Why I Cautiously favor Capitalism over Communism

reply to post by ANOK


Common ownership... I see that leading to conflict. One person wants to use it one way and another person wants to use it another way. Common ownership is conflict creating not resolving.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
Common ownership... I see that leading to conflict. One person wants to use it one way and another person wants to use it another way. Common ownership is conflict creating not resolving.

I think we have more common sense than that man. People can work out conflicts without private owners.

Worker owned companies still have supervisors. It's not a free-for all like you're imagining.

Worker ownership is already happening and is on the rise.

Believe it or not, worker-owned businesses are on the rise in the United States. In a time of high unemployment and low wages, majority-worker owned companies and cooperatives have been quietly growing across the country...

...Worker-owned businesses like these exemplify economic democracy: Because workers have joint ownership of the company, they all have a say in how it’s managed. All of them have the power to resist management exploitation, vote on their own labor conditions, and manage their own wages and benefits. Because the workers have a vested interest in keeping their jobs, they’re unlikely to make decisions they know will hurt the company’s sustainability.

Spanish co-op might point the way forward for workers in America

Why are people so resistant to change?

BTW you might find this interesting...

The Myth of Socialism as Statism

Unlocking the power of ownership

Originally posted by hawkiye

No they are not because they do not operate according to your rhetoric.

How so? The goal of socialism is worker ownership, that is it! Anything other than that will be up to individual communities to decide.

You live in fantasy land. But you have the opportunity to start one and operate it according to your rhetoric and show us all how its done. Which blows your whole argument out of the water that capitalists own all the resources preventing you from doing so. WE have been over this now in several threads and still you avoid answering.

I never said nothing is preventing me starting a worker owned business. You are completely missing the point. The point is people can start worker owned businesses, what stops them is not knowing it's a viable alternative to capitalism.

I do not need to own, or start, a business to discuss economic systems. I didn't join this thread to prove socialism can work, I just want people to wake up to the fact that economic and political terms have been twisted in order to hide their true meanings.

Whether you think it could work or not I do not care, all I care about is socialism is recognised for what it really is, not the propaganda BS from the right-wing capitalist class. Our history has been re-written to our detriment. I have mostly explained the true history of the left, not my rhetoric. People seem to confuse knowledge of an issue with support for that issue. I mean I talk about Marx a lot, but I am not a Marxist.

There are some things that should be collectivized and carried out by the state: the National Defense for example. But the key is that the power remains with the people in a democratic republic while under communism (comparing political not economic institutions at this point) the state has ultimate authority and can even dictate what line of work you will do. I, for one, favor freedom and in the economic realm that is best exemplified by and fostered thru capitalism.

reply to post by hawkiye


BTW when are you going to answer my question?

How can anarchists be socialists using your definition of socialism?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

Mikhail Bakunin was one of the intellectual founding fathers of Anarchism. He is often considered to be Marx's historical rival. When Marx headed toward State-run Socialism, Bakunin argued for the abolition of the State as the most fundamental goal for those who want to guarantee freedom.

Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876

Most versions of anarchism advocate a society right out of the theories of Rousseau and the utopian socialists, with land and the means of production controlled by decentralized, self-governing communities that are based on cooperation rather than on competition or coercion...

What Is Anarchism?

Here we present a short summary of why individualist anarchism implies socialism and not capitalism. While it is true that people like Tucker and Warren placed "property" at the heart of their vision of anarchy, this does not make them supporters of capitalism. Unlike capitalists, the individualist anarchists identified "property" with simple "possession," or "occupancy and use" and considered profit, rent and interest as exploitation. Indeed, Tucker explicitly stated that "all property rests on a labour title, and no other property do I favour." [Instead of a Book, p. 400] Because of this and their explicit opposition to usury (profits, rent and interest) and capitalist property, they could and did consider themselves as part of the wider socialist movement, the libertarian wing as opposed to the statist Marxist wing....

G.2 Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism?

