The "Occupy are Socialists," Megathread

Originally posted by eboyd
check out my thread, especially the first post, as i think it will show that what i am speaking of is not as utopian as you think. this principle has, is, and continues to work in the real world to this day:

Facts About Socialism

Unfortunately the trolls have now arrived, but this was originally a good thread, eboyd.

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...

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by eboyd
check out my thread, especially the first post, as i think it will show that what i am speaking of is not as utopian as you think. this principle has, is, and continues to work in the real world to this day:

Facts About Socialism

Unfortunately the trolls have now arrived, but this was originally a good thread, eboyd.

very true, unfortunately. it is telling that the people who don't care to actually read are the ones who disagree with what i have to say and dismiss it automatically without any research.

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 PaxVeritas
"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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Capitalism is fair?

Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

Artificial scarcity

The one strategy open to crisis-ridden capitalism that doesn't risk class antagonism is the creation of artificial scarcity through regimes of intellectual property. Sander explains, however, that the ‘production of innovation' is no replacement for the production of value.

Whether today's global overcapacity is seen as cause or effect of the economic crisis, one thing is certain: it isn't easy to make a profit in a world awash with overproduction. Capitalism is born in conditions of scarcity and is unable to function outside of them. So it seems logical that the crisis creates a tendency to restore these conditions artificially. But how does this affect the chances of the global economy to find a way out of its present predicament?

Artificial scarcity in a world of overproduction: an ecape that isn't

The steep decline in worldwide car sales is causing automakers to secrete over-produced cars in suspect seats, like on Nissan’s UK on picture below. After jump you can view a growing stocks of unsold cars around the world!

How Automakers Stashing Unsold Cars?! (photos) » honda-stocks-of-unsold-cars-sheerness-england-img_13

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
Capitalism bought us out of the dark ages and gave voice to innovation and imagination.

Not really true, capitalism was the system that replaced feudalism. The dark ages ended in the 11th century, feudalism gave way to capitalism in the 17th century due to new laws allowing the nobility to sell parcels of land, and the owner the right to deny use to the commoners. This led to commoners moving to cities, and private owners of capital (capitalists) took advantage of this, and started producing goods, using 'the commoners' as cheap labour, to sell to other nobles in the city shops. This led to the industrial revolution and the mass exploitation of 'the commoners', no longer allowed to live off the land, and the system of wage slavery and reliance on the private owners for a 'job'. Which led to the formation of alternative ideas to that system, which the first was 'socialism', a system in which instead of a private owner the workers themselves would own the means to produce for the 'free-market' (a modern term not used then obviously).

"Central Planning" is a sadistic parasitic anti human invention of Psychopaths. Corporatism is piracy using Fascism as it's blanket.

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.

This whole idea of individualism is a myth. 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. 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, in your community.

In the Good Society, sociologist Robert Bellah and his coauthors challenge Americans to take a good look at themselves. Faced with growing homelessness, rising unemployment, crumbling highways, and impending ecological disaster, our response is one of apathy, frustration, cynicism, and retreat into our private worlds. The social problems confronting us today, the authors argue, are largely the result of failures of our institutions, and our response, largely the result of our failure to realize the degree to which our lives are shaped by institutional forces and the degree to which we, as a democratic society, can shape these forces for the better.

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 self-fulfillment.

Creating the Good Society

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

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

Maybe if you truly understood Marx?....

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
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.

No I was replying to your claim that capitalism is a fair system. Not because of it's definition, but because of it's very nature.

I point out the definition to dispel the myth that capitalism is 'free-markets'. The original definitions of the term still holds true. Capitalism is still the private ownership of the means of production which is still "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others", which was the original first definition.

The state, on behalf of owners of the means of production, appropriated the term to hide it's true meaning and it's consequences. Done to coerce you into supporting an economic system that really doesn't have the best interests of the whole at heart.

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.

OK first off all capitalism is cronyism, and fascism is a political system that allow the private ownership of the means of production, capitalism.

Socialism puts the ownership and control of the means of production into the hand of the workers, the majority, this makes it very difficult for a minority group to gain coercive power. Also people would be made aware of the dangers of allowing this. With an empowered population, instead of the passive one we have now, we would not allow ourselves to be coerced into being wage slaves for someone else again.

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?

Capitalism wasn't invented. It came about because minority land owners changed the laws to allow them to bar access to the commoners to live off the land. When all land is privately owned by a minority group, that in a sense puts the rest of the people under their control.

Value of goods is not the point. Of course gold would be more expensive than bread. The problem is capitalists keep resources, such as bread, artificially scarce in order to maintain profits. If the bread company made enough bread to feed everyone they would not make profit. Profit over people is not a fair system.

Diamonds are one of the best examples of artificial scarcity. Diamonds are not rare, they are just under-mined.

De Beers is able to create an artificial scarcity of diamonds through its wholly-owned Central Selling Organization (CSO), thus keeping all prices high.

The Diamond Empire: Oppenheimer family's cartel, Artificial scarcity

Artificial scarcity is a necessary condition of capitalism, always has been.

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.

Who cares about web-sites? We are talking about Human NEEDS that go unmet, food, housing, the ability to fend for yourself without relying on a private owners to give you a 'job'.

Continued....

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?

Again there are no socialist countries! The state is involved in capitalist countries!

What four nations have socialist models?

To explain why there are no socialist countries would take a book to explain, but look at the Spanish revolution and what the PTB did to stop it, which included WWII.

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.

It is not a failure because it has never been given a chance to work. Capitalists have too much power to allow that to happen. Socialism doesn't fail because of socialism it fails because of capitalism.

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.

Well unless you read those quotes you are being unfair in this discussion because those quotes are very important to my points. If you fail to read stuff because you think it's long-winded you will stay forever ignorant.
It's typical of people to refuse to study and understand the other side of the argument, for fear of finding out it's true.

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.

Socialists are not utopians that is just more made up crap. No system is perfect, and only an idiot would think Humans would all be perfect people in any system. Capitalism allows for far more corruption and unfairness than socialism. Capitalists, in the west at least, have the power to cover their actions, manipulate the press etc. Make it appear they are saints working in a world of devils.

The left, socialism etc., has been demonized since the time when the workers started to demand rights. If it wasn't for them you working conditions would never have improved from the industrial revolution.

If it wasn't for the real left (not the democrats lol), children would still be working in sweat shops, oh wait they still do....



Capitalism is only good from your lucky perspective.

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.

Occupy Wall Street = Lest We Plutocracy (animated anagram gif)