Roll Over, Karl Marx

reply to post by JR MacBeth


Your logic is circular. The "workers" have money to "ante-up" toward the purchase of the factory to work in, but they are not workers because they have so much money to begin with. Plus, capital can exist outside of a capitalist system. The reason it's called capitalism is because the role of capital is idealized in an absurd way, I might add.

You should not forget that the factory did not just appear there to begin with. And, what's more, it is only the wasteful capitalist system that creates buildings for no purpose until purchased by someone with "capital" to create a space for workers to work on, making things that will be sold for profit. Only to tear them down when they are not exactly what the next capitalist land owner would like on his newly acquired property.

I'm not sure what absurdity you find in a group of 100 or 200 people working to build a structure from scratch, stocking it with the necessary equipment and means of production and then continuing to work in it as they make what is needed, selling it for a reasonable cost (or bartering if we want to get really "absurd" [idealistic?]) and divvying up what was made in a fair way. If all are supportive, laziness would be castigated in the instant and more than likely deterred because everyone knows that all are required to make the "machine" run smoothly.Likewise with power jockeying and usurpation.

I'm pretty sure this is analogous to the first economies, whereby a family unit would construct their dwelling and then work the land in their various roles towards mutual benefit, no profit taken.

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

Your logic is circular. The "workers" have money to "ante-up" toward the purchase of the factory to work in, but they are not workers because they have so much money to begin with. Plus, capital can exist outside of a capitalist system. The reason it's called capitalism is because the role of capital is idealized in an absurd way, I might add.

You should not forget that the factory did not just appear there to begin with. And, what's more, it is only the wasteful capitalist system that creates buildings for no purpose until purchased by someone with "capital" to create a space for workers to work on, making things that will be sold for profit. Only to tear them down when they are not exactly what the next capitalist land owner would like on his newly acquired property.

I'm not sure what absurdity you find in a group of 100 or 200 people working to build a structure from scratch, stocking it with the necessary equipment and means of production and then continuing to work in it as they make what is needed, selling it for a reasonable cost (or bartering if we want to get really "absurd" [idealistic?]) and divvying up what was made in a fair way. If all are supportive, laziness would be castigated in the instant and more than likely deterred because everyone knows that all are required to make the "machine" run smoothly.Likewise with power jockeying and usurpation.

I'm pretty sure this is analogous to the first economies, whereby a family unit would construct their dwelling and then work the land in their various roles towards mutual benefit, no profit taken.

I think we agree that the "worker" who can ante-up wouldn't exactly be a "worker" anymore. It wasn't supposed to be merely "circular" reasoning, it was deliberately absurd, to point out the absurdity in the socialist myth of "workers owning the means of production".

It's actually even more absurd than that, as you seem to see as well. It's true that the factory does not just appear to begin with. Which should really make us ponder about how such a thing as a "factory" could even come about, in an idealized socialist utopia.

In fact, factories really do not just spring up, history shows that they are routinely CONFISCATED in communist / socialist regimes. Because as we fine-tune the fantasy, it wasn't "exactly" workers "owning" the means of production, all they needed to do was to control the means, in order to (supposedly) benefit "fairly" (choke). And it's pretty easy to control the means of production, at the end of a rifle.

You mention a "wasteful capitalist system" that "creates buildings for no purpose"... It looks like you're "building" the straw man here. No one really creates buildings for "no purpose", not unless we're concerned with artistic pursuits, but even there, the art itself is the rational, even for an utterly absurd and non-utilitarian creation.

Interestingly, I may see what you're trying to get at perhaps. In a "capitalist" system, it does seem that things are periodically built, that seemingly do not manage to find tenants. A couple things going on here. First, it's entirely possible that there is the foul creature who has more money than brains. But usually, that's not what we see.

In the US, we are currently going through an ugly economic disruption that seems to have inflated real estate at it's epicenter. They call it a "bubble". Whole neighborhoods of semi-abandoned buildings. Some areas hit harder than others, but something certainly went wrong.

What went wrong? SOCIALISM. Same song, but socialists play a fun game of pin the tail on the capitalist!

