Socialist legend Tony Benn goes in on Thatcher and big government

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The words and definitions are all political rhetoric. A system of socialist democracy can support and flourish its people as much as capitalism and communism, the bad thing is when morally unrelativistic people are put into positions of dire responsibility they fu.ck sh.it up (PERIOD) Reason, philosophical numerous examples of worlds fudging each other over.
edit on 29-7-2012 by dizTheWiz because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mee30

Look to be honest what you say doesn't make any sense! Capitalism doesn't stop people producing anything! GOVERNMENT does! Capitalism encourages people to produce things! If people like blue cars then blue cars will be produced because that is the demand! The free market will supply whatever it is that is wanted!


Capitalists keep resources artificially scarce by underproduction. If a company over produces it loses profits.

But companies do not produce enough to meet the needs of people. There is no demand if the people can't afford the product.


If you want to start a new business though the GOVERNMENT demands that you do a whole bunch of things like obtain insurance pay a certain wage pay a certain tax yada yada... This has nothing to do with capitalism!


I didn't say it did. But do you think private individuals should be able to run a business with no insurance? No oversight to protect the worker, the consumer?

The government has to appease the people, it has to maintain order. It can not be seen to be obviously working for the capitalist class. When a capitalist entity wants to lobby the government for change they use their wealth and throw money at politicians. All we have is protest and voting.


Yes socialism NEEDS a government else how the hell would you enforce anything? How would you stop someone owning their god damn business? But within a free market system (we do not have and have never had a free market) there is nothing stopping you and a bunch of your pals joining together to make a co-operative! Is there? You could have a socialistic business in a capitalistic system!


No it doesn't, enforce what?

You don't have to stop someone owing a business. Under worker ownership workers make more money, and have more say, so why would workers work for a private owner if they didn't have to?

You can own anything you want under socialism, you just won't have much luck trying to convince someone to work for you.


But even within a co-operative you would surely have RULES! What if someone was not turning up etc! You would not pay them! This is capitalism!


Of course there would be rules, voluntary and decided by ourselves, not an authority we have no control over. That is not capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Capitalists have a monopoly on production, they control the access to resources we all need.

I have no problems with rules lol.



It seems you have little idea as to what is going on in the world! Capitalism is not authoritative! But yes if you do not work you will be fired! But it is a fair exchange! It would be the same in a socialistic system! And also you would have the problem of too many chiefs not enough indians! People all want different things! There would be a lot of in fighting as to what should be produced! How would you deal with that? Democracy? HA, So the mob would be the authority!

I don't mean to be nasty but you are in fairy land with your socialist ideas...


Yes capitalism is authoritative, it has the power hire and fire, you are under it's control. You have no power in the workplace. It creates a hierarchy through economic power. Capitalists have control of the state, many politicians and presidents are capitalists.

I don't mean to be nasty but you are woefully naive mate.



Oh dear! Honestly I'm just left scratching my head! EVERYONE has DIFFERENT needs! It is more fairyland non-sense I'm sorry... I private owner in a free market would have an interest in the community because if he didn't supply what people want he would be out of damn business! In the system we have now because of GOVERNMENT they get a bail out!


If companies had interest in the community they wouldn't send jobs overseas to cheaper labour markets.

The only interest is the exploitation of labour to make profit. Once profit is not being made the community be damned, the company either moves or closes. If the workers owned the means to produce that wouldn't happen.


Oh my god! No it is not! Right now it is because of GOVERNMENT! But take them out of the equation, why would capitalism not work?


If you took government out then the capitalists would have full rein to exploit with no oversight. Think of the industrial revolution when there were very little government control. Capitalists would be the ultimate authority.
Whomever controls the economy, control the world.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws.

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Continued...

edit on 7/29/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Why do you think you have weekends, holidays, 40 hour week, minimum wage, safety in the work place, overtime pay, the right to address grievances etc? We have them because of socialists, the labour movement. Say goodbye to them with capitalism and no government.


My head just hurts with what you are saying because you couldn't be more wrong!


My head just hurts with what you are saying because you couldn't be more naive lol.

The only way we could have a system with no government is with workers common ownership. Capitalism creates class divisions with the capitalist class at the top.

Anarchism has always been a form of socialism. The ultimate goal of all left-wing ideologies is free-association...


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.


Free association (communism and anarchism)

What you have been taught is what the capitalist class has taught you, and it's all lies in order to gain support of your own exploitation. What you have been told is socialism is not socialism. You would understand this if you actually read some books on the subject.

edit on 7/29/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Political and economic terms have been twisted from their original, and still valid, definitions, in order to suit the agenda of the capitalist class.

The term 'capital' goes back 12th century when it referred to funds, stock, money, or money carrying interest.

The term 'capitalism' was first used by the French socialist Louis Blanc, who defined the term as, 'the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others'.

Marx later redefined the term as 'the private ownership of the means of production.' Which means the same as Blancs definition, but is more distinct and accurate. As not all appropriation of capital to the exclusion of others is capitalist, but capitalism is the appropriation of capital to the exclusion of others.

The term 'socialism' was first used in 1832, in the French newspaper Le Globe by Pierre Leroux. The term was used by people who preferred an equal society, and apposed capitalism's class structure and inequality. The term is also used to refer to the workers common ownership of the means of production (depending on context), which is the way I use the term, because socialists believe that worker ownership is only way to true equality. Like the term capitalism, the definitions can be worded differently, but ultimately mean the same thing.

