Political Crossfire Forums

[zero18]

Punkerslut wrote: Mao Tse-Tung didn't create Communism, because he didn't think it would work, "Our present policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it."

And regulated 'capitalism'=socialism

[foadi]

Punkerslut wrote:
foadi wrote: What are you talking about? Child labour still exists. So do sixteen hour workdays.

Of course. I meant in most industrialized, western nations. The struggle for independent unions in third world countries to establish a grasp of the labor economy still rages, and it feels like the Leftist groups who are protesting this injustice are ignored by the mainstream media. The struggle to abolish illicit sweatshops in our own nation rages on, as well, mostly at the irking of Leftist, Progressive groups. The fight for power in these third world nations, between the working class and the capital-owning class, is a demonstration of Socialism: it is the working class asserting that their rights be upheld through their own power and strength.

[Punkerslut]

zero18 wrote: And regulated 'capitalism'=socialism

Not quite necessarily. The terms "Socialism" and "Communism" are used almost interchangably. The term "Revolutionary Socialist" was used to describe Anarcho-Communists by Bakunin, and the term "Proletariat Socialism" was used by the Statist Communists like Lenin. The words themselves aren't quite specific.

[zero18]

Punkerslut wrote: zero18 wrote: And regulated 'capitalism'=socialism

Not quite necessarily. The terms "Socialism" and "Communism" are used almost interchangably. The term "Revolutionary Socialist" was used to describe Anarcho-Communists by Bakunin, and the term "Proletariat Socialism" was used by the Statist Communists like Lenin. The words themselves aren't quite specific.

I understand that. The word 'liberal' has also been used to describe different political philosophies through the years as well. What I'm mostly saying is that when you have government and business intermixing you get oppression, even if its under the guise of being for the 'common good' and 'helping the unfortunate'. Thats my opinion anyway.

[Punkerslut]

zero18 wrote: I understand that. The word 'liberal' has also been used to describe different political philosophies through the years as well. What I'm mostly saying is that when you have government and business intermixing you get oppression, even if its under the guise of being for the 'common good' and 'helping the unfortunate'. Thats my opinion anyway.

Very true. When the state mixes with the interests of any group, whether religion, capitalism, or the "dictatorship of the proletariat," the result can be tragic. The most effective way to establish Socialism is through completely Democratic and peaceful means. That can be done with the philosophy of Syndicalism, or any other collectivist organization structure.

[Eichen]

In your utopia (which seems more like mob rule to me), what's to be done with the capitalists who won't "share" the wealth?
Who doles out the punishment for not getting with the program?
What would the punishment be?

How would you tolerate dissent?

[zero18]

Punkerslut wrote: zero18 wrote: I understand that. The word 'liberal' has also been used to describe different political philosophies through the years as well. What I'm mostly saying is that when you have government and business intermixing you get oppression, even if its under the guise of being for the 'common good' and 'helping the unfortunate'. Thats my opinion anyway.

Very true. When the state mixes with the interests of any group, whether religion, capitalism, or the "dictatorship of the proletariat," the result can be tragic. The most effective way to establish Socialism is through completely Democratic and peaceful means. That can be done with the philosophy of Syndicalism, or any other collectivist organization structure.

I agree with first sentence. However, I don't agree with your solution. It seems you're arguing for mob rule, which ultimately trample the rights of minority groups. On top of that, once you establish collective businesses and such, what are you going to do about people who establish their own free market/capitalist business? Since capitalism is much more effective and efficient than collective businesses, wouldn't you consider them to be a threat? Would you use the force of the majority to stop someone from selling their own oranges and hiring people to aid their business?

[Gus]

foadi wrote: Punkerslut wrote:
foadi wrote: What are you talking about? Child labour still exists. So do sixteen hour workdays.

Of course. I meant in most industrialized, western nations. The struggle for independent unions in third world countries to establish a grasp of the labor economy still rages, and it feels like the Leftist groups who are protesting this injustice are ignored by the mainstream media. The struggle to abolish illicit sweatshops in our own nation rages on, as well, mostly at the irking of Leftist, Progressive groups. The fight for power in these third world nations, between the working class and the capital-owning class, is a demonstration of Socialism: it is the working class asserting that their rights be upheld through their own power and strength.



:lol:

Wayyyyy too true, though.

[zero18]

Eichen wrote: In your utopia (which seems more like mob rule to me), what's to be done with the capitalists who won't "share" the wealth?
Who doles out the punishment for not getting with the program?
What would the punishment be?

How would you tolerate dissent?


Arrghhh you beat me to it! :)

[Eichen]

zero18 wrote: Eichen wrote: In your utopia (which seems more like mob rule to me), what's to be done with the capitalists who won't "share" the wealth?
Who doles out the punishment for not getting with the program?
What would the punishment be?

How would you tolerate dissent?


