's mind then. I just see no reason for someone who's got a lot of expertise at something to be paid the same as someone who's worthless at what they're doing.

--"That may be so, but what about future generations ?"

As I said, the smart capitalists will be looking to the future. Who knows when someone will invent a longevity vaccine and who do you think are going to be first in line with cash in one hand and one sleeve rolled up?

--"the rainforest in Amazonas is being cut down so MacF**kingDonalds can feed their cows"

Slash and burn agriculture is not being practices by McDonalds, since I don't believe they own a single farm anywhere. The rainforests are being cut down because of the short-sighted people there wanting quick'n'easy farm land. Also, how many of these countries you're talking about have capitalist economies?

--"The oceans is practically fished-out,"

But it's not possible that fish have noticed that perhaps staying away from certain areas means they live longer? :P So much of the ocean is inaccesable to us at present, that this statement is too far reaching to be accurate. Some species of fish, the ones we can get to easily, are in trouble. But, as they become more rare, the difficulty of catching them goes up, so the price goes up, so less people want to buy them, so less people try to catch them... see where this is going?

--"people in Africa and Asia are starving to death"

Neither area being associated with the word "capitalist" except when the word "not" is included.

--"Hey, I�m all for fair and equitable trade as long as it�s done in accordance with current laws and regulations."

So... you're all for capitalism? I must be missing something here...

--"A sort of directly elected surveilance committe,"

In other words, a republic?

--"But don�t you see a problem in the fact that only about 50% (I don�t know the exact numbers) of the citizens entitled to vote actually do it ?"

It doesn't have to be a problem. Not voting is a choice, too. It certainly would be better if more people voted, but why force them to?

--"And that those who don�t is often members of the minority groups ?"

Really? People with a political axe to grind are usually the ones that do vote. That goes for anyone from gun control advocates to pro-lifers to people trying to soften the stance on illegal immigration. Seems like the minorities should be fairly represented.

--"The laws are passed by voting in the workplace,"

I can see some big problems here, and if you think someone can't get 3/4 of a group to agree to something really stupid you've never watched a game show.

--"The enforcing of laws is up the "The citizens defence force""

A conscript police force? That has "bully pack" written all over it. How can you possibly expect people arbitrarily placed in positions of petty power to not abuse it?

--"The matter of punishing is decided by your local commune court (death penalty is of course abolished)."

Of course abolished? I don't quite follow how you get there from here. If someone is a serial killer, aren't they a threat to the social order?
As for punishments being set by local committees, well, have you ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials?
If the laws and punishments aren't the same everywhere in the country, how can they possibly be considered fair?

--"No, actually this is a another problem that we�ll have to work on, contact me after the revolution."

Wouldn't it be better to work these things out before hand? It'd be far easier to accomplish your goal if you had a fully worked out plan for later.

--"Why shouldn�t selling groceries to engineers be worth as much as designing computer chips for cash registers ?"

Well, I'm not sure why a nuclear engineer would be doing IC design, but do you honestly say that you think everyone should be paid the same regardless of skill and talent? Let me say, I'd really hate to hear the post-revolution symphonies...

--"things which you own that doesn�t affect the collective as a whole,"

Ah, but if you own a bicycle and someone else doesn't, won't that foster jealousy and resentment, which would be counter to the good of the society?

--"Then this someone control certain aspects of my life"

As opposed to this USC controlling all aspects of your life?

--"How about the good ole US ?"

Where, exactly, do you see people starving to death in the US? I'm curious on this one. Yes, we have homeless people, but between government assistance and private charities, there are very few deaths due to starvation. In fact, I can't recall ever hearing of one.

--"that there is no alternative to capitalism."

If you add the word "viable" in between "no" and "alternative" you've got it closer to correct.

--"Well, it�s up to us socialists to enlighten them about the true state of things"

Ah, so rather than sorting things out on our own, we should be agreeing with whatever Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me.

--"Tony Blair is almost as social-democratic as Bill Clinton... "

Clinton is probably the worst offender in trying to turn the US into a socialist state I can't call him a socialist, since he's unwilling to actually stand behind any philosophy, but his expansion of government programs and control is second to none (being sadly helped out by the spineless Republican leadership in Congress).

posted 05-26-99 08:44 PM ET            

Actually, it's the traditional form of agriculture there due to poor soil conditions, etc. It was sustainable and not a problem until the populations of these regions skyrockets due to the reduction of death rates without a corresponding reduction of birth rates.

Bishop:
"That�s why people(including myself) has to be set under strict social control to prevent selfish acts that may/or may not prove harmful to the commune."

So basically you're agreeing that such a society cannot meet the needs of the individual?

"Why shouldn�t selling groceries to engineers be worth as much as designing computer chips for cash registers ?"

posted 05-26-99 11:40 PM ET            

After reading several of your replies here on the thread, it is apparent (to me, at least) that you are long on rhetoric, but short on actual solutions to your perceived injustices. Answers like "We'll work it out later" and "Talk to me after the revolution" are frightening in their sweep because you are advocating change with no firm idea where you want to go. Any successful plan requires a firm grasp of the objectives, something which you seem to lack. Coupled with your advocacy of a government that would tell us what our job is, what our pay is, what we can and cannot do "for the good of the commune" and so forth is a recipe for an authorotarian hell that I would not accept, and would die fighting against. I am not joking; I am quite serious in this regard. I value my freedom to a degree that you may not be able to fathom, and would never willingly surrender it to the degree that you are advocating.

In your rebuttal to my earlier post, you discuss using the schools as a tool to indoctrinate children, but your reply has a frightening tone to it when you say "...learning about your place in the collective...". This implies a caste system. The USSR, despite its profession to a classless economy, was very much caste-based, as only members of the party received anything more than the bare minimum required to survive. Is this what you advocate?

posted 05-27-99 05:37 AM ET            

Just to deal with the remaining trash:

"Everyone of us has a responsibility for the society" - says who? You? Lenin? Marx? That "responsibility" of yours is already turning into slavery in Sweden, EU and even the US.

"Through parlamentary channels, assuming there is a parlament you can make your voice heard in, if that doesn't work it's only violence left I'm afraid."

Fuck you. You are a violent idiot nazi. I will no longer maintain conversations with you on the matter of politics or economics because you are a *Martian* violent idiot nazi and do not hear the voice of logic and sees a different universe where angles of a triangle add up to MORE than 180 degrees. And gawd, you live so close to me. I should go buy a gun in case the red terror spills across the Baltic. Just in case.

posted 05-27-99 05:41 AM ET            

Just to deal with the remaining trash:

"Everyone of us has a responsibility for the society" - says who? You? Lenin? Marx? That "responsibility" of yours is already turning into slavery in Sweden, EU and even the US.

"Through parlamentary channels, assuming there is a parlament you can make your voice heard in, if that doesn't work it's only violence left I'm afraid."

Fuck you. You are a violent idiot nazi. I will no longer maintain conversations with you on the matter of politics or economics because you are a *Martian* violent idiot nazi and do not hear the voice of logic and sees a different universe where angles of a triangle add up to MORE than 180 degrees. And gawd, you live so close to me. I should go buy a gun in case the red terror spills across the Baltic. Just in case.

posted 05-27-99 11:01 AM ET            

Read my lips - Fuck you. You are an idiot from Mars. [no smily here, see?]

