[Capitalist Pig]

John Pozzi wrote:

Hi Eugene, Yes!Take it to the next level via grb.net and be an Earth shareholder.  

hello newcomer

[Capitalist Pig]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

things are funny like that, like with the federal and state law on pot possesion, some states completely ignore the feds

Also importantly the so-called sanctuary cities in regards to enforcement of immigration laws and undocumented migrants

problem is the state governments aren't giving the federal government the information they request on illegal immigrants who have commited crimes. You can say some states are attempting to prevent the federal government from enforcing the law on immigration by witholding information but the feds are the ones who are supposed to enforce it. its just political games some governors are pulling to get lib votes and in the process pissing off the feds

[Capitalist Pig]

robbo203 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 my computer just shut off b4 i could save my f'ing comment i got to start all over…What i meant by a planned economy is an economy based on producing products for use.Under your envisionment of communism there will be no mechanism for a minority to leverage power but what I was trying to say is that communism can not be implemented perfectly as you envision. Democracy is a double edged sword, it lets the majority exurt its will through a popular vote but at the same time represses the will of minorities, which could lead to human rights violations. There needs to be a balance between the power of the state and the people, with one extreme you have totalitarianism and the other you have mob rule.never heard of a natural economy but my guess is that it never even existed lol

 I understand what you are saying but be aware that the concept of a "planned economy" has other connotations and is usually associated with  a command economy model of state capitalisn such as existed in the Soviet Union which we socialists do not support in any way.  A "natural economy" is essentially a non-exchange or non-monetised  economy and in that sense has certainly existed.  Peasant subsistence production is an example of this. As I and others here have tried to explain the concept of democracy in socialism/communusm that  we put forward is something much more nuanced than you are attempting to portray.  For a start, we do not envisage the continuation of the state in communism,  The state is a particular kind of institution that can only exist in a class based society.  In communism there are no classes – because the means of production are held in common – and therefore there can be no state. There will be democracy in communism, however,  as a  natural extension of common ownership but democracy will be a multi-faceted and multi-level phenomenon, operating at different scales of social organisation – local regional and even global.  A further point is that the scope of democratic decisionmaking, though it will be significantly wider than is the case today , will have limits and will need to have limits.  It has to be counter balanced by considerations that bear upon the freedom of the individual or indeed  the minorities you speak of (meaning democracy will tend to take a consensual. form based on compromise rather than an adversarial form)  In fact, I have always argued that the great bulk of decisions in a communist society – if we are to be quite literal about this – will not be democratically-based but individually-based,  For instance it would be up to you as an individual to decide what you wish to consume or what work you wish to contribute.  This is implicit in the communist slogan "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs." Where democracy comes intio the picture is when you have decisions that need to be made that have unavoidable collective or joint impacts.  It is quite right that the people who are going to be significantly affected by a decision  should have a say in it.   The only alternative to that is to have decisions imposed on you from above and I am sure you wouldnt agree with that! So certainly democracy has a very important role to play in a future socialist or communist society but it is not quite the role you seem to imagine

I don't support mob rule, it may sound nice but I guarantee it will go to shit very fast. The state needs to exist for the stability an advanced civilization needs. If you give all the power to the people soon enough you won't have a civilization anymore. It will be replaced with chaos, disorder, lawlessness, a burnt shell of what society once was basically.

[Capitalist Pig]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Briefly 

Quote:

How will you know that those randomly elected administrators will be compatent enough to run a planned economy though?

I am sure there will be a system of balances and counter-checks via a process of recall, CP, as they do nowadays in many places.

Quote:

With the populace being the ones that write and enforce the laws, people will simply pick and choose which laws they want to follow which means no law or order.