"To organize society in such a manner that every individual, man or woman, should find, upon entering life, approximately equal means for the development of his or her diverse faculties and their utilization in his or her work. And to organize such a society that, rendering impossible the exploitation of anyone's labor, will enable every individual to enjoy the social wealth, which in reality is produced only by collective labor, but to enjoy it only in so far as he contributes directly toward the creation of that wealth." Pierre Leroux

In simple terms, 'the workers ownership of the means of production'. Or 'free association of producers'. Again means the same thing.

After WWII, and the decimation of the working class, the capitalist state through media convinced the working class to partake in social climbing, as apposed to the old working class values of solidarity, and to work towards becoming middle class instead of working for ownership of their work places. Liberalism, that had been around as long as socialism, was sold to the public as socialism. That would not have worked prior to WWII.

"Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be" Winston Churchill[/], 1908, when he was Liberal Party candidate for Dundee.

He was right, but he didn't envision what happened. What most people think of as socialism is Liberalism. Liberalism is capitalism with a social safety net. Capitalists like liberalism, they used to support the Liberal Party.
Because it doesn't cost them anything, but it keeps the people appeased enough to leave them alone. It also keeps people from realising what socialism really is. That is what the capitalist class fear, an organized labour movement who know the truth. Like prior to WWII and the Spanish revolution. I believe, arguably, that WWII was more of a reaction to that, than history tells us. An organized and aware population is a very powerful thing, the system is set up to keep that from happening. The old divide and conqueror. It's one reason for high immigration. They know that multiculturalism will keep us from becoming organized.

Individualism keep us from becoming powerful, we are all concerned with our personal needs and interests, but we ignore the collective needs and interests that we all have. Needs and interests we can not do anything about as individuals. It would take our collective strength to change anything for the better of us all.

edit on 7/29/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Capitalists keep resources artificially scarce by underproduction. If a company over produces it loses profits. But companies do not produce enough to meet the needs of people. There is no demand if the people can't afford the product.


Lol really, when was the last time you had difficulty buying something? Crazy! Yes they can of course, but they can just slow down production for a while... There are times when companies lose profits you know? This does happen! The price of a product will never change demand! If people want something they want it! Whether they can have it or not is another story! Most people can not afford a Ferrari that doesn't stop people wanting one, does it?




I didn't say it did. But do you think private individuals should be able to run a business with no insurance? No oversight to protect the worker, the consumer? The government has to appease the people, it has to maintain order. It can not be seen to be obviously working for the capitalist class. When a capitalist entity wants to lobby the government for change they use their wealth and throw money at politicians. All we have is protest and voting.


Nothing would be any different in a socialist society! lol, you would just have groups of people running the companies! It would still be private to a degree! Otherwise I can just come in and remove all your stock yeah? Sounds great! When does it start? Please don't be silly...

I think people should be allowed to make mistakes! I think companies should thrive from their reputation! Say a company acted dangerously or were killing people, say you found out... Would you shop there? Come on now! Most times it is civilians or reporters uncovering scandals anyway! Nothing would change without government!

Companies lobby government because it is there! And they LOVE the regulations because it kills the competition! You or I could not start up a business so easy! That is good for the big corporations! They use the government force and they would be stupid not to! I advocate capitalism WITHOUT government so what is your point anyway?




No it doesn't, enforce what? You don't have to stop someone owing a business. Under worker ownership workers make more money, and have more say, so why would workers work for a private owner if they didn't have to? You can own anything you want under socialism, you just won't have much luck trying to convince someone to work for you.


LOL So you say! What is your proof for this? And if you are so certain then what do you have against capitalism? What you should focus on is getting rid of government! Or just starting a socialist company! After all the workers would get so much more and everyone would jump ship, right? So why hasn't that happened already? Are you the only socialist?

Of course people will have their own companies! Like imagine a plumber or electrician or window cleaner etc... There are many many more examples! But you are coming round to more of my thinking! Lets have a free market of ideologies! You will have socialist groups and communist groups and capitalist groups etc... The only thing that shouldn't be accepted is FORCE/TYRANNY what we have now... Then the best system will be allowed to flourish... Don't you think that is a great idea? That is what I want! FREEDOM!




Of course there would be rules, voluntary and decided by ourselves, not an authority we have no control over. That is not capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Capitalists have a monopoly on production, they control the access to resources we all need. I have no problems with rules lol.


My god man! lol How are you going to get everyone to agree to these rules? You have control over the authority, you can decide VOLUNTARILY to not work there! Capitalism is not forced! They do not have a monopoly! You could start a small business and build it up, especially if government was out the way! Because you wouldn't have all the overheads... All you will have to do is offer something cheaper than the big boys! And as they are artificially keeping prices high to gain profits it should be no bother for you! Right? Capitalism is much more than private ownership, you keep repeating that sound bite... But as I have said socialist businesses would be private too! Or I could just walk in and take what I like! lol




Yes capitalism is authoritative, it has the power hire and fire, you are under it's control. You have no power in the workplace. It creates a hierarchy through economic power. Capitalists have control of the state, many politicians and presidents are capitalists. I don't mean to be nasty but you are woefully naive mate.


And so would a socialist company! Who would enforce the rules? What if you break them? Come on!.... cont...



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You have the power to quit and go somewhere else if you do not like the place you work! Hell you even have the power to work for yourself! (this is what I do!)... No politicians are socialist, that's why they take tax! And spread the wealth... But like their capitalistic tendencies it is CRONEY! Now look lets just get the state out of the way here! Neither you nor I want it.... That is something we can agree on, so lets leave them out of it... Imagine we are in a stateless world okay?




