What Economic System?

[anomaly]

You're dead wrong there. And you know it. I am right of you but no one would accurately call me "so far right".

You're economically conservative. You're a capitalist. That's my point. Interpret 'so far right' as you wish...

Yes, I am. You say that like it's a bad thing. :doh

It's certainly not bad for you in capitalism. But we really can't blame the bourgeoisie, as inticing as it is to do so. The system is to blame. But then again, as a bourgeois, you defend the system. Again, Is suppose it is up for interpretation.

What would you prefer I say? It's undeniably wrong? It's proven wrong? It's absurdly wrong? It's dangerously wrong?

Pick a term that describes how wrong it is and I'll start using that instead.

Since you are not objective, and cannot possibly be objective, you really can't factually say any one of those. You should say "I think it is wrong", not "it is wrong".

The Zaptistas are anarchists, not communists. I thought you specifically stated your ideology was different from anarchism.

You should read up on leftist literature, my friend. I've actually told many comrades here and elsewhere that I feel communism is a form of anarchism. Communism with a state is simply impossible (Mao's 'great leap forward'). I think that what the Zapatistas have set up is quite near what a commune would look like. Hear's the real question, and the only thing worth respoding to so far, though: what is your opinion of the Zapatistas?

Just because you say I do, doesn't mean I actually do.

Obviously.

I believe I have said that either publicly or in private correspondence. That is quite different from large scale communism. (though I would disagree with "exceedingly" well)

Subsistence farming has certainly done its job, or did its job, before globalization: it made people 'subsist'. I don't think that it is so different from what large scale communism would be. Just imagine that with perhaps some technology (obviously) and a communication system of some kind between communes. The goal at present is to create one successful commune that is self-sufficient (somewhat like what the Zapatistas have done).

 

[LaMidRighter]

Ok. So, Anomaly, first you want a planned socialist economy that focuses heavily on the beauracracy, then you want the opposite, an anarchist communistic republic, at least pick a side before you bring any kind of argument here.
p.s. communism IS wrong, WAS wrong, and always WILL BE.....you guessed it.....wrong. :mrgreen:

 

[stump]

You're economically conservative. You're a capitalist. That's my point. Interpret 'so far right' as you wish...

Just clarifying. If we both use different defintions of a word then our discussion is of no use. I take it then you use "so far right" to describe every mainstream economist in America? And more broadly, just about everyone in America? We're almost all capitalists.

Since you are not objective, and cannot possibly be objective, you really can't factually say any one of those. You should say "I think it is wrong", not "it is wrong".

Marx makes claims about what communism will do to society. Those claims are untrue as we have found out. That makes his theories wrong. This is an objective statement. A subjective statement is that your theories are dangerous and made from jealousy.

You should read up on leftist literature, my friend.

Why? You don't feel the need to read up on capitalist or any other type of accepted economic theory literature. Why don't you need to do that?

Subsistence farming has certainly done its job, or did its job, before globalization: it made people 'subsist'. I don't think that it is so different from what large scale communism would be. Just imagine that with perhaps some technology (obviously) and a communication system of some kind between communes. The goal at present is to create one successful commune that is self-sufficient (somewhat like what the Zapatistas have done).

Woo Hoo! Subsistence. And you wonder why communism hasn't taken off when you offer everyone "subsistence". :rofl

 

[Comrade Brian]

Ok. So, Anomaly, first you want a planned socialist economy that focuses heavily on the beauracracy, then you want the opposite, an anarchist communistic republic, at least pick a side before you bring any kind of argument here.
p.s. communism IS wrong, WAS wrong, and always WILL BE.....you guessed it.....wrong. :mrgreen:

Socialism doesn't focus on a bureaucratic planned state, many Socialists would have a planned state, but not bureaucratic, don't most socialists push for an entirely legislative government that's elected, the US president has far too many powers.

