I'm a supporter of anarhcy... It is philosophically sound and is in accord with the rules of nature. What's wrong with Anarchy? Or a form of socialism? That would be fairer than Capitolism...

Socialism works in a business sense with a factory or Cooperative. Socialism on a local level is nearly the same as Anarcho Capitalists but just different theory on value and means of production. But when Syndicates get together and gain power they become total bastards and economic wars start, and "Mafioso" mentality kicks in.
Usually the people at the top of Syndicates seek more power and influence and eventually it devolves.
There are "Co Ops" in America. There is no law against running or owning one. And in many ways they work...locally.

STATE SOCIALISM is pure evil. I spit on Marx and Engels and all the State Socialist worms.

I'll fly the yellow and black flag while the Marxist maggots rattle and chant for their thievery from my friends and neighbors by initiation of force to pay for their free lunches.

Capitalism bought us out of the dark ages and gave voice to innovation and imagination. "Central Planning" is a sadistic parasitic anti human invention of Psychopaths. Corporatism is piracy using Fascism as it's blanket.

Bring back Marx and I might pick up a gun...

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
I'm a supporter of anarhcy... It is philosophically sound and is in accord with the rules of nature. What's wrong with Anarchy? Or a form of socialism? That would be fairer than Capitolism...

You can't be an Anarchist and support "State" action, if that's what you mean.

If you want to run a local "Co-Op" or something you're with in the bounds of "Socialism" which gets things done at a local level, but not 'bad', just different theory of "why something should be made".

I have friends that are Anarcho Syndicalists...though I think they're stupid on their means of production and value theories. But friends nonetheless.

But if you mean the State should have central planning then you can't be an 'Anarchist'.

"Capitalism" is the fairest and most advanced model to date. Crony Capitalism which you see with Bankers, Wall Street and such is not even Capitalism. It's not even derived from it. It's a total faux representation.

Originally posted by ANOK

That is not really true, as capitalism is simply 'the private ownership of the means of production', or by the definition of Louis Blanc, "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others.". Whatever those private owners do, and whatever new label is assigned to their action, they are ultimately still capitalists.

So to you "Capitalism" is inherently flawed because Louis Blanc chose to give his personal negative take on it? Or because it's "private ownership of the means of production"? I don't get what your argument is there.

What you are talking about are the symptoms of capitalism, the root disease.

No, the root MODEL. And what I was talking about is Crony Capitalism and Fascism. The fact that they use "Capital" is a correlation, not causation. All modes of production can be perverted to benefit few.

You say it's fair? How can capitalism be fair, when the means to produce are monopolized by a few, who keep production low in order to maintain high prices, that causes many to go without?

Some people use kitchen knives to stab people when they says on the box they are intended for 'dining'. Capitalism was not invented "to maintain high prices while others go out". That's an emotional platitude. What's the value of gold to you? Should it be the same as bread? What about diamonds? What about Plutonium?
Who decides what is a 'necessity' and what is a 'want'? Who produces that want? What about ATS?

What's the 'necessity' or value of a website which is pretty much worthless bytes of digital space? who decides what the 'needs of the many are'? This game has been played before time and again.

It's easy to sit there and say capitalism is the only system blah blah blah, when you really have nothing to compare it to, except despot dictatorial systems that masqueraded as something they weren't.

State Socialists ALWAYS say that, yet every "Socialist" nation devolves into that...why? Why is it when the State is involved people suffer, every single time through the 20th century? Why are there only 4 nations left in the world with a pure socialist model? Why is there NOT ONE pure Socialist Economy in Europe or any advanced Nation?

It's a failure. that's why. The only people with the means and power to run the show is the State, who HAS to be involved in central planning, which in turn gives them control of labor, which in turn makes you a tax Serf, which in turn stops innovation and freedom of property and growth which in turn becomes slavery.

Always does and always will.

I would respond to your quotes but I don't like longwinded quotes from other people. Formulate your OWN ideas and opinions then ask me a question or suppose an answer.

Socialism is nice to talk about. It's a nice idea. But it never ends up the way Utopians frame it.

