Yup. He’s a Socialist....

Originally posted by Kali74
Socialism is worker owned means of production and people in control of government.

Or even no government.

Why "Libertarian"?

It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)....

Why "Socialism"?

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organization, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

Libertarian Socialism

Socialism does not require a government, people who think it does are just ignorant.

Originally posted by crankySamurai

I'm all for a stateless society but I don't see how that can exist with an abolition of private property.

Well it can never happen with private ownership. Private ownership creates an authority. If there was no state the capitalist class would be the authority. In reality they are the ultimate authority right now, as they have the financial power to control government. Talk about crony capitalism, it would be hell on earth for workers.

By private property we mean that which is used to exploit labour, not your personal property. Why because you own property should you have a right by law to exploit those that don't?

You will still have the right to own property, but finding someone to work for your wages, when they can work where they earn the full fruits of their labour, would be difficult.

People always talk about property rights, what about worker rights? Why should your property rights be more important than workers rights?

The whole point of socialism, anarchism etc., was to replace capitalism with a more fair system that is not set up to benefit a minority class of owners of capital. Capitalism keeps resources artificially scarce in order to maintain profit. Poverty is a result of that.

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 escape that isn't

This is for all of the political specialists on here:
I am carless, jobless, and homeless staying with family while attempting to help my son raise his five month old daughter. My wife is also unemployed and suffers from fibromyalgia and a nervous disorder. We are all in this situation together. My other two sons are also homeless, jobless and carless and staying with friends in different states. Money is non-existent and we are quickly out-staying our welcome here. The environment is not very conducive to raising an infant.
I need a job. A job that I can do with my physical limitations. They are few, but they do exist. This does NOT mean that I am disabled; quite the contrary, I have experience with earth moving equipment, industrial sandblasting, industrial painting, and many other industries. I have a resume to present to interested parties. I am a 44 year-old male with a bad back and cannot lift or stand for a full 8 hour shift, but I am quite capable of most anything I put my mind to. I am 3 credits from a degree in Information Technology and I am handy with most electronics.
People may want to know how an entire family became homeless, and I am basically to blame. I lost my job when the economy tanked. Shortly after, we lost our house. We moved to Kansas because the cost of living is lower and we could afford to live on my unemployment. When that ran out, we had to move in with family. Unable to financially assist my children, they soon fell on hard times as well.
I am not looking for a hand-out or welfare or freebies! I am seeking a job! Anywhere, anything, any hours.
I am the exact type of person that the Republican party wants to see DEAD! NOT working. They want us dead and gone. I came from nothing and have nothing and I actuallydo not qualify for public assistance programsdue to a lackofincome.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by crankySamurai

I'm all for a stateless society but I don't see how that can exist with an abolition of private property.

Well it can never happen with private ownership. Private ownership creates an authority. If there was no state the capitalist class would be the authority. In reality they are the ultimate authority right now, as they have the financial power to control government. Talk about crony capitalism, it would be hell on earth for workers.

By private property we mean that which is used to exploit labour, not your personal property. Why because you own property should you have a right by law to exploit those that don't?

You will still have the right to own property, but finding someone to work for your wages, when they can work where they earn the full fruits of their labour, would be difficult.

People always talk about property rights, what about worker rights? Why should your property rights be more important than workers rights?

The whole point of socialism, anarchism etc., was to replace capitalism with a more fair system that is not set up to benefit a minority class of owners of capital. Capitalism keeps resources artificially scarce in order to maintain profit. Poverty is a result of that.

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 escape that isn't

edit on 9/5/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

This post is a veritable clown car of distortions that have been kludged together in an attempt present yet another supposedly mind blowing watershed revelation of socialism.

Originally posted by Propulsion
So I have to ask the question first…'How many of you knew "who" I was talking about when you first saw the headline to this thread'?

If it was Obama, could you please explain why?

Onto the thread…

I came across this YT video, and wanted to get your thoughts.

“A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared”

Which Way, America?

(A) The way of the Founders/Framers
or
(B) The way of the EU/USSR/UN model

There’s no middle road.

Under (A) rights are inalienable, inherent in simply existing. Government exists, with the consent of the governed, solely to protect those rights.

Under (B) rights are “granted” by government which exists unto itself regardless of the consent of the governed, acting as the final arbiter. Here, what government “gives” can as easily be taken away.

