Barack Obama: Socialist

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
1) I don't understand if you are speaking of companies beginning this move or government

Well I don't claim to have a method of transition, as a libertarian socialist I believe that the method will be decided voluntarily once the transition is possible. But of course it will be the 'working class' that will initiate the transition; can you imagine a capitalist company taking the initiative?

Did you know that in medieval times the peasants were taxed less and actually had more rights and freedoms than we do now? The only thing that makes our lives seem better is technology, not liberty.

2) Would the unions be national or local? If national, wouldn't this be problematic? If local, how could you prevent them from becoming nationalized?

OK first of by union I just mean a joining of people within their community, not union as in 'labour union'.
Unions would be local within your community. They would only become 'national' by choice, libsoc is non-authoritative.

3) How collective are we talking about? Total? Partial? If partial in which respects?

I'm not sure what you mean by partial or total collective. Collective is another word for Cooperative. In other words companies would be collectively owned by those who work them, as apposed to owned by private individuals.

On this point I disagree. When you say "selfishly making money", I really don't see all that much difference than "real human needs and desires". What you see as greed is simply an extension of self-preservation and I, for one, don't see anything immoral or selfish about making money (and as much money as you can for that matter).

Well the system we have now artificially keeps resources scarce to increase their value. Private entities control resources that should be available for all, not just those who can afford to purchase them. Human needs are secondary to the private collection of resources.

There are enough resources to feed and house everybody. But the selfishness comes from taking more than you need, because you have the 'privilege' to do so, and then selling what you don't need at a profit to those who can't exploit those resources themselves.

Being rich or becoming rich isn't an indictment, nor is it selfish. Money is a tool that can be used in many ways. Some horde, some are generous, and some are in between. In the end, however, it is their money.

Sorry but I do see it as selfish. Capitalism is about self interest. For someone to be rich someone has to be poor, so the rich are a big part of the problem.
Yes money is a tool, used to control and exploit by the ruling classes.

I fail to see what is exploitative. I would agree that monopolies have become the standard and we need a return to increased small business and small corporation sizes, but I think we might disagree as to how to get there.

Labour is exploited by capital. The few have the means and the right (under this system) to exploit the labour of someone else, and the worker who possesses no capital or property is forced to sell their labour to those that own both.
When you work for someone else you are being exploited.
When you buy food you are being exploited, when you pay rent you are being exploited. Capitalism forces people to exploit others to survive themselves.

The ruling classes do nothing but organize and control the working class in order to serve them and make them more money. We don’t need them, we can organize and govern ourselves, but they need us. Why give up the product of your labour to a private individual?
In a collective, as a worker, you would directly benefit from your labour, instead of being on a fixed wage (with the occasional cost of living raise which is really not a raise at all)) that doesn’t change when the company makes more profit.

"what is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working . . . [and so] the power and right to live by exploiting the work of someone else . . . those . . . [who are] forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both." The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 180

"The terms of social compact between these two estates of men may be summed up in a few words: 'You have need of me, because I am rich and you are poor. We will therefore come to an agreement. I will permit you to have the honour of serving me, on condition that you bestow on me that little you have left, in return for the pains I shall take to command you.'" The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 162

Originally posted by ANOK

Well the system we have now artificially keeps resources scarce to increase their value. Private entities control resources that should be available for all, not just those who can afford to purchase them. Human needs are secondary to the private collection of resources.

I'll take these one at a time.

While that isn't untrue, the problem is monopolies. When there is competition the problem is relieved. However, competition has become a bad thing lately and high taxes, oceans of red tape, and regulations haven't helped in that department.

I'd say the problem is one more of a debt based economy given to us by the bankers and squandered by the masses.

Because a man is foolish with money and does not know how to make it work for him does not mean it is solely the fault of the money brokers who lent it to him or the "exploitative" company he works for. It also does not make him entitled to part of what I can earn.

There are enough resources to feed and house everybody. But the selfishness comes from taking more than you need, because you have the 'privilege' to do so, and then selling what you don't need at a profit to those who can't exploit those resources themselves.

That is not a privilege it is a right. I own my property and have worked hard to provide for my family and their future. This does not entail any selfishness or greed on my part, but an effort to further my family even though we might have things and money that might be considered more than I need.