"BTW you mention nazi three times in just 5 sentences (counting the signature), well it is after all your favourite invective for people who disagree with you."

Fuck you. You said in three posts you would spill other peoples' blood if that was necessary to gain power (you are a power thirsty despot-wannabe. Drown off Koln.) F U C K Y O U N A Z I.

posted 05-27-99 12:59 PM ET            

Bishop: "Today it�s possible to use our collected knowledge and production resources to distribute Earth�s resources fairly with consideration to the framework nature gives. It�s possible to give all people on Earth food, housing, health care, education and good living conditions"

I actually do not think it is possible today. And it will definitively not be possible tomorrow, considering the population explosion in the third world. Especially not health care and education, which require educated personel and is quite expensive.

Wraith: "A real capitalist wouldn't want to ruin the evironment or cause waste, war, starvation, etc. After all, if you kill a man you can only rob him once, but if you're careful you can rob him every year."

But if you can rob the man once, kill him and sell his organs to a surgery clinic in need of donors, so you get a good starting capital for more lucrative business than robbing, you will still have made a good decision (from a business point of view, not moral). Success in the free market does not only depend on how much you can make, but also on how fast you can make it.

Wraith: "And there's still nothing to prevent the producers from being just as short-sighted and selfish as what you call the owners."

Good point.

Saras: "How can someone be so naive as to think that everyone will bow to the completely illogical and unreasonable doctrine? Do you also know that without the consent of every one of the people affected by the "overthrow", you would be violating their individual rights?"

A completely illogical and unreasonable doctrine, as opposed to how you derived the right to property from the right to life in another thread once? The logic you used was not exactly flawless either. Belief in natural rights is in itself unreasonable.

Bishop: "If there�s a possibility to seize power thruogh "proper" channels (i.e free elections to parlament) you should do that, if not the majority of people is free to seize power anyway they see fit. I�m not a categorically opposed to the seizure of power by force of arms, but I think and hope that the revolution can be accomplished without too much bloodshed (after all the bourgouisie is people just like us)."

Saras: "YESSS!!! GOTCHA!!! YOU ARE A BLOODTHIRSTY COMMIE AFTER ALL!!! I want everyone to note that, on the record, Bishop said he does not oppose the use of force and that he "hopes" the will not be "too much" bloodshed. Just a tiny bit of teeny-weeny bloodshed. A bucket or a full bathtub of blood? Gawd, only socialists can dehumanaze people like that. How do your socialist friends plan to keep the power, seized by force? I can tell you what they will have to do - they will have to use even MORE force, and end up in a dictatorship, hated by all."

Saras, since you are opposed to use force when you can not go through the proper channels, then you must also think the American revolution was wrong? Or is it only wrong to revolt against a government that shares your opinions?

Bishop has claimed that there should be a democracy, not a dictatorship, after the revolution, so if people do not like it, nothing will prevent them from voting on capitalists. Furthermore he says the revolution has to be done by a majority, so unless he gets a majority, you will have nothing to worry about.

Saras: "Bishop, I think you should stop here because I have a feeling the next step would involve insults towards our intelligence. They also might include insults that would affect only me"

Saras:"**** you. You are a violent idiot nazi."

If you are so concerned about being insulted yourself, perhaps you should try to avoid insulting others.

Saras: "You... ...do not hear the voice of logic and sees a different universe where angles of a triangle add up to MORE than 180 degrees."

In spherical geometry, the angles of a triangle actually adds up to more than 180 degrees. (OK, geometry has nothing to do with this subject, I just thought I should mention this quite interesting fact.)

OldWarrior_42: "Trust me when I tell you this, Bishop...Socialism will never rule the world and advocating violence the way you do in the form of genocide puts you in a class with Adolf."

No one here is advocating genocide.

posted 05-27-99 01:49 PM ET            

"But if you can rob the man once, kill him and sell his organs to a surgery clinic in need of donors, so you get a good starting capital for more lucrative business than robbing, you will still have made a good decision (from a business point of view, not moral)."

You would get jailed for life. BAD decision. Sounds more like a socialist state with zero regard for individual rights would do that.

RM, wanna go back and discuss natural right again? Where was I wrong? Enlighten me, oh please...

American revolution is more like kicking the butt of a burglar in YOUR house. But this is for Imran to defend .

"Bishop has claimed that there should be a democracy, not a dictatorship, after the revolution, so if people do not like it, nothing will prevent them from voting on capitalists. Furthermore he says the revolution has to be done by a majority, so unless he gets a majority, you will have nothing to worry about."

Somehow Lenin, Stalin and Corporal Shickelgrueber (sp) spring to mind. We'll have some dictatorship, but we are good and will make it a democracy again. Just wait a little bit.

And when you have majority, you get a blank check written on the minority's rights and lives? Come on...

"If you are so concerned about being insulted yourself, perhaps you should try to avoid insulting others."

He started first.

"In spherical geometry, the angles of a triangle actually adds up to more than 180 degrees"

Oh, really? Everyone knows Mars is in the spherical geometry universe while Venus is in Lobachevsky (you won't make me look stupid with fancy math terms).

"Belief in natural rights is in itself unreasonable"

posted 05-28-99 06:36 AM ET            

Saras: "You would get jailed for life. BAD decision. Sounds more like a socialist state with zero regard for individual rights would do that."

Actually I was metaphorical (and so was Wraith, I hope). Killing the man meant ruining the environment or cause waste. Wraith said that in capitalism long-term gains is the best, and by robbing the man a little once in a while, you would get more profit than just robbing him once and kill him. In a way he is right, but the best long-term profits are often reached by working off as many short-time profits as fast as possible. For example, assume I own a forest. By cutting down a part of it every year, but still keeping enough trees for it to regrow, I can sell the wood and make 1 baluba every year. If I cut down the whole wood one year and sell the wood I can get 80 balubas. The latter will be the best decision for me, since I can get interest on the balubas as well, and can only expect to live much longer than 80 years anyway. But if I cut the wood down, it will not regrow in a few hundred years. So the decision to cut the wood down is the best for me, seen both short-term and long-term, but it does not maximize the use of the forest, since it could produce 1 balubas worth of wood every year from now to eternety.

Saras: "RM, wanna go back and discuss natural right again? Where was I wrong? Enlighten me, oh please..."

Well, to begin with the only argument you had for natural rights was that they felt right for you. What feels right for you might not feel right for me.

Saras: "American revolution is more like kicking the butt of a burglar in YOUR house. But this is for Imran to defend"

Actually Imran does not have to defend the American revolution against me, because I think the American revolution was justified. For exactly the same reason that I think Bishops revolution would be justified, if he had a majority to support him. No small elite should be allowed to force their beliefs and values on the majority.

Saras: "Somehow Lenin, Stalin and Corporal Shickelgrueber (sp) spring to mind. We'll have some dictatorship, but we are good and will make it a democracy again. Just wait a little bit."

Where has Bishop written that the wants dictorship before the democracy?

RM: "Belief in natural rights is in itself unreasonable"

Saras: "How is it unreasonable?"

Since there is no way to prove it. I see it a bit like the existence a god. There is no way to show that a god exists, and there is also no way to show that a god does not exist. And if there is a god, which god exist? The christian or the moslem god? Or maybe the old Greek gods?
In the same way it is impossible to prove natural rights. We can not prove that they exist and we can not prove that they do not exist. And even if there are natural rights, how can we know what rights are natural? The right to property, the laws in the bible or something else?
That is why I consider natural rights as something metaphysical.