And I've read more about Marx than most people FYI. Marx was a PIG.

All Marxists are pigs and I stand by that.

Originally posted by ANOK

Central Planning of the economy was only supposed to be a temporary situation in order to increase production to the point that money become irrelevant, and communism became possible. It would still ultimately be direct democratically controlled by the workers. Central planning does not necessarily mean totalitarianism. It just means everyone realizing we have a common goal, and to come together to achieve that goal. Instead of a few chasing profits and the expense of the many, it's the many producing what we need to better our communities.

"Central Planning" to most by default means STATE involvement. And it usually devolves into some aspect of totalitarianism. It's all a question of how far you allow it to go.

This whole idea of individualism is a myth.

PIGS always say that.

You don't live in the wild west anymore, to be part of a society requires some input, otherwise you'll be living in mansions surrounded by crumbling bridges, and pot holed roads, and governments that use your money, and flesh and blood, to expand capitalist markets, and control them.

My State of California squandered it all. The pot holes and roads you speak of went to projects I didn't have a say in or a vote on.

You either have to accept taxes and government, and war, and wage slavery, and soul destroying consumerism, or you embrace collectivism, and as a community, fix the problems.

I embrace neither. Collectivism is a disease. You're speaking of LOCALISM, which is what I embrace. And Socialism is not part of that equation nor does it need to be to achieve that objective.

What prevents Americans from "taking charge" is, according to the authors, our long and abiding allegiance to "individualism" -- the belief that "the good society" is one in which individuals are left free to pursue their private satisfactions independently of others, a pattern of thinking that emphasizes individual achievement and

MORE PIG collectivism taught by the Neo Elitists.

The economy doesn't have to be like it is, it is an artificial creation.

Nope, economies in one form or another have been around since the beginning of time.

All we need is the labour and the means, we have more than enough of both, but the means are denied to the workers who sit on dole ques. The means didn't go anywhere. The capitalist simply removed their contribution to the production of needed resources because they are profit driven, not needs driven. It's ridiculous that anyone should go without, anywhere. That is not what I would call fair.

"Needs driven"? LOL that canard. Who decides what a 'need' is? YOU? A central panel of 'experts'? And what happens when people outgrow the 'need'? Bread lines and vouchers? We've seen it before.

ATS isn't a need. Your computer isn't a need. Your house. Your clothes. Half of the Chinese CRAP in your possession. Yet you own it...you bought it. All the advances in tech and science...who decides if that is a 'need'?

Who decides who should go 'with'? That invariably involves the USE OF FORCE to take from some so that others may prosper. Again, we've been there.

I forgot to answer the OP sorry.

OWS got hijacked by 'gimme gimme' Marxist RATS and PIGS and infiltrated by fake Anarchists (kids with black hoodies and matches)

OWS was a great idea at first, I supported it. But the Elitist Socialistas infiltrated and tried to change the movement to a Left Cover/Obama/Left Establishment circus.

All the media pundits , authors, writers, journalists, actors, etc that FLOCKED to the OWS meme are almost all self described Socialists and even worse, at the center of the planning and management of the OWS groups were self described MARXISTS.

RATS and PIGS.

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
"Central Planning" to most by default means STATE involvement. And it usually devolves into some aspect of totalitarianism. It's all a question of how far you allow it to go.

Under Marxism yes it does, but again it was only a temporary situation, and the workers still owned the means of production.

Not all socialists are Marxists, including me, and do not support the idea of a state system.

PIGS always say that.

So I'm a pig now? You fail to understand what collectivism is and how we need to work together as a whole to better our world for all of us. Individualism is the myth that we don't need to cooperate with each other which is BS as it's worst. It works well for capitalism where individual competition and wealth creation is the model.

My State of California squandered it all. The pot holes and roads you speak of went to projects I didn't have a say in or a vote on.

And why didn't you do anything about it? Because you have no power to do so. Socialism gives you that power.

I embrace neither. Collectivism is a disease. You're speaking of LOCALISM, which is what I embrace. And Socialism is not part of that equation nor does it need to be to achieve that objective.