It's very confusing I think for the average person, who is caught up in official rhetoric, and decades of lies, to see what the reality is.

For example, the United States is often considered a bastion of Capitalism. I wonder how many might agree. The fact is, the USA is the world's most powerful COMMUNIST nation. I would suggest looking elsewhere for examples of supposed "capitalist failure".

And yet, "capitalism" has failed, just as socialism has failed.

I won't go into it, this thread is about promoting communism, so let's not muck it up with facts.

You seem to "have a dream", where "100 - 200" people might build something from "scratch", and then proceed to sell the things they produce at a "reasonable" (?) cost, and then apparently (somehow) finding a "fair" way to divvy up "what was made" (the word is "profits", and it's not a dirty word).

Setting aside the massive problems with trite notions such as "fair", and "reasonable", I think it is to your credit that you foresee the potential problem of "laziness".

Not really sure I like your solutions though, sorry to say. You would have the offender "castigated", in the hopes that their "laziness" (tough one to define of course) would be "deterred."

Hmmm. I'm not sure I would like working for you (er, I mean, "me", er, I mean, "us"...ah, whatever. Guess I would just be "shamed" or something, perhaps into latrine duty??)

Yes. Sounds just lovely.

Originally posted by Sphota
I'm not sure what absurdity you find in a group of 100 or 200 people working to build a structure from scratch, stocking it with the necessary equipment and means of production and then continuing to work in it as they make what is needed, selling it for a reasonable cost (or bartering if we want to get really "absurd" [idealistic?]) and divvying up what was made in a fair way. If all are supportive, laziness would be castigated in the instant and more than likely deterred because everyone knows that all are required to make the "machine" run smoothly.Likewise with power jockeying and usurpation.

I'm pretty sure this is analogous to the first economies, whereby a family unit would construct their dwelling and then work the land in their various roles towards mutual benefit, no profit taken.

Sounds like the Amish.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

I won't go into it, this thread is about promoting communism, so let's not muck it up with facts.

False.

Oddly, several people have responded to my post about "communist" countries yet nowhere in my post did I ever define any of the countries listed as, or even use the word, communist. Is that a tactic? Or just a lack of common courtesy?

Anyway, the fact that several of those countries I listed have the word socialist in their official names was relevant to the OP.

Originally posted by Kaiju
Anyway, the fact that several of those countries I listed have the word socialist in their official names was relevant to the OP.

The problem is just because they have the term 'socialism' in their name it doesn't mean they practice socialism and it is a HUGE mistake to think they do.

Why? Because then you can be easily manipulated into accepting tyranny in the guise of freedom.

For a government to call itself socialist is stupid anyway if you really understand what socialism is. Socialism is an economic system and should never be politicized for someones agenda (politics are always agenda driven and manipulated).

Hitler is the classic example of that kind of manipulation. It's pretty obvious Hitler was a fascist, he wrote about how he modeled his form of politics on Mussolini's fascism.

So why did they use the term socialism? You have to understand the politics of those times in Europe. You will never really understand it looking through modern Americanized eyes. It wasn't that the countries had socialist economies, none of them did, they politicized the term in order to control the workers. A way of appeasing them.
Remember there was a huge revolution going on in fascist Spain by the left workers, helped by people from all over the world. It's where WWII really started and Hitler first used his Luftwaffe in combat.
Up until after WWII the working class was very left and socialism was the ideal, and thus it made the workers harder to manipulate.

Fascism is the system we have now, corporations and government controlling the economy and the people. It will get more tyrannical by its very nature. Especially as more people wake up to this reality again. The last thing they want is the people realising we don't need them. The right claims they want less government, ROTF! The right stands for authority, the left non-authority, how can the right be less government? Only in the disney world of American politics.

The term Socialism, and all left terms, have been demonized ever since, again simply to control YOU and coerce you to accept fascism. If you really understand socialism, and what it could do for all of us, you would realise how much we are being denied.

A conspiracy web site and people can't see the biggest conspiracy of them all, that is the power of their manipulation and social conditioning.

