Capitalism vs Communism

[razoredge]

Oh... so thats what socialism amounts too ?

 

[Vacant_Planets]

English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?

No offense.....but I am pretty sure that wasn't his point based on his last post. lol!

 

[razoredge]

So it seems those that favor unrestrained capitalism are incapable of answering the simplist of questions, ponder that

 

[Death Aflame]

Could you please explain what's so unjust about privilege? Could you also please explain how liberty and socialism are compatible?

I was quoting Mikhail Bakunin, if you want to look up the source text. Those are two questions that really require a long answer to be justified, but I'll try anyhow, despite brevity.

In terms of my stance on capitalism, I think it would work if a meritocracy was tenable, but since latter is not I reject the former. Regarding, the second question I think they are compatible because I define freedom as more than simply 'freedom from' coercion (i.e. negative rights) but also as 'freedom to' autonomy and independence (positive rights, as some call them). A decent society, in my view, needs to guarantee both of these rights and not just the former. Based on what I have read on political philosophy, the models that achieve this best are inherently socialistic (not to say all socialist/socialisms DO actually achieve this), hence my political outlook.

 

[Cythraul]

So it seems those that favor unrestrained capitalism are incapable of answering the simplist of questions, ponder that

Did it ever occur to you that our reticence has little to do with the nature of your question and a whole lot to do with the fact that none of us really feel like talking to you because you're annoying?

I was quoting Mikhail Bakunin, if you want to look up the source text. Those are two questions that really require a long answer to be justified, but I'll try anyhow, despite brevity.

In terms of my stance on capitalism, I think it would work if a meritocracy was tenable, but since latter is not I reject the former. Regarding, the second question I think they are compatible because I define freedom as more than simply 'freedom from' coercion (i.e. negative rights) but also as 'freedom to' autonomy and independence (positive rights, as some call them). A decent society, in my view, needs to guarantee both of these rights and not just the former. Based on what I have read on political philosophy, the models that achieve this best are inherently socialistic (not to say all socialist/socialisms DO actually achieve this), hence my political outlook.

I have never read any Bakunin but I'm sure I will at some point. Anyway, straight away I disagree with your emphasis on positive rights, but that is a pretty deep philosophical issue and I don't know if you feel like getting into it here. What I don't understand is how one is supposed to uphold positive rights in the absence of a coercive state apparatus for doing so. That is basically why I don't understand how this sort of socialistic mindset is consistent with anarchism. I suspect that one could achieve such a thing via private protection firms a la market anarchism, but it seems to me that that sort of private intervention is unjustified on the sort of libertarian principles I accept. But if we're going to argue about this it's just going to take us right back to the issue of negative and positive liberty I suspect.

 

[razoredge]

Did it ever occur to you that our reticence has little to do with the nature of your question and a whole lot to do with the fact that none of us really feel like talking to you because you're annoying?

Sounds like a cop out to me. I think its because those are not capable of dealing with adversion and cant stand not being able to break me down with personal attacks... and yes, that has got to be annoying when that is ones only method of dealing with adversion.

none the less my questions were serious because I could not see your point in the first one. Why just sit there and ask questions instead of offering input? Sounds like as big of an ass as myself... so whos talking ?

Then I did not undertand what you were trying to say in the second in such a brief statement. Negative rights means nothing to me and I never saw, thorough and going combined into one word before to assume I knew exactly what it meant.

 

[Death Aflame]

What I don't understand is how one is supposed to uphold positive rights in the absence of a coercive state apparatus for doing so. That is basically why I don't understand how this sort of socialistic mindset is consistent with anarchism.

I suppose it depends on how you define 'state'.

Social anarchists, to my knowledge, advocate for societal structuration based on direct democracy and decentralization. Thus the right to sustenance would be maintained locally, collectively, democratically and individually (the Marxist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" was the guiding principle in Anarcho-Communist Spain and I suspect would be in future anarcho-communist societies as well), as opposed to being provided by a centralized, hierarchical bureaucracy (how they would define a 'state'). In sum, positive rights would be enforced/maintained by a collectivity of local people.

