alienken

I work hard and have pride in my work. I have to do the job better than my coworkers and nothing else is acceptable.Even with my good work ethic and total lack of greed, I worked better on commission that rewarded my work than hourly jobs. It's hard to shake the"I get paid the same either way" additude and the quality of work suffers....Capitalism works,Comunism doesn't, and socialism is a disaster.California is so far left in some areas Socialism is close.Watch how bad things get there.

__________________
Bumper sticker idea - God is alive in heaven and there's a Texan in the White House. Life is GOOD!

anomaly

Are you an 'average blue collar worker'? If you think you fit, then lets look at what capitalism in the USA is doing to you: On average, your CEO makes over 400 times as much as you. In Japan, this figure is 11 times, in Britain, 24. Do you realize what kind of slave labor capitalism runs on? Do you realize all these sweatshops that produce the goods you and me buy? My problem with capitalism is this: With all of its productivity (and it is extremely productive), capitalism inevitably hurts more people than it helps. We in the USA are the lucky few, although maybe not for long, notice the numbers I previously mentioned. And socialism is not some 'utter failure' as you believe. It works quite well in Sweden today. The USSR did not work. Why? Socialism is the nationalisation of industry, thus, it is immensely dependent on the gov't. What if this gov't is a democracy (like Sweden)? And communism can be very successful. Look up the semi-communist group the Zapatistas. I have trouble discussing communism with you who haven't looked into it (mostly all of you) because honestly most of he time you just don't get it (Gabo is finally starting to 'get it'). Plus, that's the future. I would like to turn my attention to the present, to transnational capitalism and all its flaws. Alien, you must realize that capitalism only works when it is heavily regulated. Otherwise the market dominates the gov't, in our case, that means the market dominates our democratic republic. Our gov't is democratic in principle, while almost all corporations are a dictatorship, with a mighty CEO at the top. And you actually want to give these dictators all the power?

anomaly

Democratic socialism, the kind that was sought by Lenin, and exists today in Sweden, gives the economy to the people. The people have direct control over the market, unlike capitalism where workers especially have absolutely no control over the market, and thus are subject to the ups and downs of the business cycle. Regulations are needed to flatten these ups and downs, to make them withstandable for the worker. Regulations are almost always to the workers' benefit, and if they are not, the people should have the right to get rid of them by popular demand. Ah democracy, though, unfortunately, the US gov't must be reformed in order to create socialism. A two party system acts very similar to a one party state. As you may notice, Gabo, the Dems and GOP have effectively monopolized politics! And no, they certainly don't present the best product to the American people. I think we can agree on that!




So giving everyone any equal voice isn't 'free'? Democracy isn't free? When corporations dominate the landscape, meaning few people own and control the economy. When the gov't (a democratic gov't) dominates the economy, I'd call that free.




Socialism can be free, if the people so choose. This is why I stress democratic socialism, and not tyrannical socialism like the USSR. Socailism simply gives people and inevitably the state dominance over the economic.




Here you are describing no capitalist market, my friend. You are describing one in which the people control their economy. And that is socialism by definiton. Giving people this much power gives them a chance to, one day, advance towards capitalism. In capitalism, communes hardly ever exist. If they do, unfortunately they must be created and maintained through military action. This is how the Zapatistas came about, and the only reason the Mexican pro-capitalist gov't doesn't crush them is because it would look very bad for the gov't to crush such a free and democratic people who have so much respect throughout the world.

Gabo

This still does not address the fact that FORCED socialism is unfair.
Those that do not want to participate are FORCED into a life they don't want.
This is unfair to that individual.
They deserve the right to decide what type of society they live in.



"Freedom" is defined as the ability to think and act without imposed restraints.

When a government dominates the economy, NOBODY is free. EVERYONE is FORCED to give their money away (in the real world we call this stealing) in order to pay for and support a group that doesn't have their interests at heart.

A truly free society is one in which NOBODY is allowed to initiate FORCE, regardless of how good or bad they are.

In doing so, everyone can choose what is best for THEMSELVES.



And which 'people' get to choose?

I'm assuming you mean the majority of the population.
But how is this fair to the other part of the population that does not agree?
They are simply FORCED to obey the commands of the majority?

When I refer to the 'people' choosing something, I believe that choice is for every individual to make on their own. Which is why I believe this system will only work when it is voluntary.



I am describing a market in which each person controls their own life, without imposing regulations.

This is exactly how a capitalistic market is described.


In essense, if each person owns their own stuff, then the people certainly are controlling their economy. All choices are made by the people acting on their own behalf, instead of a small or large group making decisions for everyone.



Completely untrue.

Voluntary communes could most certainly exist under capitalism.