Originally posted by ANOK

ANOK, I certainly see your personal enthusiasm for socialism but after rereading this entire thread, and many others like it, I just don't believe it is a sustainable system.
It seems to go against human nature. Humans are naturally competitive. We can't help it, we are primates and everyone desires to be the alpha male or female. In my opinion, most "dreams" are based on this desire. Swimming pool. Expensive vacation. BMW. Loud Harley.
As you and JR MacBeth discussed, laziness would be suppressed. But what about its opposite, ambition? That would have to be suppressed as well, if things were to be kept fair. Scary. Scarier still is who decides what lazy or ambitious behavior is? It just seems that under socialism you don't get to choose how much, or little, you put in, in order to ensure that everyone is 'happy' with all getting the same amount out.
I think capitalism, for all of it's faults, and it certainly has them, is the best system for the most people as it works with our natural tendencies and allows people to choose how far they want to go.

Originally posted by Kaiju

Originally posted by ANOK

ANOK, I certainly see your personal enthusiasm for socialism but after rereading this entire thread, and many others like it, I just don't believe it is a sustainable system.
It seems to go against human nature. Humans are naturally competitive. We can't help it, we are primates and everyone desires to be the alpha male or female. In my opinion, most "dreams" are based on this desire. Swimming pool. Expensive vacation. BMW. Loud Harley.
As you and JR MacBeth discussed, laziness would be suppressed. But what about its opposite, ambition? That would have to be suppressed as well, if things were to be kept fair. Scary. Scarier still is who decides what lazy or ambitious behavior is? It just seems that under socialism you don't get to choose how much, or little, you put in, in order to ensure that everyone is 'happy' with all getting the same amount out.
I think capitalism, for all of it's faults, and it certainly has them, is the best system for the most people as it works with our natural tendencies and allows people to choose how far they want to go.

Actually, studies show the opposite- humans are hard-wired for empathy/sympathy, cooperation, tribalism, and helping others (including strangers). We are extremely social animals, we are only mildly prone to dominating/competitive/violent behaviors (as any animal is), however the foundation of our behavior is largely peaceful/cooperative and mutual.

Check it out:

www.newscientist.com...

abcnews.go.com...

earthsky.org...


And THINK ABOUT IT- as bad as things are... they'd be a LOT worse if people were actually DRIVEN to the kinds of behaviors that our systems promote (cut-throat competition, deception, domination, greed, etc.)

reply to post by Kaiju


Also... people tend to be happier/more trusting in societies/nations where income distribution is more equal:

aworldofprogress.com...

Remember... despite what peoples' naive dreams are... money and acquisition of material possessions will not make people deeply/sustainably happy. The deep/root things that make us happy as HUMANS are lacking in many ways in modern consumerist/Capitalist American society. And as trite as that sounds, it will remain true and present until we change it for the better.

Originally posted by Kaiju
When I look around the world at the countries that have gone very far to the left, U.S.S.R, Cuba, North Korea, etc., I ask myself, do I want to live like those people?
Not on your life.

There has long been a rumor that Capitalists actually commissioned the creation of Communism as an antidote to a popular and spreading wave of socialism. Can't source it. It makes sense and what Capitalist can pass up a nice profitable false flag operation? Anyway it worked because Communism bacame identified as Socialism when in fact it was a minority variant. The rest, as "they" say, is history

Originally posted by lunatux
There has long been a rumor that Capitalists actually commissioned the creation of Communism as an antidote to a popular and spreading wave of socialism. Can't source it. It makes sense and what Capitalist can pass up a nice profitable false flag operation? Anyway it worked because Communism bacame identified as Socialism when in fact it was a minority variant. The rest, as "they" say, is history

Communism would not be an antidote to socialism, communism is a more extreme version of socialism. Both system came from the working class during the industrial revolution. The Russian communist revolution had good intentions but it failed, Russia never become socialist or communist, they were a republic, they had private ownership of the means of production so they were also capitalist.

