Socialism in the 19th century meant worker control of the means of production and/or the belief that everyone should possess the fruit of his/her labor. Only after the hegemony of the German Social Democratic party did Socialism=Statism. As I've said, I desire a free and equal society; I have different means of attaining it.
Communism III
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
Now, I said that forced re-distribution of wealth is theft. Voluntary re-distribution is fine with me.
Land should (IMHO) belong to those who use it. Therefore, I think rent=theft.
You should take a look at parts of the early United States(excluding slave owning areas, of course), where people worked their own land, instead of a landlord's land. They were far more egalitarian than their European counterparts, where there were lots of serfs farming a landlord's property.
I want a society that is equal and yet maintains freedom. Its not black and white. You can have lots of economic and personal freedom, and equality.
EDIT:I would call myself an anarcho-socialist, but that confuses me with the idiots who smash windows at protests. I'm damn moderate for an anarchist, and lib. socialist sounds like a much better term.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Well these terms are of no importance anyway. Anybody who thinks a complete political opinion can be put into one or two words has either no idea about politics or no opinion. 
Therefore you're right in taking whatever you want and explaining it more differenciated to those who care.
Therefore you're right in taking whatever you want and explaining it more differenciated to those who care.
roadwarrior
Warlord
Well, the nearest we have ever gotten to pure capitalism (19th century NORTHERN America [so no slaves there]) laid the foundation for and built much of the greatest economic power the world has ever seen. The nearest to pure communism on a large scale the world has ever seen (early 1920's Russia under Lenin, before the NEP) destroyed the pitiful economy already in place and caused mass starvation. It does not stand to reason that a system that was a miserable failure in the closest to its pure form should suddenly become perfect when it is "pure." I can show you a concrete example of unrestricted capitalism, and you can see it in the real world. If it didn't happen we would not have the luxury to have this conversation. The standard of living has risen drastically since the introduction of capitalism on a large scale. If you deny this, I don't really have a retort. Anyone who denies facts can not be swayed by logical argument. You can continue praising your prophet of 150 years ago well the rest of us live our lives in the real world.
How is mercantilism capitalism? It was the precursor of capitalism, but it sure had government interference. Hence, it is NOT capitalism. It developed into it, but they are by no means synonomous.
@Fez_monk
Landlords use their land to make their living. How is it not theirs?
But the voluntary re-distribution is fine by me. If you want to give up your property, whether to the government (God knows why) or to charity, you are more than welcome. I'm not really old enough to have a steady income, but my dad, who has views somewhat similar to mine, gives a lot of money to charity every year. Like on the order of several thousands of dollars. We are not that rich, so that is quite a bit.
To clarify on something I said earlier: when I said if you do not work you don't deserve anything I meant that for people who are fully capable of working. So old, young, sick, handicapped people would not fall under that category. I would gladly support my sick uncle or something. I just don't think that I should be FORCED to pay for YOUR sick uncle. I may choose to do so, but that should be my decision, as it is my money.
How is mercantilism capitalism? It was the precursor of capitalism, but it sure had government interference. Hence, it is NOT capitalism. It developed into it, but they are by no means synonomous.
@Fez_monk
Landlords use their land to make their living. How is it not theirs?
But the voluntary re-distribution is fine by me. If you want to give up your property, whether to the government (God knows why) or to charity, you are more than welcome. I'm not really old enough to have a steady income, but my dad, who has views somewhat similar to mine, gives a lot of money to charity every year. Like on the order of several thousands of dollars. We are not that rich, so that is quite a bit.
To clarify on something I said earlier: when I said if you do not work you don't deserve anything I meant that for people who are fully capable of working. So old, young, sick, handicapped people would not fall under that category. I would gladly support my sick uncle or something. I just don't think that I should be FORCED to pay for YOUR sick uncle. I may choose to do so, but that should be my decision, as it is my money.
Damien
Emperor
When i was talking about re-distribution i was talkin about forced re-distribution.Rent is theft it's true.Roadwarrior i think collectivisation can work.Aztecs n Incas were millions and Iroquois were thousands.The iroquois weren't the only one practicing it in the N.E USA moreover.
Greadius
:yeah:
Well, we don't live in a true democracy. I don't think true democracies are any more feasable than true communism. But, to answer the gist of the question: capitalism is about economic freedom and efficiency more than who ends up with the wealth in their pockets at the end of the day. Fluid wealth is vital to capitalism working, so the hoarding of wealth that seems to be the hallmark of the 'down with the rich' scheme is economic sense. However, instead of the government taxing it and redistributing it; an inherently inefficient and unequal process, people with excess money voluntarily place it in financial institutions (banks, stocks, bonds) that, in turn, lend the money to those that need it to do SOMETHING (hopefully profitable) with it. That fluidity of wealth is why the economic pie that American's live in is constantly growing. Of course, the limited redistribution of wealth to provide an unprofitable social safety net is the only justification I see for taxation with the intent of spreading wealth.
I'd rather be bombarded with advertisement because I have a choice than stand in line and hope I get to the front before whatever it is I'm in line for runs out. Unless of course you have a better plan...? Okay... in that system, I wouldn't work, but you can keep working harder and benefiting my life. What are you going to do about it? Tariffs and monopolies are both inefficient and bad for capitalism market economics. I oppose both. Yet you seem to instist that those methods that keep capitalists in power are the same methods that limit their development and ideals; there is some inconsistancy in your analysis.
As far as enforced trade agreements... if they didn't want it enforced, why would they AGREE to it. Voluntary transactions are a preferable way of doing business, no?
Because the process of achieving an artificial equality of wealth is impossible within a democracy.
roadwarrior
Warlord
Anyone who believes in democracy supports political equality and equality before the law. This does not extend to economic equality. If you want to give all your money away and make your part of the world economically equal, go right ahead. But I'm not about to, and I'm not about to let you make me.
Damien
Emperor
Greadius,The true democracy exists:Switzerland(since the 13 th century moreover).I think colletivisation can succeed because it did in N.E USA b4 the europeans arrived.
Damien
Emperor
Very good point here.
It goes with"people shouldn't vote because they are too dumb and it should be let to experts."The right way is to educate people and get em involved in the democratic process.What leads the state?Politics n money.Benefits should be redistributed and employees should vote about what to do for the company.
It goes with"people shouldn't vote because they are too dumb and it should be let to experts."The right way is to educate people and get em involved in the democratic process.What leads the state?Politics n money.Benefits should be redistributed and employees should vote about what to do for the company.
Damien
Emperor
It'd be great,at least better than the system we live in.
Dang! Struck out again. Now I ought to get back to work... because I like it! I'll return in a few hours...
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Communism is the absolute removal of competition from society, and therefore, will hurt the consumer. A single monopoly, whether owned by a government agency or group of shareholders. Totalitarian consumer production ultimately fails, whether in a "democratic" society or not.
Damien
Emperor
Lodging cooperatives in Switzerland are far from failing.
It is interesting, and there are different forms of it. One of the more extreme incarnations is quite close to anarchism, and it looks like a good alternative to capitalism and the State.
I've found a good summary of what guild socialism might look like. To view it, click this: http://william-king.www.drexel.edu./top/personal/wkpaps/gildf/gildpref.html
Similar threads
