I found this article if anyone wants to read it:



'Society and the individual under socialism

Socialism means a change in people and in society.

The fundamental change in the system of ownership has to mean a fundamental change in many other aspects of life and human behaviour. This is due to the fact that the change in ownership requires not simply an institutional change but also a fundamental change in people and in their relationships. Workers working in free association with each other have to be very different from wage workers under capitalism.

And these changes in people and relationships can't be confined to the economic sphere. It has to effect other aspects of life. You can't have change in one without the other.

You are not going to be concerned about the common good in production if you don't give a damn about it in other areas of life. If you are fully developing your abilities as a worker you are not going to revert to being a disempowered numbskulls when you knock off work for the day. Nor do you revert to being an embittered arse-hole after a day of working in a cooperative mutually regarding fashion.

Because people have the ability and the opportunity to be full players in production they also have the ability and the opportunity to be full players in society as a whole - in other words in the cultural, intellectual and political life of society. This doesn't mean that you have to be a Leonardo da Vinci who knows all there is to be know about everything. What it means is that you are involved in activities across the spectrum of human endeavour. Most things are within your range and accessible to you. It also means that society is no longer divided into educated and uneducated.

And just as people have healthy and cooperative relations with their co-workers, they have healthy and cooperative relations with others generally. The change in ownership will affect people and their relations with each other in a number of ways:

* The work place is a no longer a dog eat dog environment where you win at the expense of others. It is about everyone winning through cooperation. So it is no longer about beating others to a promotion, making someone else cop the wrap, screwing the customer or getting your pound of flesh from employees or subordinates. This cooperative behavior will obviously transfer across to other areas of life. Also you no longer have victims of abuse in the workplace having their relations with people outside the workplace tainted by negatives feelings such as bitterness, rage and humiliation.
* There are no longer inferiors and superiors. So you are not looking down on anyone and no one is looking down on you.
* Full participation in production means you have your act together. You have better social and communication skills and more confidence and you feel better about yourself. This all leads to better behaviour towards other people. It also means that you don't lie back and let yourself be a victim of other people's oppressive behaviour.
* A diverse and challenging range of activities in economic and other spheres of life means more diverse and deeper relationships with other people. In other words, sharing interesting and challenging activities is the basis for strong bonds between people.
* Having work that is gratifying rather than irksome has an overall positive impact on how people behave.
* Children are raised by healthy and capable adults. This means that your behaviour and your relations with others gets off to a good start. Also your intellectual development is on a firmer footing.

Socialism means a new individuality. There are three reasons for this:

* There is not the pressures to conform when there is no one with special power over you. You can't be penalised for your views or your behavior.
* You are more of an individual because you are able to fully develop and exercise all your abilities and talents. This means being a fully functioning individual.
* Full development of your abilities and talents also means full development of your differences, because we have different strengths and limitations.

As well as a new individuality there is also a new belonging. Being a full player, having a shared prosperity and having healthy relations with other people means feeling at home, belonging. We are no longer alienated from society and others. However, it is not the old belonging of traditional pre-capitalist society. The old belonging made the individual simply an organic part of society whose life was mapped out for them by such things as their class, gender, family ties or religious obligations. The old belonging was also to a limited group - family, clan, village - to the exclusion of other groups and of humanity as a whole.

The new belonging is an autonomous belonging that balances the fact that we both need to control our own lives and also meet our needs through other people. It is also in conformity with global fraternity. This belonging is also critical in motivating people to work for the common good and to use resources efficiently.

The fundamental change in people and in their relationships also means the elimination of various social pathologies.

* Crime will be less of a problem because people who would otherwise be criminals have better options because of their new role as co-owners of the means of production. Also they feel that they belong to society and have greater empathy for other people.
* In the case of behavioural disorders, these will be reduced as a natural consequence of the better conditions we've been discussing and our increasing knowledge of human psychology.'

"Before Kingdoms change, men must change."


Sounds a lot like my idea of corporatism.

------------------------------------------
Fairy Tales are important, not because they teach us dragons are real, but because they teach us dragons can be defeated.

I agree with your beneficial concepts of socialisim in society.I think the bad human nature qualities are fed by capitalisim and it's going to be a long time before all the greed and selfishness of capitalists is eliminated.This is why it's so hard for socialists to get their message effectively presented and accepted in america,materialisim,greed, and selfishness is alive and well in america,the dog eat dog mentality is acceped as a fact of life here in america.Communists/socialists have always had a uphill battle for people to see and accept the beneficial effects of socialisim.When you have christianity in america blessing capitalisim as it does that battle for the minds of people is further complicated.I do consider myself a christian but,a very liberal one that does not follow the capitalist dogma thruout the old testament,unfortunatly most christians in america accept that garbage as Gods word.The best we can do as communists/socialists today is to educate as many as we can about the true beliefs of communists/socialists and explain the beneficial effects that our ideology has for all of society.It is going to take a long time but,we must be determined and have faith that we will prevail,for the future of all mankind.

There is only one problem:

The masses will steal your own innovation (unless the government does first) and give it to the "common good" or the "greatest need." I find this rather sickening. No one, myself exluded has a right to my ideas or my mind. If I'm a worker, and I don't like an employer, I find another job or open my own business (the beauty of capitalism). All the while, I don't have to worry about commy oppressors knocking on my door pirating my ideas and giving it to the common good without my consent or without the payment that I deserve and propose.