I would love to hear your explanation of anarchism's connection with socialism.

reply to post by ANOK


What about anarchism as stateless capitalism?

Self owner ship and the non initiation of force.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
What about anarchism as stateless capitalism?

Self owner ship and the non initiation of force.

Stateless capitalism is not anarchism. Anarchism was never about just 'no government'. Anarchism came out of the socialist movement. Anarchists were socialists who supported direct action, as apposed to the political path to socialism, such as Marxism.

The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict

"Anarcho"-capitalism certainly wouldn't be self ownership and it would use force, as capitalism does now.

Capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production, cannot be stateless because it requires state law to grant the right to the use of private property in an economic capacity.

Without state protection nothing would stop people just taking over the means to produce. The state we have is a result of capitalism.

It would not be self-ownership for people who do not own capital, and would be forced to work for a private owner. That is not liberty, but the same exploitation we have now. What about worker rights? Who would protect the workers interest?

The ONLY thing that has kept us from succeeding in a socialist revolution is the state. True capitalists know this.
The only people who thinks capitalism can work without the state are naive and confused, and are not capitalists (as in they don't make their living from ownership of capital and the hiring of wage labour).

reply to post by ANOK


Self ownership implies that you that you own yourself and that you own the your actions. If you write a book or slap someone in the face you are responsible for it. If your actions harm another person then you are the one responsible for the product that your actions produce.

Likewise if your actions produce some such as a book, painting, new invention you are also responsible and own that. What good would building a new device be if a person had the right to take it from me as soon as I constructed it.

What good would it be to invent, create or discover if what you invented or created belonged to your neighbor as much as it belonged to you.

Not owning your actions is near inconceivable and private property is simply a consequence of owning your actions.

reply to post by crankySamurai

One of the tenets of the Communist Manifesto is the elimination of private property. Agenda 21 will further that agenda by forcing people off of their land in rural areas and our "too big to fail" economy has enabled the big banks to socialize loses (while privatizing gains) means that tax payers are deprived of property before the fact. We are on a slipperly slope to socialism; the gateway to communism.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Yeah... I'm aware

reply to post by ANOK

BTW when are you going to answer my question?

Wow another long wordy post avoiding answering any of my questions and leads with you asking me to answer yours... Gee why am I not surprised. Where is that business? Oh thats right you just want to redefine terms to fit your communist propaganda... Sigh

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen

One of the tenets of the Communist Manifesto is the elimination of private property.

The so called "tenets" of the Communist Manifesto are not an explanation of communism, but the Marxist plan to change from capitalist to socialist industry.

Communism/socialism are not against 'private property', as in your house or car etc.

It is against 'economic private property', the right for people by law to use their private property to hire wage labour and deny the use of the means of production without the accumulation of profit.

Socialists want the economic private property, the means to produce, to belong to the workers. That way we are no longer at the mercy of the property owners, and will have true liberty for all. Because capitalism is exploitation.

Property rights are a controversial, theoretical construct in economics for determining how a resource is used, and who owns that resource - government, collective bodies, or by individuals.[1] Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components[2] and is often referred to as a bundle of rights[3][4]:

Property rights (economics)

Understanding Capitalism Part III: Wages and Labor Markets

B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty?

"The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phoneys and hypocrites. . . You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. . .The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are 'free' is lying or stupid." Bob Black, "The Abolition of Work", 1985.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Wow another long wordy post avoiding answering any of my questions and leads with you asking me to answer yours... Gee why am I not surprised. Where is that business? Oh thats right you just want to redefine terms to fit your communist propaganda... Sigh

So you have problems reading, and answering questions huh? "Wordy" is just another way of saying you didn't understand, are too lazy to read, or are afraid you will realise you're wrong. No one can explain socialism in nice easy for you to read blurbs. Obviously you're only interested in attacking my points. I know you're not reading my posts.

It's a simple question....

How can Anarchism be socialist if your definitions are correct?

