Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by petrus4
Maybe you're having difficulty identifying the type of information that is supportive of Capitalism, which I would consider constructive.

All socialist nations turning into run-down places of despair and all capitalist nations having high money, health and happiness levels is information enough for educated people.

edit on 18-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Except there are capitalist nations that are "run down places of despair".

Originally posted by mkgandhas
so like why are american children eating rats for dinner?

Because America left principles capitalism in the 60s and has not learned from western and northern European models of free market.

Originally posted by antonia

Actually, Somalia has been used for years as an example of the free market. You can actually read a book called" Law of the Somali's" that explains why.

Thats why I called Somalia socialist-libertarian.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Really? But don't americans love corporatism and demon worship?

reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer


First off I am using left wing definitions of those terms.

The dictionary definition of capitalism is correct, as in it is the private ownership of the means of production, as in the original definition of the term used by socialists.

The definition of socialism is partly correct, but it only represents the state version of socialism.

Socialism being public ownership is somewhat correct because the workers are the public, we are the workers and we are the public. It doesn't mean 'public ownership' in the sense you use it, meaning government ownership, because government is not required for socialism. Even in Marxism the workers still own the means of production.

The Marxist definition socialism was 'the workers ownership of the means of production', Louis Blancs original definition of capitalism was 'the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others'.

A state-run economic system is not socialism! Karl Marx and Frederick Engels clearly distinguished between state ownership of the means of production and social ownership. They opposed the very existence of the state. State ownership means the continued existence of a governmental power over and above the people themselves; it signifies continued class rule. Social ownership means that the people themselves, collectively and democratically, govern the use of the means of production. Marx and Engels described socialism as a society run by "associations of free and equal producers."

www.deleonism.org...

Socialist ownership
Collective & individual aspects of ownership
Socialised ownership must mean no markets for means of production
Collective & individual aspects of ownership

Socialist ownership of the means of production is ownership by all workers. Capitalists cease to exist and workers cease to be their employees.

home.vicnet.net.au...

Instead of exploitation and profiteering by the bosses - the South African Communist Party stands for socialism: workers' ownership and control of means of production and distribution, an end to poverty and unemployment.

www.sacp.org.za...

Socialism and Self-Employment

Worker ownership of the means of production is a central tenet of socialism. It was a cornerstone of the old Clause IV, and it has been the aim for which many on the left have fought- often, unfortunately, unsuccessfully.

danieljfrost.blogspot.com...

A socialist economy is the one in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers. The ownership can be in the form of trade unions or cooperatives or through the state itself.

www.buzzle.com...

When I say socialism I mean worker ownership of the means of production.

Socialism as the worker ownership of the means of production is quite different from socialism as defined as state ownership of the means of production. The latter differs little from capitalism. Capitalism as well as state ownership of the means of production places the worker in submission to a president, state or authority that owns the association of workers and the product of their labor.

www.gonzotimes.com...

How do you identify a socialist country? By asking a very simple question: who owns the means of production and who controls the state? If the answer is the workers, then it is a socialist country. If it is the bourgeoisie, it is a capitalist country (no matter how liberal or “social-democratic” it is). In socialist countries, commodity production for private profit ends; production is no longer designed for the sake of the market, but rather determined by the actual needs of the people.

houstoncommunistparty.com...

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 organisation, 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.

flag.blackened.net...

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by mkgandhas
so like why are american children eating rats for dinner?

Because America left principles capitalism in the 60s and has not learned from western and northern European models of free market.

edit on 18-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Capitalism is not free markets, how many more times?

Socialists support free markets.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, always has been always will be.

Although commonly associated with capitalism, free markets have been advocated by socialists and have been included in various proposals for market socialism generally based on self management, employee-owned cooperatives or publicly-owned enterprises operating in free markets.

en.wikipedia.org...

Capitalism can not be 'free-markets' when the means to produce for that market is privately owned by a minority.

Capitalism is who owns the means to produce for the market, it is not the market itself.

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by ANOK

 

The video tells me what it is, not how it works. This is how I see a lot of people try to advocate socialism. They tell why any form of Capitalism is bad without ideal conditions and then go on to explain a socialist system that also couldn't exist without ideal conditions.

All I am talking about is what it is. Unless you understand what it is first, you will never understand how it works.
Once you understand what it is, how it could work will be up to us all. If you really want to research how it could work start with the Spanish revolution. Learn not to simply reject anything you think is left wing. Read and learn about the working class struggle for the last 200 years.

libcom.org...



www.pslweb.org...

That Chomsky vid was simply easier than me typing out what libertarian socialism is, and why it is not a contradiction.

Originally posted by ANOK

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, always has been always will be.

Private ownership and private property are a good thing. The alternative is collective (Government) ownership.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Private ownership and private property are a good thing. The alternative is collective (Government) ownership.

How many more times does this have to be repeated?

The alternative to capitalism is socialism, workers collective ownership, no government required.

The alternative to government is libertarianism (anarchism).

Collective does not mean government owned, it means the same as worker-cooperative, in other words workers collectively owning the means of production. Government owned is nationalism.

Collectivism is people joining together for a common goal, it is not a political system. You collectivize anytime you carry out a task with other people in a team. A temporary situation until the common goal is reached. As a society it is the only way we can get anything done.

Private property is fine until that property is used to exploit labour. Then it becomes the problem socialism was created to solve. I know too much about working class history for you to tell me capitalism is a good thing. Go tell that to the starving in Africa.

Originally posted by ANOK
How many more times does this have to be repeated?

Until you get it.

Collective does not mean government owned, it means the same as worker-cooperative, in other words workers collectively owning the means of production.