Well, fellow Americans, which do you want, (A) or (B)?

Here’s a thought, how about if we go back to a vision of America in which prosperity is earned, No?

-Propulsion


Note: Did a search, could not find. Please remove mods if there's a dup..

edit on 4-9-2012 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)

I just read you stuff. My my, we are angry. There's no c huh? just a or b. You set em up real nice to. They all make sense. Us and them. Sure they want to take away my right to be free.To live as a free man in a world where all men are free. Free to engage in commerce, free to gather with my fellow citizens. Freedom from persecution by my enemies and their minions. Where does it end? When does your freedom become a burden to me and mine, or more importantly to you, I imagine, is; when does mine infringe upon you? That's why we have laws and stuff.

I think you might have laid it out a little simple and your choices are rather arbitrary. As for this American. I'm going with none of the above. Or maybe both of the above. You got to look at it from different angles. Keep an open mind.

Prosperity earned. By what measure? I've seen people live a life of honesty, respect, and dignity, through all that came. and by these measures, I believe have earned some prosperity.

Well I personally don't know anybody like that, but I'm sure they exist.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Kali74
Mussolini WAS a socialist UNTIL the end of WWI.

He was a member of the socialist party, but he was never really a socialist. He only joined them as a way to make progress politically. He even wrote anti-socialist articles, supporting Italy's entry into the war, in Avanti, the socialist paper he was the editor of. That got him expelled from the party.

He was a nationalist even during WWI, the socialists were conscientious objectors.

It depends on how we define socialism. Socialism as a mixed-economy OR socialism as communism.

Communism is revealed as anarchy by saying "classless and stateless society".

Mussolini and hitler were right wing socialists. In other words they were left wingers with SOME right wing tendencies. Hitler was a failed art student who grow up in poverty, thus he was inclined to be a left winger, and besides the only right wingers of his time were monarchy supporters.

Originally posted by ANOK

Socialism does not require a government, people who think it does are just ignorant.

And I guess the military, police and fire department should NOT have a chain of command either.

Even native american tribes have tribal councils.

Anarchy is a total pipedream.

The only reason for anarchy is to openly and violently DEFY the status quo to bring change QUICKER!

Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro are classic examples of successful revolutionaries. The only problem is they nationalised EVERYTHING and created a state of oppression to fight the influence of capitalism.

You and the other libertarian socialists, anarchists, communists.....whatever you want to call yourselves are dellusional.

Nationalise the private central bank and go after masonry. Case solved! It really is that simple.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It depends on how we define socialism. Socialism as a mixed-economy OR socialism as communism.

It sure does. The true definition of socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. An economic system, not a political system. That is the definition I use, because that is what I support.

Socialism and communism mean the same thing, worker ownership and control of the means of production.

The terms have been appropriated by others since the 1800's. The only reason Marx used the term 'communism', and not 'socialism', is because 'socialism' was being used by middle class liberals to describe their ideology, so he used 'communism' to differentiate his socialist movement from theirs.

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning....

www.marxists.org...

Just like the socialists who were apposed to Marx used Anarchist to differentiate their movement from his.

But they all had the same ultimate goal in mind, 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)

Communism is revealed as anarchy by saying "classless and stateless society".

Hmmm communism, like socialism and anarchism, is a classless and stateless society.

Mussolini and hitler were right wing socialists. In other words they were left wingers with SOME right wing tendencies. Hitler was a failed art student who grow up in poverty, thus he was inclined to be a left winger, and besides the only right wingers of his time were monarchy supporters.

There is no such thing as a right-wing socialist. They were fascists. They had no left-wing tendencies, they were ultimate authority, the extreme of the right. They did not allow unions, or any worker organizations. They put socialists, unionists, and communists in prison.

Everyone talks about authority, but seem to not realise that the working class prior to WWII were very organised and they were the true left-wing. The right wing establishment had to do something to maintain their control on the economy, so they did what they always do, they appropriated left-wing ideology and terms and turned it on it's head in order to confuse and maintain control.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by ANOK

Socialism does not require a government, people who think it does are just ignorant.

And I guess the military, police and fire department should NOT have a chain of command either.

Even native american tribes have tribal councils.

Anarchy is a total pipedream.