It's the "who determines the need and level or wants each man gets" that was the major hang up with this socialistic approach.

Sorry but I do see it as selfish. Capitalism is about self interest. For someone to be rich someone has to be poor, so the rich are a big part of the problem. Yes money is a tool, used to control and exploit by the ruling classes.

This is not always true. It was this "selfishness" that built the wealthiest society I know about and wealthy societies in the past. The ability to take what you've earned and put it into new ideas and companies has spawned quite a nice comfortable life here in America.

The fundamental problem I see, is not that charity be done, but that it be done by force, guilt, or any other coercive function. I do not see anyone starting one of these collective towns or companies (certainly something well within the framework of America).

I still fail to see how your ideas would be put into practice, and unfortunately until that has been shown, it's nothing but nice ideas in someone's head. Most of these ideas fail where the rubber meets the road, no offense.

I am interested in hearing more, but will point out what I see as wrong. I appreciate the civil conversation though. It seems that has been wanting these days around here.

Labour is exploited by capital. The few have the means and the right (under this system) to exploit the labour of someone else, and the worker who possesses no capital or property is forced to sell their labour to those that own both.
When you work for someone else you are being exploited.
When you buy food you are being exploited, when you pay rent you are being exploited. Capitalism forces people to exploit others to survive themselves.

I simply don't see it that way. This is nothing more than a simple barter system. I have, in my days, traded my work and intellect to earn money.

I currently have broken from that mold to form my own business and I wouldn't say that I have exploited my employees. I am fair to them and try to use the profits to further business for all of us.

The ruling classes do nothing but organize and control the working class in order to serve them and make them more money. We don’t need them, we can organize and govern ourselves, but they need us. Why give up the product of your labour to a private individual?

True, but from this idea has come the labor unions. While they have done some good, in many respects they have aided in creating a very real problem in America.

Perhaps you can organize yourselves, so why don't you? Honest question.

In a collective, as a worker, you would directly benefit from your labour, instead of being on a fixed wage (with the occasional cost of living raise which is really not a raise at all)) that doesn’t change when the company makes more profit.

That sounds good, although there is no law that says you must not run a company this way. There are many good companies to work for as there are many that are run poorly.

Long story short, I think you are putting all your eggs in one basket when it comes to business leaders. Like most things, they are effected by the good and evil natures of man. Painting it with one brush would be to totally discount the gains made and positive charity done by many people.

I do have questions about what you think about State's Rights in this matter. Does it not seem like a reasonable idea to remove many of the national interest in the State and allow the State the run itself as it sees fit provided they remain within the Constitution?

I'd suggest that a state could very well adopt the practice of which you speak and implement it should you have the votes to do so. Another state might choose a different path, thus increasing freedom.

Thanks
KJ

[edit on 26-6-2008 by KrazyJethro]

Originally posted by TKainZero

It is clearly evident that Obama is a socialist... everyone can see this... some, choose to ignore it.

Obama is a Lennist, of the Marx style of socialism.

But Lenin wasn't a Marxist! and neither is Obama.

reply to post by Alethia


Hi there,
if you have been in so many "socialist " countries around Europe and you were so impresed about they freedom,well beeing etc how do you explain the masive exodus of the so many young profesional french and belgian towards London or the UK.
I have been crossing France and Belgium( www.franceremovals.com...) from North to South , from East to West...is depresing, you passing little towns on a Friday night and is empty, not a face , not even a dog to bother you, go to anywhere in UK and you will be amased to see so many people enjoying another end of a very busy week!

Does he not realize that government theft going by the name of taxes takes away motivation from people? Why would anyone want to work hard if they know the government will take a large chunk of the money their hard work has earned?

Socialism really does brood laziness. That was the foundation from which Soviet Communism collapsed. It may work as some far reaching control theory applied to automata or cybernated robots in some highly regulated environment, but humans are just too complex for that.

I just don't understand how those economists could have so easily forgotten that many of us sleep when we're not supposed to, steal when we don't deserve it, lie whenever we know we can get out of it, and ask the government to bail us out whenever we fall back into the hole that we ourselves dug over an extended summer's lazy stupor.

