• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democracy Vs Socialism

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Falangist said:
And you will be seeing a good lot of me my anarchic friend. It is too bad there is no chatroom because we could really go at it.

Oh I'm not an anarchist I'm a republicanist libertarian. My anarchist colleagues are just as misguided as the socialists:
Individual Liberty, Society, and the Role of the State:


The major problem with modern individualism which Bellah et al. illustrate quite clearly in "Habits of the Heart," is one which arises when individuality becomes more important than the society as a whole and to this end creates a situation where not only is the society harmed but also the well being of the individual. It stands to reason that, because the individual does not live in a vacuum but rather in an interconnected societal structure in which the actions of the individual will ultimately affect the society as a whole then certain restrictions on the individual can justly be set in place in order to have a functioning society. Bella et al would argue that these necessary restrictions were once set in place through institutions; such as, the church and the state but as modern individualism and the focus on utilitarianism became more prevalent to the neglect of biblical individualism and classical republicanism that there is no longer a guiding source of morality as a framework for how the individual should interact with the society around them. Furthermore; if the individual is only conscious of himself then how can it reasonably be expected of him to consider the consequences of his actions on the rest of society?

To illustrate why this problem of modern individualism taking the place of classical republicanism is so important we can use one of the more extreme theories of individual liberty and property called anarcho-capitalism. The anarcho capitalist would assert that the state itself is an unjust monopoly which derives its power through the forced taxation of the citizenry and if one were to adopt the economic policies of total deregulation then the invisible hand of the market could take the place of the state; resulting in true liberty. The Anarcho Capitalist would claim that the state can be abolished, because it is assumed that through the individual doing what is most profitable for himself and in his own self interests that this would ultimately be good for the society as a whole, in that, it stands to reason that it is of course not profitable for a business owner, to say, poison his consumers through a flawed product. Yet, what this anarcho-capitalist model fails to take into account is that which is good for one individual is not always good for the society as a whole. To illustrate this point one could take into consideration that what would be in the best interests of the business owner would be for him to automate all production. This would certainly increase his production capacity and, also, his profit margin by reducing the amount he has to allocate to wages… but at what cost? Well of course that negative impact can clearly be seen in the workers who are now found jobless. So while the individual who owns this hypothetical business would benefit through increasing his net gain by decreasing wage costs, and the individual consumer would benefit through the decrease in prices which would inevitably result through the laws of supply and demand, the individual worker is now left jobless and destitute.

Now how does this disproportional focus on modern individualism to the neglect of classical republicanism relate to the practices of individualism in the United States? The best way to put it into perspective is through the context of the extremes on both sides of the spectrum. On one side of the spectrum we have totalitarianism in which the state is all powerful and individual liberty is non existent and on the other side we have anarchism in which the restrictive functions of the state have been totally abolished and unchecked individualism is the law of the land. Now how would this hypothetical anarchist societal structure function? Well let us first assume that the economic structure of any given society would remain intact and in the case of the United States it would continue to be Capitalism. Now that there is no longer a state to provide for services; such as, security, defense, and education there would now be a demand from the public for private companies to fill the void. The individual upon seeing that there was now a demand for him to provide this security, defense, education, etc., would begin to form privatized police, military, and educational institutions. Now that state regulation has been abolished there would no longer be any checks on monopolies. Individual companies each doing what is in their own economic interests would form into large conglomerates. So now a societal structure is beginning to form which in fact looks very state like. Not only has it taken on the form of the state but through the formation of these large conglomerates in which every aspect of society is controlled by a single entity the society has in fact become totalitarian in nature. In effect the individual liberty which the abolishment of the state was supposed to provide has been all but eliminated and in the place of a government of, by, and for the people, we are now left with a government of, by, and for the government. So we can see in this extreme example of how a focus solely on the individual while ignoring the effect that this individual will have on the society as a whole can in actuality create the opposite of the intended effect.