You are confused. Anarchism is not a complete lack of organization. Chains of command are not the same thing as an outside central government. Anarchism organizes society through democratic worker federations.

The only reason for anarchy is to openly and violently DEFY the status quo to bring change QUICKER!

Anarchists traditionally were the socialists who apposed the political path to socialism of Marx, and others, and wanted direct action to bring about socialism immediately.

I am only an anarchist theorist, I am no longer an active anarchist.

Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro are classic examples of successful revolutionaries. The only problem is they nationalised EVERYTHING and created a state of oppression to fight the influence of capitalism.

Yes they did. Not all revolutions are good. You could argue that Franco's takeover of Spain was a revolution, but really like Cuba it was a military takeover.

You and the other libertarian socialists, anarchists, communists.....whatever you want to call yourselves are dellusional.

And what am I supposed to do with that?

Maybe you should talk to people who actually trying to make it happen?

www.nceo.org...

Chrysler Workers Urge Obama to Support Ownership Push

They have been trying since 2007 to get support for worker ownership. If Obama was socialist it would have happened already.

Nationalise the private central bank and go after masonry. Case solved! It really is that simple.

So you support nationalisation? The central bank is the problem? The Masons? Everybody and everything but what the actual problem is, capitalism. Everything is wrong except capitalism? Capitalism is why we have a central bank.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
This post is a veritable clown car of distortions that have been kludged together in an attempt present yet another supposedly mind blowing watershed revelation of socialism.

Really? Could you at least be a little more specific so I can defend my point?

More likely you fail to understand what socialism really is, and only understand what you have been told it is. Prove me wrong.

Does private ownership create an authority? Yes it does, the owner is an authority over the worker. The owner controls hiring and firing. Private owners gain wealth far above that of the worker giving them more power to influence the state.

Capitalism does keep resources artificially scarce. One simple example, under production due to lack of demand, due to the population being bloody skint. The capitalist method of production requires profit be made, regardless of peoples needs, if profit is not made, people go without.

Not sure what else I said that was worthy of your scorn? Can't we have a civil discussion without the anger?

Worker ownership really could be the answer to our economic problems, but if you prefer our economy to be ran by faceless suits for their own benefit then it's all yours mate. But if you want a future with a stable economy then you better do a re-think.

It may not be the revolution’s dawn, but it’s certainly a glint in the darkness. On Monday, this country’s largest industrial labor union teamed up with the world’s largest worker-cooperative to present a plan that would put people to work in labor-driven enterprises that build worker power and communities, too.

Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

All over the country, people—like the workers of Chicago’s New Era Windows—are building worker-owned cooperatives that root jobs in the communities that need them.

A New Era of Worker Ownership?

Firms don't need worker ownership to become better employers, or more efficient in their use of both material and human resources. But there is no "efficiency" reason for not moving toward more worker-ownership and control, and every reason to do so.

Worker Ownership Effects on "Productivity" in the U.S.

The United Steelworkers, Mondragon, and the Ohio Employee Ownership Center Announce a New Union Cooperative Model to Reinsert Worker Equity Back into the U.S. Economy...

Worker Ownership for the 99%:

This is socialism, not what Obama is doing. You're just being played by the white house soap opera.

You can bad mouth it all day, but it is happening, who's side are you on? People want their communities back.

Actually AMERICANS want their FREEDOMS back.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by 11235813213455
This post is a veritable clown car of distortions that have been kludged together in an attempt present yet another supposedly mind blowing watershed revelation of socialism.

Really? Could you at least be a little more specific so I can defend my point?

More likely you fail to understand what socialism really is, and only understand what you have been told it is. Prove me wrong.

Does private ownership create an authority? Yes it does, the owner is an authority over the worker. The owner controls hiring and firing. Private owners gain wealth far above that of the worker giving them more power to influence the state.

Capitalism does keep resources artificially scarce. One simple example, under production due to lack of demand, due to the population being bloody skint. The capitalist method of production requires profit be made, regardless of peoples needs, if profit is not made, people go without.

Not sure what else I said that was worthy of your scorn? Can't we have a civil discussion without the anger?

Worker ownership really could be the answer to our economic problems, but if you prefer our economy to be ran by faceless suits for their own benefit then it's all yours mate. But if you want a future with a stable economy then you better do a re-think.