This is what is happening in Europe at the moment, but it's more socioeconomic than financial. Of course, Socialism is such a broad term that it could be applied anywhere.

www.brusselsjournal.com...

A link for your enjoyment. It's a fun read.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by carslake


For that matter, Marx wasn't a Marxist the way that people spin his theories into unrecognizable crap.

The core of his theory was that capitalists earned such large amounts of money because they undervalued the worker. The worker can't do anything about this, because the capitalists own the means of production. This was his wage-fund observation. It was most likely true.

Marx believed that Capitalism (in a much purer form than what we currently have, I might add) should exist until Capitalism ran it's course. This would take several hundred years. At the core, Marx was a capitalist, who simply followed capitalism through to it's logical conclusion. The twist was, he wondered, what's next? The answer he came up with was that after a bloody revolution, Communism would be the logical replacement. It just so happened that there were already communists running around Europe, and that he was financially dependent on one of them, so he wrote that Communist Manifesto stuff (this pales in comparison to his real work, Das Kapital).

Incidentally, we can now safely assume that this Capitalist breaking-point will come sometime between 2050 and 2100, when technological advances lead to an environment in which there are a few very high paying jobs, but most other jobs have been replaced by machines. We will have the benefit of very low prices because we will have to pay for virtually no labor -- but wait, none of us have jobs because there are no jobs. There is a conflict here. What we haven't sorted out yet, is what comes after this point? Communism may actually turn out to be the answer, but here's hoping it's not after a bloody revolution.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


thanks for that it was an education. how about signing up.

Oh, I see Obama is a socialist today! That's a step back from being a full-blown communist, so we'll add that to the list.

Yesterday Obama was a terrorist...

So now he's an anti-christ-terroist-socialist-communist-black man.

That still beats the other guy.

Wow, even in June of '08 there were some intelligent people who knew what was coming.

I had a video sent to me, I don't have time to do a lot of commentary on it right now, but watch and beware:

reply to post by Bombeni


And here we have another person who doesn't understand what 'socialism' is, or why it benefits everyone. The countries with the highest standards of living, and indeed the greatest freedoms, are all socialist. If you want to condemn your country to being behind the rest, simply because you associate 'socialism' with 'communism', and 'communism' with 'The Russians', and 'The Russians' with 'What my parents taught me to fear'.

Brilliant. Congratulations - you, and people who think like you, are far more dangerous for America than Obama ever could be.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Bombeni

 

And here we have another person who doesn't understand what 'socialism' is, or why it benefits everyone. The countries with the highest standards of living, and indeed the greatest freedoms, are all socialist. If you want to condemn your country to being behind the rest, simply because you associate 'socialism' with 'communism', and 'communism' with 'The Russians', and 'The Russians' with 'What my parents taught me to fear'.

Brilliant. Congratulations - you, and people who think like you, are far more dangerous for America than Obama ever could be.

It's not that I don't want to stand in the same line as you for my toilet paper, underneath you are probably an ok person. I prefer the system that my forefathers established, every man to cut his own road in life. But hey at least I gave you a chance to make your plug. You're welcome.

reply to post by Bombeni


I think you are severely mistaken about socialism. It would help you to learn about something before lambasting it, especially in a public forum.

Socialism is all about the individual's right to carve their own path. It just includes protection for people who get a raw deal in life, increasing the happiness, safety, and well-being of everyone in the country, not just those born rich enough to decide their own fate at the expense of the less fortunate.

If what you said was true, then there would be no socialist first-world countries. In fact the US is beaten in quality of living by loads of socialist countries. Happier people, living longer, and living safer. But whatever - you can die earlier, in more danger, and sadder if you want. Your call.

reply to post by davesidious


No it's about cutting your own path and those of others who CHOSE not to achieve the same level of education and prosperity which I did. We already have the welfare system and PLENTY of people are happy on it. It has been revamped so that it isn't abused as it used to be, you have a certain period in which to get a jjjjob. Now, those people may not have high paying glamourous jobs but there is nothing stopping them from wwworking hard and getting an education so that equality is an earned thing.

reply to post by Bombeni


Hint: the welfare system is socialist.

Thanks for proving my point.