Just as they do today…laws on the statute books that are simply ignored.http://ijr.com/2014/12/222618-50-state-laws/ 

yea things are funny like that, like with the federal and state law on pot possesion, some states completely ignore the feds hehe

[Capitalist Pig]

robbo203 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 You assume that people are capable of running a planned economy on their own, people are only motivated through materialism, and civil liberties will always be upheld by a complete democracy. Your idealogy only thrives in a perfect world with perfect conditions and perfect people who all share the same collectivist ideas. Reality and ideology are like completly different things, you claim your model is applicable in reality and when problems come up you shield yourself from them saying that it is impossible for it to fail. With the populace being the ones that write and enforce the laws, people will simply pick and choose which laws they want to follow which means no law or order. Your idea is good in concept, but bad in practice.what i mean by a planned economy is a economy based on directly meeting needs and wants instead of through exchange as in a capitalist one.

 I am not assuming any of the things  you say, CP and I certainly have not suggested that socialism would be a perfect, problem-free society.  Rather my argument hinges on the point – which you have still not addressed –  that there wil be no mechanism inside a socialist society by which a minority could leverage political power over others in a way that might threaten thier "civil liberties". Again I ask you – show me how this could be done when goods and services are available on a completely free access basis .   You talk about "materialism" but this is a very materialist observation I am making! Thank you for explaning what you mean by a "planned economy",  I think the descrition is misleading however for the reasons I stated – that every kind of economy involves planning and that, if you mean by a planned economy specifically a system of centralised society-wide planinng then this will definitely not be what socialism is about.  I think the term that you are searching for is not a planned economy but a "natural economy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_economy

my computer just shut off b4 i could save my f'ing comment i got to start all over…What i meant by a planned economy is an economy based on producing products for use.Under your envisionment of communism there will be no mechanism for a minority to leverage power but what I was trying to say is that communism can not be implemented perfectly as you envision. Democracy is a double edged sword, it lets the majority exurt its will through a popular vote but at the same time represses the will of minorities, which could lead to human rights violations. There needs to be a balance between the power of the state and the people, with one extreme you have totalitarianism and the other you have mob rule.never heard of a natural economy but my guess is that it never even existed lol

[Capitalist Pig]

mcolome1 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

that has to be the stupidest thing i've ever read. o

Which one?

if you support the U.S. government then you are a felon, Which translates to if you are a nationalist then you are no better than a rapist, muderer, druglord. Very offensive

Do not come to tricks with me, and do not insert words or expression that I have not said. This is what i said: "If you support the USA government, you are supporting the biggest felon that exists around the world"Your translator is not working properly,  because you do not have to be a nationalist in order to support any kind of government, and also you do not have any country either There are peoples living in one country,  and they support another country because they sympathize with their decision. How offensive would feel the Mexicans and other people  that you have called rapist, murderer and druglord ?  I  repeat again, if you do not know the national and international history of the USA, I suggest to do some serious studying , by reading some serious historical sources such as: Francis Jennings, Howard Zinn,  and several others serious historian. I am talking about story teller

nationality does not matter if you are a criminal. I didn't say all mexicans are felons, as you know but what you said is probably why more people aren't in your party.

[Capitalist Pig]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I highly recommend this article by a certain Robin Cox  which i recommend to CP as a fuller explanation of your comment.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1993/no-1066-june-1993/beyond-capitalismMy point was just we should not crucify a critic unjustly. CP had a point …we do have economic plans in socialism…Yet how these plans are created and then carried out have some similarities to capitalism but also some stark differences. I think we may very well use a global coordinator such as the United Nations WHO, after all they have shown that they can eliminate smallpox and now on the brink of ending polio by a world-wide approach tailored for local and regional circumstances. I'd like CP to understand that socialism isn't an instant panacea and an over-night process  but there will be need for goals and objectives in a similar vein as the Millennium Goals, (now replaced by the Sustainable Goals) were devised and global action taken….planned, so to speak…First, there would have to be urgent action to relieve the worst problems of food shortages, health care and housing which affect billions of people throughout the world.Secondly, longer term action to construct means of production and infrastructures such as transport systems for the supply of permanent housing and durable consumption goods. These could be designed in line with conservation principles, which means they would be made to last for a long time, using materials that where possible could be re-cycled and would require minimum maintenance.Thirdly, with these objectives achieved there could be an eventual fall in production, and society could move into a stable mode. This would achieve a rhythm of daily production in line with daily needs with no significant growth. On this basis, the world community could live in material well being whilst looking after the planet.

you guys like to write alot…lol

[Capitalist Pig]

robbo203 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 What you advocate sounds nice but it isn't based in reality. You don't explain how people will manage the land and what would be done to prevent the liberties of people from being trampled on, you just repeat how a planned economy will be all great and wonderful so there will be absolutly no problems. You probably have an anarchist view which I disagree with as you know but just stating the concept of a planned economy won't win you an agrument.

 Socialism isnt  yet a reality, I perfectly agree, but you are not surely suggesting here – are you? – that what you call "reality" is something that is eternally fixed or preordained?   Go back a few centuries and some people will be raising the very same objection about capitalism as you do about socialism – that is "not based on reality". I am not suggesting everything will be hunky dory in socialism, that it will be some kind of perfect utopia. Of course there will be problems to overcome. There always will be . The case for socialism is simply that it affords us a much better framework within which to solve these problems. The case for socialism is a pragmatic one I am not at all supppsing that individuals will be transfomed into angels without character defects. When you ask "what would be done to prevent the liberties of people from being trampled on " you seem to implying ths.  You seem to be implying the need for a strong state to exist to prevent our defective human nature from expressing itself,  We are basically all rotten apples – to use your metaphor  – in the end. This is  looking at the question the wrong way round.  You are starting from the individual.  You see the individual as someone with an inherent tendency to dominate others and trample over their liberties.  I am starting from society and the way it is organised.  My argument is that there is no social mechanism inside a socialist society that would allow some individuals to exert social power over others.  If there is then show me what it is.  That is my challenge to you.  Show me how, given a society of free access to goods and services, any one individual or group can bully, blackmail and generally coerce others into doing something against their will.  Common ownership of the means of production dissolves the very basis of political power itself – the state Finally,  I havent mentioned a "planned economy" at all so I am curious as to what you mean by this. All economies without exception involve planning,  Capitaliism is full of plans.  Usually by a planned economy is meant the idea of a single society-wiide plan to cover the entire economy. But I dont advocate such a thing it all.  In fact I am a fierce opponent of the idea and have argued against it repeatedly.. Socialism will necessarily involve a considerable degree of decentralisation.  It will necessarily be to a considerable extent a self regulating or self ordering system of production.   I think you are confusing the outlook of socialists with that of Leninists and their talk of a planned economy.  And by the way – how many anarchists do you know of who endorse such  a thing? I think you will find most if not all anarchists woud oppose it too

You assume that people are capable of running a planned economy on their own, people are only motivated through materialism, and civil liberties will always be upheld by a complete democracy. Your idealogy only thrives in a perfect world with perfect conditions and perfect people who all share the same collectivist ideas. Reality and ideology are like completly different things, you claim your model is applicable in reality and when problems come up you shield yourself from them saying that it is impossible for it to fail. With the populace being the ones that write and enforce the laws, people will simply pick and choose which laws they want to follow which means no law or order. Your idea is good in concept, but bad in practice.what i mean by a planned economy is a economy based on directly meeting needs and wants instead of through exchange as in a capitalist one.

[Capitalist Pig]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

CP, i think it has been made quite clear that "government" need not be the present one and that societies around the world have had different forms of government that would be considered more representative of their populations than our own. Your objections to what you take to be anarchist administrations doesn't mean that they could not work in even the most sophisticated and elaborated societies, such as we have around the world.We have responded to your concerns that peoples personal property might be at risk by explaining the distinction between personal possessions and social property. An ex-capitalist will be most likely ermitted to retain his mansion and perhaps his holiday villa but it will be up to himself to maintain it in good order. We have plenty of experience in Europe of impoverished nobility letting their grand homes go into ruins because one person is simply unable to keep it in good repair and have had to go cap in hand to the State ministry for the upkeep and became a de facto care-taker than owner. Society in todays world is more or less run by paid-experts and not the owning class … and it has been since the 19th C when the capitalist no longer could manage his own affairs and begun hiring over-seers and accountants and executives to carry out his wishes. Socialism, when required to make decisions that cannot be taken locally will elect or even randomly appoint administrators to be the spokes-persons of the people and make choices. Democracy isn't that complicated…on the otherhand, CP, disguising class domination under the pretence of democracy does make politics very complicated.Murray Bookchin was an advocate of the New England town-hall assembly style of participatory democracy. America has its tradition of direct democracy that can be revived quite easily and adapted to the computer world.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_municipalismSwitzerland regularly hold referendums of it devolved decentralized cantons.  Rather than an exception its example could be common-place. I think if i began to list the failures and faults of existing "bourgeois democracy" it would be a very long post. 

How will you know that those randomly elected administrators will be compatent enough to run a planned economy though? If literally anyone can be elected to run it then that is obviously a bad idea. Democracy empowers the public but do we know that they are knowledgable enough to decide who will run something as complicated as a planned economy? These things are assumed and I'm saying thats not enough.

[Capitalist Pig]

mcolome1 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

that has to be the stupidest thing i've ever read. o

Which one ?

if you support the U.S. government then you are a felon, Which translates to if you are a nationalist then you are no better than a rapist, muderer, druglord. Very offensive

[Capitalist Pig]

just to restate, we are talking about what form of government would be the best to implement a planned economy and preserve the rights of the people, if any.

[Capitalist Pig]

robbo203 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the whole bunch. I bet there would be many 'true' communist parties that would be in competition for power, debating endlessly on how communism should be implemented. You underestimate the power of propoganda, even if something is untrue, if repeated enough times it will become true in the eyes of the public.I advocate for the establishment of a state so that civil liberties will be protected under law and so the best and brightest can formulate a planned economy according to the needs of the people. But essencial liberties must be protected at all costs in order for the state not to go totalitarian, this will be the ever-lasting duty of the people and the media.There are other ways you can go about it but I think this is the most practical in order to prevent mob-rule

 Again, you are ignoring the question – what is the mechanism by which a "few bad apples" could ruin it for the whole bunch in socialism?  How can they impose their will on a majority when 1) goods and services are freely available to all and, as a corrollary 2) all labour is performed on a purely unpaid unremunerated basis?  You dont explain.  But for your argument to hold any water at all you need to explain how this minority can persuade or force the majority to give up common ownership of the means of production in favour of  minority ownership of those means. You need to explain how this supposed minority might be able to leverage things to their advantage.  But you dont .  All you are offering here is a knee jerk prejudice, not a thought-out argument As for your advocacy of a state in which "the best and brightest can formulate a planned economy according to the needs of the people" this totally contradicts your previous comment.  In socialism, you posit a hypothetical minority – a few bad apples – that will somehow conspire to thwart the will of the majority (and suceed in doing so) by putting their own needs before those of the majority.  Yet here you are advocating a state-run sciety in which this same powerful  minority or elite will be interested in formulating  a "planned economy according to the needs of the people" There is only one way in ehuch you can operate a class-based and, hence, statist society and that is in the interests of its ruling class,  And equally there is only way in which the "needs of the people" can be served and that is by getting rid of classes and the state

What you advocate sounds nice but it isn't based in reality. You don't explain how people will manage the land and what would be done to prevent the liberties of people from being trampled on, you just repeat how a planned economy will be all great and wonderful so there will be absolutly no problems. You probably have an anarchist view which I disagree with as you know but just stating the concept of a planned economy won't win you an agrument.

