Capitalist Pig
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:I don't want to place words into Mcolomes mouth but he is probay referring to the for profit detention centers used to house undocumented migrants. ICE are required to detain 34,000…a captivemarket (pun intended) for the private prison industry whose shares rose because of the election of Trump. There is little need for detention.Nine of the ten largest ICE detention centers are private and stricter the enforcement of immigration law, the better these businesses benefit.Private prisons hold about 8 percent of the country’s inmate population. On the other hand, private prisons and county jails hold 90 percent of immigration detainees. Even in facilities owned by ICE, many of the operations are carried out by personnel contracted from private companies .Carl Takei, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, said while investors stand to profit, they shouldn’t lose sight of what he calls the moral issues wrapped up with the private prison industry. “No matter what they say about being a government services company or providing valuable services to government agencies, this is a business model that doesn’t need to exist,” Takei said. “It represents the outsourcing of an essential government function to for-profit companies that have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, but not to the the public.” “The contracts make it clear that this is about commodifying human beings,” the ACLU’s Takei said. “The government specifies they will deliver a certain number of units to the private prisons. The units in this context are human beings.” You want to define them as felons and criminals but Trump ordered ICE to prioritize deporting not only immigrants who been convicted or charged with crimes, but also those who had "committed acts that constitute a chargeable offense"—a category that could include entering the country illegally and driving without a license.
I get that private prisons are basically slave pens but I don't understand why anyone would defend drug-dealers,rapists, or murderers and advocate not enforcing the law against these people.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:Another thing to bring up, what makes you think people would want to be actively involved in the political process? Because it would take a massive amount of work and involvment if the people were to formulate planned economies and its just like do you really think the majority of people would even want to participate?CP, this is actually a very important issue you have brought up and should be commended for it.Many socialists themselves have tried to address this. We are all in favour of participatory democracy but don't wish our lives to revolve constant meetings as you pointed out.In the days of yore, the common response that we elect a system of delegates to take responsibility. Critics have cautioned that perhaps some sort of strata of bureacrats may well arise, expressed often as who police the police. Once solution suggested is a return to a democracy and administrative duties by lot. Demarchyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SortitionAfter all be base our system of justice and courts on a random pick of people from the electoral roll. This idea is an extension of this concept.But we have the power of computer technology these days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_filteringPeople are involved in what they have shown an interest in and can be contacted by text or email or whatever for opinion and oversight.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1210-june-2005/pathfinders
Quote:capitalism’s drive to make its democratic forms look more participatory may be doing socialism’s work for it, so that in the future the technology to debate, dispute, appeal, complain, conference and vote will all be in place – at the touch of a phone button.We also tried to offer an answer to how goods and services are allocated with the minimum of administrative paper-work and increase the automaticity of the stock and shelf filling process in our anaysis and critique of the Economic Calculation Argument.
the last quote is matt's not mine, but I really think these things should be taken into consideration instead of just repeating that a planned economy will be all great and wonderful. There are flaws in this concept but I do believe it is possible if the people are very diligant and want to see it succeed.
robbo203 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:So without a state or any kind of entity to enforce the rule of law, what is stopping someone or a group from simply taking power in the vacuum. So without a state to enforce the law anything will go.What do you mean ideology is not applicable in a 'socialist society'? does this mean in your view diversity of thought should be banned for the greater good or something like that?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.
The 'new immigration measures' is just the federal government enforcing the law, particulary focusing on felons. I don't understand why you would have any sympathy for someone who immigrated illegally and commited a felony, its like spitting on your face while you welcome them in with open arms.