OldWarrior_42: "Bishop states.... "If we have to kill a few capitalists so be it.... I dont turn my back on violence ... just enough to gain control",,, Well free people are not going to give up so easily ,so in order to gain control he will have to kill more than a few capitalists. More like a few hundred million. And he says that if that is the only way to go then so be it. If this is not advocating Genocide then I dont know what is."

Well, I guess if they make armed resistance he probably has to fight them, but then it could of course be argued that they are the aggressors.
If it was the other way around, a socialistic state where the capitalists won the elections, and some socialists still made resistance, would it still be advocating genocide to advocate the use force there?

posted 05-28-99 07:18 AM ET            

For example, assume I own a forest. By cutting down a part of it every year, but still keeping enough trees for it to regrow, I can sell the wood and make 1 baluba every year. If I cut down the whole wood one year and sell the wood I can get 80 balubas. The latter will be the best decision for me, since I can get interest on the balubas as well, and can only expect to live much longer than 80 years anyway. But if I cut the wood down, it will not regrow in a few hundred
years. So the decision to cut the wood down is the best for me, seen both short-term and long-term, but it does not maximize the use of the forest, since it could produce 1 balubas worth of wood every year from now to eternety.

There is a certain corrector to that in a free market economy, mainly that you can not only liquidate your capital base (ie cut down the trees), you can also sell it.

If it's worth 80 "woods" and produces 1 wood per year, that's a return of only 1,25 %. If we were in an economy with an average return on capital of about 5 %, that would put it at a value derived from its productivity of only 20 "woods" (5% of 20 = 1), so cutting it down would be more profitable.

The correction would be to increase the productivity to 4 woods per year. If that were not possible, we might see the short-sighted reponse to cut it down, ie to use non-reproducable (or only after long time reproducable) resources.

This may have detrimental effects on others, like agriculture or tourism. The market mechanism would fail to provide for the best overall effect as some of the cost can be externalised or socialised, while the profit stays with the forest owner. This is an area where regulation (of whatever kind, there are many possibilities; having to compensate the affected people as Saras might suggest would also be such a regulation) is needed. This is no change from my free market model as any such model can only operate under rules - "free" is only relative.

Maybe I'll think about how socialism would deal with that problem...

posted 05-28-99 08:55 AM ET            

The rights (maybe I should not have said *natural* because it might confuse; it was used in contradiction to the argument that the society (whatever that means) or the government "gives" them to us.) are a part of man in a social setting of other men. If there would be no rights, there would be no life as it can be and should be. If there were no rights, we would be living in a society of cannibals. BUT since a lot of these rights are now being violated by welfare states all over the world, I feel compelled to speak up. The British were violating the colonists rights and got kicked. But please keep away from American revolution - there are very many controversies later (slavery, massacres of Indians etc).

"Bishop has claimed that there should be a democracy, not a dictatorship, after the revolution, so if people do not like it, nothing will prevent them from voting on capitalists. Furthermore he says the revolution has to be done by a majority, so unless he gets a majority, you will have nothing to worry about"

Revolution is a violent overthrow of power. There would be resistance, and would be war. Wars on your own people *is* dictatorship. Now imagine 20% of the population taking the power over just to have a free election where they can be again removed. And you call me stupid and illogical!!! LOOK:

so if people do not like it, nothing will prevent them from voting on capitalists

So they didn't have a majority in the first place, did they?

Furthermore he says the revolution has to be done by a majority, so unless he gets a majority[...]

Why have a *revolution* when you have a majority?

Why don't all socialists go to North Korea and live there without threatening freedom loving people like me with revolutions and "a little bloodshed"? I can tell you why - they are a bunch of greedy burglars too lazy do do something themselves and ready to kill to get that something. After the last bit of freedom is gone from the face of the earth, someone somewhere will stage another revolution - starting with food riots, for food that the socialists will be too lazy to make. And the world will be free again. (Scary, huh? ) Boooo!

Check this for more on rights

Forest Inc.

It all boils down to wood prices on CBOT. If prices are low, you make one decision. If prices are high, another. If prices get too high, everyone starts cutting more until no one buys cause no one needs, and prices go down again, and everyone starts growing instead of cutting. Now, CEO RM, make your decision:

Forest Inc. has 10% of world annual consumption growing in its forest. Prices are high, but demand is low. What do you do:

(a) Cut down all and try to sell the whole bunch, pay out cash to shareholders and retire.
(b) Cut down some and wait.
(c) Post socialist crap on SMAC forums and get fired by the shareholders

posted 05-28-99 09:50 AM ET            

If there would be no rights, there would be no life as it can be and should be.

A refusal of "natural" rights does not mean that there are no rights. And who defines how life should be ? When you say life should be in a certain way, how do you get to a certain way ? Also, this arguments seems to imply that those rights are just practical...

If there were no rights, we would be living in a society of cannibals.

A society of cannibals may be based on the right "You are entitled to eat thy neighbor".

If no rights means no rights as capitalism.org sees them, then I have to say that the welfare states which you accuse of violating (those ?) rights, are not societies of cannibals.

BUT since a lot of these rights are now being violated by welfare states all over the world, I feel compelled to speak up.

Given that your concept of rights is nowhere realised and maybe 90 or 99 % of people in welfare states do not see the welfare state as a violation of rights, I'm wondering why they are so blind that they cannot see the rights that are supposed to be based on reason, natural, logical, self-evident etc.

posted 05-28-99 10:24 AM ET            

"Given that your concept of rights is nowhere realised"

It *is* realised almost everywhere and is violated almost everywhere. You have police and army protection of your property, life and liberty, don't you? What troubles me is the decline of those and the advent of people like Bishop and, to some extent, RM (RM, you are not a 100% socialist, are you?).

"A society of cannibals may be based on the right "You are entitled to eat thy neighbor"."

posted 05-28-99 10:30 AM ET            

I can of course not speak for Bishop, but it seems from his posts that he with revolution does not mean only civil war with the term, but also a change of society through other means. He says that he hopes it is possible to make the change through the proper channels, which means democratically.
But there are occasions when changes can not be done democratically, even if it is supported by a majority. For example, in Turkey, when an islamic party won the election, the army opposed it, so they were not allowed to form government. Many countries does not even have democracies.

Saras: "Now, CEO RM, make your decision"

Well, if the demand is low, it could get difficult to sell the entire forest, so I guess I would only chop down as much as I can sell. But I still think there could be occasions when it is more profitable to just chop it all down.

Maybe I will write more later, after having checked that link about rights more thoroughly.

posted 05-28-99 11:21 AM ET            

Of course there would be - excess demand and rallying prices; some of your competitors would follow suit BUT when the excess demand is satisfied, prices would normalise. So, being a wise businessman as you are, you would *not* chop it all down.

posted 05-31-99 10:38 AM ET            

In the seventies (if I remember correctly) he visited Soviet Union (he worked for the border patrol, and he had to make some work-related trips to the good 'ol USSR). Once he spended some time in a collective farm. He said that the workers didn't bother to work really hard, because they still got their salary/food on the table, regardless how much they worked. And as a result, majority of the crop was left rotting in the fields... If you do that in a capitalist system, you would lose your job.