If companies had interest in the community they wouldn't send jobs overseas to cheaper labour markets. The only interest is the exploitation of labour to make profit. Once profit is not being made the community be damned, the company either moves or closes. If the workers owned the means to produce that wouldn't happen.


Well when they take jobs overseas they are able to produce the products cheaper and bring them here cheaper which helps us out right? Now yes some companies do not pass these savings on! Like fashion clothes for example... Well guess what? I do not buy fashion labels... lol... If people want to then that is their CHOICE! You can not stop what people want... In a free society there would be no copyright laws (no government remember) so you could make nike all you wanted and undercut them... If your garment was just as good but a fraction of the price which do you think people will buy?

Workers can own the means to produce NOW! Tell me what would stop you starting up a company like that now? NOTHING! You would face even more problems though! You would end up with mod rule! Or as they call it, democracy... You will still have little power/say... Especially if the company was large! And it would be right? Everyone will leave capitalism for your socialism, right? So all good.





If you took government out then the capitalists would have full rein to exploit with no oversight. Think of the industrial revolution when there were very little government control. Capitalists would be the ultimate authority. Whomever controls the economy, control the world. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild


Socialism would be no different without government! What would stop other people forming that are not nice and well intention like you (I know you are fella but you are just wrong)?... The thing is they have always used government and the force of government... In a free society they would not control the money because ANYONE could start their own currency! Thats why the croney capitalist love government! Why the hell do you think there still is one? Why do you think they allow people to control the money supply? They go hand in hand!

I'm talking of a society that doesn't have government so they will not have that control...



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Capitalism is also referred to as the system that replaced feudalism.

Under feudalism the 'commoners' were allowed to live on unused land. Sometimes they would have to pay by doing work for the owner, or paying with crops etc. In the 1750's the laws changed allowing land owners to sell parcels of land, and also allowed land owners to deny it's use to anyone, in use or not.

This forced the commoners into towns looking for work. The land owners saw a way to make products cheaply to sell to other wealthy land owners by exploiting the commoners. The commoners had no choice, no liberalism yet, but to either starve, or work dangerous, long, low paid hours. The commoners were no longer autonomous and were at the mercy of the 'private owner', the capitalist.

The commoners became the working class, the land owners the capitalist/ruling class. The labour movement rose up out of the factories and mills, and the idea that they would be better off if they owned and ran the factories themselves. The left were anti-statists and socialism was born out of the people, well before government, and those seeking power, appropriated left-wing terms for their own agenda's.


The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

Don't confuse the statists use of left-wing terms with the real left-wing. There is no left-wing in government, no socialism. Liberalism is not socialism and not even left-wing, it's right of center. You have all just been sold two sides of the same coin, left and right is meaningless in the context of modern government. This suits the capitalist class just fine, even if they appear to appose it. Nothing is as they tell you, truth mixed with lies in order to confuse.

I am debating using the original meaning of terms, you're all trying to argue using twisted perverted definitions that are designed to confuse, and keep people arguing rather than organising. That is why it's important to know your history kids...

edit on 7/29/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Why do you think you have weekends, holidays, 40 hour week, minimum wage, safety in the work place, overtime pay, the right to address grievances etc? We have them because of socialists, the labour movement. Say goodbye to them with capitalism and no government.


LOL I know many people that do not have weekends etc... Minimum wage keeps people out of work! You only have certain rights when you have worked there for a year and it is a long a laborious process... It is all a ruse! To make you think that you are getting a good deal! Besides, I work for myself so.... And you say good luck with no government... LOL You don't want one either! So it will be the same then! Oh no but apparently everyone is magically going to see the light of socialism because of how great it is although that hasn't happen AT ALL... lol




My head just hurts with what you are saying because you couldn't be more naive lol. The only way we could have a system with no government is with workers common ownership. Capitalism creates class divisions with the capitalist class at the top. Anarchism has always been a form of socialism. The ultimate goal of all left-wing ideologies is free-association...


LOL Not at all, it is the reverse! Lets look at this logically... Your system REQUIRES everybody to think exactly as you do! My system would allow every type of ideology under the sun! (except the use of force/tyranny I think most will agree with that)... Yet I am the naive one? Come on! Who is telling you all this non-sense? There will be classes yes, but that is because people will e allowed to make mistakes! Tell me do you think that if I make a mistake, YOU should be FORCED to pick up the pieces? Again and again? Come on, please...




What you have been taught is what the capitalist class has taught you, and it's all lies in order to gain support of your own exploitation. What you have been told is socialism is not socialism. You would understand this if you actually read some books on the subject.


LMAO... You really think that I am mainstream? That I believe what I am told? So this is an appeal to books? Am I not allowed to use my own mind? I have flirted with the idea of socialism and communism and in certain circumstances I think it's great... BUT It should be a CHOICE! Personally I don't want to be part of any group, but I would fight for your right to do so! Would you afford me the same?

BTW Just to let you know, I home educate, I do not vaccinate, I have 3 children and they are all fit and healthy... We rarely go to the doctors but when we do we check to see what the medicine is! We question EVERYTHING and make informed decisions...

We teach ourselves... For you to think I've been brainwashed is pretty funny! Hell my son was born at home unassisted! IE No doctor or midwive etc, we did it on our own!

All I want is the end of tyranny...Really arguing over our preferred philosophies is going to be pointless... Why not start with things we can agree on... You do not want government, neither do I... Okay so far?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


My friend I am not using any terms at all... I am using my OWN brain! Not the brain of carl marx! Just because he says something doesn't make it so!

