NGNM85
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,571
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
I do not regard employment as exploitation. Either way, if I cannot start up a business then you are in fact necessarily precluding the existence of various markets.
Work is not inherently exploitative. Wage-slavery is inherently exploitative. Most workers are wage-slaves.
You can create an enterprise with other individuals, but you can't take the proceeds of their labor, or deny them democratic participation over their productive lives.
Canell said:Why do you think socialism could only be authoritarian? Please don't give this USSR BS.
The individual and "all of mankind" are not inherently in opposition to one another. Quite the contrary, the individual is by necessity tied to "all of mankind," hilariously enough, even in capitalist society.
No, my point is that rights themselves are philosophical abstractions that do not exist in reality. Their concrete expression is self-refuting.
You cannot prove this because you cannot explain what "the right to your property" actually means in concrete terms.
Sure, there are limits to right based on security and physical limitations. There are also limits to right based on power. "Freedom of speech" is only tolerated by states insofar as it is not perceived as a threat. In this universal truism we can conclude that freedom of speech, the abstract and unlimited ideal of the right, does not exist in reality simply due to the fact that no states allows such.
Why is the US one of the "freest" nations in the world? Because its citizens, their voices, are most powerless.
Society isn't organized rationally, as I have already said. Nor is man "inevitably corrupt".
Strawman.
In socialist and communist regimes, those who display traits of avarice, ambition, and lust will seek to excel above the crowd through excessive means, at which point the collective will have to use an iron fist grip to placate what they would perceive as a "threat". To think that mankind would live robotically like Smurfs is just ludicrous. By sheer human nature, these systems would have to be incredibly authoritarian to pull the tallest weeds down to the ground.
So you think that, in a socialist/communist society and economic structure, nobody will seek to be the leader of the pack with regard to both money and power?
In socialist and communist regimes, those who display traits of avarice, ambition, and lust will seek to excel above the crowd through excessive means, at which point the collective will have to use an iron fist grip to placate what they would perceive as a "threat". To think that mankind would live robotically like Smurfs is just ludicrous. By sheer human nature, these systems would have to be incredibly authoritarian to pull the tallest weeds down to the ground.
Because society is classless in socialism. The mere existence of a hierarchy dispels it.
Because society is classless in socialism. The mere existence of a hierarchy dispels it.
sangha said:The same thing could be said of capitalist regimes. Many of the worlds most repressive regimes have had capitalist economies
Paschendale said:I see claims like this a lot, large generalizations about socialism... that run contrary to what actual socialists say. A hierarchy has nothing to do with class, so long as the higher members of that hierarchy have controls on them, so that they cannot abuse that position. You know, checks and balances. Just because the Soviets didn't do that doesn't mean that lack of checks is an inherent part of socialism.
Canell said:Not in my socialism.
Not arguing that, except the last half of the first statement. I'm saying that capitalism gives an acceptable outlet to people who display those humanistic traits, and that they don't get squashed just for succeeding.
A completely anti-authoritarian system will never exist (anarchy). If it does, it's worse than capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism...every -ism out there. Nobody wins in anarchy.
Increased money will create some authoritarian tendencies, but it doesn't mean that it is permanent. In a governmental authoritarian structure, a position, cabinet, or council retain all power unwavering. In a meritocratic corpocracy, power is not only achieve or earned, but it's defended. Because you're in power today doesn't mean you're in power tomorrow. It's that competition that is the ultimate check and balance system.
You'll never hear me on here saying that capitalism is libertarian. I will say, however, that it is more libertarian than many other systems.
Money doesn't create authoritarian tendencies, but it does give people the power to act on their own authoritarian tendencies. IMO, this is the main flaw with capitalism.
And as far as permanence goes, nothing is permanent; Everything changes. Eventually, we're all dead.
Still ipso facto. I was just stating the starting point and the ending point. Didn't feel the need to connect dots, especially since it's rather self-explanatory.
But if a president has dictatorial powers or a politburo governs in a totalitarian fashion, when that person(s) is not in power, another comes along and inherits that power.
In America, I remember (not firsthand) when the Carnegies and the Rockefellers were the shotcallers. Nowadays it's the Gates and the Buffets. In fifty years, it could easily be other mega-rich entities.
Please share with me your distinction. I get paid a wage for my time that I considered fair when the job was offered to me, how am I being exploited?
What do you mean "take the proceeds of their labor"? Do you mean everyone working for a company must engage in profit sharing? An equal share? Despite the relationship of their position to revenue? The guy who cleans the gutters of all the local buildings too?
What sense does this make to you? I'll tell you what I understand, paying someone for their time at a rate they both agree to. No exploitation there, just voluntary labor. I have no idea how one even compute's "the proceeds of their labor."
For example, I'm an Accountant and handle payroll. We pay our sales reps a salary + a commission, which is a % of the payments of their clients. Under your "system" would all revenue, not just a percentage, go to sales reps? How would their salaries and operating expenses be paid?
Lachean said:So long as you have a government who will defend your rights
Translation: I don't answer for the contradictions in my logic.
So long as there is a means of exchange that both parties agree has value, then thats not a concern.
You do realize that every regime, no matter how brief, that made no actions against the freedom of the press debunks your ridiculous absolute.
I have the freedom of speech so long as my speech does not directly prevent another from practicing his/her own rights.
Replace "freedom of speech" with any number of things: "right to safety", "right to life", "right to property", etc. These are the additional 'rights' that the above statement refers to.
This is my first attempt. Poke holes. If you are right, I will concede. But I believe we can describe individual liberty to a 'T'. And then base the government's job around our individual liberties.
So, I take it you would disagree with Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, and billions of other humans both past and present who seem to believe in the concept of "natural rights".......... that some rights are simply inherent in being part of humanity (i.e. life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness)? Even the State must inherently believe in these, otherwise it would simply be working toward its own demise, which is quite illogical. We musn't forget that it is indeed humans who come together and form the state (the reasons for which they agree to form it and the form in which it takes is of no significance). How could this even occur without concurrence among the founders that these most basic rights exist?You're going at this problem backwards. Government and state are not based around rights, rights are privileges granted by government/state and exist within existing social relations.
So, I take it you would disagree with Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, and billions of other humans both past and present who seem to believe in the concept of "natural rights".......... that some rights are simply inherent in being part of humanity (i.e. life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness)? Even the State must inherently believe in these, otherwise it would simply be working toward its own demise, which is quite illogical. We musn't forget that it is indeed humans who come together and form the state (the reasons for which they agree to form it and the form in which it takes is of no significance). How could this even occur without concurrence among the founders that these most basic rights exist?
In his post above, KC did not distinguish between legal and natural rights. He simply said that "rights are priveleges granted by government/state....." and I responded in kind. I've noticed that many who claim to be hard-line communists or socialists here, prefer to "skate around" these convenient little concepts such as "natural rights" which tend to separate us humans from other, less "self-aware" animals. Some, like myself, may even go as far as to say that these are not only inherent in human nature, but God-given........perhaps this association is what makes some in this arena a bit uneasy about including these rights in their discussions? Regardless there is "something" that makes these natural rights inherent in most humans - if not the state, then what? I'm sure the blathering Wiki-hounds on this site can provide ample possibilities
Regardless there is "something" that makes these natural rights inherent in most humans - if not the state, then what?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?