Arrghhh you beat me to it! :)
:P That's because the questions are painfully obvious. ;)
Expect fluffy, yet overly complex answers. I do.

[zero18]

Eichen wrote:
:P That's because the questions are painfully obvious. ;)
Expect fluffy, yet overly complex answers. I do.

Yeah, anarcho-syndicalists are still a mystery to me.

[Gdawg007]

Eichen wrote: Hmmmm... and exactly how do we get everyone who owns capital (like, everybody in the USA) to just give it up?
I think we'll need a "temporary" dictator to help "the people" redistribute the wealth, of course. That's gonna take a strong centralized authority.

And once we're done with the socialist phase of government, he or she will magically step down from leadership in order to usher in the commie "utopia"!

Works so well every time.

I think you've just stated what the original posters of this thread stated. That since it never reaches its final step, it never exists in its pure form. Ideally, a society that works for the common good truly and does not let ownership get in the way, could be more productive and efficient than our own system. But getting there is difficult, and would require humans to move away from their nature which is to horde.

[Eichen]

Gdawg007 wrote: Eichen wrote: Hmmmm... and exactly how do we get everyone who owns capital (like, everybody in the USA) to just give it up?
I think we'll need a "temporary" dictator to help "the people" redistribute the wealth, of course. That's gonna take a strong centralized authority.

And once we're done with the socialist phase of government, he or she will magically step down from leadership in order to usher in the commie "utopia"!

Works so well every time.

I think you've just stated what the original posters of this thread stated. That since it never reaches its final step, it never exists in its pure form. Ideally, a society that works for the common good truly and does not let ownership get in the way, could be more productive and efficient than our own system. But getting there is difficult, and would require humans to move away from their nature which is to horde.
Correct. And any ideology that doesn't take into account human nature, with the intent to be used as a system governing human beings, is a complete failure. It's not really worth discussing outside of fictional and purely hypothetical "what if" debates.
The world tried it several times, and failed to acheive "the dream" every time. Case closed.
If anything, we're waiting for a great idea to come along that's totally new. That would be fantastic. But the commie/socialism argument is tried and tired. Wake me up when we find something that's honestly "new and improved" government or economic systems, please.

[EugenicHegemony]

Halitosis Crunch wrote: State capitalism, communism, all the same to me. Some jerk taking my property at gun point for the "common good."

All Nationalized economic systems are the same... :wink:

[Halitosis Crunch]

Punkerslut wrote:
Very true. When the state mixes with the interests of any group, whether religion, capitalism, or the "dictatorship of the proletariat," the result can be tragic. The most effective way to establish Socialism is through completely Democratic and peaceful means. That can be done with the philosophy of Syndicalism, or any other collectivist organization structure.
The thing about a truly free market is that it doesn't deny anyone the right to get together voluntarily. If communists make communes or if workers collectively buy and run a factory, these things are fine from the anarcho-capitalist view point, so long as they remain voluntary.

Would you deny a person the ability to freely accumulate capital and then invest in a business which they solely own if it is through non-violent means? Why is the private ownership of a business bad?

The problem I have with anarcho-syndicalism is that it doesn't allow a free market, yet a free market allows anarcho-syndicalism.

[Eichen]

Halitosis Crunch wrote: Punkerslut wrote:
Very true. When the state mixes with the interests of any group, whether religion, capitalism, or the "dictatorship of the proletariat," the result can be tragic. The most effective way to establish Socialism is through completely Democratic and peaceful means. That can be done with the philosophy of Syndicalism, or any other collectivist organization structure.
The thing about a truly free market is that it doesn't deny anyone the right to get together voluntarily. If communists make communes or if workers collectively buy and run a factory, these things are fine from the anarcho-capitalist view point, so long as they remain voluntary.

Would you deny a person the ability to freely accumulate capital and then invest in a business which they solely own if it is through non-violent means? Why is the private ownership of a business bad?

The problem I have with anarcho-syndicalism is that it doesn't allow a free market, yet a free market allows anarcho-syndicalism.
Exactly. And if the only argument you have to the contrary is "our system won't work unless eveyone joins the borg-like fun", then it's weak, and should exist on it's own marginal terms within the stronger, better system.
What's wrong with that? Organize like insects until your little hearts are content. Who cares?
We'll be glad to compete with you. ;)

[jeechoscopy]

Chinese say, “Catch the cat either its white or brown.”

Amazing! Marx also practiced it?

[[Bible]Monkey]

jeechoscopy wrote: Chinese say, “Catch the cat either its white or brown.”

Amazing! Marx also practiced it?

Those dam inscrutable Chinese. I hope they all live in interesting times too , bastards.

:-D

[Gus]

Moved to Historical Events...

[Eichen]

Gus wrote: Moved to Historical Events...
The appropriate place for tired old communism vs. capitalism debates. :lol: