• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Pro-Business

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Larry Kudlow will tell you, face to face, that he is a man of the people, yet lately on his show he blatantly says that 'This is a pro-business show'! Talk about hypocrisy! But this is rather common in the new market populism days. We hear people constantly talking of how the market is, by nature, the most democratic thing on earth. This of course implies that it is more democratic than any democratic gov'ts. We hear gov'ts themselves or any pro-gov't position being refered to as Communist (note: the capitalization so that the word reminds the average reader of the old USSR that, by the way, was not communist). We always hear of our 'heroes': Bill Gates and other entrepeneurs who used the free-market to attain such great wealth. CEOs now are 'People's CEOs' and to criticize them and note their impact on the polarization of wealth in the USA is to criticize the market, and, remember, to criticize the market is to criticize democracy itself. Yes, Larry Kudlow and others constantly remind us of the wonder of the pro-business world. But what of the pro-labor world? You know, that particularly radical group of Populists in the 1890's. They were for gov't regulation of the RR, something that business men in the 1890's did not take kindly to. They were for more gov't regulation, not less, and today this party of the poor would be considered elitist! Our country has done a complete 180. In the '30s, one Franklin Delano Roosevelt finally began to act on the Populists demands from 40 years prior. He created more gov't regulation, and set minimum wage standards. However, this man of the poor is now viewed by the pro-business world as a terrible man, they focus on his 'crimes against business' instead of his obvious help to the average citizens of America. But today, the Republican party is the 'party of the people' not for economic reasons, but moral. They are morally sound. The Republican party is indeed the party of the people, or so they'd have you believe. Republicans seem to think nowadays, since they're always winning elections, despite their pro-business economics, that everytime a gov't regulation comes down, the people cry out for joy. Every time a union is busted, a worker dances in the streets. This obvious want to put money 'into the hands of those who deserve it' i.e. businessmen, is somehow seen as populist today (the libertarians have even stolen that word, populist, to describe faith in the markets). Yes, now Larry Kudlow is a man of the people. It really is scary to think that, some poor people out there, tune into his show, hear the phrase 'pro-business' and think, "This guy's fighting for me". There is no conotation for the phrase pro-business. It means exactly what it says: pro businessmen. What many fail to realize is that being pro-business is, by nature, anti-labor or, put another way, anti-worker.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
I had never heard of Larry K, before now, which is unsurprising, given that he googles like the archtypical neocon. Any claim he makes to populism should be viewed as Orwellian.

FDR was a patrician and an unlikely populist. Many people hated his guts with a passion far exceeding what I feel for Georgie Porgy. As near as I can remember, these people were his beneficiaries. This is quite the reverse of what is happening today, when the victims go in droves to vote against their own best interests. People are still perverse.

Big business, however, should be regarded more as a partner than an enemy. This can only be possible, of course, if big business is somehow persuaded that human capitol is something to value. It has often been pointed out that having a fine lathe is worthless without a machinist, who has spent years learning the skill to run it. Somehow things have gotten far out of balance.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
I had never heard of Larry K, before now, which is unsurprising, given that he googles like the archtypical neocon. Any claim he makes to populism should be viewed as Orwellian.

FDR was a patrician and an unlikely populist. Many people hated his guts with a passion far exceeding what I feel for Georgie Porgy. As near as I can remember, these people were his beneficiaries. This is quite the reverse of what is happening today, when the victims go in droves to vote against their own best interests. People are still perverse.

Big business, however, should be regarded more as a partner than an enemy. This can only be possible, of course, if big business is somehow persuaded that human capitol is something to value. It has often been pointed out that having a fine lathe is worthless without a machinist, who has spent years learning the skill to run it. Somehow things have gotten far out of balance.
Perhaps you know him as Lawrence (Larry for short) Kudlow, with a show on MSNBC. He's a pathetic bull-market economist who exibits all of the hypocrisy mentioned.