Collectivism is not a disease lol, it is simply people working together for a common goal. It does not take away your individuality.

It is the collective (group) control of the means of production, not of your personal life.

We are naturally collective creatures, we can not survive alone, however much you think you can.

MORE PIG collectivism taught by the Neo Elitists.

Can't debate the point?

"Needs driven"? LOL that canard. Who decides what a 'need' is? YOU? A central panel of 'experts'? And what happens when people outgrow the 'need'? Bread lines and vouchers? We've seen it before.

ATS isn't a need. Your computer isn't a need. Your house. Your clothes. Half of the Chinese CRAP in your possession. Yet you own it...you bought it. All the advances in tech and science...who decides if that is a 'need'?

Who decides who should go 'with'? That invariably involves the USE OF FORCE to take from some so that others may prosper. Again, we've been there.

You are again not understanding the point. No one has to have anything taken by force.

We already have the capacity to produce enough to feed cloth and house everyone but capitalism creates artificial scarcity. It has nothing to do with ATS or computers. The point isn't having to give up what you have for others, the point is everyone could have those things.

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
"Central Planning" to most by default means STATE involvement. And it usually devolves into some aspect of totalitarianism. It's all a question of how far you allow it to go.

a} AFAIK, ANOK isn't advocating central planning, necessarily. She is an internationalist it seems, which is an area where we disagree; but I don't think there is advocacy of central planning as such.

b} Totalitarianism has no relation to the prevalent ideology. Totalitarianism occurs as a result of psychopaths dominating a society. The reason why people think that any system other than Capitalism will result in totalitarianism, is because that is what the psychopaths who still run society, want people to think. The only real difference between Russian Communism, and contemporary American Capitalism, is that the American government wants people to have the illusion that they still have some freedom, because it makes the people easier to manage. In Russia, with the gulag and other such things, it was very overt.

Totalitarianism is still going to ultimately result, however; you can see it happening in both the UK and America. The psychopaths have learned from WW1 and 2 that the direct approach does not work, so they are being a lot more subtle and gradual about it now.

PIGS always say that.

I'm not sure how calling people names is constructive.

ANOK possibly goes a little further than I would. I have been learning in very practical terms recently, that as long as your community has integrity, there is a direct proportional relationship between a person's social network, and their individual well being. The proverb that, "You are who you know," unfortunately (and I say unfortunately because I despise narcissism, which can be the down side of social interaction) has a lot of truth to it.

You don't live in the wild west anymore, to be part of a society requires some input, otherwise you'll be living in mansions surrounded by crumbling bridges, and pot holed roads, and governments that use your money, and flesh and blood, to expand capitalist markets, and control them.

I embrace neither. Collectivism is a disease. You're speaking of LOCALISM, which is what I embrace. And Socialism is not part of that equation nor does it need to be to achieve that objective.

Aquarius as a period, astrologically speaking, is co-governed by two different planets; or principles, if you prefer. The collective, (Saturn) and the individual. (Uranus)

The most important task for us at the moment, then, is to figure out how (to quote Spock) to balance the needs of the many, with the needs of the one. Both are important, and neither can be sacrificed entirely. As I have said before, while she is a valuable source of information, ANOK goes further than I am willing to. I believe in balance.

MORE PIG collectivism taught by the Neo Elitists.

This is a false dichotomy. You are confusing non-psychopathic ideology with the psychopaths who claim to represent it, and who have deliberately done so, in order to discredit it.

Psychopaths seek stratification and elitism, and they will implement those, irrespective of the ideology they claim to represent. The only reason why they pretend to want equality themselves at all, is because they know that non-psychopaths want it. Psychopaths themselves, however, want the opposite; stratification, elitism, hierarchy.

That is why you were never going to get equality in Russia or China, irrespective of what the psychopaths claimed. Elitism is one of the only means psychopaths have of deriving any form of psychological gratification. Sadism is another. They enjoy making people unhappy in the same way that non-psychopaths enjoy making people happy. They have an inverted incentive and motivation system.

"Needs driven"? LOL that canard. Who decides what a 'need' is?

Try holding your breath for more than probably 5-6 minutes.