Communism/socialism is a good theory... And I partly support socialism (only a mild varietys of it)... Thanks to socialism, we have free education and healthcare in Finland (and we have really high taxes as well)... But, true communism/socialism could not work! Equal sharing of wealth to all citizens is unfair in a way.

An example... Person studies for years and years untill he's highly trained neurosurgeon or microelectronics engineer... But thanks to communism, he get's the samy pay as a doorman (you know, those people who open doors to others in hotels for example) gets! That's what communism is about! spreading the wealth evenly to all people... Regardless that are they neurosurgeons or pizza delivery men...

I know that I would be REALLY annoyed if I lived in a socialist/communist state!!! I mean, if I work my arse off, and I would still get the same pay as my co-worker ho barely shows up at work!! In capitalism, we would get the same pay for a while, but that lazy co-worker of mine would get fired or I would get a promotion before he does.

In true socialism you get the same money as everybody else does, regardless of what you do... In true capitalism, you are paid according to your skills.

You could say that by nature, socialism/communism supports lazyness

posted 06-01-99 09:39 AM ET            

>>According to "the London Greenpeace Group" they do, alltough I have to admit this was a couple of years ago. McD�s denying it of course.

" But, as
they become more rare, the difficulty of catching them goes up, so the price goes up, so less people
want to buy them, so less people try to catch them... see where this is going?"

>>Oh yes, very nice.... Capitalism solves all our problems doesn�t it ?

"Neither area being associated with the word "capitalist" except when the word "not" is included."

>>But they starve to death because of the perverted capitalist system, that�s obvious to everyone who isn�t a capitalist stooge.

"So... you're all for capitalism? I must be missing something here..."

>>You can have a market economy as long as it�s controlled by democratic forces (i.e the people).

"In other words, a republic?"

>>How about a peoples republic ?

"It doesn't have to be a problem. Not voting is a choice, too. It certainly would be better if more people
voted, but why force them to?"

>>Yes, why force them to try to decide over their own lives, better to let others decide what�s best for them, huh ? Yes, voting is a choice, but you can make this easy or hard for them. Sometimes people don�t realize they have a choice. It�s so typical for you libertarians to try to make everything into a question of choice and free will.

"Of course abolished? I don't quite follow how you get there from here. If someone is a serial killer,
aren't they a threat to the social order?"

>>Yes they are, but that doesn�t give the state the right to take his life, he needs proper care. (The death penalty discussion is another matter, didn�t Saras post a thread on that a while back ?)

"If the laws and punishments aren't the same everywhere in the country, how can they possibly be
considered fair?"

>>A correction, they should be carried out by the LCC, but of course there�s a set of laws that apply in the country as a whole.

" but do you honestly say that you
think everyone should be paid the same regardless of skill and talent?"

>>Yes.

"Ah, but if you own a bicycle and someone else doesn't, won't that foster jealousy and resentment,
which would be counter to the good of the society?"

>>The plan is that everyone should own a bicycle, if you lose it you get a new from the local rescource committ�.

As opposed to this USC controlling all aspects of your life?

>>The USC is us (the people), and we can elect a new one when we choose. I can not walk up to Hans Werth�n (Electrolux) and say "congratulations Hans, you�ve just been voted out of office". That�s the difference.

Spoe
So basically you're agreeing that such a society cannot meet the needs of the individual?

>>I didn�t say that.

Is it not the
self-evident that the gourmet deserves, in a fair trade, more for his effort than the burger-flipper?

>>No, why should feeding the general public be payed any different than feeding some stuck-up toffy-nosed rich bastards at a four-star restaurant ?

"In your rebuttal to my earlier post, you discuss using the schools as a tool to indoctrinate children, but
your reply has a frightening tone to it when you say "...learning about your place in the collective...".
This implies a caste system. The USSR, despite its profession to a classless economy, was very
much caste-based, as only members of the party received anything more than the bare minimum
required to survive. Is this what you advocate?

>>No, of course not ! What I meant was that you should learn that no man is better than another, and that we are all dependant on one another.

BTW, that statement was remarkably
arrogant and anti-American; I expected a little better from you than name-calling.

>>Well, why should americans have monopoly on arrogance ?

Saras, Saras. What foul language, do you really eat with that mouth ? [a smiley here, see ?]

RM
I actually do not think it is possible today. And it will definitively not be possible tomorrow, considering
the population explosion in the third world. Especially not health care and education, which require
educated personel and is quite expensive.

>>It IS possible today, providing we share the wealth of the world, and thereby provide everybody with deacent living conditions, a social security net, etc, etc. If we help people in the third world develop some form of basic social security, health-care system and family planning there�s no need for them to breed like rabbits in order to get some support in their old age.

Saras
"If you are so concerned about being insulted yourself, perhaps you should try to avoid insulting
others."

He started first.
>>Well, that pretty much sums up Saras argumentation technique, doesn�t it ?

OldWarrior_42
Well free people are not going to give up so easily ,so in order to gain
control he will have to kill more than a few capitalists. More like a few hundred million. And he says
that if that is the only way to go then so be it. If this is not advocating Genocide then I dont know what
is. "

>>Well, that�s your interpretation. And BTW I�ve never have had any hope of the workers getting any influence in the US anyway....

Saras
Now imagine 20% of the population taking the power over just to have a
free election where they can be again removed. And you call me stupid and illogical!!! LOOK:

>>Read my lips Saras: Unless there�s a majority of people willing to take the power back from the capitalists, there won�t be any revolution !! Now which part of this don�t you understand ?

Revolution is a violent overthrow of power.

>>Saras, you�re obviously to stupid or to ignorant to grasp the meaning of words like "revolution". "Revolution means a drastic change in the way society functions". Take the industrial revolution, or the sexual revolution for instance they weren�t that violent were they ? Or take CNT:s victory in the parlamentary elections Spain in 1936, or Salvador Allendes ditto victory in Chile in 1970, those were a revolution of a sort. The violence in these cases came from respectively, the fascists and CIA.

[i]Saras: "Why have a *revolution* when you have a majority? "

I can of course not speak for Bishop, but it seems from his posts that he with revolution does not
mean only civil war with the term, but also a change of society through other means. He says that he
hopes it is possible to make the change through the proper channels, which means democratically.
But there are occasions when changes can not be done democratically, even if it is supported by a
majority. For example, in Turkey, when an islamic party won the election, the army opposed it, so
they were not allowed to form government. Many countries does not even have democracies.

>>Exactly what I�ve been going on about all this time ! Too bad some people are to stupid or ignorant to realize it

Serenity
>>Once again I would like to say that the USSR wasn�t exactly a socialist state...

posted 06-01-99 10:18 AM ET            

>>But they starve to death because of the perverted capitalist system, that�s obvious to everyone who isn�t a capitalist stooge.

It is not obvious to me, so could you please explain it to a capitalist stooge like me ?

>>Yes, why force them to try to decide over their own lives, better to let others decide what�s best for them, huh ? Yes, voting is a choice, but you can make this easy or hard for them. Sometimes people don�t realize they have a choice. It�s so typical for you libertarians to try to make everything into a question of choice and free will.

Now, it's so typical of socialists that they try to force people to what they (the socilists) receive as good for the people. Also, "force them to try to decide over their own lives" should read "force them to try to elect who decides over their lives", right ? As you say the community or whoever must take the decisions for them... you are actually advocating the " better to let others decide what�s best for them..."

>>The plan is that everyone should own a bicycle, if you lose it you get a new from the local rescource committ�.