People could come together as a group to form a commune.
Within this commune, everyone could agree to work together and share equally.

There is no military action required whatsoever because it is VOLUNTARY.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

anomaly

Ok well by that logic, every and any system is 'unfair' (I don't like capitalism, and yet it is being forced down my throat every day. Your proposed system would violate my 'individual rights', so we could never do it, right?). The majority of people would benefit under socialism, so I just assume the majority would want it. Democratic socialism usually succeeds capitalism. It is democratic meaning that the majority of people want it. If the majority feel they don't like it, they can vote leaders out. The power rests solely in the people.




And if that gov't is itself dominated by the people, what does that mean? The people are free to dispose of their leaders. Are you saying that freedom is impossible? Even when the people control everything?




Well, here t is shown how important the type of gov't is. Proportional representation is needed. I know you aren't so ignorant of that idea as Fant is, so you probably know that it can work. Minority rights are, of course, important.




Ok so every person controls 'their own stuff'? Does this mean equal ownership? And what about the most important 'stuff' of capitalism, capital itself? It is true that capital becomes quite fluid in a capitalist society, that is, it can move quite rapidly. Capital cannot be owned, or it isn't capitalism. Capital is something representing value, to be traded. Someone ultimatly ends up with more capital than someone else, so they have more power than someone else. This means they can exert a bit of control over someone else. And, in capitalism, a 'large group' or 'small group' does control many things. Momopolies, businesses, corporations. These are controlling groups. Gabo, I think you have developed some sort of care for people, you want everyone to have rights, you generally care about people, and you're wary of controlling forces. You must realize that businesses and corporations are controlling forces. You have advanced beyond capitalism, you don't even speak of capitalism anymore. You speak of anarchism.




The Zapatistas had to fight to gain an autonomous zone. Again, why can't communes exist today is capitalism is all volntary and righteous? Capitalism is dominated by competition and the accumulation of capital, how could a communist zone exist in the middle of such a system? Communists have no need for capital, and yet to the capitalist, the commune is wasting their labor force. To the capitalist, the commune would be using land otherwise being used to accumulate a profit.

Gabo

Yes, every system besides one in which rights are maximized is unfair.

And the reason its unfair is because people do not have equal, maximized rights.


But under a system of true capitalism, everyone DOES have equal rights, and those rights have no limits, so long as you respect the equal rights of others.


Democracy is chosen because the system is democratic.
The MAJORITY votes on what government we get.
So, the MAJORITY controls the lives of everyone.

This is unfair to every minority in existence.

In my proposal, everyone only controls themselves, so there is no 'unfairness'.



Freedom for all is possible when EVERY person is in control.

It only makes sense that every person should control themselves.

Then their lives will truly be their own, not something for higher-ups to throw around and alter at will.



You say minority rights are important... but then you propose a majority rules system....

Those two beliefs are contradictory.


In my proposal, everyone is a representative of themselves, and themselves only.

Nobody makes decisions for other people, as it isn't their decision to make.



You are misunderstanding influence with FORCE.

When one group controls someone through FORCE (like all governments do),
it does not reflect the interests of the person who is being FORCED.

However, when one uses influence to persuade someone (like companies do),
it reflects the interests of the person which are amplified by influence.

Under influence, the ultimate choice is still for THAT PERSON to make.
This is different than control, where the person has no say in the matter.


The use of FORCE or FRAUD is illegal because it violates a person's rights.



If you don't know this yet, capitalism and anarchism are quite similar.

But anarchism allows for something capitalism does not.
And that is the initiation of FORCE to meet an end.

The use of FORCE in anarchism is what makes the system unfair.
Capitalism eliminates this use of FORCE, which is what makes it fair.



Because our government does not practice real capitalism.
Those that would try to create a commune would be put down by our many unnecessary government rules and regulations.

-People would not be allowed to run their own community, as government has designated itself sole provider of that role.
-People would not be able to contribute all labor towards the betterment of the community, because government imposes taxes and the minimum wage.
-People would not be free to maintain such a community, because government has zoning laws, property taxes, owns much of our land, controls our transportation system, and tells everyone what they can and cannot do.

Under a completely free society, people would be allowed to act peacefully however they chose. Communes would be free to prosper, as there would be nobody telling you how to live your life and what is right and wrong.



And the capitalists could do nothing about it.

The only thing that lets them do something about it is government (thank you, abusive eminent domain laws!).

