"Communism for Kids":Published by MIT Press

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I never said one thing about any government using Libertarian Socialism /Anarchism. I said that this is what true Socialism is, where it comes from.

ETA: I also said this is along the lines of what most modern Socialists believe, little to no state. Even most Marxists don't believe in the transitional state. Statist anything is horrible.

The book you are tripping over is an example of what I'm saying, it isn't trying to trick you or indoctrinate you.

a reply to: Wookiep

Grrr!

It isn't according to me, it is the original meaning, the original economic theory, the original ideology.

a reply to: Wookiep

What he has done is claim my statements, based on what i saw and experienced in Cuba, are exaggerations. He/she also seems to claim that what is seen in socialist/communist nations about the communist elites living in wealth meanwhile the rest of the country/countries are starving that according to daskakik it happens because of "crony-capitalism". But he/she keeps failing to see that under socialism/communism there is always an elite that live much better than the rest of the population.

Yes, there is poverty in countries like the U.S., but it doesn't happen to the majority of people. At least not until socialist policies are implemented. In socialism/communism the majority of the people are not only living in poverty, but they don't enjoy the rights that exist or have existed in western nations.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
But he/she keeps failing to see that under socialism/communism there is always an elite that live much better than the rest of the population.

I've actually agreed with you 3 times in this thread alone on that topic. I have never said that socialism is classless. You can't even find one instance where I have done so.

Why it happens is because of cronyism. That is what it's called when a group looks out for each other.

originally posted by: daskakik
I've actually agreed with you 3 times in this thread alone on that topic. I have never said that socialism is classless. You can't even find one instance where I have done so.

Why it happens is because of cronyism. That is what it's called when a group looks out for each other.

This is what you wrote in one of your responses in this thread.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: M5xaz

I saw a video posted by the OP in another thread about Venezuela. Despite the label what was seen is that "socialism" in Venezuela is actually crony-capitalism.

The OP has also told me of having visited a part of Cuba where the wealthy live in mansions more luxurious than any that they had seen elsewhere inhabited by the well connected. Cuba's "communism" sounds a lot like crony-capitalism.
...

Which apart from the other member xanarchist who made similar claims that there isn't a differentiation of classes within a socialist/communist regime when the evidence says the opposite. There is a distinction of classes even within these systems even when the fans of these systems claim the opposite.

You should call it "crony-socialism" because it has nothing to do with capitalism.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

All this is because I said "crony-capitalism" instead of "crony-socialism", even if I was repeating and agreeing with what you said in another thread?

It doesn't matter if you attach capitalism or socialism to cronyism, the point I was making was that Cuba isn't classless, so why would you insist on saying that that was my claim?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Wookiep

I'm not a socialist. The US was statist from the word go. I have no problem with the majority of the countries in the world copying its system, they have even if not exactly.

The big picture is that everyone is screwed, including you, even if you believe what they tell you to believe.

Funny thing, I get two Venezuelan channels where I live. They talk the same smack about the US and try to tell their people how good they have it not having to live in the evil empire. Their exaggerations suck as well.

The U.S. DOES have some serious issues with statism. It's not capitalism that's doing it, it's corruption within the system that is. I doubt many on ATS would disagree with that aside from the real hardcore neocon/lib establishment globalist types.

You need to quit arguing with those of us who see the corruption as well as you do, while you defend socialism (the type in existence right now) because of exaggerations, and instead start fighting against the globalist agenda. I know you're not a socialist, (at least that's what you keep saying) but I would like to once again say that it's not the answer. In fact, socialism is the thing the globalists are pushing for the most. They love it, and so does the media here more and more. It's not just a U.S. thing either. Just take a look at Europe.

Then it's on to communism. I don't want to be having the same conversation in 10 years where the word socialism is replaced with communism. Seems we might with all the indoctrination going on, however.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Wookiep

Grrr!

It isn't according to me, it is the original meaning, the original economic theory, the original ideology.

Ahhh!! I'm sorry! I should have said your sources etc. I know you didn't come up with it, I already admitted that.

originally posted by: Wookiep
The U.S. DOES have some serious issues with statism. It's not capitalism that's doing it, it's corruption within the system that is. I doubt many on ATS would disagree with that aside from the real hardcore neocon/lib establishment globalist types.

I meant from the very start and I posted info on the whiskey rebellion which showed cronyism was interfering with capitalism's "invisible hand" even during the Washington administration.

Also, if someone accepts that excuse then they, if they were fair, would have to also accept when the other side says; It's not "socialism" that's doing it, it's corruption within the system that is.

I blame both capitalism and socialism. I'm not attacking one and defending the other.

You need to quit arguing with those of us who see the corruption as well as you do, while you defend socialism (the type in existence right now) because of exaggerations, and instead start fighting against the globalist agenda. I know you're not a socialist, (at least that's what you keep saying) but I would like to once again say that it's not the answer. In fact, socialism is the thing the globalists are pushing for the most. They love it, and so does the media here more and more. It's not just a U.S. thing either. Just take a look at Europe.

You seem to have a problem with the definition of "defend".

Saying "Trump is the POTUS" is a neutral statement. I'm not defending or attacking Trump.

Saying that I have seen info that shows that venezuelans are free to trade, travel (internationally), even protest, it is not defending or attacking their system. It is a neutral statement.

Then it's on to communism. I don't want to be having the same conversation in 10 years where the word socialism is replaced with communism. Seems we might with all the indoctrination going on, however.