It may not be the revolution’s dawn, but it’s certainly a glint in the darkness. On Monday, this country’s largest industrial labor union teamed up with the world’s largest worker-cooperative to present a plan that would put people to work in labor-driven enterprises that build worker power and communities, too.

Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

All over the country, people—like the workers of Chicago’s New Era Windows—are building worker-owned cooperatives that root jobs in the communities that need them.

A New Era of Worker Ownership?

Firms don't need worker ownership to become better employers, or more efficient in their use of both material and human resources. But there is no "efficiency" reason for not moving toward more worker-ownership and control, and every reason to do so.

Worker Ownership Effects on "Productivity" in the U.S.

The United Steelworkers, Mondragon, and the Ohio Employee Ownership Center Announce a New Union Cooperative Model to Reinsert Worker Equity Back into the U.S. Economy...

Worker Ownership for the 99%:

This is socialism, not what Obama is doing. You're just being played by the white house soap opera.

You can bad mouth it all day, but it is happening, who's side are you on? People want their communities back.

edit on 9/6/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

BTW the father of the worker ownership cooperative movement was Robert Owen. Also know as one of the founders of socialism.

Robert Owen

Originally posted by RELDDIR
Actually AMERICANS want their FREEDOMS back.

Having your community back, would give you your freedom back. But what do you mean by freedom? You choose to speak for all Americans, so what is that freedom you want back?

Don't you understand that the more power is taken from your community, the more power is taken from you?

Worker ownership is the ultimate in freedom. What would give a person the most freedom, working for someone elses wealth, or working for their own, with their own? It gives everyone who want to work the opportunity to work. Unless you are a capitalist yourself, are you, then it can only be better for you. Worker ownership means you earn the full fruits of your labour. It also keeps people becoming so wealthy from exploiting labour that they can influence the economy for their own ends. It ensure we have an industry that meets peoples needs, not the greed of a few.

But I see you have no interest in debating, so I'll waste my time no more...

reply to post by ANOK


No government is the ideal yes, I guess I put my own bias there because I don't think humanity is grown up enough yet for such.

Noted correction on Mussolini

reply to post by ANOK


Both can be had actually. Private ownership of land for a home isn't anti-socialist and a good lot of socialists do actually mean no private property for labor purposes. That is my personal taste as well, I see no harm in and prefer personal private ownership.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It depends on how we define socialism. Socialism as a mixed-economy OR socialism as communism.

It sure does. The true definition of socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. An economic system, not a political system. That is the definition I use, because that is what I support.

It is both an economic and political system. Economics define politics and politics define economics. You cannot have one without the other.

Sure socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, BUT in practical terms(as most understand today) socialism is considered a mixed-economy and communism is considered total public ownership of everything.

In a mixed economy some things are private and some are public. For example, and since you live in the uk, you should know many critical infrastructure was nationalised such as railroads, healthcare, airlines, electricity, water, prisons, schools, etc. Everything ELSE was private including your car and home and small grocery store.

The terms have been appropriated by others since the 1800's. The only reason Marx used the term 'communism', and not 'socialism', is because 'socialism' was being used by middle class liberals to describe their ideology, so he used 'communism' to differentiate his socialist movement from theirs.

conservatives and liberals are capitalists, progressives are socialists, and revolutionaries are communists.
I am talking in practical terms...........NOT communist manifesto terms!

Originally posted by ANOK

Hmmm communism, like socialism and anarchism, is a classless and stateless society.

There is no such thing as a classless and stateless society outside of anarchism.

There is no such thing as a right-wing socialist. They were fascists. They had no left-wing tendencies, they were ultimate authority, the extreme of the right. They did not allow unions, or any worker organizations. They put socialists, unionists, and communists in prison.

BS! You are coming from the most extreme of left(anarcho-communism) and are UNABLE to compare political ideology properly. Mussolini and hitler were mixed economy socialists with a strong desire for nationalism and imperialism. Even stalin was an imperialist and when he got the chance to conquer eastern europe from the retreating germans, he capitalised on the chance.

Everyone talks about authority, but seem to not realise that the working class prior to WWII were very organised and they were the true left-wing. The right wing establishment had to do something to maintain their control on the economy, so they did what they always do, they appropriated left-wing ideology and terms and turned it on it's head in order to confuse and maintain control.

edit on 9/6/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Yeah ok. Hitler born in poverty accidently became a right winger. The same germany that was humiiated in world war 1 FROM THE SAME ALLIES, made to pay unreasonable reparations to them, a society exploited by the jews, etc.