Potential problems could arise, the tyranny of the majority being the most obvious, but some sort of social contract that citizens actively consent to (as opposed to passively, as is done in current societies) when they come of age such as a constitution or charter could help curtail this problem. And it is of course worth noting that dissenters who feel strongly opposed to such a system have the freedom to secede, if reconciliation is impossible.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Is "negative liberty" the liberty of some to oppress others unfairly? So do Capitalists have negative liberty, and postitive liberty would be the liberty to hang them all?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Socialism doesn't have to be collectivism. Was National Socialist Germany collectivist?

It is necessary to have an increasing amount of state intervention within a socialist system depending on how natually cooperative members within a society are. Therefore somewhere like Cuba or the Soviet Union requires a high level of state intervention - but the more homogeneous people can get by with less. The socialist state is there to see the people's needs are met, but the fascist state is about the people meeting the needs of the state.

This is a slight alteration of the ideas expressed in the original post in that I suggested that a multi-ethnic state could not really be Socialist due to the degree of overseeing that the state would have to do.

Cuba is a success as a Socialist state despite the racial mixture. But the people there do not feel a close kinship bond and without the state would descend into chaos and violence.

 

[razoredge]

Is "negative liberty" the liberty of some to oppress others unfairly? So do Capitalists have negative liberty, and postitive liberty would be the liberty to hang them all?

I was going to address this "negative" "positive" liberty and rights business... if I ever got an answer to help my lack of knowlege for the terms.

regardless my suspicion was that they are terms open to interpretation and self interests

so anyhow good job getting to the point of that matter

 

[razoredge]

In reality I think all governmental systems are socialist, otherwise...why is there government ? Its at least intact under the ideal of protecting its citizens.... though its become apparent in recent decades that its too stimulate its citizens into euphoric bliss for the benefit of the few that sneek out the back door with all the goods while everyone is having their self gratified orgasm of "hope" "future" and other such erotica.

Interestingly it all boils down to the fallout from overpopulation, so with over population you need a government to stimulate what life has become all about... paying bills so that others can pay their bills and so on. Lifes about paying bills.... awesome philosophy no ? Think of all the good men that wasted their time searching the meaning of life when in the end it would be simply about paying bills and spending any extra if there is any. "Fucking awesome Dude!"

 

[Death Aflame]

Is "negative liberty" the liberty of some to oppress others unfairly? So do Capitalists have negative liberty, and postitive liberty would be the liberty to hang them all?

Basically it entails all liberty that is defined as 'freedom from'. So to give an example in this society I have the freedom from being assaulted by other people. This of course is then extended to property rights, which is where capitalism comes into play (i.e. my property is free from the interference of other people). Of course, concessions are made to these ideas all the time in contemporary neoliberal democracies (taxes, human rights, etc.).

Edit: regarding you're second post, I fail to see how race is relevant to this discussion at all.

 

[razoredge]

race is highly relevent because the very first posts speaks of nationalism and there can be no nationalism with current multicultural neoliberal ideals.

 

[razoredge]

Let me begin by pointing out that these questions are retarded and so are you. As to your first question, no. Your second question doesn't even deserve a response.

First I wasnt completely sure but now I have no doubt you are simply a piece of used toilet paper

 

[Death Aflame]

race is highly relevent because the very first posts speaks of nationalism and there can be no nationalism with current multicultural neoliberal ideals.

But why is nationalism part of the discussion in the first place? From what I can gather from the OP, there seems to be an assumption that it is required for socialism to function, which of course is not accurate in the slightest.

I too am critical of liberal multiculturalism, but not because of ethnic groups and different cultures interacting, but because it is a statist ideology that must be 'approved' by a centralized bureaucracy in the first place, which makes it innately problematic.

 

[razoredge]

It seems to me {and I wont explain this well} that global and multicultural are tools and products of capitalism. Therefore harder edged socialism or communism are detoured by it. You get a population mixed in its priorities by feeling sorry for such and such a "poor people" rather then their own nations economic concerns.