I am for individual property rights...

I am for the non aggression principle...

I am for freedom...

I am for voluntarism...

Socialism will not work and the proof of that is in the pudding! There are no socialist companies! If they are so great why not? You can start one and see hoe you end up though... lol...

Imuch prefer to use reason and common sense... You say before government but there has ALWAYS been a type of government! Whether it be dictatorship (kings/queens) or the much lorded democracy (mod rule)... There has NEVER in recorded history been a time of real freedom... That is what I want to work towards... And there we will both be very happy because you can have your socialism and I can have my capitalism... Isn't that great?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


You are very wrong. For millenia people have lived under capitalist/free markets and thrived. The problem comes when those in power, government/dictators/monarchy, get involved and decide to give favoritism to one, or a few companies/lords/corporate people allowing them to make monopolies of industries which should be FREE... That's what is really the problem in the UK and everywhere else...

Ancient tribes, including native Americans lived in communities, but they owned their own property such as their tepees, horses, etc...

They also traded amongst themselves and other peaceful tribes. Many tribes such as the Aztecs used gold powder, or other items such as cocoa beans as tender coin, and other tribes used shells known as "Wampum" as tender coin BEFORE they ever met a white man...


WAMPUM ... America's First Currency

Wampum, ke`kwuk, squau-tho-won; all are Algonquian words for shell beads or string of shell beads. Wampumpeage is a Narragansett word for "white beads strung". Throughout northeastern America, wampum was used for jewelry, gifts, communication, historical record of important events, religious ceremonies, and trade. It was the earliest form of currency known in North America. Its value was derived from the difficulty involved in producing the cylindrical bead from both Quahog and Whelk, and the scarcity of suitable shells. White beads were made from Whelk, purple-blackish from Quahog.

The beads were produced from the inner spiral of the shells. The spiral or columna must be thick enough to withstand grinding, shaping and drilling. The shells were collected along the coastal shores during the summer, and worked in the winter months. The inner spirals were cut into cylinders measuring 1/4 inch long by 1/8 inch diameter. Each bead was then smoothed through grinding, polished, drilled, and finally strung on hemp fibers or sinew. It was difficult, tedious, and time consuming work. The proportionate scarcity of the Quahog dark beads doubled their value to that of white wampum.

Though wampum is most often associated with the Iroquois, and there are claims that the Iroquois were the first producers of wampum beads, it is more likely that the Iroquois were introduced to wampum by trade. The Iroquois lived in the interior, whereas sea shells could be found only in the coastal regions. The Narragansetts were most probably the first producers of wampum, with other coastal Algonquians, including the Delaware, following shortly thereafter.

Wampum was a firmly established base of currency by the time of increased European colonial settlements in the 17th century. Though it did have a monetary value, its sole purpose for the colonials, it was by no means limited to an economic role. As stated above, wampum was used for a multitude of purposes, not least of which was the binding truth to words "written" in wampum. So respected and important was it that an accompanying belt of wampum gave great solemnity to messages, speeches, and agreements. A message delivered via a wampum belt is said to have been greater than a thousand words, and it was accepted as truth. It was the seal, the proof of covenants made. The oldest extant wampum belt is the Huron belt given to the Jesuits to commemorate the first mission house built in Huronia. Offered and accepted in 1638, the Huron belt is currently housed in the Vatican.
...

www.mohicanpress.com...


These people lived, and THRIVED under CAPITALIST/FREE MARKET systems, and because they were thriving they were able to help those in need amongst their tribes...

The problem ALWAYS comes when those in power get their noses in what they shouldn't be involved in...

edit on 29-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


wow...you are truly confused... Must be all those books by leftwinger liars like yourself that you read...

Unions are, and will always become MONOPOLIES and BIG BUSINESS... If you don't think so STOP PAYING THEM their monthly fees and see what happens... They STOP SUPPORTING YOU... In order to be helped by UNIONS you have to pay them monthly fees... You have to DO what they tell you to do as well... If that isn't BIG BUSINESS I don't know what is...

YOU are the one that is confused, and can't see the trees in the forest in front of you...

YOU have swallowed every lie ever told to you by those who want to have all the power...

socialism/communism ALWAYS leads to dictatorship... EVERY country that has ever tried to completely embrace socialism/communism has become a dictatorship.

But of course socialists/communists like you HAVE TO claim that this is not so...that these countries never truly embraced your ideologies when they did so fully and completely...

The first rule of socialism/communism is no citizen is allowed to own PRIVATE PROPERTY, which means the house where you live will be owned by the STATE, and if they want to they will move you to another smaller house... The better houses ALWAYS go to those who will do anything and everything for the socialist/communist DICTATORSHIP... Including torturing and or murdering their own people...

Without the ability to own private property, INCLUDING THE FRUITS OF LABOR, no person, or regular people under a socialist/communist nation can EVER own ANYTHING...much less own stock, or a portion of ANY business... The STATE/GOVERNMENT OWNS EVERYTHING "for the good of the people and the nation"... And it is the STATE/GOVERNMENT which ALWAYS decide what to manufacture, or plant in the fields "for the good of the revolution"...

This is the reason why people STARVE under socialist/communist dictatorships...

The "socialist/communist revolution" ALWAYS COMES FIRST...even before the needs of the people, which is why the mayority of the infraestructure, and the fields planted in socialist/communist dictatorships manufacture and plant/harvest products that MAKE MONEY to keep the "revolution" alive and to "spread the revolution everywhere"...