The usual result of the plan is that very few people would have their own bike. Also, is it really fair IYO that if I take care of the bike while another one simply trashes that public property, he gets a replacement ? You are rewarding careless and anti-social behavior there...

>>The USC is us (the people), and we can elect a new one when we choose. I can not walk up to Hans Werth�n (Electrolux) and say "congratulations Hans, you�ve just been voted out of office". That�s the difference.

And you (as an individual) cannot walk up to the USC and say "sorry etc...". Also, how would that new election take place ? Every year ? When a certain percentage of voters demands it ? Who controls the USC, who fires it if it breaks the rules ? What about independent courts ?

>>It IS possible today, providing we share the wealth of the world, and thereby provide everybody with deacent living conditions, a social security net, etc, etc. If we help people in the third world develop some form of basic social security, health-care system and family planning there�s no need for them to breed like rabbits in order to get some support in their old age.

Develop some form of social security ? Well, you can't get that out of nowehere. You have to develop a strong economy first (or at the same time at least) - and so far, only market economies can deliver that. A more planned approach (but not so much as you seem to want) in an early stage of development may be ok, that's a different matter...

>>Saras, you�re obviously to stupid or to ignorant to grasp the meaning of words like "revolution".

Actually, both definitions are possible. In (narrow) legal terms, revolution is the violent overthrow of a legal system. In broader legal or social terms, it is a drastic change.

A statement endorsed by you (I think):
But there are occasions when changes can not be done democratically, even if it is supported by a majority. For example, in Turkey, when an islamic party won the election, the army opposed it, so they were not allowed to form government. Many countries does not even have democracies.

posted 06-01-99 02:29 PM ET         

1- I am a Neuclear Physicist and every day when I leave work I notice the night watchman. He watched "I Love Lucy" on the tube and really does nothing. We both receive the same dole, so in protest I stop coming to work. What do you do about me?

2- I get my government issued car. A couple months later I have an awful wreck and the Government, to my supprise, replaces my car! I've always wanted to drive a car off a cliff, so I put it in neutral and push it off. I get another one! I continue bizzare experiments on my car. What do you do about me?

3- I enjoy PC computer games, my friend enjoys Playstation for his entertainment. Do we both get both a PC and a PsX? Do we get just one or the other?

4- Assume we get just one and I want both. I break into my neighbors house and steal his PsX. He gets it replaced anyhow. What do you do about me?

5- Quickly, I realize the potential for fraud. I cooperate with my neighbor in which I give him my PC and he gives me his PsX. We then get a new government Pc and PsX to replace our "stolen" ones. What do you do about me?

6- I graduate from High School. My IQ is measured in order of magnitudes. I don't go to college because I realise that it will have absolutly no impact on my life, and instead get a nice job as a doorman. How do you keep these bright people from falling through the cracks?

7- The evil capatilist government offers your top scientists more money, better living, etc. to relocate and work for them. What do you offer them to keep them in the country?

8- What about military? Is it voulenteer? Do you tell people "you will be in the Marines"? If you need soldiers for a war do you draft?

9- I completed my Required Aptitude Test (RAT) and have shown a great ability to be a Chemical Engineer. My wife is a College Professor. The plant the government instructs me to work at is no where near a college. Now what?

10- What if I hate my job? Do I get a new one? What about employee turnover? Why should I respet my boss' authority?

Bishop, your socalism and ideal government has no place for the human race. Like it or not, we're all predators and the bunny world of socalism won't keep us caged up.

posted 06-01-99 05:29 PM ET            

"I didn't say that."
But you did. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what you agree with:
"'The problem with this is that any such system, unless made so rigidly inflexible as to destroy the very concept of responding to a member's needs, is prone to corruption and will turn itself into a bourgoise phoenix.[...]men are too often susceptable to selfishness.'

>>Yes, that is true. That�s why people(including myself) has to be set under strict social control to prevent selfish acts that may/or may not prove harmful to the commune."

Seems like you agreed with my proposition that such a society cannot respond to the needs of its members. Furthermore, it seems that you are saying a rigid system where every receives an equal amount of goods, regardless of the needs of the members is good.

"No, why should feeding the general public be payed any different than feeding some stuck-up toffy-nosed rich bastards at a four-star restaurant?"

I'm afraid you've missed the point. Nowhere did I mention who they were serving, only their relative qualifications. I only asked about the relative value of their product. Is it not true that the food prepared by the gourmet is of higher quality than that of the burger flipper? Is it not then self-evident that said food is of higher value?

For another, similar argument, consider the manufacture of cars. Would it not be proper to say a car that runs reliably, safely, and efficiently is of more value than a similar car that breaks down often, is a death trap in an accident, and guzzles gas? Would you say that the work of the engineers and factory workers are the same for both cars? In the first case, the work produced something of quality, the second something shoddy.

It seems a tautology that, all else being equal, the work that goes into producing quality goods, be it food or cars, is inherently more valuable than that work that goes into producing poor goods.

"What I meant was that you should learn that no man is better than another..."

Yes, as human beings, but false if you discuss their skills. It is completely false to say, for example, Cricks and Lysenko were equally valuable as biologists. Just as it is incorrect to say that the skills of the two cooks I mentioned earlier are equal.

"Saras, you�re obviously to stupid or to ignorant to grasp the meaning of words like 'revolution'. 'Revolution means a drastic change in the way society functions'. Take the industrial revolution, or the sexual revolution for instance they weren�t that violent were they ? Or take CNT:s victory in the parlamentary elections Spain in 1936, or Salvador Allendes ditto victory in Chile in 1970, those were a revolution of a sort. The violence in these cases came from respectively, the fascists and CIA."

Or even the Republican revolution in the US, 1996.

posted 06-01-99 07:41 PM ET            

Not all of them, but it does seem to cover more than any other economic system. It depends on self-interest, and whether you like it or not, self-interest is something bred into everything alive. It's an evolution thing. Seems like relying on natural impulses is a good way to go.

--">>But they starve to death because of the perverted capitalist system, that�s obvious to everyone who isn�t a capitalist stooge."

Yes, please explain to us poor stooges (do I get to be Moe?).

--">>You can have a market economy as long as it�s controlled by democratic forces (i.e the people)."

As opposed to what? A market economy controlled by the random brownian motion inherent in a nice, hot cup of tea?
Please explain how a socialist or communist style market economy is even possible, much less more democratic than a capitalist one.

--">>How about a peoples republic ?"

Very unfortunate China reference, IMNSHO. Do you really want your doctrine tied to current PRC practices?

--"Yes, why force them to try to decide over their own lives, better to let others decide what�s best for them, huh ?"

If they don't want to decide their own lives, they'll follow someone else. There are leaders and there are followers, and there are some that are both. If they don't want responsibility for themselves, you can't force it on them. Let them not vote, and suffer the consequenses.
I should also add that, as a Libertarian, I'm opposed to initiating force for any reason.

--"It�s so typical for you libertarians to try to make everything into a question of choice and free will."

What? It isn't? Let me give you one of my favourite tag-lines:
"In nature, there are no rewards or punishments - only consequences"

--"(The death penalty discussion is another matter, didn�t Saras post a thread on that a while back ?)"

If so, I missed it. I see no reason that valuable resourses should be expended over long periods of time to keep sociopaths alive, but to each his own.