"Big business, however, should be regarded more as a partner " What exactly do you mean by this? I'm just wondering if by this you imply some sort of laissez-faire policy be instituted, rolling back regulations on businesses. That's just speculation on my part, but I am curious as to what you do mean.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
anomaly said:
Perhaps you know him as Lawrence (Larry for short) Kudlow, with a show on MSNBC. He's a pathetic bull-market economist who exibits all of the hypocrisy mentioned.
Unlikely. The farthest afield I venture is CNN.

"Big business, however, should be regarded more as a partner " What exactly do you mean by this? I'm just wondering if by this you imply some sort of laissez-faire policy be instituted, rolling back regulations on businesses. That's just speculation on my part, but I am curious as to what you do mean.
Mea culpa. I wasn't as clear there as I should have been. I should have said potential partner. Possibly there are such things as enlightened businessmen, although there is always an inescapable suspicion that this comes about because of a judicious application of a 2 x 4. Like it or not, however, entrepreneurs/businessmen are a tad more indispensible than lathe operators. Far from being an advocate of laissez faire, my point was that we seem to have regrettably misplaced our 2x4. :rolleyes:
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
Unlikely. The farthest afield I venture is CNN.


Mea culpa. I wasn't as clear there as I should have been. I should have said potential partner. Possibly there are such things as enlightened businessmen, although there is always an inescapable suspicion that this comes about because of a judicious application of a 2 x 4. Like it or not, however, entrepreneurs/businessmen are a tad more indispensible than lathe operators. Far from being an advocate of laissez faire, my point was that we seem to have regrettably misplaced our 2x4. :rolleyes:
I argue that the famous 'entrepeneur' which is so revered in modern American society is much more dispensable than a machinist, a carpenter, or a welder. An entrepeneur requires only a mind, while the three occupations listed require some sort of learned skill mixed with natural talent. And so, because one chooses to become a machinist (obviously an indispensable trade) should they suffer from the very hands of one who chooses to become a businessman? Is money the only thing driving people to get a job, or do people have the right to do something they generally like? As Marx said, with the advance of capitalism, workers become largely alienated from their work, as their is no personal desire anymore to create a good product (as existed when the worker was formerly known as the artisan) but instead workers only wish to gain capital form this labor.

I wonder, do you support the nationalization of industry (socialism), or simply an increase in gov't regulation mixed with capitalism (liberalism)?
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
anomaly said:
I argue that the famous 'entrepeneur' which is so revered in modern American society is much more dispensable than a machinist, a carpenter, or a welder. An entrepeneur requires only a mind, while the three occupations listed require some sort of learned skill mixed with natural talent. And so, because one chooses to become a machinist (obviously an indispensable trade) should they suffer from the very hands of one who chooses to become a businessman? Is money the only thing driving people to get a job, or do people have the right to do something they generally like? As Marx said, with the advance of capitalism, workers become largely alienated from their work, as their is no personal desire anymore to create a good product (as existed when the worker was formerly known as the artisan) but instead workers only wish to gain capital form this labor.

I wonder, do you support the nationalization of industry (socialism), or simply an increase in gov't regulation mixed with capitalism (liberalism)?
Entrepreneur is simply a contemporary buzzword for someone who is somewhat more than a leader, a person who is willing to take charge and make things happen. He is the man with the idea for himself and others to facilitate. The idea doesn't even have to be his, but the vision that this is something worthwhile is. He is the one that puts the project together; hires people to do whatever is necessary; and resolves difficulties. Doing that is tremendously challenging.

A machinist (to continue with that example) with no equipment, material or place to work and no idea in the world what he is going to make should such things miraculously appear is not going to accomplish very much. That is what the entrepreneur provides. Together they can do great things that neither could do separately. Granted that the machinist is faced with difficult problems requiring great skill and knowledge, it wouldn't matter had the entrepreneur not solved his problems first.

So everyone works together in happy harmony to a final triumphant conclusion? :rofl Hardly, conflict is built into this process. Whatever the entrepreneur must pay the machinist it is money out of his pocket and he finds this excruciatingly painful. Of course, the machinist has just the reverse slant on things. There is no mechanism to ensure fairness, and the nature of things cuts the deck obscenely in favor of the entrepreneur.

Correcting that is what labor unions and philosophies like communism and socialism and schools of thought concerning myths about sturdy independence, the blind hand, trickling down money and greed is good is all about. Their record is dismal. Either they require a good deal of external force to implement or the idea is just plain stupid in the first place. Nothing that really takes account of human nature has ever shown up. Probably the best of the lot sso far has been socialism and labor unions. :violin
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
Entrepreneur is simply a contemporary buzzword for someone who is somewhat more than a leader, a person who is willing to take charge and make things happen. He is the man with the idea for himself and others to facilitate. The idea doesn't even have to be his, but the vision that this is something worthwhile is. He is the one that puts the project together; hires people to do whatever is necessary; and resolves difficulties. Doing that is tremendously challenging.

A machinist (to continue with that example) with no equipment, material or place to work and no idea in the world what he is going to make should such things miraculously appear is not going to accomplish very much. That is what the entrepreneur provides. Together they can do great things that neither could do separately. Granted that the machinist is faced with difficult problems requiring great skill and knowledge, it wouldn't matter had the entrepreneur not solved his problems first.

So everyone works together in happy harmony to a final triumphant conclusion? :rofl Hardly, conflict is built into this process. Whatever the entrepreneur must pay the machinist it is money out of his pocket and he finds this excruciatingly painful. Of course, the machinist has just the reverse slant on things. There is no mechanism to ensure fairness, and the nature of things cuts the deck obscenely in favor of the entrepreneur.

Correcting that is what labor unions and philosophies like communism and socialism and schools of thought concerning myths about sturdy independence, the blind hand, trickling down money and greed is good is all about. Their record is dismal. Either they require a good deal of external force to implement or the idea is just plain stupid in the first place. Nothing that really takes account of human nature has ever shown up. Probably the best of the lot sso far has been socialism and labor unions. :violin
I will focus on your last paragraph. It may be well to know that I proclaim myself as a socialist, and by extension, a dreamer of communism. Whether communism is possible is a useless argument. But whether socialism is based on 'human nature' is a pretty heated topic. Here's my take. Socialism is dependent upon the government, since it is, by definition, the nationalisation of industry. It becomes evident, then, that we must place careful consideration into what makes up the national. The Soviets found that really any form of nationalisation will create moderate, consistent economic growth. They, of course, opted to use this money to fund their military. This was because the USSR was run by a vanguard, it never was a people's state after Stalin destroyed what Lenin had created. But, what if this national economy was truly controlled by the people, rendering a state a truly 'people's state'. This would simply entail democratic socialism, where people have an indirect control over the economy by electing the leaders who run it. Unfortunately, in the USA, we were never allowed to vote on whether we wanted to see the continuation of privatisation and deregulation, it simply happened. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and now the boy king have all taken shots at FDR's New Deal, systematically destroying it once again allowing the same conditions which brought about the Great Depression to arise, as it wouldn't be an understatement to say the the Great Depression was caused by laissez-faire economic conditions. But, the French did vote on it. In '97, after a campaign focusing on harsh economic reality rather than the mudslinging we see in the USA, the people of France voted to halt the course of privatisation, and instead preferred to keep the welfare state intact. So is socialism against human nature? Hate to answer that question with a question, but is democracy against human nature? It may also be well for you to know that 'force' today is never an option in creating socialism. Instead, we on the far left rely largely on political participation, or 'underground' politics. We can see from the '99 protests in Seattle that today there is perhaps as large an anti-capitalist feeling in the world than ever existed during the Cold War. Did the fall of the wall truly represent the 'end of history' and the 'proof' that capitalism is far superior to any alternative? No, hardly. Socialism and communism have generally gained support throughout the world everywhere except the international business community (for obvious reason), and the ever individualistic USA. Much to the dismay of Republicans, in the greater part of the world, leftist ideas are much more prominent that rightest. In Europe especially, socialism is largely viewed as a better alternative than capitalism. Note that the people of Spain voted in socialists after 3/11/04 and that Sweden is democratic socialist. Also, France, Germany, and other countries still maintain socialist programs and policies, and keep the welfare state intact. I see socialism becoming a major threat in the future to American style capitalism.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
I am a searcher; you are an advocate. I, too, would be an advocate if I thought I knew what would work. If there is an answer it will probably contain elements of Socialism.