The capitalists might get antsy because you aren't using capital, but they would have to respect your rights to live how you see fit.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

anomaly

Gabo, I will not even respond to them all, because they all say basically the same thing: Individualism and your hatred of force. Individualism is somewhat good, but you only tell the good side of it. Individualism leads to selfishness, this leads to the want to control capital, this leads to the want to control other people. Individualism can blind one to the rest of the world and its problems. Collectivism is far superior. Idividual needs can be met, but then the focus is on heling the maximum amount of people. Let's look at force. How can you clim that the gov't can dominate the people through force when the gov't is a democratic one! Give the people ultimate control! I don't understand how you could still be a capitalist, I don't think the market left to itself will do the majority of people any good. Agai, the fact is, that capitalism hurts more people than it helps (as said even by the capitalist icon Ayn Rand). I and many others offer to people a system that helps the majority of people, socialism. And then a system that helps everyone, and gives complete freedom, communism. Prouction strictly for human use, that is what we should push for. But I am growing weary of this utopian discussion. Perhaps you should go to my new thread in the econoics forum, and see what privatisation and deregulation in the US leads to. The question for you then is, if that is not the way to capitalism, what is?

Gabo

Individualism does accept selfishness.
But that's fine with me, because selfishness is impossible to remove.


However, unlike your belief, it is selfishness that makes us help one another.
It is selfishness that makes us trade with one another.

We realize that we can become more productive when we specialize in something and barter between one another for all goods. Working together makes it better for all those involved.

Thus, the more you work together, the better off you'll be.
People will want to work together more, and their selfishness will lead to cooperation.

This is because of the unique ability of humans to achive more as a collaboration of efforts and talents.

People that remain truly selfish will end up with LESS than those who realize working together benefits everyone involved.


Only when we begin controlling others do we end up with inefficiency. Those that are being controlled see a significant decrease in effort and output, because they are no longer satisfied.

But when everyone acts mutually, kindly, and works together, everyone benefits the maximum possible.



Of course collectivism is far superior, increasing production rate exponentially.

All the selfish bastards will realize this, and decide upon collectivism themselves.



Please stop trying to pass off the belief that someone else can decide better or just as good for someone else.

It is a known fact that people choose best for themselves.

A democratic government obviously does not represent each person individually, so obviously not everyone is going to like what happens.

The people as a whole no longer have ultimate control.

The select few that decide things have the control.
All the people get to do is decide how they wish to be controlled.

This is not fair at all.

Why not allow each person to control themself?



Not true.

Capitalism benefits everyone.

Because people work together mutually, they are able to achieve more.

When EVERYONE achieves more, even the poorer people in that society can have acceptable living conditions.



Your fancy words do not sway the truth.
I advocate complete freedom for every person within the society.

You do not.
You are just like everyone else.
You want to push your beliefs on everyone, forcing them to conform to your standards.


Why will you not accept my proposal?
Under what I propose, EVERYONE will be able to choose for themselves.


Communists could set up communal societies.
Republicans could set up republican societies.
Monarchists could set up monarchies.
Or, people could choose not to live under any societal restrictions.

The important part is that everyone chooses for themselves.



The way to capitalism is to abolish the initiation of FORCE.

Period.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

anomaly

Actually, if capitalism will work exactly as you have stated, I am all for it. I simply find it a bit utopian, and I certainly don't think that further privatization or deregulation of the current economic system will do anything but give corrupt corporations even more power. I see no way of getting from here to there. But, if we could go directly from the current system to your version of capitalism, I have no problem with it, as long as we on the far left are free to set up these' communes', and, likewise, everygroup is allowed to set up their own system. The major problem is that communism usually needs to be achieved globally, as no country is self sufficient. but if communist 'zones'were free to exist, and democracy and freedom ruled, and the communist 'zone' were to be able to be sustained, I have absolutely no problem with your system. But my problem is not the ends, it's the means (of getting to your 'capitalism'). Privatisation and deregulation are certainly not the way to put more power in the hands of the people.

Gabo

Most people don't think it can work.
Most people think its too Utopian.

Nothing wrong with that.
Even I can't be 100% sure it would work.

But its at least worth trying.



That's the whole point of the system.

With the maximum allowance of freedom to every individual, people would be free to create whatevery type of society they want.

This is the HUGE advantage granted by this government type.

It is the ONLY government type that welcomes ALL people's views and desires.



There's no reason the value obtained from labor in a communist society couldn't be traded to another society for desired goods and services.



Cool.

Looks like we may be beginning to agree on something.



I don't like to think of it as "privatization and deregulation" necessarily.

All people would be more than able to establish societies with whatever amount of regulation and restrictions they desired.

Only those that WANT privatization and deregulation would have it.


But this is only a one-way street.

When the core of the government has no limitations, people are free to add their own.

But it's not possible for a society to live without limitations if the core of the government utilizes them.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist