|
Post by Arthur Kane on Jan 27, 2009 17:55:49 GMT -5
Both Hitler and Mussolini started as Left-socialists.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Jan 28, 2009 4:52:16 GMT -5
Socialism: State ownership of capital Not really. Socialism its the dictatorship of proletariat. It means that the workers are taking control of their country under leadership of the vanguard party. When the state is just the owner of capital and nothing more,and the who country its ran by a small circle of bureaucrats its state-capitalism For example, the former "socialist" states are often called by the Left itself "degenerated workers state" or "state-capitalism" exactly because although the state had the ownership of capital, they weren't really socialist. Fascism is a type of socialism ( AAdmin was correct) which uses collective ideas such as race, nation, and state to extract loyalty from the population instead of Marxian socialism which relies more on collective concepts such as class. It appears that socialism has been mutating over the past 100 years into many forms
The Left its indeed composed by a impressive number of orientations : marxism, leninism, stalinism, maoism, technocrats, anarchists and i could go on forever. But they all have in common 2 things : classes & workers struggle and internationalism Socialism nationalism its exactly the opposite. It has classes , it has capitalism who exploits the workers and its nationalist. So if you want to play with semantics and say that fascism is socialism becouse its in his name , fine by me. But , as i said already, national-socialism its considered by the socialists a greater evil than capitalism itself
|
|
|
Post by Alb_Korcar on Jan 28, 2009 11:37:04 GMT -5
There are many different kinds of socialism marxisism leninims combined with capitalism is probebly the best and i kind of agree with the emperor
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 28, 2009 12:15:43 GMT -5
When the state is just the owner of capital and nothing more,and the who country its ran by a small circle of bureaucrats its state-capitalism All of these socialist countries were countries that in effect were run by " small circle of bureaucrats" as people who were on top were practically acting as they were the owners (including heads of corporations). Proletariat (meaning working classes) was never truly in power nor can it ever truly be as small corruptible elite will always surface ANYWHERE (making reaching the final destination, communism, most likely unreachable). It was only presented as such. Capitalism means private ownership and if there isn't any then it ceases to exist. I don't believe there is any such thing in reality (as far as reasoning goes) as State Capitalism (name perhaps created to ease fears of the marginalized elite) as it sounds contradictory as system where all the major capital would be in hands of the state would not even have a select few wealthy individuals that would make it center itself around some masked capitalism (such as so called western democracy). Such state, even if it would have few select but obviously marginalized elite capitalists, would soon afterwords marginalize their influence even further and eventually discard their influence all together. Fascism and Nazism are clearly forms of Socialism as I am referring to the manner in which they are run and economic system behind it (state above all). Whether Comintern or Red Moscow considered them enemies doesn't mean much. In fact many socialist states clashed with each other also and considered the other not to be socialist in nature (which of course doesn't mean that they were not). There was a Tito-Stalin clash for example just to name one. In that clash each side presented the other as the great enemy of the socialism and not to be true socialist. They were just different mutations. Socialism might have been intended to be internationalist (which is still form of nationalism but on wider global scale and its still exclusionary by nature - with us or against us- just like any other nationalism) but its basis is primarily economic. Human being humans are likely to to modify things to make something suit them better and that explains Nazism (extension of the German nationalist era only with socialist economic mask modeled on some levels on rigid and ultra-disciplined Prussia) or Fascism (extension of Italian nationalist era with desires of reliving great Roman state only with socialist economic mask). Becoming localized doesn't stop of it having the same essence especially in the era of nationalism, imperialism which surely on some level would have influenced certain leftists and as such the case with people like Mussolini and Hitler. Full name of Nazi party clearly reveals its socialist nature (with obviously nationalist nature and even some Pagan overtones) National Socialist German Workers Party. Albino crow is still a crow.
|
|
|
Post by Alb_Korcar on Jan 28, 2009 21:30:38 GMT -5
hey emperor, that "Albino crow" sounded kinda racist...i hoep it wasnt directed at me lol what kind of moderator are u?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 28, 2009 23:13:55 GMT -5
hey emperor, that "Albino crow" sounded kinda racist... Albinism is racist you say? One, that is nonsense and two - non-topic. Reread what I wrote several times and perhaps you will grasp it. i hoep it wasnt directed at me lol Until now I did not even notice you.
what kind of moderator are u? I am not a moderator!
PS: Now enough of these non related replies as they will be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Jan 29, 2009 2:57:03 GMT -5
Proletariat (meaning working classes) was never truly in power nor can it ever truly be as small corruptible elite will always surface ANYWHERE (making reaching the final destination, communism, most likely unreachable). It was only presented as such.
If socialism works or not that`s another problem. I merely presented what the Left wants in order to clarify some misunderstandings Capitalism means more than just private ownership. Its about exploitation. So it doesnt matter that you own a factory. You can stay alone in it and make love with the walls or whatever. The problem appears when you hire and exploit the workers.(again, not because you just own it) As example lets take the former "socialist" countries. There was an elite of upper part of the party who controled everything as they wished (exactly like a capitalist owner, without no inputs from workers). They also lived like typical millionaire owners. Yachts , big houses , nice cars , etc etc . The whole difference between Bill Gates and First Secretar`s yacht was that the latter was named People`s yacht ( altough he was still used only by him) They were de facto the small numbers of owners of the whole economy. Exactly like in capitalism. [/b] as I am referring to the manner in which they are run and economic system behind it (state above all).[/quote] No, the main goal of socialists are the workers and , eventually abolition of the state. Also , how a form of Socialism can be made with a full blown capitalism ? Isnt this kinda antagonistic ? Socialism is indeed exclusionary by nature, but regarding social organization , not borders or people like nationalism Do you know whats the official name of North Korea ? DPRK ( Democratic People's Republic of Korea ) That must be a very democratic country. The name says so. Anyway, you gave yourself the answer , regarding national-socialism`s appurtenance to the Left. Yeah they used the "socialism" speech , but only to reach their personal purposes and they transformed after their wishes . That doesnt make national-socialism part of the Left. Not, if that albino crow is in fact a pig who claims he can fly like the black crow.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Jan 29, 2009 11:24:11 GMT -5
Socialism: State ownership of capital What I meant was the purely economic definition of socialism, not its sociopolitical consequences. What you want to define as the state is a separate issue. The point is, socialism doesn't allow private ownership of capital. This is reserved for the state. Not all anarchists are what you would define as 'Left' or 'Red.' There are branches of anarchism called anarcho-capitalism (market anarchism), agorism, mutualism, and individualist anarchists. Some popular figures involved with these branches of anarchism were Murray Rothbard, Benjamin Tucker, Proudhon, Josiah Warren, Gustave De Molinari, Lysander Spooner, etc. National Socialism or (Inter)national socialism have the same philosophical roots. They are rooted in collectivism. One version distinguishes on class and economic standing, the other distinguishes on ethnicity/race/nationality. It still doesn't change the fact that both brands of socialism have the same philosophical foundation.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Jan 29, 2009 11:40:37 GMT -5
It doesn't work, not even in theory. Socialism lacks any mechanism for rational economic calculation. Morally, it is contradictory and bankrupt.
In the purely economic sense, capitalism means private ownership of capital. The interpreted consequences are subjective. Where one might consider it 'exploitation' and immoral, they other could rationalize a voluntary agreement between individuals for exchange of labor.
You're making assumptions here. Not all business owners are 'elites' in the sense you are talking about. What a business owner does with his resources is regulated by the market itself. ( Consumer demand). Doing what you want to do without rational inputs increases the risk of losing your business and all the wealth you put into it.
I think you're confused here. It seems that you are saying the only way to arrive at a considerable amount of wealth is by 'exploiting' unjustly the labor of others, be it in a statist society or a capitalist one. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding on your part about basic wealth creation.
When a select group of individuals are extracting wealth from everyone else via political means, then I agree with you, this is exploitation. However, the market provides more sincere ways of obtaining wealth. One may become rich by exchanging value with the consumers he provides for. A software designer can create a product that benefits billions and those billions are willing to exchange with him voluntarily. This is not exploitation when both parties get what they want out of the deal.
No, the main goal of communism is to have a stateless society ( at least in theory). Socialism is seen as the intermediary tool for the 'proletariat class' to achieve communism. The theory fails since it is inherently self-contradictory. Socialists seek to use the full power of the state to regulate and change the social landscape in order to pave the way for a stateless society. In other words, its absurd to want to use the full power of the state to abolish the state utterly and completely.
|
|
|
Post by Alb_Korcar on Jan 29, 2009 12:02:05 GMT -5
emperor that "Albino crow" comment was really uncessary and u posted it right after me, i dont doubt it was on purpose.
ArthurKane, u dont know waht real socialism is about so stop talking nonsense, all u have to do is look at Scandanavia and some other semi-Socialist countries in W.Europe to see taht it works.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Jan 29, 2009 12:34:26 GMT -5
Thats not 'real' socialism as defined by Marx.
While 'socially' the Scandinavian countries might appear more socialist, economically they are very capitalist. Each of those countries have very low trade tariffs for example, they have less controls over their currencies as well ( except for the Euro using ones). Less stringent monetary and trade regulations than even that of the US ( which is very regulated btw). In these countries, socialism thrives as parasitical on an economically capitalist foundation.
Please explain to me what you mean by 'real socialism' then.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Jan 29, 2009 12:44:38 GMT -5
First of all we should decide what we are talking about here. We continue mixing theory with practice and its a mess. I say lets stick with the theory and, if its desired, we can open another "can socialism work ? " topic. What I meant was the purely economic definition of socialism, not its sociopolitical consequences. What you want to define as the state is a separate issue. The point is, socialism doesn't allow private ownership of capital. This is reserved for the state. What you meant was the pure and simple definition of the dictionary. All anarchist are a flavor of Red , because their final purpose its the same : a communist like society. The difference between them and classical communists ( marxists, maoists etc) is that they want to skip the socialist phase. Even anarchists-primitivists ( who often are put in the "green category") (John Zerzan or Derrick Jensen )still consider themselves red. Anarchist-capitalist its another story. They are a small niche. The large majority consider the term anarchist-capitalism a dichotomy. There are no version. There are 2 systems totally opposite. You cant dream at total workers control with full blown capitalism. You cant be a virgin while fuck*ing for money. No, they dont. National-socialism negates everything what Left stands for. If you want to interpret the consequences feel free to do so. But i remind you i`m talking from the Leftist point of view, where capitalism = exploitation ( the worker doesnt receive the full value of his work) Thats mainly exists in the school manual at the "perfect market" chapter
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Jan 29, 2009 13:11:42 GMT -5
Sure, you can open up a thread for 'pragmatic socialism.'
If you read Das Kapital, then you would know Marx originally intended only an purely economic definition of socialism. That is why I bring it up. Das Kapital is all about the role of capital in society and who owns it and who should own it.
I know the agenda of the Left-Anarchists. But it is simply false to declare all anarchists are 'red.' Individualist and Market Anarchism have their own rich histories. In fact, radical free market ideas were originally leftist until the Fabian socialist hijacked the meaning of the left. The Left-Right dichotomy has changed so much that its really meaningless IMO though. Even Marxist class theory was originally derived from radical free market interpretations of class theory as presented by authors such as Comte which directly influenced Marx. ( Yes I can find your sources if you wish.)
Actually Anarcho-Capitalist ( Market Anarchist) branches of anarchism are increasingly popular probably due to their more rationalist , deductive , logical , and pragmatic approach to anarchism. Conversely, many consider true capitalism ( not state capitalism but purely free markets) to be the ultimate form of anarchy since the market and the state are typically enemies.
And your analogy makes no sense since it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of Market Anarchism. MA focuses more on the coercive and voluntary relationships between individuals and promotes the latter. It doesn't distinguish individuals by class so there is no 'workers' biased' It merely works off the premise that individuals can voluntarily establish their own relationships be them iron welders or business owners.
You're misunderstanding that both N.Socialism and Marxian socialism have a common premise. They base them on collectivism. All moral , economic, and social conclusions can be determined on a collectivist premise. It is not surprising that many fascist sympathizers came from the Leftist socialist persuasion. It is no surprise that ideas of leftist socialism and N.socialism both found a home in German academia. Even Hitler and Mussolini were originally part of the leftist socialist position.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Jan 30, 2009 2:09:15 GMT -5
Actually Anarcho-Capitalist ( Market Anarchist) branches of anarchism are increasingly popular probably due to their more rationalist , deductive , logical , and pragmatic approach to anarchism. Conversely, many consider true capitalism ( not state capitalism but purely free markets) to be the ultimate form of anarchy since the market and the state are typically enemies. No offence, but again its a very simplistic point of view. Anarchists are not just against the state, they reject any form of authority or coercive control. Thats why most of them reject even the current form of democracy ( the majority is right) because its coercive for minority From anarchist-communists to those primitivists freaks ( the technology its inherently evil because it brings authority and coercive control) we can find the same idea. And thats why, most of the anarchist ( not all, but most) are looking to a communist like society who is based on absolute free personal determination. ( which doesnt exist in anarcho-capitalism) You mixed 2 totally diferent posts and you end up with a different connection The "virgin who fuchs for money" analogy was for national-socialism. Who claims that he cares only about the workers (socialism) but lets the owners (capitalists) to do whatever almost whatever they want. What is "collectivist" in an economy controlled by the corporations ? Thats true, but doesn't necessary proves their connected with each other. Merely what its already known already : that Utopian theories are very likely to be adopted by dictators to justify their actions. (and mixed if needed) Neither Fidel Castro,nor Mao Zedong werent originally communist leaders when they started to fight for national liberation. Marx was more a philosopher than an economist. Even LTOV its considered valuable for pointing out the contradictions in capitalism , not by creating a true economic system. And the main point of it : the use of plus value and inherent exploitations its still the one of the main tenet of the Left. There was never Of course they do, even in the first textbook from 9th or 10th grade. They dont develop the anarchist-capitalist way lol, but how the perfect demand and supply should work Anyway , of course we still have demand and supply, i just exaggerated to point out that in reality we are light years away from at least a decent one ( not even perfect) with all the state interference , corporations, monopoly , oligopoly etc etc
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Jan 30, 2009 12:17:33 GMT -5
Ancaps are no different. Ancaps recognize there are two kinds of association, voluntary and coercive. They reject the latter. 'Authority' or 'Leadership' can be valid when it is voluntary. A person can volunteer his services for another person's project as they will come to a mutual agreement of trade. (I'll put up this drywall if you give me X ,etc.) There is nothing coercive in that relationship.
Ancaps are no different. Ancaps do not recognize 'majorities' and 'minorities,' they only recognize individual people. No individual has legitimate coercive rights over another.
Except those anarchist feel that the group is greater than the individual. Ancaps, Agorists, and individualist anarchist see the individual as most important, every individual.
This is a loaded statement. You are inferring that only a communist-like society can bring about personal freedom. Where is your evidence for this? Ancaps believe individuals beholden to themselves and not some abstract 'group' have the best opportunity for personal freedom. There are no positive obligations. I cannot demand from my neighbor that he 'owes' me something and use force to get it from him as if I am entitled to the product of his labor ( his wealth earnings). I can only voluntarily trade with him.
The corporations in fascism have all their activity directed by the state. They can keep their 'private property' so long as it serves the will of the state. For example, if I lived under a fascist government and owned a steel forging plant, and the government demanded that i sign a contract with them to produce arms for them, and I refuse, they would likely shut down my operations, consider me an enemy of the state, and throw me in jail or something worse.
Corporations are government creations. Corporations as we know them wouldn't exist in a Market Anarchy. Corporations are backed with the force of the state and their gains are privatized ( with kickbacks to politicians) and their losses are socialized ( to the taxpayer). The state enforces this status quo and safeguards the word 'corporation' in their legal language.
In MA, profits are privatized, but so are loses.
Utopian theories are ideologies. They are often divorced from reality ( such as communism assuming a post-scarcity world and, therefore, cannot be economical) but the lure of their ideals has great sway. They are all fronts for the idea that the 'perfect society' can be 'centrally planned' by a benevolent leader with near omniscience that requires power.
You know I hear these apologetics for Marx say the same thing. Marx is no longer an economist , he is some kind of philosopher, lol. However, Marx , indeed , presented himself as an enlightened economist being able to predict the ' value of labor' found in all commodities. From his own illogical premise, he drew illogical conclusions. He is a discredited economist and pretty much a bankrupt philosopher and historian. His predictions about society, based on his 'scientific philosophy' never came true. At some point we have to acknowledge that he didn't really contribute anything positive in the way of making man more free.
If you want a more 'rational' argument from the Left as far as economics goes, I suggest reading into (Neo)Keynesianism or the socialist-economist Oskar Lange.
Ancaps don't believe in 'perfect' supply and demand ( whatever that means?). Far from it, ancaps acknowledge there certain unpredictable factors at play here and that is why central planning doesn't work. Ancaps do not believe the market ever reaches full general equilibrium or else there would be no trade ( trade implies a double inequality of wants, not an equality).