Adam Smith was a searcher also. He was looking for a stable system that would ensure the efficient use of resources and enhance the general welfare. What he came up with developed into laissez faire capitalism, which is a triumphant success for an increasingly small part of the human race. Self interest and greed are controlling it all right, but the general welfare has not benefitted and there is some question about the efficiency of it all. As far as Smith was concerned a controlled economy took a back seat to the free market.

You have not mentioned what levers of power you intend to use to bring about this Socialist revolution you advocate. The French were able to dispose of that class of people who would be expected to oppose socialism during their revolution. Ours is still very much with us and in control. As you may have noted, Socialism is still very much a naughty word in polite society these days (as, for that matter, is Liberal). :shock:
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
I am a searcher; you are an advocate. I, too, would be an advocate if I thought I knew what would work. If there is an answer it will probably contain elements of Socialism.

Adam Smith was a searcher also. He was looking for a stable system that would ensure the efficient use of resources and enhance the general welfare. What he came up with developed into laissez faire capitalism, which is a triumphant success for an increasingly small part of the human race. Self interest and greed are controlling it all right, but the general welfare has not benefitted and there is some question about the efficiency of it all. As far as Smith was concerned a controlled economy took a back seat to the free market.

You have not mentioned what levers of power you intend to use to bring about this Socialist revolution you advocate. The French were able to dispose of that class of people who would be expected to oppose socialism during their revolution. Ours is still very much with us and in control. As you may have noted, Socialism is still very much a naughty word in polite society these days (as, for that matter, is Liberal). :shock:
Is that true? That Adam Smith came to a conclusion that capitalism would enhance the 'general welfare'? It seems to me, from what I have read, that modern capitalists, most of them disciples of Ayn Rand, have no care for the general welfare. I am not familiar with Smith's actual writings, although, knowing that he is one of the founders of capitalist thought, I find it very surprising that he thought of capitalism as somehow beneficiary to all. As I mentioned, Ms. Rand, some hundreds of years later, thought of capitalism exactly the opposite way. She reverred the system because it did not benefit the general public, instead, it benefitted those who 'deserve' the benefits. And that is how I view capitalism: it is a system benefitting the few at the expense of the many, it benefits those who, by some libertarians measure, deserve to be benefitted. Unlike Ms. Rand, it is for this reason that I oppose capitalism. I have found in socialism a system that benefits the majority, and may even be able to give rise to a system that benefits all of mankind, communism. You say I am an 'advocate' of socialism. Actually, I have tried to make clear that I am an advocate of democratic socialism. The USSR was socialist, it gave people quite a few things they may otherwise not have had, like healthcare, for example. Of course, they were, at the same time, a brutal dictatorship, murdering thousands of people. I am, therefore, an advocate of a certain type of socialism. So now I propose the question: can socialism be created so that it will benefit the majorty of people? I say yes, and once again point to the USSR for evidence. During the '50s, their economy was growing at a faster rate than the US's. It may seem odd, then, that American citizens still enjoyed a greater quality of life than did Soviet citizens (of course, American citizens only lived generally better if they were not Communists, if they were Communists, they were jailed!). The answer is simple: The USSR used this growing economy to build up their military in the great arms race with the USA. It is then obvious that, if the people controlled the economy rather than a vanguard, they would use it to enhance the lives of people, rather than enhancing the military.