Also communism was never really supposed to have a government, so there wouldn't be an actual republic, and many people misunderstand anarchists, most anarchists push for a communist society without a period of socialism, communists want a socialist society as transition from capitalism,

p.s.capitalism IS wrong, WAS wrong, and always WILL BE.....you guessed it.....wrong

 

[stump]

Also communism was never really supposed to have a government...

Have you ever read the Commie Manifesto? I posted part of it here earlier.

The state is mentioned a number of times. There was definitely supposed to be a government.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Well, people need businesses to have jobs to get themselves out of shantytowns. So why do you have a problem with business going there?

But from what I've heard a variety of uses have been made of the former shantytown land. One of which is housing.

And there are a number of reasons why capitalists would ease the transition:

1) keep the poor from revolting and stealing their land
2) people without homes don't get educations which leads to their capital not being fully utilized
3) workers work best when happy which leads to better capital utilization

But most importantly, because it's the right thing to do. You are under the delusion that capitalists are heartless bastards and communists care only about the whole. This is pure garbage. They're the same people, just under different systems. If people care about others under communism they'd care about them under capitalism.

How much do the jobs pay? a dollar a day, two, if lucky three?

Can they afford the housing? Is at more homes for people who feel like getting a better and bigger house?

If the people revolt, it would be the government's burden which is run by rich but police and such are workers. And they should revolt, some of them tried

You seem to be under the delusion that plutocracy can do no wrong, and communism's a f***ed up system that is obselete

And capitalists love it when workers compete, so they are drawn more against each other then their oppressors, which is also why many racist and fascist movements were funded by rich people like Robert Hearst I think his name was, in Germany and Italy and Spain/Portugal and Chile/Argentina their Nazi and Fascist movements were many times supplied by large businesses A lot of them from the US

 

[Comrade Brian]

Have you ever read the Commie Manifesto? I posted part of it here earlier.

The state is mentioned a number of times. There was definitely supposed to be a government.

I read it.

Just because it mentions the state doesn't mean its going to have one.

You should also read lenin, marx wasn't the only large writer, there was also engels, I find lenin's works sometimes better explaining marx's and less boring and confusing

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/

 

[Comrade Brian]

And the great thing about capitalism is that it's a voluntary system, so if you don't want to work, you don't have to, and so there is no way that anyone is oppressed, because they are there voluntarily.

Oh, yeah if you don't work you could starve, no medical attention, no house, so much better. Wait a minute, capitalists don't work or starve, they inherit and own.

 

[stump]

Wait a minute, capitalists don't work or starve, they inherit and own.

Yeah, the big bad capitalists. Keep your bigotry to yourself. Capitalists aren't some cartoon image of the evil businessman. If we're going to participate in any type of discussion then you'll have to not make these type of bigoted remarks.

Or you can keep it up and this simply devolves into name calling.

 

[stump]

Just because it mentions the state doesn't mean its going to have one.

Yes, I'm sure Marx put that stuff about the state in there to fool us evil capitalists. :rofl

 

[stump]

You seem to be under the delusion that plutocracy can do no wrong, and communism's a f***ed up system that is obselete

Well the latter part of your statement is true but not sure where you get the former. I have never advocated plutocracy, either here or elsewhere, let alone think it can do no wrong. Not sure where you got that from.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Socialism doesn't focus on a bureaucratic planned state, many Socialists would have a planned state, but not bureaucratic, don't most socialists push for an entirely legislative government that's elected, the US president has far too many powers.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Socialism is a planned economy on a micro-economic and macro-economic level, in order to keep such planning in existence, their must be an absolute authority getting all appropriate information, this information would have to be in the form of a paper trail, which is the very definition of a beauracracy, whether that authority is elected, comes through revolution, or assumes power through other means, it will still have to be a beauracracy which is just a step more efficient than communism and still about ten steps less efficient than capitalism.