--">>A correction, they should be carried out by the LCC,"

So the laws themselves are national, but the punishments are decided on a local level? How is this any more fair? Or will there be national guidlines?

--">>Yes."

So someone who has a skill no one else can match, or can do something that no one else can do, is no more valuable to your society than someone who drools all over himself when he tries to tie his shoes?

--">>The plan is that everyone should own a bicycle, if you lose it you get a new from the local rescource committ�."

Interesting. The only "private" property is the state-issued property that everyone gets. Doesn't seem like private property to me.

--" and we can elect a new one when we choose."

So, if, as part of the USC, you pissed someone off, they could tell you "piss off, I just un-elected you"? Or is there some rule to this system, some general consensus that must be achieved?
Actually, most democratic style systems (which really has not that much to do with capitalism, but hey) do have ways of getting rid of elected officials. Impeachment, votes of no confidence, whatever it's called.

--"What I meant was that you should learn that no man is better than another, and that we are all dependant on one another."

We are dependant upon each other, to an extent, but some people are better than others. Some are stronger, some are more dextrous, some are smarter, some are wiser, some have perfect vision, need I go on?
If you haven't read it yet, I'd suggest Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s _The Sirens of Titan_ (I think that's the right one), which has some interesting commentary on this subject. In order to bring everyone to equality, the strong wore rather heavy weights, the clear-sighted wore nasty glasses that messed up their vision, the smart had implants that irritated them with noise so they couldn't think... only way to force everyone to be equal is to bring them all down to the LCD.

--">>Well, why should americans have monopoly on arrogance ?"

Cause what do you other countries have to be arrogant about? :P
Just to make this perfectly clear, that was a joke.

--"If we help people in the third world develop some form of basic social security, health-care system and family planning there�s no need for them to breed like rabbits in order to get some support in their old age."

Funny how you denigrate capitalists for thinking capitalism will solve everything, and yet quickly turn around and announce that socialism will, without offering supporting evidence.
I'd also like to add that there are a number of "poor" people in the US who have as many kids as possible since their dole check gets bigger the more they have. Our welfare system is one of the most socialistic policies in the nation, and it certainly isn't all wine and roses.

--">>Once again I would like to say that the USSR wasn�t exactly a socialist state..."

And I would like to say, once again, that the USA isn't exactly a capitalist economy.

posted 06-02-99 03:51 AM ET            

1. "No, why should feeding the general public be payed any different than feeding some stuck-up toffy-nosed rich bastards at a four-star restaurant?"

2. I'm afraid you've missed the point. Nowhere did I mention who they were serving, only their relative qualifications. I only asked about the relative value of their product. Is it not true that the food prepared by the gourmet is of higher quality than that of the burger flipper? Is it not then self-evident that said food is of higher value?

I can't follow the self-evident-higher-value thing:
Who decides about the value ? I might prefer junk food over nouvelle cuisine if I need many calories fast.
In a free market system, people decide about the value. If they want to pay 10 times as much for good/service a) rather than b) because it's trendy and makes them feel important, why not let them waste their money ? And why shouldn't the cook get his share out of this ?

posted 06-02-99 11:57 AM ET            

Who said anything about nouvelle cuisine or trendiness? Compare a perfectly traditional hot brown(an open face sandwich with ham, turkey, bacon, a gruyere and cheddar sauce, and tomatoes) from the Brown hotel in Louisville to a Big Mac. I'll admit, the 'self-evident' bit was a bit of a hand-wave. I was implying that to most people the food prepared by the more skilled chef would be valued more, though there may be exceptions.

posted 06-02-99 04:18 PM ET         

First of all, you did start the name calling at Saras. Just admit ot, kiss(a euro thing), and make up.

I would like to thank Saras for that site on natural rights&capitalism, it really explained a lot of things. Any socialists here should read it.

Next, I'll try to add some new blood into the fray.
You, Bishop, seem to think that people will gladly flock to your cause if a slight majority supports it. Hate to say it, but a mob mentality is extremely dangerous. If 60% of the US and Canada were to vote for your system, you could never make it without a lot of war. In the end, someone who has worked their whole life in building up property/money investments won't give a damn what the govt. says. If you want to steal our hard earned possessions, you're gonna have to look to genocide.

The perfect capitalist system is the only system that can keep inefficiency, and corruption at a minimum. Think of it like going to a football game(or cricket) and seeing only one team. To add to this, you can't leave the statium, and the players are payed very little. What would eventually happen, is that the players would begin to stop practicing and "warming up," and would gradually resort to partying, getting drunk, eating, watching TV. Why play a game, when you can relax. Sure, many would continue to skirmish here and there just because they love the sport, but serious, competitive playing wouldn't emerge.

Now lets take the same situation, and watch natural capitalism take over. The players would soon resort to gambling, and begin to play more in order to make money. They would work harder in other arenas, and soon sell serious games to the fans for soda & popcorn, whitch can be used for more serious gambling. One might even become a bookie, and another the guy that people borrow money from. Soon they would begin to invest money, or save it in order to have more in the end, and soon everyone will have more than they would wasting it once they got it.

Once this happens, its a gradual process before people have reverted back to capitalism. The facts of the matter are that you can never convince people to wholey give up their hard earned posessions.

I might be poor, and your system might sound good to me, but what if I don't want what you have to offer? What if I want a large color television rather than a small black and white one? Plus, I am willing to work harder and save more. When I visited Russia, the guides told us that in the old Russia, all anyone did was watch TV and drink vodka. I dont know what you mean that the Soviet Union was not socialist. It most certainly was, and is the same system you describe.

Look at human nature. Those in power, seeing that they can get away with thievery, will eventually do it. You also seem to think that those in charge will be perfect. Your system, almost by definition, is made to collapse. How did Stalin get to power? He appointed the chairs of the Communist party throughout the soviet Union. He appointed only those who would support him, and was able to take power. He also killed over 10 million Russians.

You say that African problems are a product of capitalism. Simply look at the American Revolution. Why did the US succeed where so many failed miserably? The US was the first nation to adopt a truly capitalist system. Through the genius of Alexander Hamilton (and no help from that rotten socialist Jefferson), our economy was based, at least originally, entirely upon Adam Smith's work, "The Wealth of Nations." Every problem we've had, from the Depression to a high debt, has been the result of straying from that system. Did the African nations in question do this?

NO. Absolutely NOT!!

And they were completely led into misery by the all too helpful USSR.

Just look at the beginning. Look at sperm, as they struggle violently for the position of germinator. Only the fastest, and strongest of millions survive.

Capitalism is also the only system in which you can battle for supremacy, without violent consequences. In socialism, if a nuclear physicist decides he is fed up with how he is treated, and wants more than his waitress recieves, his only resort is violence. And trust me, there will be many of those types who will jump at the chance for revelution, even a very bloody one.

Soon, as demonstrations are put down violently, and wages and rations decrease due to less production, a certain animosity will arise that can't be quenched. Each revolt that fails will increase hatred, until violence erupts and the nation's future becomes uncertain.

In a capitalist government, there is no need for violence. If you don't think you're paid enough, and you should, get a job elsewhere, preferably among the competition. They'd be more than happy to let you in, with a fat paycheck.

I can't think of anything that hasn't been said already, but I'd like to hear your response.

posted 06-02-99 05:29 PM ET            

In this very discussion we see just that, my views and yours are so different, when it comes to debating human nature and the way we interpret what goes on in the world, that we live in totally different worlds. This makes it very hard to find common ground to stand on, and in the long run makes discussions about these things pointless.