The countries that the other poster claimed turned 'left' is not really true. Left traditionally was anti-authority (libertarianism), and the right was pro-authority (fascism). In America all that seems to have been twisted around since WWII by the right, who was trying to disassociate itself from fascism that was spreading across Europe before WWII. So those countries can not be left wing, never were, it was just another form of authority masquerading itself as something it wasn't in order to control its population to keep them from rebelling again.

No one wants to live in those so called 'communist' countries, they are not examples of what socialists or communists want. A better example of what we want is what happened during the Spanish revolution of 1936, when the workers collectivized farms and industry, created jobs for everyone, increased production by 20%, repaired, and made free to ride, the cities trams, they repaired the countries infrastructure etc., etc.

You have to quit with the MSM created propaganda and learn what it is really all about. A web site where you all think the government lies about almost everything, except when it come to economics, or politics? Such is the social conditioning we are all subjected to.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by lunatux
There has long been a rumor that Capitalists actually commissioned the creation of Communism as an antidote to a popular and spreading wave of socialism. Can't source it. It makes sense and what Capitalist can pass up a nice profitable false flag operation? Anyway it worked because Communism bacame identified as Socialism when in fact it was a minority variant. The rest, as "they" say, is history

No one wants to live in those so called 'communist' countries, they are not examples of what socialists or communists want. A better example of what we want is what happened during the Spanish revolution of 1936, when the workers collectivized farms and industry, created jobs for everyone, increased production by 20%, repaired, and made free to ride, the cities trams, they repaired the countries infrastructure etc., etc.

Indeed! Lunatux, here are a couple links to basic information on formerly living examples of actual/revolutionary socialism/Anarchism:


The Spanish Revolution
en.wikipedia.org...


The Paris Commune
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

I think we agree that the "worker" who can ante-up wouldn't exactly be a "worker" anymore. It wasn't supposed to be merely "circular" reasoning, it was deliberately absurd, to point out the absurdity in the socialist myth of "workers owning the means of production".

I mean, insofar as we use English to communicate, I suppose semantics will get in the way. Perhaps "owner-operator" would be a better word to use instead of "worker". Just because you put something in an absurd tone or use sarcasm, does not mean it is absurd - that is a device for making an argument and I got that.

It's actually even more absurd than that, as you seem to see as well. It's true that the factory does not just appear to begin with. Which should really make us ponder about how such a thing as a "factory" could even come about, in an idealized socialist utopia.

I'm not sure what you mean by all of this. Is it so absurd that the same manual labor and tools that go towards the directed construction of a for-profit, individually- or corporate owned factory could go towards the construction of a factory that would then be owned by the very people who built it? Why is this exclusive to capital control only? If I really wanted to, I could get 300 like-minded individuals together and make a factory tomorrow, for whatever purpose.

In that the material framework of capitalism is extant, yes, there would be no need to build factories (except perhaps here in America where they all seem to have magically been transported to the third world by Friedman, the faerie godfather of neoliberalism). The factories that do exist should be made use of in a transition, it would be wasteful not to.

In fact, factories really do not just spring up, history shows that they are routinely CONFISCATED in communist / socialist regimes. Because as we fine-tune the fantasy, it wasn't "exactly" workers "owning" the means of production, all they needed to do was to control the means, in order to (supposedly) benefit "fairly" (choke). And it's pretty easy to control the means of production, at the end of a rifle.

You mention a "wasteful capitalist system" that "creates buildings for no purpose"... It looks like you're "building" the straw man here. No one really creates buildings for "no purpose", not unless we're concerned with artistic pursuits, but even there, the art itself is the rational, even for an utterly absurd and non-utilitarian creation.

No straw man, just reality. What was the housing bubble, if not partially the creation of a glut of structures with no real purpose. Yes, we can argue that when one builds a house, one intends for that house to be occupied. But, as can clearly be seen, in the supply chain and labor chain of production, homes are built without the express necessity on the part of the construction company or financier that they be occupied. This is even more emphatically supported by wealthy developers, such as Donald Trump, who sells his "brand" (a hallow shell of a product - a cognitive deception, really) and then when the project goes belly up or has some other issue, he is protected because Trump the physical person is not Trump the Corporation (ironically, Latin for "embodiment").