But the new socialists/communists like ANOK, who have ALWAYS lived their lives outside of socialist/communist dictatorships ALWAYS claim these are the best systems and try, and in some cases have succeeded in re-writting history to fit their global agenda...

Make no mistake, what the SOCIALIST/FASCIST global elites want is a global SOCIALIST/FASCIST system to have all the power and control in their hands, and they are working hard in attaining this goal...

BTW, why does the UN, a very socialist organization, and other world groups CLEARLY state that they want to create a One World "SOCIAL/DEMOCRATIC" Government derived of CORPORATE mandates...and they even call this GLOBAL DEMOCRATIZATION... They don't call it "REPUBLICANIZATION"...

The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)



Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...



edit on 29-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Not going to waste my time arguing with people, I'm just offering this information for anyone who might be interested. I know it's a lot to read and digest, but to understand it you must read, not just skim and then comment on out of context points. I'm just trying to give you some basic history so you can hopefully see how that history has been twisted into something else. Not hard to see if you follow along...


The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference....
....Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body....
....Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work....


Public Ownership and Common Ownership

Not what you have been told it is.


Following the recent state take-over of financial giants, Ian Birchall reveals the limits of nationalisation, and why socialists stand for a different vision – that of workers’ control...


What is workers’ control?

Not what your capitalist overlords have told you it is.


Socialism will involve people making decisions about their own lives and those of families, friends and neighbours - decisions unencumbered by so many of the factors that have to be taken into account under capitalism. The means of production (land, factories, offices) will be owned in common, and everybody will help to determine how they will be used.


socialist thoughts

Bunch of damn commie web sites disagree with you.


In the traditional sense, "socialism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives, communal groups, or through the state, and an economic and political system that favors this.


Socialism and Capitalism

This quote made a good and important distinction. It emphasizes that as long as the workers own the means of production it is socialism, regardless of the political system. Just as capitalism is an economic system of private ownership, regardless of the political system. Either can be totalitarian, but only one can be truly libertarian, and that is worker ownership, socialism.
Capitalism can not be truly libertarian because private ownership gives people power, and control, over those that own no capital. It creates a hierarchy from it's very nature. The only way to true liberty is through worker ownership, so that no part of the community can have control and power over another. Economic power, not political power, is what makes the decisions.

Another term appropriated by the right wing capitalist class is 'Libertarian'. Originally a term used as an alternative to the term Anarchism, because of the demonisation of the term. It's why Anarchists also use terms like 'Libertarian Socialist'. Stateless socialism.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.


THE TEMPESTUOUS relation between Marx and Bakunin is a well known legacy of the history of western socialism. As co-members of the International Working Men’s Association, they seem to have devoted as much energy battling one another as their common enemy, the capitalist system, culminating in Marx’s successful campaign to expel Bakunin from the organization. While at times engaging in cordial relations, they nevertheless harbored uncomplimentary mutual assessments. According to Marx, Bakunin was “a man devoid of all theoretical knowledge” and was “in his element as an intriguer”,1 while Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”.2


The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict

150 years of Libertarian

Bakunin was an Anarchist, a Collectivist to be precise. Why would he be in a socialist organization if he wasn't also a socialist? (rhetorical question) Marx and Bakunin differed over tactics, not goals, they wanted the same thing, they just disagreed on how to get there. 'Marxism' was the political route, that included temporary state and nationalisation to create a path to socialism. Bakunin didn't want anything to do with a temporary state and wanted direct action, in his case through collectivism.


....As all anarchist theories, collectivist anarchism strives to abolish any hierarchical authority, such as state or capitalism, and create a society based on freedom, equality and horizontal social relations. However it differs from other anarchist theories, its distinctive characteristics being collective ownership of property, existence of the wage system and distribution of goods according to maxim "to everyone according to their labor". To create a collectivist anarchist society anarchists must overthrow state system by revolution and expropriate all property...


Collectivist anarchism


Therefore, anarchists are opposed to irrational (e.g., illegitimate) authority, in other words, hierarchy -- hierarchy being the institutionalisation of authority within a society. Hierarchical social institutions include the state (see section B.2), private property and the class systems it produces (see section B.3) and, therefore, capitalism (see section B.4)....


An Anarchist FAQ

This is why anarchists laugh at the idea of "anarcho-capitalism".

edit on 7/30/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
My friend I am not using any terms at all... I am using my OWN brain! Not the brain of carl marx! Just because he says something doesn't make it so!


Hmm I'm not doing that either. But how can you talk about socialism, or any term, without quoting those that created the term? Those that created, and first used the terms, are the one who get to define it's meaning, wouldn't you agree? How can someone at a later date decide they don't like a words definition, and decide to change it? Especially when the original definition is still the valid definition? Who has the right to do that?
It's not my fault the people become so passive, and just believed everything they were told.

History is history, and the proof is in the history I am trying to show you. You do realise Marx is still accepted as the best critique of capitalism, and proponent of socialism right? Just blowing him off just shows your closed mindedness. I'm not afraid to read about capitalism, have read many books on it. Why are people so afraid to read and understand socialism. You just base all your negativity on out of context quotes, and misunderstanding of other peoples opinions. Sorry that's just the truth, and you know it. What have you read?

Next you'll be putting up the "ten tenants of communism"
I can't wait. Just another opportunity for me to spread some "commie propaganda" haha...

I am using my brain putting these quotes, and my take on them, together to point out the history of socialism.
I mean if I didn't supply sources for what I am saying you'd be whining about that. Jeez can't win either way lol.