You won't because the NWO system par excellence is the US system. It may not be the one they lied to us about in grade school. It will be the one which has proven to better placate a population.

originally posted by: Kali74

I never said one thing about any government using Libertarian Socialism /Anarchism. I said that this is what true Socialism is, where it comes from.
...

So, in other words since "Libertarian socialism" and "liberalism" were made up in France to avoid the ban on anarchist publications, as the source and excerpt you posted says. Is this what your belief is all about? Your belief is based on a farce?

It's right there in that link you gave.

The first anarchist journal to use the term "libertarian" was Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social and it was published in New York City between 1858 and 1861 by French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque.[42] The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when "libertarian communism" was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16–22 November 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on "Libertarian or Anarchist Communism". Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France."[42] The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.[43] In this tradition, the term "libertarianism" in "libertarian socialism" is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence "libertarian socialism" is equivalent to "socialist anarchism" to these scholars.[44][45] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin.

wiki

Those anarchists were trying to avoid the French ban on anarchist publication and used the words "libertarian" and "libertarian socialism" but in fact were referring to anarchism. They just used those words to avoid the ban.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So if these French Anarchists coined the term Libertarian, to describe themselves, for whatever reason, then the term belongs to them, right? The original Libertarians were lefty anarchists. The term was later stolen and co-opted by capitalists.

a reply to: Kali74

Libertarianism, and libertarian socialism were coined by French anarchists to published "anarchist publications under another name to avoid the ban on anarchist publications. There are many schools of libertarians. However, that group you defined yourself to be in, even wikipedia describes them like this.

Look for the term libertarian:

Libertarianism
...
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment, and self-ownership.[2][3][4][5][6]

Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power. However, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or to dissolve coercive social institutions.

Some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights,[7] such as in land, infrastructure, and natural resources. Others, notably libertarian socialists,[8] seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

If you describe yourself as a "libertarian socialist" you seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production. Which are principles that "socialism/socialists" believe on, and always try to implement such a system. That school of thought you describe yourself to be in wants to deny individuals the right to any property that can produce, or property that can be rented or even sold to others for a profit. As well as abolishing private property.

originally posted by: daskakik
...
It doesn't matter if you attach capitalism or socialism to cronyism, the point I was making was that Cuba isn't classless, so why would you insist on saying that that was my claim?

Look, i am tired of having to repeat myself. Already posted your comments in which you were implying that since there are rich people in socialism systems, that it must be a capitalist system. That was what you were implying, and the other member "xanarchist" was agreeing with you. But you both are wrong.

As for whatever else we talked about in some other thread, which could have happened months ago, I have no idea what you are talking about.

You and "xanarchist" were agreeing in the claim that because in Cuba there are rich people in power, that it must be a capitalist system. But as you saw it in the 1936 constitution in the U.S.S.R. they did state that communists "the communist party" is more exalted than any other working class "because they claim to represent the people, the revolution, and the proletariat." You will find similar differentiation in other socialist/communist constitutions.

Those who work for the socialist/communist party in any state/nation will always be in charge of the means of production, as well as deciding what happens to all lands "for the common good".

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That school of thought you describe yourself to be in wants to deny individuals the right to any property that can produce, or property that can be rented or even sold to others for a profit. As well as abolishing private property.

Flat out wrong. Worker ownership means the worker owns what he/she produces, the worker sets the price for the production and the market determines if it is a good price and you still get personal private property.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And I'm tired of repeating myself that cronyism is what is responsible for that and you can switch socialism for capitalism and it makes no difference because whatever is in place is just a shell.

We talked about there being mansions more luxurious than you have ever seen. It is right there in what you quoted.

originally posted by: Kali74

Flat out wrong. Worker ownership means the worker owns what he/she produces, the worker sets the price for the production and the market determines if it is a good price and you still get personal private property.

Funny that this is exactly what every past, and present socialist/communist regime has claimed. The most recent example being Venezuela.

This is what the socialist/communist government of Venezuela claims is happening with their "worker control system"



But what is actually happening is completely different to what the socialist/communist regime claims is happening. BTW, do notice the workers in this video state that there are 3-5 leaders that control each factory...

The Venezuelan Constitution changed under Chavez also claimed these exact claims you are making. Yet it has been failing, and in the end it is the state that controls it all. Otherwise how do you redistribute the products and "the capital" gained in these cooperatives?

The socialist model "supposedly" aims at "redistributing the labor/product to all people". How do you do that without the state controlling the means of production?... Otherwise it just forms new "corporations" in which the leaders of those corporations make decisions, in order for the cooperative to succeed, that can go against the principles of a socialist system.

If you want take as another example "unions in the U.S." Those unions are supposed to represent the workers, but those in charge of unions have for quite a while turned unions into "political parties", which always tends to be in favor of "democrats".

Union Bosses Break Political Spending Record, With Money Taken From Unwilling Donors

April 20, 2017 by Barb Moran

Union membership has declined to an all-time low, but union bosses managed to break their political spending record yet again.

Unions spent $1.7 billion on campaigns, politics, and lobbying in the last election cycle, despite the fact they represent less of the workforce now more than ever.

So, how did they do it? By forced dues and organizing government against taxpayers.
...

www.parighttowork.org...

There will always be people in charge in any nation that wants to thrive. Just look at the disagreements members have in this forum on different matters. . The more people that "are in control", the more chaos and spending that will exist in the infrastructure of that nation.