mcolome1 wrote:Only sheep's need leaders. No political knowledge is required to become a leader. An ignorant like donald trump has been elected as a leaderSo what is this 'political knowledge' you speak of? Do you think that the ignorant masses just blindly voted for him because of his hair? give me a break
You have already had this explained. "..as every revolution previously has been a minority led one to capture power for a minority."So you are in favor of a direct democracy? You think that whatever the majority of people think at a given time, whether right or wrong should be implemented into law? "…and the band played believe it if you like". Capitalist self serving propaganda and lies and delusion. Just repeating that doesn't make it so. I said that,.."Governments exist to govern over the people on behalf of the ruling class.'Twas ever thus. You are naive to consider it could be any other way, in a parasitic class dominated society." In capitalist democracy the people surrender their power for 4-5 years to elected politicians to exercise control over them. With competing capitalist interests you get the best government money can manipulate or buy, with occasional PR hiccups..You can call my opinion "capitalist propoganda and delusion" all you like but that doesn't change my view. You may need the smack of firm governance over you, but socialists don't.An essential of the leadership theory is the political ignorance of the unlucky people who are to be led. Leadership, in fact, could not exist without blind and ignorant followers.The truth is that no elected politician can control the market—which operates for the private gain of a tiny number of owners.As long as the market exists we cannot have control of our own lives, run things in our own, and our own communities' interests, because that would threaten the profits of the tiny few.Leaders can't change that. Only we can, by acting together, without leaders, to end the whole profit-driven, market system.In socialism, minority class ownership will be abolished and everyone will have free access to what society produces. There will be no need for a means of exchange, hence no monetary system and nation states will come to an end. Everyone will have the opportunity to participate in the decision making of society.The administration of things will replace the government over people.Therefore, a socialist revolution will require the active participation of a majority of class conscious workers who understand the need to replace capitalism with socialism. Workers cannot be led into socialism, however ‘revolutionary’ the leadership is.This is why the Socialist Party is organised without leaders. "Experience has shown that no exceptional degree of any other capacity (i.e., fluency, etc.) is necessary to make a successful leader. There need be no specially arduous training, no great weight of knowledge either of affairs or the human heart, no receptiveness, no new ideas, no outlook into reality. Indeed, the mere absence of such seems to be an advantage; for originality is apt to appear to the people as flightiness, scepticism as feebleness, caution as doubt of the great political principles that may happen at the moment to be immutable. The successful shepherd thinks like his sheep, and can lead his flock only if he keeps no more than the shortest distance in advance." — W. Trotter, 'Instinct of the Herd', page 116.Just struck me as insane when you said "leadership is a capitalist principle" I get the collectivism agrument but what I don't get is the hostility toward the market and trade. You say unless you have complete control over the market there can't be freedom, I'd say that would be violating the freedoms of the people.Another thing to bring up, what makes you think people would want to be actively involved in the political process? Because it would take a massive amount of work and involvment if the people were to formulate planned economies and its just like do you really think the majority of people would even want to participate?
mcolome1 wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:Matt wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:it looks good on paper but its a whole different story in reality.It as never existed in reality as every revolution previously has been a minority led one to capture power for a minority.
Quote:I think the government should work in the interest of the peopleGovernments exist to govern over the people on behalf of the ruling class.'Twas ever thus. you are naive ot consider it could be any other way, in a parasitic class dominated society.
Quote:and its the peoples' and medias responsibility to make sure they are not taking advantage of their power.Governments exist to facilitate this. Why do they have armies and police forces and ideological reinforcement through schools and media, other than to back up this advantage, on behalf of the ruling class.
Quote:But without leadership there will undoubtedly be a struggle for power whether you like it or not, not all people think in the collective sense.Leadership is a capitalist political principle and irrelevant when we come to discuss the post-capitalist society.This leadership notion is an absurd one in the context of a majority led revolution, which ends class domination, establishes common ownership and democratic control with free access to the social product for all.Power can not be struggled over, when it is already won and exercised by the immense majority, who have made the revolution. Power would effectively reside in us all.The prize is to emancipate us all. To end povery and war. To empower us all as social equals.Nothing will stop an idea which time has come.
1st question: what makes you think it would be any different another time around? Or a first time around. The communist leaders would struggle for influance among the people and it would turn into a popularity contest, principles wouldn't be needed as long as the people are happy.2nd question: the purpose of government is to govern on behalf of the people, you can debate the effectiveness of this but its just up to your ideology3rd question: Leadership is not a capitalist principle…I mean come on….really?