I live in South Florida...outside of Las Vegas, I think I know what I can see with my own eyes. And my eyes see a lot of unfinished construction projects, unoccupied completed projects, and derelict previously used buildings. Interestingly, there is high unemployment and people complain about jobs being offshored. Any one of those abandoned and neglected blights could be used tomorrow for either housing in the case of residential or working in the case of commercial/industrial. But someone owns them who is waiting for the building to "have a purpose" so it is worth more money.

Interestingly, I may see what you're trying to get at perhaps. In a "capitalist" system, it does seem that things are periodically built, that seemingly do not manage to find tenants. A couple things going on here. First, it's entirely possible that there is the foul creature who has more money than brains. But usually, that's not what we see.

In the US, we are currently going through an ugly economic disruption that seems to have inflated real estate at it's epicenter. They call it a "bubble". Whole neighborhoods of semi-abandoned buildings. Some areas hit harder than others, but something certainly went wrong.

This is not temporal. This is a long time comin', as they say. Detroit and New Orleans were just harbingers. I've lived in the so-called third world and I can tell you what to expect if you'd like to listen. I don't know your economic status, but I know mine and it's what you'd call lower middle-class. Better than working poor, but only because I live with relatives. I'd like to fix that, but I know that middle class is not an easy club to enter right now and most people have hunkered down who will survive this transition (the transition from the US the way we previously conceived of it to it's new globalist status as thirdworld enclave). Those not in the middle class will not be getting into it easily and the middle class itself with have to undergo a radical shift in self-perception and many in it will soon find a new strange limbo between working poor and middle class.

What went wrong? SOCIALISM. Same song, but socialists play a fun game of pin the tail on the capitalist!

Mortgage backed securities is socialism? They should never have torn down the regulation between investment banking and mortgages. That was a bad idea.

Personally, I find it repugnant that anyone should have to live in a high rise tenement or dumpy apartment block. And then, as a society, we wonder what exactly goes wrong with "those people". You cannot solve one problem and then avoid the others, that is why I bring this up here. There is no way to look at the mortgage issue without analyzing the social flaw in mortgages to begin with.

It is 100% unreasonable that any human being born into this world should be denied their own land to live on. And while I agree that communal living is optimal because we are social creatures, there needs to be some attempt other than "rent-controlled" apartments and publicly funded (those that haven't been "gentrified") welfare housing (aka projects). That is bs. And I'm not just talking about the ghetto, I'm talking about trailer parks and other versions of third-world slums as re-envisioned in this country.

See, my view is that a person has rights and despite whatever strange techno-social framework we've created over the century, the fetus is born into this world with some natural contract that needs to be obliged.

It's very confusing I think for the average person, who is caught up in official rhetoric, and decades of lies, to see what the reality is.

I've shaken the rhetoric. That is why I don't toe the Democratic party line like I did back when I first became politically aware. I'm not going to sit and defend socialism, because I've read too much Marx, Bakunin, Freire, Chomsky and DeBord to be 100% in the boat.

I know that State Socialism is not the saving grace, that is for sure, because it is just the inverse of State Capitalism. Really, it's just the angle you view it from:

State Socialism: Government controls the means of production - Cronie-ism and a Bureaucrat class will take advantage of the system by placing themselves high up on the ladder in the state-run factories and plants.

State Capitalism: The Private sector controls the means of production through contracts with the Federal, State and Municipal governments. Again, Cronie-ism and a Boardroom cabal will take advantage of the system, paying off the politicians to secure bids through middle men (lobbyists).

Same thing, different perspective.

For example, the United States is often considered a bastion of Capitalism. I wonder how many might agree. The fact is, the USA is the world's most powerful COMMUNIST nation. I would suggest looking elsewhere for examples of supposed "capitalist failure".

Not at all. How exactly do you see us as communist?? There are no communes. The USSR was not communist (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - i.e., state socialism, i.e., state capitalism). Workers have no control here, if they did, you would not be seeing factories in China making crap to be sold at Walmart where people earn poverty salaries.