You ask what measures I propose to trigger this 'revolution'. I do not advocate revolution in the traditional sense (violent), instead, I point to the fact that a large amount of people in Europe are socialists (a few countries even have elected socialist governments). Violent revolution is therefore not needed. All that is needed is democracy (no wonder the forces of capitalism have depended, over the years, on the USA pro-capitalist gov't to put down a great many revolutions, and in some cases democratically elected gov'ts). I noted how it is strange that democracy can give birth to capitalism, but once capitalism has outgrown it creator (democracy), capitalism is largely hostile towards democracy. I look at Europe, Africa and Latin America and see that if democracy exists, socialism will generally rise. If tyranny exists, the gov't will tend to be further to the right and pro-capitalist. What revolutionary measures do I then propose? Only democracy. The world, in general, is further left than right, and hardly hostile to the idea of socialism. The only industrialized country that really leans far right now is the USA. And this is largely thanks to propaganda and ignorance of US citizens (40% still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11; I'm willing to bet that a majority still believe that communism is characterised by the existence of a dictator). So now we see that capitalism thrives where people are either ignorant, or they are suppressed. This does raise a troublesome point, however. Leftist ideas are most popular in the greater part of th world, so why don't we see a leftist world? It is because of the great hostility between leftist parties. They want genrally the same thing, yet they opose each other. But, what if leftist parties united. After all, radicals realise that we must have reform before we have radical measures. This unification has been somewhat realised in the non-political arena. In Seattle 1999, we saw leftists and anti-capitalists ranging from black (anarchists) to red (Marxists) to green (enviro). The international anti-capitalist has seen all anti-capitalists unite against capitalism. Now, why can't parties follow the path of protests? It is time for a 'brown' party (black, red, and green), united against a common foe, capitalism. If this should ever happen, we will see powerful third parties throughout the world, instead of weak ones.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
Entrepreneur is simply a contemporary buzzword for someone who is somewhat more than a leader, a person who is willing to take charge and make things happen. He is the man with the idea for himself and others to facilitate. The idea doesn't even have to be his, but the vision that this is something worthwhile is. He is the one that puts the project together; hires people to do whatever is necessary; and resolves difficulties. Doing that is tremendously challenging.

A machinist (to continue with that example) with no equipment, material or place to work and no idea in the world what he is going to make should such things miraculously appear is not going to accomplish very much. That is what the entrepreneur provides. Together they can do great things that neither could do separately. Granted that the machinist is faced with difficult problems requiring great skill and knowledge, it wouldn't matter had the entrepreneur not solved his problems first.

So everyone works together in happy harmony to a final triumphant conclusion? :rofl Hardly, conflict is built into this process. Whatever the entrepreneur must pay the machinist it is money out of his pocket and he finds this excruciatingly painful. Of course, the machinist has just the reverse slant on things. There is no mechanism to ensure fairness, and the nature of things cuts the deck obscenely in favor of the entrepreneur.