Sorry if you have a personal problem with Marx, or other people. I am not a Marxist either. I'm just trying to show you some history. Socialism isn't an opinion, you have to understand the history of it in order to understand what it is.

edit on 7/30/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
The problem is you need to stop thinking that what governments have called socialism is not socialism.

It is the appropriation of left-wing terms in order to create a passive work force.

There are no socialist governments. Socialism is an economic system, and if the economy of the country is not ran and controlled in common by the workers it is not socialism, no matter what the country calls itself.

The USSR called themselves communist, but not because it was a description of their economic system. They had mostly state ownership, which is nationalism not communism.


Nationalization (British English spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated and owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalization, but may also be municipalization.

Nationalization

Anyone from the UK should know this well, as they had many nationalised industries. No one in the UK considered it a socialist, or communist country. It was still primarily capitalist, and obviously more so after privatisation of nationalised industries.

Category:Former nationalised industries of the United Kingdom

Thatcher started privatising them in the late 70's.

I have tried to show you that socialism came from the people, long before the terms were appropriated by governments in order to keep people blind to what it really is.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   


The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers.
reply to post by ANOK
 


From your own quotes! This just goes to show how much you have taken the lies and twisted them to meet some sort of ideal... How then, WITHOUT a government do you think you can "take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers." This is what I was trying to get at again and again!

Oh no, you do not want to argue do you, what you mean is you do not want to answer my questions! Why? Because you know that you can not! I have already said I have looked into communism and socialism but I quickly realized that it is complete and utter TYRANNY!




....Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body....


Ha Ha oh but you do not need government... RIght....




....Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work....


And who will ENFORCE this RIGHT you speak of! Why can you not do this right now today? If it is such a great system why isn't it being done now? It is fanciful non-sense! But you will never see it! You are buying it hook line and sinker!




Not what you have been told it is.


Yes, I have been told this BEFORE, it is no revelation! But it still doesn't stand under scrutiny as I have already displayed and you fail to answer any of it!




TextSocialism will involve people making decisions about their own lives and those of families, friends and neighbours - decisions unencumbered by so many of the factors that have to be taken into account under capitalism. The means of production (land, factories, offices) will be owned in common, and everybody will help to determine how they will be used.


I can make decisions for me and my family now! My only main gripe is the fact government wants to steal from me! But I home educate, something my family decided! We decide where we live! We decide how and when we work! lol... I have no "overlord", sure they try... But it is the same as any kind of bully...

"The means of production (land, factories, offices) will be owned in common, and everybody will help to determine how they will be used." I have asked you many times HOW? But you will not answer! The answer is mob rule and you know it! The mob will decide who is hired and fired! Or rather exiled! How will you get the land, factories, offices? You will NEED to use VIOLENCE! Grab your pitchforks!


You will just be common THIEVES! Bit like government really...




Either can be totalitarian, but only one can be truly libertarian, and that is worker ownership, socialism.


Absolute craziness! Yes both can be totalitarian, but socialism can NEVER be libertarian because libertarianism is about FREEDOM from VIOLENCE and the use of FORCE! I've already said you will need to use force to steal the land etc...




Capitalism can not be truly libertarian because private ownership gives people power, and control, over those that own no capital.


Rubbish! You are free to fail! That is very very important! There are many people that have "made it" with no capital! You can do a multitude of things with no money that can make you money! Just by offering your services! Your labour1 That could be with a company or self employed!

Your socialism will be mob rule over the lower percentage of people!




It creates a hierarchy from it's very nature. The only way to true liberty is through worker ownership, so that no part of the community can have control and power over another. Economic power, not political power, is what makes the decisions.


Again absolute rubbish! Socialism will create a hierarchy too! The high percentage against the low percentage! Because it would HAVE to be run by mob rule! There is no other way... Or as I said I could come and take what I liked! Economic power not political power? HA HA HA, But that is bad capitalism! Economic power is bad in your opinion, but now it is good?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.


Because one man says so it must be, right? Talk about believing what you are told! I was being accused of that! I can make up my own mine what anarchism is thank you very much... I do not need to be told!




THE TEMPESTUOUS relation between Marx and Bakunin is a well known legacy of the history of western socialism. As co-members of the International Working Men’s Association, they seem to have devoted as much energy battling one another as their common enemy, the capitalist system, culminating in Marx’s successful campaign to expel Bakunin from the organization. While at times engaging in cordial relations, they nevertheless harbored uncomplimentary mutual assessments. According to Marx, Bakunin was “a man devoid of all theoretical knowledge” and was “in his element as an intriguer”,1 while Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”.2


EXACTLY! INFIGHTING! And that is all you will have amongst a stateless socialist society! Because guess what? People are diferrent and have lots of different ideas! Capitalism embraces that! You want to join with some people and start a business where you all own the means of production? Thats great! Go do it!

Socialism is NOT accepting at all! If I want to own my own business I will have people coming to steal my land and offices saying that they are owned by the "commons"... Do you not see that? If this is such a good idea then why not extend it to your home? Where do you live? I'm coming to move in! After all its is owned by everyone! I'll pick up a few homeless bods on the way!




Bakunin was an Anarchist, a Collectivist to be precise. Why would he be in a socialist organization if he wasn't also a socialist? (rhetorical question) Marx and Bakunin differed over tactics, not goals, they wanted the same thing, they just disagreed on how to get there. 'Marxism' was the political route, that included temporary state and nationalisation to create a path to socialism. Bakunin didn't want anything to do with a temporary state and wanted direct action, in his case through collectivism.