Also communism was never really supposed to have a government, so there wouldn't be an actual republic, and many people misunderstand anarchists, most anarchists push for a communist society without a period of socialism, communists want a socialist society as transition from capitalism,

Without an organized government a society cannot grow or prosper, it's how much you will allow the organized government to control as per the social contract that sets apart political and economic theories. Too weak of a government and you get a near collapse such as the Confederal States of America which didn't work, too strong of a government and you get an implosion, such as communism or a socialist beauracracy.

p.s.capitalism IS wrong, WAS wrong, and always WILL BE.....you guessed it.....wrong

Nice play on my statement there. :roll: But the facts are not on your side, in the first 200 years of capitalism, it created the wealthiest citizen's outside of the ruling class IN HISTORY (past), Currently, and with few exceptions(even they trade by free market rules) the only nations that have not had to overhaul their economies completely have been capitalist ones(this is your present example), and in the future, capitalism seems to be the only system that can realistically weather the demands of time.

 

[anomaly]

Ok. So, Anomaly, first you want a planned socialist economy that focuses heavily on the beauracracy, then you want the opposite, an anarchist communistic republic, at least pick a side before you bring any kind of argument here.
p.s. communism IS wrong, WAS wrong, and always WILL BE.....you guessed it.....wrong. :mrgreen:

I want an advance from capitalism. So do my comrades. That's all. You, however, are afraid of change. And your saying that communism 'was' wrong displays your ignorance rather well. Communism has never existed, although the Zapatistas have something similar. And they really aren't too 'wrong', atleast not according to the people of the Chiapas region.

 

[anomaly]

Just clarifying. If we both use different defintions of a word then our discussion is of no use. I take it then you use "so far right" to describe every mainstream economist in America? And more broadly, just about everyone in America? We're almost all capitalists.

This point is of no importance, which is why I tried to coast you into not responding to it. Capitalists are to the right, economically. And I think you're wrong, half the people are to the left economically in the USA.

Marx makes claims about what communism will do to society. Those claims are untrue as we have found out. That makes his theories wrong. This is an objective statement. A subjective statement is that your theories are dangerous and made from jealousy.

Show me communism, because you don't seem to be aware of the fact that it's not existed yet, except in very small, localized cases. The Zapatistas can be used as an example, although technically there's is not a commune. Also, pre-capitalist societies have elements of communism to them.

Why? You don't feel the need to read up on capitalist or any other type of accepted economic theory literature. Why don't you need to do that?

I'm about to take an entire semester studying bourgeois economics. Don't get so frightened, there, stump. If I like what they teach me, and then am able to find the 'goodness' of capitalism, I suppose I'll change. But I hgihly doubt that.

Woo Hoo! Subsistence. And you wonder why communism hasn't taken off when you offer everyone "subsistence". :rofl

You don't seem to be aware of the fact that subsistence is much more than capitalism offers many people on Earth. Communism will offer people lasting subsistence, rather than working 18 hour days to put scraps on the table (as many people do). The problem with you is that you base the 'benefits of capitalism' on what capitalism does for Americans. Broaden your vision, and perhaps you'll begin to see where I'm coming from.

 

[anomaly]

Yes, I'm sure Marx put that stuff about the state in there to fool us evil capitalists. :rofl

You put too much emphasis on Marx, stump. We are not dogmatic, we do not need to do everything Marx 'prescribed'. Granted, Marx is very important, but his words are not the words of God. We are perfectly free to change things as we see fit.

 

[anomaly]

Have you ever read the Commie Manifesto? I posted part of it here earlier.

The state is mentioned a number of times. There was definitely supposed to be a government.

Honestly, stump, if you say you've read Marx, please post as such. Marx famously wrote that communism will be when the state withers away. Socialism has a state, a anstion-state. Communism is much different. Some have described it using tiny city-states of ancient Greece, using those city-states to describe what communes may resemble. Anarchism is one of the most important parts of communism, IMO.