--Thomas Askins (that's me)
 
Last edited:

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
1,714
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I happen to like corporations, it make it easier for me to return sh!t. Seriuolsy though those evil corporations producing goods that people want to buy for affordable rates and employing all those poor oppressed workers so that they can feed their families. God when will it end. :roll:

The problem is that neither those buying the products or those makeing them have much of a say over how they are produced. Many workers in the third world get sacked or even killed if they try and form unions. The Basic choice that alot of workers are left with between accepting poor working conditions and wages or starveing. Most of the time those buying the products have no knowledge of where they have come from and are only decideing between companys with an equally appalling record. The people actually decideing how goods are produced are very few. This is undemocratic.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Red_Dave said:
The problem is that neither those buying the products or those makeing them have much of a say over how they are produced. Many workers in the third world get sacked or even killed if they try and form unions. The Basic choice that alot of workers are left with between accepting poor working conditions and wages or starveing. Most of the time those buying the products have no knowledge of where they have come from and are only decideing between companys with an equally appalling record. The people actually decideing how goods are produced are very few. This is undemocratic.

That's because they don't have political freedom, you need both political and economic freedom to live in a free society and capitalism not socialism is the only economic system that is condusive to inividual liberty that is why even in socialist European nations they have a mix between the two. The reason why workers are treated as they are in China is, because they have followed the tennants of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao to a T, that's communisms fault bub, not capitalism's, and besides the fact of the matter is that people love to work for American companies overseas, they can get payed more being a service telephone operator or a walmart employee then a doctor over there.
 

Falangist

New member
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
He's right about why workers in China are treated that way. Still, we need to make capitalism better, and that is national syndicalism.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Falangist said:
He's right about why workers in China are treated that way. Still, we need to make capitalism better, and that is national syndicalism.

Now onto you, do you realize that Fascism is a form of socialism? Why Mussolini himself was a devout member of Italians socialist party until he went mainstream to gain political power, but he never lost his socialist tendencies.

"Let a single cry arise from the vast multitudes of the proletariat and let it be repeated in the squares and streets of Italy: down with war! The proletariat provides raw material, cannon fodder with which states make their history." -- Mussolini.

"You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me." -- Mussolini
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
1,714
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's because they don't have political freedom, you need both political and economic freedom to live in a free society and capitalism not socialism is the only economic system that is condusive to inividual liberty that is why even in socialist European nations they have a mix between the two. The reason why workers are treated as they are in China is, because they have followed the tennants of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao to a T, that's communisms fault bub, not capitalism's, and besides the fact of the matter is that people love to work for American companies overseas, they can get payed more being a service telephone operator or a walmart employee then a doctor over there.

who mentioned china? anyhow the chinease government ignores most of marxs ideas as marx advocated the means of production falling under the control of the workers. This hasnt happend in china. Alot of people wouldnt be working for american multinationals if traditional agriculture hadnt ceased to exist due to deforrestation, competion due to heavily subsidised goods from europe and america, or simply loseing land.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
1,714
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's because they don't have political freedom, you need both political and economic freedom to live in a free society and capitalism not socialism is the only economic system that is condusive to inividual liberty that is why even in socialist European nations they have a mix between the two. The reason why workers are treated as they are in China is, because they have followed the tennants of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao to a T, that's communisms fault bub, not capitalism's, and besides the fact of the matter is that people love to work for American companies overseas, they can get payed more being a service telephone operator or a walmart employee then a doctor over there.

who mentioned china? anyhow the chinease government ignores most of marxs ideas as marx advocated the means of production falling under the control of the workers. This hasnt happend in china. Alot of people wouldnt be working for american multinationals if traditional agriculture hadnt ceased to exist due to deforrestation, competion due to heavily subsidised goods from europe and america, or simply loseing land.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
LMFAO the original 13 colonies were not conquered from Spain the British always controlled them and founded them, France, Britain, Spain, Portugal the Dutch, all at one time or another had colonial settlements in North and Sourth America and as for the ethnic cleansing it was not a systematic genocide IE the majority of Indians were killed by disease accidently it was not intentional to call what happened to the Indians genocide is to degrade the term and put into peoples minds that what happened in colonial America is akin to Nazi Germany which couldn't be further from the truth. Furthermore; far from a utopia as revisionist historians like to paint pre-colonial America, the lands were sparcely populated, the inhabitants were constantly on the verge of starvation and even resulted to cannabilism, they were constantly warring with one anothers tribes, and they hadn't even invented the wheel. The socialists have lost the battle of ideas through the lessons of history so now they attempt to rewrite history to suit their ends. Anyways you're confusing the policies of the British crown with the policies of the post-revolution Republic. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were both based on Locke's Second Treatise of Government, you sir no not what you are talking about.