Oh juicy stuff here mate! lol... One wanted to use the FORCE of GOVERNMENT! The other just wanted to grab the pitchforks! And take direct "collectivist" action! IE steal peoples stuff! What a wonderful society! Do you really believe either of these are a good solution?




....As all anarchist theories, collectivist anarchism strives to abolish any hierarchical authority, such as state or capitalism, and create a society based on freedom, equality and horizontal social relations. However it differs from other anarchist theories, its distinctive characteristics being collective ownership of property, existence of the wage system and distribution of goods according to maxim "to everyone according to their labor". To create a collectivist anarchist society anarchists must overthrow state system by revolution and expropriate all property...


I'm pissing myself with laughter here! BEAUTIFUL just BEAUTIFUL! "expropriate all property..." Violently steal everyones stuff! Thats the way to do it! That is how we have freedom! HA HA HA HA! My god man have you even read this garbage?




Therefore, anarchists are opposed to irrational (e.g., illegitimate) authority, in other words, hierarchy -- hierarchy being the institutionalisation of authority within a society. Hierarchical social institutions include the state (see section B.2), private property and the class systems it produces (see section B.3) and, therefore, capitalism (see section B.4)....


Oh lovely!
So you are against private property! I hope you make that clear to people when you advocate this junk! Total utter control freak junk!

I'm sorry but just because THIS says what anarchism is does not make it so! You have just been told this and believe it hook line and sinker! I can make up my own mind as to what it is... But any way, now I know you wish to use violence to steal peoples property there is not much more that can be said apart from come and try it!

You can not debate with someone when they have a gun in their hand...



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Most peoples misunderstanding of socialism, communism etc., comes from out of context quotes, and outright lies, about the Communist Manifesto. So I thought the quote on the back of the version I have might be of interest...

"Commissioned by the Communist League and written by communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it laid out the League's purpose and program. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms." ©Soho Books

So trying to use the CommieFesto to argue against communism or socialism is ridiculous. The CommuFest was not a description of communism, it explains the political path to get there.

And where is there? Free association...


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.


Free association (communism and anarchism)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Most peoples misunderstanding of socialism, communism etc., comes from out of context quotes, and outright lies, about the Communist Manifesto. So I thought the quote on the back of the version I have might be of interest...


Well you have quoted now and I have quite easily debunked just as I have everything you have said.. I don't do it to think I am better than you at all, trust me... Like I've said I have once gone down the road you have... It's just totally tyrannical... Though I see nothing wrong with socialism nor communism if it is voluntary (which of course it is not)...

It's funny how you try to say that people use out of context quotes and lie etc but what you provided made me want to be sick! It is just pure evil to use force against people, full stop.




"Commissioned by the Communist League and written by communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it laid out the League's purpose and program. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms." ©Soho Books


This is again just someones interpretation, it doesn't mean it is gospel... Besides you were the one saying that terms are kind of owned by their creators, even though that is ridiculous, many terms have changed meaning over time, take the term gay as a prime example...




So trying to use the CommieFesto to argue against communism or socialism is ridiculous. The CommuFest was not a description of communism, it explains the political path to get there.


Wait for a start we were or rather you were talking about SOCIALISM! When I debunk that you now turn to communism? Okay well lets save some time... Go back through my posts and change the word socialism to communism, all the same questions apply!




In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.


See you have said multiple times that anarchism has always been socialism etc never libertarianism, but 2 quotes you have provided now have mentions that there are different types or interpretations of anarchism... "In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense" I really cant be bothered to dig out the other but I will if you make me...

See again it goes on about abolishing private property! This is just complete tyranny of the mob, as of cause they say about abolishing the the state too! So WHO will enforce the abolish-en of private property? Not to mention that having private property is a very basic right! Private property begins with your body! You own your body right? If not then can you be gang raped by a bunch of guys? That would be cool right? After all lets abolish private property... It's just silly, undo-able and immoral!

Free association is around us all the time right now! Even though there is a state! You can choose your friends! You can choose your partner, you can choose who you work for or to not work for anyone at all! Ie self employed like me...

I think you really believe socialism and communism is good for us but you are really misguided, and it is an easy mistake to make! I've been there pal it all sounds wonderful on the surface but scratch a tiny bit and it wreaks of total tyranny and lunacy...

All I will say to you is do not be afraid to change your mind, sometimes that takes courage because you can be deemed a flip flopper or whatever! F that! Do what is right that's all that matters mate... We have to start at the very basics which are...

The use of force is immoral...

Private property is a basic human right, if not then you do not own your body!...

Voluntarism is the only way to have free association...

Socialism/communism violates all of these principals and so should be dis-guarded...



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
Well you have quoted now and I have quite easily debunked just as I have everything you have said.. I don't do it to think I am better than you at all, trust me... Like I've said I have once gone down the road you have... It's just totally tyrannical... Though I see nothing wrong with socialism nor communism if it is voluntary (which of course it is not)...

It's funny how you try to say that people use out of context quotes and lie etc but what you provided made me want to be sick! It is just pure evil to use force against people, full stop.


You haven't debunked anything. You cannot debunk true history, only deny and make excuses.

Of course socialism is voluntary, did you read what I said about anarchism, have you paid attention to anything I've said.

If you read the CommieFesto and other works you would know that quotes have been taken out of context and used to demonise it. First off the claim about the 'ten tenants'.


No one can force socialism, it wouldn't work, and you wouldn't need to. Again you are still equating totalitarian systems, which were communist by name only, with real socialism.

Why would you need to force someone to own the means of production?