Correcting that is what labor unions and philosophies like communism and socialism and schools of thought concerning myths about sturdy independence, the blind hand, trickling down money and greed is good is all about. Their record is dismal. Either they require a good deal of external force to implement or the idea is just plain stupid in the first place. Nothing that really takes account of human nature has ever shown up. Probably the best of the lot sso far has been socialism and labor unions. :violin
Condensed to Reader's Digest proportions, I read: Absent the entrepreneur, we're all back on the farm, struggling to eke out a meager existence.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
I will focus on your last paragraph. It may be well to know that I proclaim myself as a socialist, and by extension, a dreamer of communism. Whether communism is possible is a useless argument. But whether socialism is based on 'human nature' is a pretty heated topic. Here's my take. Socialism is dependent upon the government, since it is, by definition, the nationalisation of industry. It becomes evident, then, that we must place careful consideration into what makes up the national. The Soviets found that really any form of nationalisation will create moderate, consistent economic growth. They, of course, opted to use this money to fund their military. This was because the USSR was run by a vanguard, it never was a people's state after Stalin destroyed what Lenin had created. But, what if this national economy was truly controlled by the people, rendering a state a truly 'people's state'. This would simply entail democratic socialism, where people have an indirect control over the economy by electing the leaders who run it. Unfortunately, in the USA, we were never allowed to vote on whether we wanted to see the continuation of privatisation and deregulation, it simply happened. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and now the boy king have all taken shots at FDR's New Deal, systematically destroying it once again allowing the same conditions which brought about the Great Depression to arise, as it wouldn't be an understatement to say the the Great Depression was caused by laissez-faire economic conditions. But, the French did vote on it. In '97, after a campaign focusing on harsh economic reality rather than the mudslinging we see in the USA, the people of France voted to halt the course of privatisation, and instead preferred to keep the welfare state intact. So is socialism against human nature? Hate to answer that question with a question, but is democracy against human nature? It may also be well for you to know that 'force' today is never an option in creating socialism. Instead, we on the far left rely largely on political participation, or 'underground' politics. We can see from the '99 protests in Seattle that today there is perhaps as large an anti-capitalist feeling in the world than ever existed during the Cold War. Did the fall of the wall truly represent the 'end of history' and the 'proof' that capitalism is far superior to any alternative? No, hardly. Socialism and communism have generally gained support throughout the world everywhere except the international business community (for obvious reason), and the ever individualistic USA. Much to the dismay of Republicans, in the greater part of the world, leftist ideas are much more prominent that rightest. In Europe especially, socialism is largely viewed as a better alternative than capitalism. Note that the people of Spain voted in socialists after 3/11/04 and that Sweden is democratic socialist. Also, France, Germany, and other countries still maintain socialist programs and policies, and keep the welfare state intact. I see socialism becoming a major threat in the future to American style capitalism.
There two basic types of human. Leaders and loafers.

The latter are the reason why socialism always falls short and the former are the reason why capitalism succeeds.

Socialism encourages a person to loaf because he can't control his destiny and can't separate himself from the common herd. Capitalism encourages a person to act because he has as much control over his destiny as he desires. He may loaf, if he chooses, or, he may soar to whatever heights his wits, wisdom, and ambition will take him.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
There two basic types of human. Leaders and loafers.

The latter are the reason why socialism always falls short and the former are the reason why capitalism succeeds.

Socialism encourages a person to loaf because he can't control his destiny and can't separate himself from the common herd. Capitalism encourages a person to act because he has as much control over his destiny as he desires. He may loaf, if he chooses, or, he may soar to whatever heights his wits, wisdom, and ambition will take him.
How can a ctizen in a socialist country not contorl his own destiny? People still choose their jobs. It's not like pulling them out of a hat or assigning them or anything. And you're completely wrong about capitalism. Numerous studies show that these 'soaring heights' are greatly lowered when the subject is poor. And yet you go around screaming 'equal opportunity'! Once again, your post makes no sense, and you have no argument. You simply repeat the same old idealistic capitalist propaganda. I think your mind has been poisoned, as you most likely think of the USSR when you think of socialism. Am I right?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
How can a ctizen in a socialist country not contorl his own destiny? People still choose their jobs. It's not like pulling them out of a hat or assigning them or anything. And you're completely wrong about capitalism. Numerous studies show that these 'soaring heights' are greatly lowered when the subject is poor. And yet you go around screaming 'equal opportunity'! Once again, your post makes no sense, and you have no argument. You simply repeat the same old idealistic capitalist propaganda. I think your mind has been poisoned, as you most likely think of the USSR when you think of socialism. Am I right?
My eyes were opened when I began to read stuff like this piece from the website of the World Socialist Movement.

Object and Declaration of Principles
Including explanations of what the Object and each Principle mean to us


This declaration is the basis of our organisation and, because it is also an important historical document dating from the formation of the party in 1904, its original language has been retained.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------​
Object

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.