I was referring to how a nation based upon the original 13 colonies that were funded on the ”holy” principles of property rights mysteriously grew to cover a much larger area. It doesn’t matter if there were few Indians. The fact that their claims to the land were not respected by the USA destroys the view of the “godly” property values inhabited by Americans.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Red_Dave said:
who mentioned china? anyhow the chinease government ignores most of marxs ideas as marx advocated the means of production falling under the control of the workers. This hasnt happend in china. Alot of people wouldnt be working for american multinationals if traditional agriculture hadnt ceased to exist due to deforrestation, competion due to heavily subsidised goods from europe and america, or simply loseing land.

No Marx advocated that the state must be the driving force behind the implementation of socialism as he envisioned it and that one day magically it would just disappear. :roll: Tell me how would socialism work at all without the state there to determine who gets what and when or what needs to be produced, etc etc.? Are you suggesting that the workers would just instincively know what is best for society? That wouldn't work outside of a society with more than ten people.
 
Last edited:

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Herophant said:
I was referring to how a nation based upon the original 13 colonies that were funded on the ”holy” principles of property rights mysteriously grew to cover a much larger area. It doesn’t matter if there were few Indians. The fact that their claims to the land were not respected by the USA destroys the view of the “godly” property values inhabited by Americans.

Lmao the Indians didn't even have property they were nomads wandering around from place to place. Europeans discovered America, the Indians stumbled upon it by accident so why do they have more of a right to the land than anyone else? Did they build on the land, did they cultivate the land, did they do anything that would constitute someone who is a property owner? No they did not.

Oh, and the guarantee to life, liberty, and property is right there in the Fifth Amendment so that kind of shoots a little whole in your theory now doesn't it?
 
Last edited:

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Lmao the Indians didn't even have property they were nomads wandering around from place to place. Europeans discovered America, the Indians stumbled upon it by accident so why do they have more of a right to the land than anyone else? Did they build on the land, did they cultivate the land, did they do anything that would constitute someone who is a property owner? No they did not.

Oh, and the guarantee to life, liberty, and property is right there in the Fifth Amendment so that kind of shoots a little whole in your theory now doesn't it?

Not if you look at how it was applicated in real life, or rather its selective use. Indians were forcefully removed from ares they had used for thousands of years, hows that for property rights?
 

Falangist

New member
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Herophant said:
Not if you look at how it was applicated in real life, or rather its selective use. Indians were forcefully removed from ares they had used for thousands of years, hows that for property rights?

As a firm believer in the right to property, I say it isn't.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Herophant said:
Not if you look at how it was applicated in real life, or rather its selective use. Indians were forcefully removed from ares they had used for thousands of years, hows that for property rights?

No you're wrong the Indians didn't settle they were nomadic so how can they have claimed property rights when they had no property. And that's another thing property isn't some gift from the gods it must be worked for to achieve it, that's the whole point, it's a incentive to work hard.
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,735
Reaction score
1,140
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No you're wrong the Indians didn't settle they were nomadic so how can they have claimed property rights when they had no property. And that's another thing property isn't some gift from the gods it must be worked for to achieve it, that's the whole point, it's a incentive to work hard.

First of all some indians in the south of that is today the USA was farmers. Second today you can't take away a mans right to his land because he only use it for hunting and you want to use it for farming. The situation was the same back then, that many indian tribes didn't cultivated the land, but they had user right of it for hunting. Finally the people who are the guests shoudln't set the rules.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Bergslagstroll said:
First of all some indians in the south of that is today the USA was farmers. Second today you can't take away a mans right to his land because he only use it for hunting and you want to use it for farming. The situation was the same back then, that many indian tribes didn't cultivated the land, but they had user right of it for hunting. Finally the people who are the guests shoudln't set the rules.

What don't you understand about nomadic? How can you claim property rights if you are never on the same piece of land for more than a month? It doesn't make any sense. And your Pocahantas view of history is laughable we were not the Indians guests in fact they were quite hostile to the European colonists ever since they set foot in America. The Indians were war like and every bit as brutal as the evil white man.
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What he said is that capitalism and communism are both bad because he's a fascist. Allthough I am still of the firm belief that Fascism is indeed a socialist ideology.