It looks like you are going into an endless cycle repeating the same questions and argumentations that have already been explained several times. I think this is a wasting of time. You should know that a society without state does not need leader. Matt did not say that leadership is an exclusive feature of the capitalist society, it also existed in the slavery society . We have explained hundred of times the concept of ideology, and it is not applicable to the socialist society. You should do some serious reading in order to inform yourself
So without a state or any kind of entity to enforce the rule of law, what is stopping someone or a group from simply taking power in the vacuum. So without a state to enforce the law anything will go.What do you mean ideology is not applicable in a 'socialist society'? does this mean in your view diversity of thought should be banned for the greater good or something like that?
Matt wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:it looks good on paper but its a whole different story in reality.It as never existed in reality as every revolution previously has been a minority led one to capture power for a minority.
Quote:I think the government should work in the interest of the peopleGovernments exist to govern over the people on behalf of the ruling class.'Twas ever thus. you are naive ot consider it could be any other way, in a parasitic class dominated society.
Quote:and its the peoples' and medias responsibility to make sure they are not taking advantage of their power.Governments exist to facilitate this. Why do they have armies and police forces and ideological reinforcement through schools and media, other than to back up this advantage, on behalf of the ruling class.
Quote:But without leadership there will undoubtedly be a struggle for power whether you like it or not, not all people think in the collective sense.Leadership is a capitalist political principle and irrelevant when we come to discuss the post-capitalist society.This leadership notion is an absurd one in the context of a majority led revolution, which ends class domination, establishes common ownership and democratic control with free access to the social product for all.Power can not be struggled over, when it is already won and exercised by the immense majority, who have made the revolution. Power would effectively reside in us all.The prize is to emancipate us all. To end povery and war. To empower us all as social equals.Nothing will stop an idea which time has come.
1st question: what makes you think it would be any different another time around? Or a first time around. The communist leaders would struggle for influance among the people and it would turn into a popularity contest, principles wouldn't be needed as long as the people are happy.2nd question: the purpose of government is to govern on behalf of the people, you can debate the effectiveness of this but its just up to your ideology3rd question: Leadership is not a capitalist principle…I mean come on….really?
it looks good on paper but its a whole different story in reality. I think the government should work in the interest of the people and its the peoples' and medias responsibility to make sure they are not taking advantage of their power. But without leadership there will undoubtedly be a struggle for power whether you like it or not, not all people think in the collective sense.
Osama Jafar wrote:well; as SPGBERS say there no such thing as communist state, about what you understood as setting communes that is not what I meant; republic is less personnel democracy and both are governments & its not sexy any more! . am fine if people elected staffs that really help and through the stupid organisations that don't do anything useful may push for the next – as organisations are the next tool for humanity. After all its people choice to create their hell or paradise.you made me lol when you said republics and democracies aren't sexy anymore xD
alanjjohnstone wrote:You are right, CP. We should not demonize individual capitalists and we try not to do that too much compared with others. Some business leaders are well-meaning and well-intentioned people.We have repeatedly said that changng the personnel does not change the system and that the capitalist class are as much victims of the system as the workers…they are merely more materially rewarded, but psychologically, i am sure many are as damaged as ordinary folk. However, there are some capitalists who do epitomize the capitalist system in their attitudes and it is difficult not to be personal, at times. I am thinking of Martin Schreli, in particular, who can shameless take advantage of the law to make the vulnerable pay unreasonable prices for medicine. And in the past, the name "Robber Baron" for particular industrialists was not too amiss the target, either. That we think alike should not come as a surprise. After all we are all members of the same organisation and share its analysis and goals although we can disagree most vehemently on some topics which you can see on this forums on other threads.That we support the idea that democracy can be exercised by the election of accountable and recallable delegates i think is the strong point of our case and it is one that many people are now focussing their attention upon. Our caveat is that this can only succeed by a social democracy, as socialism was one described and another name for socialism that has fallen out of usage is industrial democracy. As i mentioned previously, self-management and control of the work-place cannot be neglected when it comes to collective decision-making, not just city and regional councils and assemblies as organs of political power. You appear to take the line that the AGM of investors should ultimately determine the needs of society since you uphold their privileges of ownership and that their proposed business plans and corporate agenda reflect the interests of the community as a whole. Nothing could be further from the truth.But when you say there is a need for government, we say what is vital is rational organisation…To-MAH-toes, To-MAY-toesfair enough