Originally posted by ANOK

They have been trying since 2007 to get support for worker ownership. If Obama was socialist it would have happened already.

Obama is a liberal, not a progressive or revolutionary. Liberals are mild capitalists, if such thing can even exist!

Basically they put band aids on bullet hole wounds.

So you support nationalisation? The central bank is the problem? The Masons? Everybody and everything but what the actual problem is, capitalism. Everything is wrong except capitalism? Capitalism is why we have a central bank.

Yes I support nationalisation of important sectors of the economy. When something becomes nationalised it belongs to the citizens of the town,state, nation. Government runs the operation on behalf of the citizens, not for profit, but as a necessary service to the community.

As for my home, car, dog, wife, gun......I would rather keep those things private!

It is not rocket science, correct?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Obama is a liberal, not a progressive or revolutionary. Liberals are mild capitalists, if such thing can even exist!

Basically they put band aids on bullet hole wounds.

Yep, liberal, not socialist.

Yes I support nationalisation of important sectors of the economy. When something becomes nationalised it belongs to the citizens of the town,state, nation. Government runs the operation on behalf of the citizens, not for profit, but as a necessary service to the community.

As for my home, car, dog, wife, gun......I would rather keep those things private!

It is not rocket science, correct?

Well I'm just surprise is all, most here seem to be very much against nationalisation. My problem is with people calling it socialism.

Under socialism your personal property is still your personal property. What is meant by 'private property' is property used to exploit labour, factories, land, etc. That property would be owned by those who use it, so in a sense all workers become 'private owners'.

Regardless of left or right, socialism or capitalism, don't you think worker ownership is a good idea?

Worker ownership works...

The workers of the just-formed New Era Windows cooperative in Chicago—the same workers who sat in and forced Serious Energy to back down on a hasty shutdown of their Goose Island plant a few months ago, and famously occupied the same factory for six days in December 2008—not only are putting together a bold plan for worker ownership, they are likely to move the entire subject into national attention, thereby spurring others to follow on. Though they have a powerful start, if the past is any guide, they will need all the help they can get—financial as well as political....

A New Era for Worker Ownership?

That is not soviet Russia, it is a sensible model for our economy.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Obama is a liberal, not a progressive or revolutionary. Liberals are mild capitalists, if such thing can even exist!

Basically they put band aids on bullet hole wounds.

Yep, liberal, not socialist.

Yes I support nationalisation of important sectors of the economy. When something becomes nationalised it belongs to the citizens of the town,state, nation. Government runs the operation on behalf of the citizens, not for profit, but as a necessary service to the community.

As for my home, car, dog, wife, gun......I would rather keep those things private!

It is not rocket science, correct?

Well I'm just surprise is all, most here seem to be very much against nationalisation. My problem is with people calling it socialism.

Under socialism your personal property is still your personal property. What is meant by 'private property' is property used to exploit labour, factories, land, etc. That property would be owned by those who use it, so in a sense all workers become 'private owners'.

Regardless of left or right, socialism or capitalism, don't you think worker ownership is a good idea?

Worker ownership works...

The workers of the just-formed New Era Windows cooperative in Chicago—the same workers who sat in and forced Serious Energy to back down on a hasty shutdown of their Goose Island plant a few months ago, and famously occupied the same factory for six days in December 2008—not only are putting together a bold plan for worker ownership, they are likely to move the entire subject into national attention, thereby spurring others to follow on. Though they have a powerful start, if the past is any guide, they will need all the help they can get—financial as well as political....

A New Era for Worker Ownership?

That is not soviet Russia, it is a sensible model for our economy.

edit on 9/6/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

No it isn't. It has never worked as a sustainable model. I know, I know, I've heard the old saw over and over again from Che t-shirt wearing undergraduates "but true socialism has not been tried yet."

How in the first place does the collective of the workers possess the means of production? The example you posted above is really theft. So you are saying that, in order to create a worker's utopia, the worker has to take over the means of production? When that happens, who is going to bother to create the means of production if the workers or another set of workers can come along and take it over? Such a society is a race to the bottom.