And regarding Saras-Bishop exchange of invectives read Saras post from 05-27-99 05:37 where he states, quote: Are you a complete idiot? I hope not (you leave smilies - you might be kidding,
right?). Prove it and stop this craziness now. If not, **** you, you are a complete idiot. end quote. And there�s a lot more where that came from, just because I mention Lenin Saras go into a frenzy and starts shoutning invectives at me. Now, did I deserve this ? Certainly not, I haven�t offended Saras with anything else than my humble opinions of the world around us. It�s like I should start shouting abuse at anyone who doesn�t think like me (and that�s practically everyone on this forum). Obviously he�s got to get a grip on himself, and try to debate in a proper manner. I see no reason whatsoever to show him even the least bit of respect as it is now.

**rant mode off**

posted 06-02-99 08:32 PM ET            

The depression's causes were a little more complex than straying from capitalism. I know that it was a process and I believe it was started by oversuppling of consumer goods that snowballed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And the depression wasn't solved by capitalism, it was solved by FDR's "New Deal" that was essentially a massive gov't jumpstart of the economy.

posted 06-02-99 09:32 PM ET         

Uhhh... sounds to me like you started it, but at any rate, I guess Saras should apologize, too.

And TimexWatch: The Depression might have been helped by the "New Deal" but in the end it was ended by WWII. And it was started mostly by hording gold, and stock frauds. Yet I really think this argument should be carried over in another thread.

At any rate, I can't quite understand your point of view, Bishop. The fact remains that the capitalist point of view has succeeded time and time again, while your socialist system has failed, and has yet to succeed.

posted 06-02-99 10:54 PM ET            

Well, I did say I wasn't sure, but I know it's one of Vonnegut's books, and I'm fairly sure it is Sires of Titan. I know the plot to a rather unusal expedition into space (and someone's failed attempt to mock a martian invasion) where the main character got stuck somewhere for years, and when he finally ended up on earth, found the "equalizing" society. Of course, it's been a while, so I may be a bit confused on the details

--"It�s very convinient to to say we�re inherently competetive,"

As I believe Roland (maybe Octopus?) pointed out in another thread (maybe this one, it's grown so) that capitalism is not quite as you socialists keep portraying it. Capitalism isn't all dog-eat-dog, it's based on the idea of basic barter: if I have something I don't really want, but you do, and you have something I really want, but you don't, we trade. You may end up competing with others who have the same thing, but at heart, the system is based on a form of mutually profitable (not neccessarily monetarily profitable, mind) cooperation.

--"it�s very popular to claim that property rights are practically coded into the human DNA"

Once again, a rather large misinterpretation (purposeful or not) of the stated position. I brought up this whole genetics bit. Nowhere in my entire post did I mention it in conjuction with property rights. I said, in case you're too lazy to scroll, "self-interest is something bred into everything alive."
This is a simple extension of Darwin's theory of evolution; if nature is determined to replace those creatures that are not the most fit, then it is obviously better to be the most fit than to be replaced.

--"Property rights is a social construction,"

And man is a social animal. Your point?
Property rights, to me, are a basic "given". We each have the right to the rewards of our own efforts, and no one should be able to take them away from us. This is something that I think has come up in its own thread at least once.

--"Man is born a tabula rasa and it�s society and social factors that determine what kind of man you become."

Sorry, but genetics also plays a factor. Your supposed blank slate is actually already sketched in. If you're really tall, it's much less likely (much less possible) for you to be an olypmic gymnast. If you've got a fast metabolism or anemia or something and can't gain weight, you won't ever be a great Sumo wrestler. Steven Hawking would never make a great point-guard. You can't regulate away the effects of genetics, no matter how much you want to.

--"I don�t belive there�s such things as pure evil for instance,"

You seem to be a pure "nurture" type. I'm somewhere in-between the nature and nurture arguments, and I think they both affect the outcome. However, there are some people that do qualify as "evil". A true sociopath, who truly (biochemically) has no concept of other people except as just another object, for example.
Frankly, your "oh, it's how the poor dear was brought up", "it's the parent's fault", "it's society's fault" attitude is exactly why there's so many crimes in America. This liberal standpoint of "feel empathy for him" is why things like corporal punishment are out of favor.

--"that we live in totally different worlds."

No, sorry, unfortunately I'm still stuck on Earth. I'll get back to you once the mothership returns.

--"and in the long run makes discussions about these things pointless."

Well it does when one side presents evidence and arguments to support its views, and the others supply inflated rhetoric and personal insults. Just in case you don't quite understand that inference, you've been in the second category. I'm just making this clear, after that whole genetics bit.

--"And the depression wasn't solved by capitalism, it was solved by FDR's "New Deal" that was essentially a massive gov't jumpstart of the economy."

High Priest is accurate on this (as far as I can remember; this isn't my favored era to read about). The depression was ended far more by the mobilization of World War II, which pumped huge amounts of money through what would later be called the military-industrial complex. I would like someome more familiar with the issue to comment.
If nothing else, the whole idea of the "New Deal" has done more lasting damage to this country than just about anything. We're now at the unfortunate point where we're looking over many socialistic ideas, ignoring their history, with the feeling that government can solve everything (while at the same time thinking it can't find it's arse with two hands and an atlas).

posted 06-02-99 11:35 PM ET            

And I did say "I believe that you are thinking of"

It's been a while since I read The Sirens of Titan. There was some social movement, in which the entire population was led to hate Malachi Constant for being an arrogant, rich bastard, and then feel guilty for what they thought of him when they see what he's reduced to through the plot of the book... Maybe there's some social commentary on "equality" that I'm not remembering. I know for a fact that the Harrison Bergeron story has the glasses that warp your vision and the radios in the ears that emit periodic bursts of static so a train of thought can't be maintained... I don't remember that stuff in any other Vonnegut work that I've read.

"As I believe Roland (maybe Octopus?) pointed out in another thread (maybe this one, it's grown so) that capitalism is not quite as you socialists keep portraying it. Capitalism isn't all dog-eat-dog, it's based on the idea of basic barter: if I have something I don't really want, but you do, and you have something I really want, but you don't, we trade."

It wasn't me. Your argument would be helped significantly if you didn't have so many people on your side telling everyone that people are inherently competitive, and that cooperation leads to parasitism.

"This is a simple extension of Darwin's theory of evolution; if nature is determined to replace those creatures that are not the most fit, then it is obviously better to be the most fit than to be replaced."

If all pro-capitalists would recognize this, and accept that capitalism is merely a Darwinian optimization system, then there would be fewer debates. Unfortunately, there are people like Saras, who insist that it is part of an inherently superior moral framework. I've often said "the good point about capitalism is that it works, the bad point about capitalism is that it has only one good point -- it works". Capitalism doesn't address anything except the allocation of resources for the maximization of profits. Things like morality and "social justice" do not apply. Generally, people from a socialist or communist mindset see this as a grave problem, and propose systems that address these "other factors". They believe that "maximization of profits" is only tangentially related (at best) to things like "maximization of happiness" or "maximization of justice".

""Property rights is a social construction,"

And man is a social animal. Your point?"