[Capitalist Pig]

sorry mcolome i just can't take you seriously anymore because of what you said

[Capitalist Pig]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

CP,  we all know that totalitarian states are very disingenous when they introduce draconian legislation. They are never open about who they seek to target.  Trump is using fear of rapists and murderers to remove people who are of no threat, at all, to others.To quote from the link to the directive.(a)  Have been convicted of any criminal offense; (my emphasis)(b)  Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved; (my comment – not yet found guilty by a court, simply charged)(c)  Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense; (my emphasis on the vague definition…jay-walking?)(d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency; (such as trying to get around rules by saying you are not undocumented such as using fake social security number to get a job )(e)  Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits; (by pretending to be eligible as so many native-born do when claiming benefits)(f)  Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; (Trying to evade deportation orders)Trump has from the very start tried to conflate the serious criminals with ordinary and the vast number of decent migrants. We shouldn't be taken in by the deliberate propaganda. The Directive is aimed at ALL immigrants, not the dangerous ones.Perhaps you have already seen this storyhttp://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Undocumented-Woman-with-Brain-Tumor-Removed-from-North-Texas-Hospital-414651843.htmlAs for ICE's assurance that she will receive appropriate medical treatment in detention…you must know in your gut that it is a false promise. 

Trump is bringing law and order back into Washington that is a good thing. Enforcing the law when it comes to immigration will be a good thing for both the USA and mexico when it comes to wages, secerity, and identity theft prevention. You may have empathy for people who come into my country and make a living from killing people with drugs like heroine but I don't. Not saying they are all hard criminals but alot of them are and its insanity to let them into our country.

[Capitalist Pig]

robbo203 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 I question your reference to the existence of a power vacuum.  In  socialist society, the material basis of any kind of political power structure will have dissolved. To put it concretely, what political leverage could  you or any group of individuals exercise over anyone  else when the means of living are free available to all without  any kind of quid pro quo exchange whatsoever and when work itself is perfomed on a purely voluntary and unpaid basis?

They will be available to all but also be up for grabs for any group that can gain influance with the people without an already established state. You can agrue if it can be possible for a group to gain influance but that is a possiblility in my opinion.

 You miss the point completely. To what end would any group "grab" what goods  it could for itself and therefore to the disadvantage of the general population? You are effectively saying that  such a group would consititute itself as a ruling class that can withhold the means of living – consumer goods – to people, having seized ownership of the means of producing such wealth.  How is this possible?  What is there in this arrangement that would benefit the general population or even a part of the the general population?.  Do you think some form of slavery or economic coercion is preferable to a society of free access to goods and services and volunteer labour  and that there will be people in a socialist society who might think this is the case and amongst whom this hypothetical group you speak of will gain influnce and make a bid to grab the goods that society produces? Frankly I dont see this as remotely possible. Free access trumps free markets every time.  Why would anyone rationally pay for something when they could get it for free? There is no way the market can compete against freedom – the freedom to determine your own needs and the freedom to contribute to society as you would wish without being subjected to the whiplash of wage slavery. If there is no possiblity of rationally persuading the population in socialism to support something  that runs directly counter to their own interests – and remember socialism can only be introduced if and when a majority understand and want it – then it follows that there is no possibility of some group, intent upon grabbing all goods for itself,  gaining any kind of influence within such a society.  This is what I mean by such a group not being able to exercise any kind of leverage.  The material basis of political power – minoroity ownership of the means of producing wealth – will have completely dissolved in a socialist society. Once the socialist genie is out of the bottle there is no going back

it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the whole bunch. I bet there would be many 'true' communist parties that would be in competition for power, debating endlessly on how communism should be implemented. You underestimate the power of propoganda, even if something is untrue, if repeated enough times it will become true in the eyes of the public.I advocate for the establishment of a state so that civil liberties will be protected under law and so the best and brightest can formulate a planned economy according to the needs of the people. But essencial liberties must be protected at all costs in order for the state not to go totalitarian, this will be the ever-lasting duty of the people and the media.There are other ways you can go about it but I think this is the most practical in order to prevent mob-rule

[Author]

Posts