Looking for An Honest Socialist

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Finance.. good you are already biased. Economics is the business-end of the Capitalist religion.

Whoring? Are you sure? I work in a company that outsources. The company is being jerked around by very intelligent Indian professionals who want more money. They are being paid less in American dollars but they are being paid MORE than fine by Indian rupee standards. I know a lot of professionals there that have a job retention period of 2 years. American companies are begging for these people.

Europe is doing better economically than the entire world except the United States. I think they are quite fine. That is your slippery slope. Whining about someone in second place is ridiculous. They are far from a failure.

My point about India's "whoring" is that they are indulging in capitalism. Hardly the nation to wave the socialist banner above IMO. As you noted, they are using inequity to profit -- that is capitalism.

Europe, like the US, will continue to do fine as long as its credit rating remains high. Meaning that as long it can borrow, it can stay afloat. Such is the fate of all socialist nations. The problem is: who is doing the lending? Because eventually they'll control everything.

Quote for the thread:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." -- Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: albatross
the intellectual and moral development of humanity is far from the requirements
an anarchy society would require.envy and resentment are the great engines of socialism imo.

Wow make that compassion and concern for your fellow human beings.

Anarchists are idiots. Plain and simple. There is no way that system will ever work. With no strong government militia's will rise up around any and every which ideology and there will be constant warfare. Is that what you want?

It is time for the libertarians here to be intellectually honest. Calm down. Take a seat. Let go of your ego, and just chill. Then start thinking about human nature and what you are advocating. Hopefully you can get far enough away from the my land, my car BS and realize that a strong government is necessary for an equal society.

Who the hell wants an equal society? What the hell does 'equal' mean anyways? Does an equal society mean that we have 6 billion clones going around with the same exact incomes, abilities and status, doing the exact same things and pursuing the exact same goals? From where I am standing that is the only meaning of 'equality' in the context of 'society' that makes any sense. However, if that is what you are talking about, not only is this goal of 'equality' untattainable, it would lead to a miserable existence. This is the nonesense that DeJasay deals with in his book Against Politics. People on the left (and even on the right) hide behind meaningless terms like "equality" and "justice."


So let's see here. you say anarchists are idiots, then make a false assertion that has been dealt with countless times in anarchist texts and then go on to make another assertion that to me is completely meaningless.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Anarchy doesn't work because humans are social animals responding to dominance and submission. Those who can will dominate the others. Some will rise to power because they crave it and can convince others they should support an agenda. If pure capitalism were to exist, the powerful would still dominate, and more effectively because they would have direct control of your job. In effect businesses would be in control of you and your income. Remember what happened when unions first tried to organize? They were beaten by thugs paid by business. Without govt protection look for the same thing.

I like "Love thy neighbor as thyself". If everyone did that, all the worlds ills would go "poof". Nice philosophy, but it won't work for the masses. Neither will unfettered capitalism.

As humans are right now, yes. You're right that true anarchy wouldn't work right now because we've become so dependent on 'society' and it's 'rules'.

I know some people (like me) deep inside want to be free of the will of others that is forced upon them and the chains of society that is placed on us almost from the moment we are born.

But as you've pointed out, that's not really possible right now. Which is why I try to find a balance (Which isn't easy, since I'm an individualist and a free spirit at heart). Now I basically just live my own little way, though without trying to force my own will on others. And as long as no one tries to force feed my some idea or rule I don't like, I'll remain 'pacified'(Though reluctantly).

But I can guarantee you that the moment some person or government tries to force it's will on me, in a way that crosses the line, I'll revolt against their sorry asses. I'll accept (reluctantly)the garbage they're feeding me right now, but if they try to shovel it in, they'll regret it.

So, all in all, I guess I'm a "Don't fuvk with me and I won't fuvk with you." kinda guy. Yeah...I'm an individualist alright...

That was the point that Karl Marx was trying to make in the Communist Manifesto. His whole theory is based around changing humans through Oppressive(real oppression, not this quasi-oppression thrown around in this thread) Socialism, eventually reaching "Communism" which was Social Anarchy(no Government, where Individuals worked together for the common good). When it comes down to it, Marx's form of Anarchy is the only form that has a chance in Hell to work, as it minimizes Humanities desire to Oppress by treating others as Equals and seeks to make life about helping your neighbour.

Just to make clear, I am not a Marxist, neither am I an Anarchist. Anarchy will never work, at least not in the way Anarchist wax poetic about it. It is a pipe-dream, a Utopian paradise that is unacheivable.

That's my point, you are automatically claiming it wouldn't work without even being willing to give it a try. We are already in anarchy, all we need to do is eliminate people's belief in absolute state authority. Personally, I don't believe the world would implode if that happened.

Can we try communism first?

Communism automatically fails in theory and has failed numerous times in practice.

 

[Vic]

The funny thing (to me) about socialists ranting against capitalism and its inequalities is that they don't seem to understand that the purpose of capitalism is to resolve inequities.
Basic example: the butcher has meat and needs cash. The consumer has cash and needs meat. Under capitalism, they are allowed to negotiate their own trade, to their own mutual satifisfaction, and peacefully and productively resolve their individual inequities in such a manner that each perceives his own individual profit.

Constant trade of goods and services is the lifeblood of capitalism. Many detractors of capitalism like to point to McKinley era economics, seeming to not realize that that was a failed example of capitalism (and not really even capitalism either, the government subsidized the rich industrialists so much). A wide disparity of rich and poor limits the amount of trade possible, and weakens a capitalist economy. If the wealth inequality moves to far to one side, the entire economy could collapse. This is why it was a Republican (TR) who led the reforms. The ideal capitalist economy is one with a very large and affluent middle class, relatively equal and with large disposable income and buying power.

OTOH, socialism thrives off inequality. The State and its employees become the wealthiest and most powerful. The poor are maintained as poor because, without them, there would be no reason for the socialism to exist. This is why socialism removes both the societal stigma and the most severe economic punishments for being poor. Sure, they won't starve (which is good of course), but they'll live on a subsistence basis, remaining poor.
I could go on and on... I'm sure the socialists here have heard it all before, and disregarded the simple realities that nature has saddled us with. If you won't believe it from people who have spent their whole lives in economic study and research, I see no reason why you would believe it from me posting here on ATPN.

 

[cwjerome]

Vic: Good words

Proletariat says, "Why do conservatives always adhere to the slippery slope fallacy?"

The slippery slope is valid because socialism starts with the same fundamental premise as Nazism, communism, or any other bad -ism... that people's lives do not belong to them but rather they belong to the society and each individual really has no right to exist for his/her own sake. The differences are superficial between socialism and the others... they're all variants of the same mind-wrecking philosophy. Socialism is simply statist authoritarianism without a fixed dictator, and the enslavement occurrs through voting instead of brute force. Such details are trivial when the end result is the same: a sick refuttal of man's Natural Rights and a rotting society that drains the life out of every soul.

 

[cwjerome]

bump