I don't know if it is his point, but... Many people, when looking at the world through a Darwinian prism, choose to overlook the facts in favor of popular misinterpretation and fail to realize that humans are social animals. Human "fitness" has increased over the years not because we have gotten stronger, or somehow intrinsically "better", but because we have increased our ability to communicate, cooperate, and work together. Two men that can work together to take down a mammoth are far more "fit" than a pair of men who fight with another one for a single spear. Cooperation and communication is human nature. Competing with each other in everything is the nature of some other animals, but not humans. The most distinguishing feature of humans is the way we can effectively communicate and cooperate. Arguments like "competetion is human nature, cooperation breeds laziness" or whatever, are somewhat flawed. Humans are predisposed to work together. The kind of blanket statements that pro-capitalists make about "human nature" seem to make an awful lot of assumptions. Where does the "work ethic" come from in the common "everbody's a greedy, lazy slob" model of human nature? Yes, humans can be competitive in some things, but cooperation comes very easily to us.

Bishop: I suspect that any communist/socialist system is doomed to failure in which you cannot pick and choose the participants. You will always have somebody like Saras who will say "no, I refuse to cooperate", and then complain that you are oppressing him if you try to force him to live in your new framework. You can't please everybody. Some poeple will simply refuse to participate in the kind of society that you want. And, as has been pointed out, your society cannot tolerate a lot of non-participators.

posted 06-03-99 12:30 AM ET         

"Two men that can work together to take down a mammoth are far more "fit" than a pair of men who fight with another one for a single spear. Cooperation and communication is human nature. Competing with each other in everything is the nature of some other animals, but not humans. The most distinguishing feature of humans is the way we can effectively communicate and cooperate."

It seems you really are a capitalist, huh octopus?? The competition lays in the human vs. mammoth, and if this duo can successfully work together to bring down the mammoth, they should get their full and fair share of the meat. Not so in socialism. Capitalism allows mergers, does it not?

"The question I have always had for Saras and others is why it is immoral for Bishop to compel conscientious objectors to participate in his system via overt force, while it is not immoral to force conscientious objectors to participate in a capitalist system via the insidious and all-pervasive forces of supply and demand (and/or monopolization, depending on how much of that you allow in your system)."

Because in capitalism, you're not forced to choose what you can and cannot have by how much work you do. In Socialism you only get to choose how much you want to work for the same amount of money. Seems kinda' inefficient to me.

posted 06-03-99 12:57 AM ET            

I never said I wasn't. I certainly work in a capitalist society, and I have no expectation of ever being in a non-capitalist society. I also fully believe in the power of Darwinian processes.

"The competition lays in the human vs. mammoth, and if this duo can successfully work together to bring down the mammoth, they should get their full and fair share of the meat. Not so in socialism."

I don't understand, are you saying that the government needs to take care of the mammoth? We're not talking about mammoth nature, or human/mammoth relations, we're talking about human nature. The humans that teamed up did a better job, get it?

I don't think I understood your second paragraph.

"Seems kinda' inefficient to me."

posted 06-03-99 01:08 AM ET            

Indeed. Capitalism is in a way a giant version of the "Prisoner's Dilemma" from game theory. It eventually rewards most those that do not get too greedy and try to take everything for themselves.

Bishop:
Name me one time where man has _not_ been in competition with man. Just one time. It has _never_ been the case(the closest might be when man has been in competition with _other_ animals, but once this competition lessened, you're back to man vs. man competition), therefore it is reasonable(though not tautological) to say that human nature is to be in competition. It certainly has more evidence.

High Priest:
"The competition lays in the human vs. mammoth, and if this duo can successfully work together to bring down the mammoth, they should get their full and fair share of the meat. Not so in socialism. Capitalism allows mergers, does it not?"
What about the competition these two men have with the tribe that lives on the other side of the hill?
Under capitalism, the two men cooperate because for less investment of capital(energy) they have a greater chance of return(mammoth steaks) than if they went it alone.
Under socialism, the two men wait around for the other to hunt the mammoth, 'secure' in the knowledge that when the other guy hunts down the mammoth he'll get a share. Eventually they'll get hungry and be much less effective at hunting. From his standpoint it is better to sit around expending no energy and receive a share in the return, until such time as he has to hunt or starve.

posted 06-03-99 02:58 AM ET            

Bishop:

Your mention of Lenin is or at least should be an insult to anyone who has NOT been brainwashed by some sort of communist propaganda like you apparently have. Lenin was no better than Stalin, and his atrocities are well documented. With your mention of Lenin you reminded me of the fringe-Nazi book "Did six million really die?" that dares question the factuality of the Holocaust. Lenin's purges and Soviet trials/mass shootings were much more wide in head count and scope. Add to that the Ukrainian starvation, caused by TOTAL expropriation of all cereal crops to fund the revolution (violent overthrow of power - just ask my polisci teacher back in high school).

posted 06-03-99 06:07 AM ET            

>>Yeah, I guess you�re right. As you say you can�t please everyone, maybe I should just settle for a good ole socialdemocratic system instead. BTW I wish I was as eloquent as you are, then I could really kick some capitalist butt. (Rather than resort to petty name-calling )

posted 06-03-99 08:16 AM ET            

Maybe you're right. I just don't remember reading any Harrison Bergeron stories. Maybe Sirens of Titan was the one I read after? Oh well, it's at my parent's house, so I can't go look and see if it's the right one.

--"Your argument would be helped significantly if you didn't have so many people on your side telling everyone that people are inherently competitive, and that cooperation leads to parasitism."

The problem isn't cooperation per se, since it's partialy what the system is based on (competitive cooperation, since each side wants the best deal it can get, but still cooperation). However, forced cooperation doesn't go as well. Saying "you will cooperate with everyone else" is sort of like telling two kids fighting over a toy to share; sometimes it works, usually it doesn't.

--"Capitalism doesn't address anything except the allocation of resources for the maximization of profits."

Profits, of course, including more that just money; happiness, job satisfaction, etc.

--"Things like morality and "social justice" do not apply."

Which is why it's an economic system, rather than a system of government. It seems like a really good idea to put the resources under the system that will attempt to use them most efficiently, while we place the government in the system that results in the "best resuslts" (for varying vaules of best results).

--"Generally, people from a socialist or communist mindset see this as a grave problem,"

I think attempting to discuss this at length will bring back the personal-freedom/good of society debate, but it looks like Bishop is heading that way anyway. More comments on this below.

--"Cooperation and communication is human nature."

To an extent. People are still very tribal in nature, and there's a tendancy to split things into "us" and "them". The result? British soccer riots, the space race, etc. The desire to outdo your competition is still strong in humans, and we are still competing with each other. If nothing else, I think the USA has suffered quite a bit since we lost the USSR as a cold war enemy, and we've been looking around to find a new one (China seems tops at the moment, but it doesn't have the menace the USSR had).

--"why it is immoral for Bishop to compel conscientious objectors to participate in his system via overt force,"

Well, IMO, this is again a subject of personal vs. societal rights. Libertarians think the personal rights are the most important, socialsts think societal rights are the most important. Neither system is totaly viable in today's world. The capitalism vs. communism thing is just a study in picking the less-bad choice. No matter how you do it, someone's not going to like it. In capitalism, they can either participate anyway, or go off and form a commune or emmigrate to a communist/socialist country. It is, however, much harder to leave the sort of societies that have turned to socialism and communism. It's sort of inherent in the system, since unless your leaving benefits the society, "they" won't allow you to do it (they being whoever's running the place in whatever manner).