Then it seems to me just the words socialism and communism are based around ones own society and ones own community, not every other country and culture.

I agree that "race" itself has little to do with it but with race you have differing cultures.

Where as capitalism is based on nothing more than money and who get how much first

On the flip side I can see how our socialistic system that is in place here in the States benefits multicultural intrusion by handing out our social security funds and tax dollars to immigrants and other countries but I dont think thats the fault of the ideal but those handling it. It also has benefited capitalist pigs as they got their hands on retirement accounts and pension funds to manipulate money out of in the name of investing... yet so much money mysteriously disappeared.

Perhaps Im making assumptions that our social security system and retirement plans/pension funds are a form of socialism ? As is our insurance industry ? I know our Labor Unions are... same as the frat boy unions are, unfortunantly both have led to protectionism of many that didnt deserve it.

Now this brings us all the friggin way back around to nationalism which is a form of protectionism.

Yeah, Im confused... help me out

 

[Norsemaiden]

The relevance of nationalism/ethnicity/race to socialism is that, as mentioned in the original post - socialism and altruism are virtunally the same thing. It has been conclusively proved by science, as well as being easily observable to anyone without an axe to grind, that altruism in Nature is linked to kin selection. From the start, we are more likely to cooperate and favour people on the basis of how closely related they are to us and how SIMILAR to us they are in various ways. Competition is also a vital factor in interactions between life forms and the less related and the less in common we feel with another person the more inclined we are to compete/fight/exterminate them.

The most homogeous societies are naturally the most cooperative, without the same need to be regulated.

It all comes down to the fact that "blood is thicker than water".

And also such cooperation is required for a tribe to survive and prosper so they fail without Socialism, and if they become instead a bunch of competing individuals.

Psychologically those who feel excluded from any prospect of belonging to such a Socialist society, as well as the clinical psychopath who cannot be altruistic and thinks only of the Socialists as a threat to his attempts at self-enrichment, can NEVER accept what I am saying and they don't understand it either. I have spotted a couple of them on this thread.

 

[Cythraul]

Psychologically those who feel excluded from any prospect of belonging to such a Socialist society, as well as the clinical psychopath who cannot be altruistic and thinks only of the Socialists as a threat to his attempts at self-enrichment, can NEVER accept what I am saying and they don't understand it either. I have spotted a couple of them on this thread.

Let me get this straight: Are you suggesting that those of us who uphold the right to voluntary association, cooperation, and exchange have psychopathic tendencies and are not altruistic? I'm sorry but ad hominem does not amount to an argument in respectable discourse. Moreover, this just reflects your deep misunderstanding of the position we advocate and the reasons that we advocate it. It has nothing to do with self-enrichment or psychopathy. God forbid somebody rejects the hubris of those who presume to have the knowledge and moral authority to centrally plan society. If you can't approach your opponents' positions in an honest way, then maybe you should just shut up.

 

[Einherjar86]

The example of the USSR is completely equivocal. The Soviet Union failed miserably as a socialist political system. The lowest levels of society were given wealth and land, but these concessions were granted at the expense of the more successful landowners. Wealthier farmers and agriculturalists were divested of their land and property, arrested, and imprisoned. The poorest members of society were taken care of, while those who carried the actual economic burden of the country were neglected and intentionally harmed.

Furthermore, those in power kept most of the wealth for themselves, and there was no "equal distribution of funds" between them and the poor. Basically, the USSR is historical proof that communist/socialist political systems provide a pathway to totalitarian states, as F.A. Hayek asserts in The Road to Serfdom. I believe that states of such enormous size and power cannot exist as successful collectivist powers. They inevitably tend towards totalitarianism.

 

[razoredge]

respectable discourse. If you can't approach your opponents' positions in an honest way, then maybe you should just shut up.

respectable discourse ?
honest way ?
"you should just shut up" ?

have you looked in the mirror.... ever ?

In this entire topic you have only made one post that amounted to anything and that was still minimal in value of anything to grasp on. The rest have been mud slinging, nasty assed childish bullshit which begged for a conclusion of psychopathic behavior