In textbooks we learn that some central planning is necessary and, therefore, are indoctrinated into an argument for the state.
|
|
|
Post by Dragos Voda on Jan 30, 2009 23:45:16 GMT -5
However, Marx , indeed , presented himself as an enlightened economist being able to predict the ' value of labor' found in all commodities. From his own illogical premise, he drew illogical conclusions. He is a discredited economist and pretty much a bankrupt philosopher and historian. His predictions about society, based on his 'scientific philosophy' never came true. At some point we have to acknowledge that he didn't really contribute anything positive in the way of making man more free. Just because Marx's predictions about society never came true doesn't mean it's not possible that they could happen in the future. There's no way he could have foreseen the technological advances and the huge amounts of natural resources that the west obtained from colonizing other countries. These two factors improved the life of the working class in the west. You need to assume that there will continue to be technological advances in the future and an abundant supply of natural resources if the working class is to be content.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Jan 31, 2009 2:45:01 GMT -5
Ancaps are no different. Ancaps recognize there are two kinds of association, voluntary and coercive. They reject the latter. 'Authority' or 'Leadership' can be valid when it is voluntary. A person can volunteer his services for another person's project as they will come to a mutual agreement of trade. (I'll put up this drywall if you give me X ,etc.) There is nothing coercive in that relationship. Authority can be voluntary. Or not. What if nobody wants your drywall ( no demand ? ) You will wash Chihuahua dogs under their tails , although you hate with all your guts those rats , wrongly put in the "dog" category. Moreover when from the parties involved , 1 has capital and the other dont, the relation its inherently authoritarian coercive. That`s irrelevant , because in ancap the market will decide who is the majority , or the minority , not the individuals. Sure , you still have the right to do anything you want, like to choose to starve because society around you doesn't fit your wishes. But my best guess its that you will choose to wash those Chihuahua and hate the majority of people who instead of choosing your "drywall" spend all their money on Chihuahuas. No, all anarchists are in a way or another "individualists" ( no authority, remember ? ) Even if this "group" its seen as an interaction of free individuals. Although Ancap its based on other paradigma , it has the same degree of Utopianism like the Reds. Whos going to stop me to take something from you by force. ? The private police who cant be bribed because of the market competition between police firms ? C`mon !!!!! Sounds interesting , but let me ask you something : Who or what is the will of the state ? In Germany , a dictator was the only "will of the state" In USA , the corporations are the "will of the state" Where you and me , the average Joe, fit in this nice catchphrase : "will of the state" ? Erm , and what stops corporations ( who are nothing but large accumulation of capital perfectly doable even on a ancap market) to use force ( private force, that is) ? Of course it can be. There are enough theories on the gift economy. Which , altough its moneyless its still require certain mechanisms to work. But most of them, are indeed to abstract and speculative to be considered economic theory. Thats a moot point , as it`s very subjective. For the Left, Marx remains one of the greatest visionaries and Das Kapital its a "must read" for any Red. While i`m sure you can give me 100 authors would not only want to refute his writings, but piss on his grave too. Lets not mix the terms here.I was using the Left term for the Reds, their flavors and other similar dogmas. (not for social-democrats, welfare supporters ect) Keyne its not a Leftist (red) and Oskar with his market socialism its exactly what Left likes to call a " revisionist" As a personal opinion , they both have very interesting ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Kassandros on Jan 31, 2009 6:36:17 GMT -5
"Will real socialism ever happen?" ------------------------------------- It had. Olaf Palme in Sweden. I became Socialist because of him. After his killing and since then..... I'm a lost soul . I cannot find real Socialism anywhere in the world.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Jan 31, 2009 10:27:26 GMT -5
"Will real socialism ever happen?" ------------------------------------- It had. Olaf Palme in Sweden. I became Socialist because of him. After his killing and since then..... I'm a lost soul . I cannot find real Socialism anywhere in the world. Social-democracy its NOT socialism. Its a good idea to read the rest of the topic if your interested in it.
|
|
|
Post by Kassandros on Jan 31, 2009 13:55:56 GMT -5
Ah.. ok.
But in Greece, when we say Socialism it is given that this is inside a democratic regime. "Social-democracy" does not exist as a term in Greek. We use only the word "Socialism"... like "Capitalism" and "Commounism". The tottalitarian goes only to "Commounism" not to "Socialism".
|
|