And yet, "capitalism" has failed, just as socialism has failed.

I won't go into it, this thread is about promoting communism, so let's not muck it up with facts.

You seem to "have a dream", where "100 - 200" people might build something from "scratch", and then proceed to sell the things they produce at a "reasonable" (?) cost, and then apparently (somehow) finding a "fair" way to divvy up "what was made" (the word is "profits", and it's not a dirty word).

Profit is what is made over and above the real cost of making a product. If it costs overhead for the building (electricity, water, etc.), paying the labor and securing the raw materials, I don't see why any price must be set beyond the operational needs. You might say, "how can my 100-200 friends be trusted to settle on the exact, correct price?" Well, I would imagine that when you are making things in the community where you live, for the community where you live that you would not want to treat your neighbors usuriously. Do unto others, right?

Setting aside the massive problems with trite notions such as "fair", and "reasonable", I think it is to your credit that you foresee the potential problem of "laziness".

Not really sure I like your solutions though, sorry to say. You would have the offender "castigated", in the hopes that their "laziness" (tough one to define of course) would be "deterred."

Hmmm. I'm not sure I would like working for you (er, I mean, "me", er, I mean, "us"...ah, whatever. Guess I would just be "shamed" or something, perhaps into latrine duty??)

Yes. Sounds just lovely.

Maybe a poor choice of words, I'm not talking about a corporal punishment system or a form of demotion, like latrine duty.

Then again, wasn't it Marx who said the assembly line system has detached the worker from his creation, away from the creator of an artisinal craft and reduced to nothing but a drone doing a repetitive task.

The thought would be that, rather than going to IKEA for some semi-built product, partially put together in Thailand or China, a person who had skill with wood working would make the whole chair from scratch. I know, I know, the argument is that then things go slower and are more costly. But then people have jobs, chairs last generations, not three or four years until it chips or warps or breaks and then you send it out to the street corner to be salvaged by some lowly scrapper or disposed of by your city's bulk service.

I'm looking at a nice, strong hutch made by a factory in upstate New York, sometime in the 30s apparently and it is very sturdy and still works the way it was intended. Meanwhile, a dresser that my family and I picked out a year ago at IKEA is already breaking, just like the sagging bookcase I bought at target 3 years ago. For me, it's an obvious answer.

reply to post by Kaiju


Another person above you mentioned that what I said sounded like the Amish. In fact, when the Amish get to a certain population size (I can't remember the exact number, but not over 200), they break off and create a new settlement). This fits with anthropological understandings of the margin between tribal and city dwelling. When population in a group becomes greater than a certain amount, usually around 80 to 90, the ability to maintain social cohesion is stressed. People start to be distant from other members in the group (you can only know so many people).

As far as competition goes, there is nothing in living as a group that says competition is abandoned.

Competition and Capitalism actually seem to be mutually exclusive in that capitalism tends toward centralization of power; monopolization. Also, individual competition between living beings - human or otherwise - does not have as it's purpose an end goal. The competition itself is the goal (i.e., evolution). It is actually anti-competitive for a concentration of power to accumulate in the hands of a small group of people, stiffling real, one-on-one competition, replacing it with some abstract notion of competition based on hostile take-overs and multinational power grabs. That's not competition.

reply to post by ANOK


The way i see it is, if you don't like the fact that your boss is making $50 an hour and your only making $25 an hour for your "skill" (even after hiring you when he didn't have to in the first place) and your tired of making some one ells profit.......

START YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!

Im not the smartest cookie in the box but....... so in order for the US to make the change over to socialism, wouldn't all assets have to be seized? wouldn't every company have to be over thrown in order to take the property, if the property wasn't handed over willingly ?

so that would mean every privet business owner (big and small) would be robbed and every bit of the fruits that they worked so hard for for years, stolen?

So say that these measures would have to be taken in order to "take down the capitalists and give back to the people", how do you think it will play out? every business owner just handing their hard work over?........

I dont think so.

I see arrests, fighting, killing, rioting and OPPRESSION!