Originally posted by crankySamurai
Self ownership implies that you that you own yourself and that you own the your actions. If you write a book or slap someone in the face you are responsible for it. If your actions harm another person then you are the one responsible for the product that your actions produce.

I know what self-ownership is, and I know capitalism is not self-ownership. Capitalism is based on exploiting labour. 40% of capitalist wealth is from labour and 60% from the investment of wealth created by that labour.
Workers have to produce more than they are paid for in order for the capitalist to make profit. No worker keeps all they produce under capitalism.

Real self-ownership must mean that the worker keeps all that they produce.

It would be one thing if we could all be capitalists, but we can't. Capitalists will always be a minority profiting off the backs of the majority.

The only way to true self-ownership is worker ownership. That way we are not at the mercy of the capitalist owner, and we can produce and re-produce for our needs and desire with no social restrictions, and we keep all we produce. No need for the private owner.

Capitalism itself is a form of authority. The state is not the problem because the state we have is a result of the economic system we have. The present state system was started by, and is majorly controlled by capitalists and capitalists interests. It is impossible for capitalism to work without the state system. Capitalism and the state are one and the same.

Just a cursory look at the history of the labour movement would show you that it wouldn't work. Capitalists are a minority and always will be. Why should the economic system be set up for a minority at the expense of the majority?

reply to post by ANOK


You've got yourself mixed up with this stuff man...

Originally posted by crankySamurai
You've got yourself mixed up with this stuff man...

No I haven't. Are you reading the links and quotes I provide?

Are those people all mixed up?

Was Bakunin mixed up when he said...

"Anarchism is stateless socialism"?

No you have been lied to. Don't you know all governments lie? Why do you all fall for their propaganda so easily, I thought ATS members were supposed to be above all that? You don't know by now that the history they teach you is only half the story, and all twisted in order to keep you all as worker slaves destined only to make profit for someone else?

Does Chomsky, a linguist professor have it all mixed up also?



Surely you can all do better than this? Not one decent argument against what I've said among any of you. Just assumptions and misconceptions.

reply to post by ANOK


What I'm hearing is that he like capitalism in the way Adam Smith describes it, in the environment of perfect liberty.

Well that's the ONLY way that it actually works...

He also saying the state subsidized capitalism is the only thing that has existed... Well that's what is called crony capitalism or corporatism...

He contradicts himself by stating that non state subsidized capitalism exist in the the third world countries right now and then staying that it could never exist except in a mythical world..

Yeah man hes got it mixed up.

reply to post by ANOK


There is no such thing as state subsidized capitalism... If the state is subsidizing it is no longer capitalism.. It is then a mixed economy on its way to command economy.

Originally posted by shogu666
reply to post by Honor93

 

You got it backwards - vales emerge from environment where you grow up.

When you are kid and got brainwashed that only after you got rich you can be happy , you will develop values that will accommodate brainwashing.

edit on 12-12-2012 by shogu666 because: (no reason given)

this is about the craziest thing i've read yet.
values do not emerge from one's 'environment'
they can be influenced by environment but they certainly are not developed by one.

besides, corporations don't have 'values' ... the people in them do.

Originally posted by bushmastersix
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

 

But think about what the 'free market' does to places OTHER than the US.
It's that kind of centralized thinking that has brought on foreign disdain for our practices and ethics.
The free market essentially de-values the working class, and the poor in foreign countries to essentially what could be viewed as a giant assembly line.

To even say that it's making significant progress over here would be to undermine the fact that it is doing great damage to children, and working poor in foreign countries.

American free markets are not directly deteriorating any other country or its workforce.

global free markets might be but that is because corporatism is so widely accepted ... remember Corporatism was imported to the US, it was not developed here.

if more people in other countries were being/acting like capitalists, then they wouldn't be negotiating their value for the stated benefit. (sub-standard wages)
either you fight for your own value (tell the corps to take a hike) or you conform.

unfortunately, for far too many countries now, conformity seems to be the standard.
the free market, in and of itself is the only open door to individual success.