Oh, well I think that they are both bad because I'm somewhat of a centrist :D

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I happen to like corporations, it makes it easier for me to return sh!t. Seriuolsy though those evil corporations producing goods that people want to buy for affordable prices and employing all those poor oppressed workers so that they can feed their families. God when will it end. Socialism takes the power of property out of the hands of the individual where it belongs and places it in the hands of the state which history has proven is only good at fuc/king up the economy not at fixing it. I have come to the realization that, because of the harm that unchecked corporate power can have on the society as a whole, a small measure of regulation is a necessity, but wealth redistribution is another matter altogether and let's not kid ourselves, because that is precisely what you're really talking about here now isn't it? The state should only have one function when it comes to the economy (two if you count the environment) and that is to stop monopolies from forming due to the fact that competition is the engine that drives the economy.

We need some socialism. You strike me as republican-ish, and probably believe in a strong defense and a larger military. As would I, generally. As an example, the idea that the government owns and operates the military is socialist. In pure capitalism private companies would have militaries and we could hire them ourselves.

Red_Dave said:
The problem is that neither those buying the products or those makeing them have much of a say over how they are produced. Many workers in the third world get sacked or even killed if they try and form unions. The Basic choice that alot of workers are left with between accepting poor working conditions and wages or starveing. Most of the time those buying the products have no knowledge of where they have come from and are only decideing between companys with an equally appalling record. The people actually decideing how goods are produced are very few. This is undemocratic.

Adam's Smith's "invisible hand" can take care of most of this (rather than socialism), provided that the state makes violence like that illegal.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Now onto you, do you realize that Fascism is a form of socialism?

Not necessarily. True fascism can be socialist, but it can also have a free, capitalist market. Fascism does not describe the economic condition, but rather the social/political condition. For example, a national government can have no regulation of business, while having many law oppressing human rights.

Fascism is an aggressive government that rules by fear and intimidation. True, extreme socialism or communism degrades into a fascist nation, and that is the reason why aggressive socialism is bad. But socialism is not directly equatable to fascism, especially in it's capitalist hybrid forms.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Tell me how would socialism work at all without the state there to determine who gets what and when or what needs to be produced, etc etc.?

In essence this is why the government must take control, and this control has degraded into fascist governments many times.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No you're wrong the Indians didn't settle they were nomadic so how can they have claimed property rights when they had no property. And that's another thing property isn't some gift from the gods it must be worked for to achieve it, that's the whole point, it's a incentive to work hard.

The Indians obviously had rights to the land they had hunted, farmed, and lived on for thousands of years. But today there is little we can do about it.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think the basis of this thread is more related to anarcho-capitalisism vs. socialist libertarianism.

If Anarcho-Capitalism equalled that only the smart survived... then it would have acheived it's goal. However, what we see today in the form of Anarcho-Capitalism is that the Rich get Richer and the poor get poorer. This is a terrible representation of a democratic republic. The people, not the elite, should be the main arbitrary body.

In a Socialist based philosiphy of Capitalism (A slightly left leaning version of Libertarianism) the profits and capital are for and by the people and do not allow for there to be such a seperation of class between the impoverished and the elite. This is a better representation of a democratic republic where the economic structure is for the good of the people and not for economic monopoly of the elite.
 
Last edited:

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Falangist said:
As a firm believer in the right to property, I say it isn't.

So then what exactly defines your right to property? THat a state take ownership of it by force and then that they make you pay for it?
 

BodiSatva

The Bodhisattva
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
49
Location
Bodega Bay, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
WAKE UP!!

Trajan is obviously trying to pull your legs, for he is using the most ridiculous and flawed pseudo-sense of logic that is obviously designed to inflame your thinking. Really, how could a reasonable person talk about property rights in the manner that he is and not be smiling at your responses.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
BodiSatva said:
WAKE UP!!

Trajan is obviously trying to pull your legs, for he is using the most ridiculous and flawed pseudo-sense of logic that is obviously designed to inflame your thinking. Really, how could a reasonable person talk about property rights in the manner that he is and not be smiling at your responses.

What are you talking about? These people are claiming that the United States Constitution is not founded in Lockes 2nd Treatise of Government, including the guarantee to life, liberty, and property. I'm sorry but the Indians (they were not native to America they came over on a land bridge across Siberia and Alaska) didn't even have a concept of property before Europeans came here. Their society was based on hunting and gathering and to a small extent subsistence farming. They were nomads who travelled with the game, they claimed no land, they had no written language, and hadn't even invented the wheel.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
BodiSatva said:
WAKE UP!!

Trajan is obviously trying to pull your legs, for he is using the most ridiculous and flawed pseudo-sense of logic that is obviously designed to inflame your thinking. Really, how could a reasonable person talk about property rights in the manner that he is and not be smiling at your responses.