The oppression of one man for an other mans gain.

So are we all adults here and agree that 2 wrongs DONT make a wright?

Or are we a bunch of kids and want an eye for and eye?

reply to post by Sphota


Just some questions, and i mean no offense.....

If I really wanted to, I could get 300 like-minded individuals together and make a factory tomorrow, for whatever purpose.

Why don't you just do that? if you could just start a factory and started producing goods and create your own little socialist company, where you and your cohorts share everything evenly? why try to change a nation and a large population against their will? (since there are many who oppose socialism)

Why try to change my life? why try to change my children's lives? why are we not aloud to choose for our self's?
I don't want to live in a socialist country, so why should i have to?

How is it fare, If you can start up a socialistic factory and run it how you see fit and share all the profits with your coworkers in a capitalist world?

when you CAN'T create a capitalist company in a socialistic world?

reply to post by fallow the light


The reason for change is because it would benefit you and me, and take the power out of the hands of the corporations that are screwing up this world with their exploitation of us.

If you work where the workers own the 'factory' you personally would benefit directly from the profits made, not an hourly wage while the owner makes billions for simply owning the property. If all the workers owned the property motivation would increase, productivity would increase, jobs would increase. That was proven during the Spanish revolution when productivity was raised by 20%, and that was also during a civil war.

We can be in control of our own lives and our own economy. There is so much wealth being made, but so few get to benefit from it.

Originally posted by fallow the light
reply to post by ANOK

 

The way i see it is, if you don't like the fact that your boss is making $50 an hour and your only making $25 an hour for your "skill" (even after hiring you when he didn't have to in the first place) and your tired of making some one ells profit.......

START YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!

If I started my own business it would be a COOP. Not running a business on a socialist model would make me a hypocrite.

Not everyone can own a business, the majority of people will still be exploited labour (unless it's cooperative). Unless you want to be a one man business.

Im not the smartest cookie in the box but....... so in order for the US to make the change over to socialism, wouldn't all assets have to be seized? wouldn't every company have to be over thrown in order to take the property, if the property wasn't handed over willingly ?

Not necessarily. If people were taught what socialism really is and where given a true choice then people would start opening businesses ran on the socialist model, there is nothing stopping you doing this and there are many businesses today that do. But capitalists have a monopoly on the economy.

so that would mean every privet business owner (big and small) would be robbed and every bit of the fruits that they worked so hard for for years, stolen?

Nope you are just projecting your incorrect assumptions now.

So say that these measures would have to be taken in order to "take down the capitalists and give back to the people", how do you think it will play out? every business owner just handing their hard work over?........

I dont think so.

Well if it did happen that way then you only have to look at the Spanish revolution. The majority of the private owners gave up their ownership and joined the workers. Why should we have any sympathy for the owners who have been exploiting the workers since the industrial revolution?

I see arrests, fighting, killing, rioting and OPPRESSION!

The oppression of one man for an other mans gain.

So are we all adults here and agree that 2 wrongs DONT make a wright?

Or are we a bunch of kids and want an eye for and eye?

I think you're wrong. Again look at Spain, for two years they had an Anarchist-Socialist system that the workers ran and controlled for the betterment of all. They repaired the public trans systems and made them free to ride, everyone who wanted to work could, production rose by 20%. That was all done while at the same time fighting a war against the fascists.

But I'm not calling for a revolution, they always fail in the end, we need education instead of propaganda. The system we live is never going to tell you what socialism really is because it is a direct threat to the power capitalists hold. The capitalist system only works if we except it. People don't realise how much power they have, the system relies on us being ignorant to the reality of our oppression.

Never underestimate Human potential.

reply to post by ANOK


then why don't you go and do that? you can do that in today's society. why change things for others that dont want them that way? why cant you just go live your life and ill live mine. right now you have the ability to make ur own company and run it how YOU see fit.

why would you force some one ells to run their business the way YOU want?

And do you honestly think that the people will control things? you really don't think that the government wont? our DEM/LIB white house seems to think the government should regulate everything.

it all seems so hypocritical and unfair to me.