This is socialism...

www.yesmagazine.org...


This is again just someones interpretation, it doesn't mean it is gospel... Besides you were the one saying that terms are kind of owned by their creators, even though that is ridiculous, many terms have changed meaning over time, take the term gay as a prime example...


Obviously you have never read the book. If you did you know that quote is true and not just someones opinion.
The CommyFesto is not a description of communism. Read it and it will all come clear.


Wait for a start we were or rather you were talking about SOCIALISM! When I debunk that you now turn to communism? Okay well lets save some time... Go back through my posts and change the word socialism to communism, all the same questions apply!


Communism IS a form of socialism, as is anarchism. Again you have not read my posts, as I have explained this. It's obvious you are just skimming my posts, so you can react with your out of context claims.


See you have said multiple times that anarchism has always been socialism etc never libertarianism, but 2 quotes you have provided now have mentions that there are different types or interpretations of anarchism... "In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense" I really cant be bothered to dig out the other but I will if you make me...


No, anarchism is a form of socialism, worker ownership, and it is libertarian as in it believes in no state. I am using the original definition of those terms not the Americanized versions. Libertarian was another term for anarchism, it was appropriated by the American right wing.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.

I guess that quote is meaningless to you? Understand who Bakunin was and it will all become clear.


As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations....

150 years of Libertarian


Laying the foundations: Proudhon’s contribution to anarchist economics

Anyone sketching the positive vision of libertarian economics would, undoubtedly, include such features as common ownership of land, socialisation of industry, workers’ self-management of production and federations of workers’ councils. Such a vision can be found in the works of such noted revolutionary anarchists as Michael Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and Rudolf Rocker.


Laying the foundations: Proudhon’s contribution to anarchist economics


See again it goes on about abolishing private property! This is just complete tyranny of the mob, as of cause they say about abolishing the the state too! So WHO will enforce the abolish-en of private property? Not to mention that having private property is a very basic right! Private property begins with your body! You own your body right? If not then can you be gang raped by a bunch of guys? That would be cool right? After all lets abolish private property... It's just silly, undo-able and immoral!


Private property used to exploit labour, not your personal property. Instead of capitalism, private property, workers own their own means of production cooperatively. Again I already explained all this. This is the whole point of socialism, communism and anarchism. Private ownership is what allows capitalists to exploit labour. This is why liberals are not socialists, they support private property.

Capitalism means private property, private ownership of the means of production. Farms, real estate, anything used to exploit labour is capitalist private property.

Private property is used to exploit labour, this makes the private owner an authority over those who do not own property. This is what it is all based on. First outlined in the book 'What is Property', by Proudhon.


Beginnings

The founders of both Anarchism and Marxism all came out of the dissolution of the Young Hegelians in the 1840s, during the revolutionary upheavals that swept across Europe and destroyed the “Old Order”. Both Mikhail Bakunin and Frederick Engels were present at the December 1841 lecture by Friedrich Schelling denouncing Hegel, representing two of the plethora of radical currents that sprung out of that conjuncture. Also with their roots in the Young Hegelians were Max Stirner, a founder of libertarian individualism, one of the targets of Marx’s The Holy Family, Proudhon, the founder of theoretical anarchism and Bakunin’s teacher.


Marxism & Anarchism

All socialists believe that the means of production, capitalists private property, should be owned and controlled by the workers. They see capitalism as exploitation because the worker is required to produce more than they are paid for, in order for the private owner to make money. If the workers owned the means of production they could produce for their needs, not for making profit for someone else.

This is what makes these discussion like pulling teeth, I have to constantly re-explain everything because you don't have the background to understand left-wing terminology.

cont...

edit on 8/1/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Free association is around us all the time right now! Even though there is a state! You can choose your friends! You can choose your partner, you can choose who you work for or to not work for anyone at all! Ie self employed like me...


No it isn't. lol we are not talking about making friends. This is about the organisation of labour and industry, not your personal private life. Most people can not choose their job, they take what they can get. But that is not the point.

The point is the private owner uses those who own no property to make money for themselves. Again I have explained all this, including the history that lead to it.


I think you really believe socialism and communism is good for us but you are really misguided, and it is an easy mistake to make! I've been there pal it all sounds wonderful on the surface but scratch a tiny bit and it wreaks of total tyranny and lunacy...


I know socialism would be good for us, why else would I support it? I am not misguided at all, I am trying to clear up the ignorance of what it actually is.


All I will say to you is do not be afraid to change your mind, sometimes that takes courage because you can be deemed a flip flopper or whatever! F that! Do what is right that's all that matters mate... We have to start at the very basics which are...


Back at ya. I have been a socialist for 30 years and am well read on the subject. I have been trying to show you the basics, but it's obvious you're not interested in learning anything.


The use of force is immoral...


I agree, and it's why I am a socialist. Capitalism is authority and authority is force every day, you just don't recognise it.


Private property is a basic human right, if not then you do not own your body!...


I agree. Using private property to exploit labour because you changed the laws forcing people off the land is only a right because it is allowed by law.

Is it moral to let half the world starve because capitalists have a monopoly on the means to produce, and keep resources scarce in order to maintain profits?


Voluntarism is the only way to have free association...


I agree, and socialism is voluntary. It can only work through cooperation. Capitalism is coercive.


Socialism/communism violates all of these principals and so should be dis-guarded...


Again you are wrong, as I have explained and you obviously didn't read. Dis-guarded?

Again you need to actually read some on the subject, basing your opinion on out of context quotes and other peoples misunderstanding is doing yourself a disservice.





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join