What are you talking about? These people are claiming that the United States Constitution is not founded in Lockes 2nd Treatise of Government, including the guarantee to life, liberty, and property. I'm sorry but the Indians (they were not native to America they came over on a land bridge across Siberia and Alaska) didn't even have a concept of property before Europeans came here. Their society was based on hunting and gathering and to a small extent subsistence farming. They were nomads who travelled with the game, they claimed no land, they had no written language, and hadn't even invented the wheel.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What are you talking about? These people are claiming that the United States Constitution is not founded in Lockes 2nd Treatise of Government, including the guarantee to life, liberty, and property. I'm sorry but the Indians (they were not native to America they came over on a land bridge across Siberia and Alaska) didn't even have a concept of property before Europeans came here. Their society was based on hunting and gathering and to a small extent subsistence farming. They were nomads who travelled with the game, they claimed no land, they had no written language, and hadn't even invented the wheel.

And from this you draw the conclusion that we had the right to the land they depended on, lived on, and formed a culture around? :roll:
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What are you talking about? These people are claiming that the United States Constitution is not founded in Lockes 2nd Treatise of Government, including the guarantee to life, liberty, and property. I'm sorry but the Indians (they were not native to America they came over on a land bridge across Siberia and Alaska) didn't even have a concept of property before Europeans came here. Their society was based on hunting and gathering and to a small extent subsistence farming. They were nomads who travelled with the game, they claimed no land, they had no written language, and hadn't even invented the wheel.


well how long would it take for them to become "natives" of this land. They had lived in that land thousands of years before us. Either way,the europeans took the americas by force. And yes, the native american's did have a good senes of territory and had their own land. Instead of having permanant settlement in it, people would often move around in the same territory, following the food. Nonetheless they still considered the territory their's and thus had a right to it.

Also, whats the point of including the fact that they had no written language or hadn't invented the wheel. That has no bearing on your argument that native americans didn't own the land.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's because they had no political freedom, without political freedom there can be no economic freedom and without economic freedom there can be no political freedom.
And capiatlism and socialism are both argueably economic freedom. In my opinion communism is economic freedom, because it is classless, as in relation to social production. Its all based upon opinions, many think socialism or capitalism are both economically free. I disagree.
No Locke theorized how both government, society, and the individual in the society works
What did he theorise how society works, because I have yet to find such evidence.
seriously don't comment on things you know nothing about.
I stated earlier that I wasn't very familiar with Locke, so I said I can't make much of an arguement on the subject.
You're saying that Locke wasn't a social philosopher yet you don't even understand that his works is what the American society is based on.
The US society is based on the capitalist system.
Then you would be ignoring the longest lasting nation defining document.
The US isn't the longest-lasting netion.
Comrade Brian, saying that the US is capitalist belongs in the Conspiracy Theory Forum.
Man how so many people can't tell such things. The US is based on capitalistic mode of production and who owns the means of production.
The US is not capitalist. The fact that the US has taxes makes it most definitely not pure capitalism.
I agree it is not pure free-market capitalism. But it still is and should be regarded as capitalist.
No Marx advocated that the state must be the driving force behind the implementation of socialism as he envisioned it and that one day magically it would just disappear.
Your suggestion of this makes it quite apparent you don't know **** about Marx at all.
Tell me how would socialism work at all without the state
It wouldn't work, socialism needs a state.
there to determine who gets what and when or what needs to be produced
Ever heard of something called common planning? Both socialistic and communistic systems use planning to determine the factors you just listed.
Are you suggesting that the workers would just instincively know what is best for society?
NO! No one is that ****ing retarded.
No you're wrong the Indians didn't settle they were nomadic so how can they have claimed property rights when they had no property.
Indians settled an area called India, look it up.
You strike me as republican-ish
Trojan has told me several times that he is a reactionary.
Adam's Smith's "invisible hand"
The reason why its called the "Invisible Hand" is because its really just part of the imagination.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
And from this you draw the conclusion that we had the right to the land they depended on, lived on, and formed a culture around? :roll:

What property? Perhaps all of North and South America? Exactly what parts of America were settled before the Europeans came here? Did Native Americans in North America build cities, did they settle any one portion of land? Are you saying that a man can claim property rights because he once set foot on it? They were nomadic they didn't have any property, what is so hard to grasp about that concept?
 
Top Bottom