So "the collective" then produces and distributes everything? Please elaborate.

I know too much about working class history for you to tell me capitalism is a good thing. Go tell that to the starving in Africa.

How Socialism destroyed Africa

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ANOK
How many more times does this have to be repeated?

Until you get it.

Get what? That you can't admit that you are wrong.

How Socialism destroyed Africa

Foreign aid is not socialism.

Originally posted by daskakik

Foreign aid is not socialism.

Aid to the poor is socialistoid.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by daskakik

Foreign aid is not socialism.

Aid to the poor is socialistoid.

So do we go back and forth saying, "no it isn't", "yes it is", because you refuse to accept the real definition of socialism?

Originally posted by daskakik

So do we go back and forth saying, "no it isn't", "yes it is", because you refuse to accept the real definition of socialism?

The "real" definition of socialism? Every time another country collapses under socialism, socialist re-define "what socialism really is". Then, wrapped in new packaging, they go bring down another thriving and happy country with their idiot collectivist hive-mind.

Soviet Union collapsed and they say "Oh well, that wasnt REAL socialism". So they try it again in Venezuala, where poverty rates are skyrocketing. "Oh well, that wasnt REAL socialism. Let me show you REAL socialism". So you get the OWS movement that costs taxpayers many Millions in each city but achieves nothing more. Then they say "Uh, that wasnt what we REALLY wanted, now let me show you what its REALLY about".

So what is "REAL" socialism?

The poster ANOK, claims that "collective ownership" is not Government ownership. Thats news to me and I am very much looking forward to how he is going to solve the logical dilemma inherent in that.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The "real" definition of socialism? Every time another country collapses under socialism, socialist re-define "what socialism really is".

Not really because ANOK keeps posting the definition which is 180 years old. That would be the real definition.

Soviet Union collapsed and they say "Oh well, that wasnt REAL socialism". So they try it again in Venezuala, where poverty rates are skyrocketing. "Oh well, that wasnt REAL socialism. Let me show you REAL socialism". So you get the OWS movement that costs taxpayers many Millions in each city but achieves nothing more. Then they say "Uh, that wasnt what we REALLY wanted, now let me show you what its REALLY about".

So what is "REAL" socialism?

Well, seeing that socialism is an idea, then we must go with the definition of that idea "the workers ownership of the means of production". Whatever failed attempts to put it into practice that didn't/don't include that cannot be called socialism.

Originally posted by daskakik

Well, seeing that socialism is an idea, then we must go with the definition of that idea "the workers ownership of the means of production".

I understand that definition and oppose it...strongly, passionately and for good reason. I believe that the creator of the means of production should be the owner of the means of production until he sells them. If a worker happens to be the creator of the means of production, then he is the owner. If not, then he is not the owner. "Workers ownership of the means of production" regardless of whether he originated it or not leads to theft and imposing on others.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I understand that definition and oppose it...strongly, passionately and for good reason. I believe that the creator of the means of production should be the owner of the means of production until he sells them.

Well you can oppose the idea but not the definition. The definition is what it is.

If a worker happens to be the creator of the means of production, then he is the owner. If not, then he is not the owner. "Workers ownership of the means of production" regardless of whether he originated it or not leads to theft and imposing on others.

Your not making sense. If the worker is the creator of the means of production then he is the owner, so how is he being the owner lead to theft?

ETA: It would probably help to define what "the means of production" actually means.

Originally posted by daskakik
ETA: It would probably help to define what "the means of production" actually means.

It's the machinery, tools, factories, land, property etc., used to produce goods, or create wealth.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I understand that definition and oppose it...strongly, passionately and for good reason. I believe that the creator of the means of production should be the owner of the means of production until he sells them. If a worker happens to be the creator of the means of production, then he is the owner. If not, then he is not the owner. "Workers ownership of the means of production" regardless of whether he originated it or not leads to theft and imposing on others.

Hmm obviously you don't understand it. You also do not recognize those problems in capitalism. From the workers perspective capitalism is theft, and has been robbing the working class since the end of feudalism. I have already outlined the history of how capitalism enslaved people into factories and mills, taking away their autonomy, the ability to fend for themselves without reliance on the state, whether that be for a 'job' or for a handout.

Capitalism is theft and exploitation because workers are required to produce more than they are paid for, so the private owner makes profit, and then you are required to pay to purchase the products of your labour. Socialism simply takes away that exploitation, and the worker realises the full worth of their labour.

To say that is not a good system is ignorant, to say that wouldn't work is ignorant.

Data from a recent survey suggest that companies can use employee ownership to improve economic performance and equity ; employee-owned firms create jobs three times faster than their conventional counterparts...

www.american.coop...

“On average employee owned companies are more efficient, innovative, and profitable,” explained Director Bill McIntyre, “but the biggest gains come when companies nurture an ownership culture. For an employee owned company to reach its full potential, workers – and managers – need to unlearn old habits and develop new ones.”

shiftchange.org...

Since its modest beginnings in 1956 as technical college and a small workshop producing paraffin heaters, the Mondragon Corporation is a worker owned collective of cooperatives that is the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of turnover (almost $2B) and the leading business group in the Basque Country.

businessmatters.net...

Google Video Link

BTW that is the real left-wing in action, not what passes as "left-wing" from Washington.

reply to post by ANOK


awesome video! i have been looking for something along those lines.

this set of videos is an interview done by David Ellerman, founder of "Abolish Human Rentals", discussing the philosophies behind the economic system that is epitomized by worker cooperatives and other similar businesses (sole proprietorships with no employees, partnerships, 100% ESOP owned firms with relatively equal stock owned by each employee, etc.):