 

[anomaly]

LaMid, in one of your posts you again fall prey to the ignorance that communism is defined by the existence of a bureacratic government. This is completely absurd, as communism is defined actually by anarchism. You almost aren't worth debating with.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Well the latter part of your statement is true but not sure where you get the former. I have never advocated plutocracy, either here or elsewhere, let alone think it can do no wrong. Not sure where you got that from.

Advocating capitalism advocates plutocracy

 

[stump]

Half the people in America are against capitalism? :shock: Have any evidence to back that assertion up, anomaly?

Show me communism, because you don't seem to be aware of the fact that it's not existed yet, except in very small, localized cases.

I'm fairly aware of what has and hasn't happened with communism. You don't need to keep parroting the it's never existed line.

 

[stump]

You put too much emphasis on Marx, stump. We are not dogmatic, we do not need to do everything Marx 'prescribed'. Granted, Marx is very important, but his words are not the words of God. We are perfectly free to change things as we see fit.

Boy you guys are slippery. So where do these "wonderful" economic ideas come from then? Lenin? He certainly believed in a state.

Honestly, stump, if you say you've read Marx, please post as such. Marx famously wrote that communism will be when the state withers away. Socialism has a state, a anstion-state. Communism is much different.

Yes, but in order to get there you must go through a period of socialism. In order to re-educate the people (IOW, brainwash). You can't have communism without going through the state first. And because of intrinsic flaws in the theory you can't get past the socialist state.

Which is why, IMHO, communism is so dangerous. It is impossible to actually attempt because you can't get past the first part so we will probably forever have young idealists such as yourself spending way too much energy on a theory doomed to fail. And they'll always be able to cling on to the fact that we've never been able to try the final step.

 

[stump]

Advocating capitalism advocates plutocracy

That's not even close to being true. In a capitalist society the wealthy have less control over government than in other societies.

 

[Comrade Brian]

That's not even close to being true. In a capitalist society the wealthy have less control over government than in other societies.

:bs

How many national leaders here aren't wealthy

Let me guess, NONE

All the people who control our government are wealthy or far above an average citizen

 

[stump]

How many national leaders here aren't wealthy

Let me guess, NONE

:rofl This would be a lot funnier if you didn't actually believe it.

Congressmen and the President earn far more money than the average citizen. Therefore, anyone who is in Congress or President will have more money than the average citizen.

Bill Clinton, for example, did not grow up wealthy. He became wealthy because he became a leader but that is not a plutocracy. In a capitalist society the people who work hardest will become leaders and will become wealthy. This is not plutocracy. Plutocracy is when people who are born wealthy rule, not when rulers become wealthy.

 

[Comrade Brian]

:Congressmen and the President earn far more money than the average citizen. Therefore, anyone who is in Congress or President will have more money than the average citizen.

Bill Clinton, for example, did not grow up wealthy. He became wealthy because he became a leader but that is not a plutocracy. In a capitalist society the people who work hardest will become leaders and will become wealthy. This is not plutocracy. Plutocracy is when people who are born wealthy rule, not when rulers become wealthy.

GW Bush was born wealthy, and his father was also a leader.

And when I found plutocracy in my Webster's dictionary it was rule by rich, not rule by born rich, that seems monarchial.

I looked this up further and I found some things of interest

http://www.beyondplutocracy.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_political_families

 

[stump]

GW Bush was born wealthy, and his father was also a leader.

So this is simply Bush-bashing? I have little respect for that.

And when I found plutocracy in my Webster's dictionary it was rule by rich, not rule by born rich, that seems monarchial.

Perhaps you need to get a better dictionary. As the wikipedia article you listed says plutocracy is about a "wealthy class" not the wealthy. It also requires there be very little social mobility which, at least in America, is not true. As Clinton is evidence there is much social mobility in America.

Look up the word pejorative. As the wikipedia article also mentions you are using the term as such. Next time you want to use it as an insult let me know and I'll take it as such. I thought you were being intellectually honest. My mistake. I now realize you were simply using it as a pejorative term. I guess knowing your bigotry I should have expected as little from you. :doh