What is meant by "a system of society"?

The world is a "global village". Each region may have its own particular and distinct customs, but they are part of a greater system of society that is world-wide. This system of society is capitalism and every region and nation operates within this system of society in one way or another. Socialism is not a cooperative island in the middle of capitalism, but a global system of society that will replace capitalism.

"The means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth"?

This includes the forests, mines, and oceans from which natural wealth is extracted, the factories in which this natural wealth is processed, and the distribution of that wealth via transportation networks (such as roads and truck lines) and distribution centres (such as grocery and department stores). It does not include your personal belongings such as your toothbrush or clothing, or the family heirloom.

"Common Ownership"?

Common ownership means that society as a whole owns the means and instruments for distributing wealth. It also implies the democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, for if everyone owns, then everyone must have equal right to control the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth.

Common ownership is not state ownership. State ownership is merely the ownership by the capitalist class as a whole, instead of by individual capitalists, and the government then runs the state enterprises to serve the capitalist class. In the self-proclaimed "communist" states the state enterprises serve those who control the party/state apparatus. The working class does not own or control. It produces for a privileged minority.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
My eyes were opened when I began to read stuff like this piece from the website of the World Socialist Movement.

Object and Declaration of Principles
Including explanations of what the Object and each Principle mean to us


This declaration is the basis of our organisation and, because it is also an important historical document dating from the formation of the party in 1904, its original language has been retained.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------​
Object

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.


What is meant by "a system of society"?

The world is a "global village". Each region may have its own particular and distinct customs, but they are part of a greater system of society that is world-wide. This system of society is capitalism and every region and nation operates within this system of society in one way or another. Socialism is not a cooperative island in the middle of capitalism, but a global system of society that will replace capitalism.

"The means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth"?

This includes the forests, mines, and oceans from which natural wealth is extracted, the factories in which this natural wealth is processed, and the distribution of that wealth via transportation networks (such as roads and truck lines) and distribution centres (such as grocery and department stores). It does not include your personal belongings such as your toothbrush or clothing, or the family heirloom.

"Common Ownership"?

Common ownership means that society as a whole owns the means and instruments for distributing wealth. It also implies the democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, for if everyone owns, then everyone must have equal right to control the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth.

Common ownership is not state ownership. State ownership is merely the ownership by the capitalist class as a whole, instead of by individual capitalists, and the government then runs the state enterprises to serve the capitalist class. In the self-proclaimed "communist" states the state enterprises serve those who control the party/state apparatus. The working class does not own or control. It produces for a privileged minority.
What do you mean your 'eayes were opened'? I believe it may serve you well to know that this site presents communism, not socialism. It supports communism, but presents no path of getting from here to there. That's where socialism comes in. Democratic socialism, I believe, is now the only path to get to communism. But, that site is wonderful for communist thought and communist theory. The site only refers to its goals as 'socialist' because it is a USA website, and noone in the USA wishes to visit a 'communist' website, of course. But everything the site describes is a good description of how communism may look if practiced ever on earth.
 
Last edited:

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
What do you mean your 'eayes were opened'? I believe it may serve you well to know that this site presents communism, not socialism. It supports communism, but presents no path of getting from here to there. That's where socialism comes in. Democratic socialism, I believe, is now the only path to get to communism. But, that site is wonderful for communist thought and communist theory. The site only refers to its goals as 'socialist' because it is a USA website, and noone in the USA wishes to visit a 'communist' website, of course. But everything the site describes is a good description of how communism may look if practiced ever on earth.
Are you accusing them of the old "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" routine?

If so, why not direct me to a few socialist websites that meet with your approval.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
Fantasea said:
Condensed to Reader's Digest proportions, I read: Absent the entrepreneur, we're all back on the farm, struggling to eke out a meager existence.
Worse than that, for the farmer too is an entrepreneur. :)
 
Top Bottom