'There is only one problem:

The masses will steal your own innovation (unless the government does first) and give it to the "common good" or the "greatest need." I find this rather sickening. No one, myself exluded has a right to my ideas or my mind.'

It's a difficult issue. Suppose someone invents a pill that cures cancer. Do they have the right to do whatever they want with it? Do they have the right to charge such a high price that poorer people suffering from the disease will inevitably die?



'If I'm a worker, and I don't like an employer, I find another job or open my own business (the beauty of capitalism).'

This is a bit simplistic isn't it? All other jobs will have an oppressive employer too. It would be like saying, 'if I go to prison I can just get transferred to a different prison.' And if you set up your own buisiness it will most likely fail. And, if most people decided they wanted to set up their own private buisiness there wouldn't be enough workers for it. Your first solution involves going into the same situation and your second solution probably will not work, and in any case is no solution for the vast majority of people.



'All the while, I don't have to worry about commy oppressors knocking on my door pirating my ideas and giving it to the common good without my consent or without the payment that I deserve and propose.'

If you come up with an idea, there has to be a certain ammount of consideration of the common good, as with the example of a cure for cancer.

I wouldn't be concerned about the price. I would set the price as reasonable. Many people blame capitalists as overly outrageous prices. I live just fine and I still have enough to stow away. What I would be concerned of if someone regulated my own product. If I'm a true capitalist (laissez faire) I understand that my product will have value. I will sell it for a reasonable price as aforementioned. However, if anyone, other than myself chose to regulate MY product, I would NOT sell it. It is my product. I created it and I would sell it myself. The government, or anyone else for that matter has NO right at all to any product I concieve.


As for setting up my own business, why would it fail?

I'm still trying to figure out where communists would get all of there money to contribute to the "Greater Good."

'I wouldn't be concerned about the price. I would set the price as reasonable.'

You might set a reasonable price yourself, but would other people who are selling an important product?


'Many people blame capitalists as overly outrageous prices. I live just fine and I still have enough to stow away.'

But this is just you, what about other people? Anyway there's some fairly outrageous prices here in Ireland. The physical cost of a house is roughly 40,000, but you will pay about 300,000 for a house over here. Most people have basically decided to forget it, there's no chance of ever owning a house and that they'll have to rent for the rest of their lives. 300,000 is an unbelievable price and I don't think it can be justified, especially for something as important as a house.

'What I would be concerned of if someone regulated my own product. If I'm a true capitalist (laissez faire) I understand that my product will have value. I will sell it for a reasonable price as aforementioned. However, if anyone, other than myself chose to regulate MY product, I would NOT sell it. It is my product. I created it and I would sell it myself. The government, or anyone else for that matter has NO right at all to any product I concieve.'

The example of the houses in Ireland indicates that private individuals cannot be trusted to set a fair price. The bunch of fools in government who have been in power for who knows how long, Fianna Fáil, are funded by construction companies, so Fianna Fáil do nice little favours for the construction companies like setting housing prices intolerably high. The construction companies through the medium of government have made sure that a reasonable price was not set. I'd like to hear your opinions on what should happen with the housing situation in Ireland.
Anyway, in a communist society, there would be no private buisinesses, because the vast majority of people would have decided they don't want them anymore and want to control their own work democratically. If you invent a new product, we'll say a new phone, how would you make money off of it? You will find no1 who will want to work for you, because no1 will want to work for someone else. All you could do is sell your phone in a small shop, you would make roughly what you would make working in the buisiness co-operatives. You could not make massive ammounts of money off your product, not because of government regulations necessarily, but because people simply would not want to work for you. So, would there be any point in holding onto your product for the sake of the same money you would make anyway when you could turn it over to society and do so much good? You would still be credited as inventor of the new phone, your name would still go to the history books, and you would still have the satisfaction of knowing you made people's lives just a little bit better.


'As for setting up my own business, why would it fail?'

It will be outcompeted most likely. I'm not sure what the statistics are for failed buisinesses but I know they are fairly high. And anyway, if the vast majority of people wanted to set up their own private buisiness there wouldn't be enough workers for it. So the setting up your own buisiness alternative can only work for a small minority, the majority are condemned to work for other people no matter what happens under the current system.

'I'm still trying to figure out where communists would get all of there money to contribute to the "Greater Good."'

Capitalism only exists to create profit. Once the buisiness owners have made their profit they will do no more. So they let tonnes of food rot even though the food being produced now is enough to ensure that not a single human being must suffer severe starvation.
It often happens that under capitalism there is both unemployed construction workers and homeless people. Many people think the situation that exists now is just, 'cold hard reality', but the fact is this is just how things are under capitalism and they could in fact be much better.

You have all the solutions for capitalists but you don't care about the less fortunate of society, you don't care about the poor,the old,the vast ghetto's that capitalists create, you only care about yourself, that is the big difference between capitalists and socialists, we do care about the underprivlidged in this capitalist world of yours.

I may strongly disagree with him, but I'm looking forward to an interesting discussion with Lucent Shadow, so try not to insult him unless he insults you first. To be fair he hasn't fully clarified his position on what should be done about the less fortunate in society. I know he went a bit mad and called us, 'commie oppressors,' but he apologised for doing this.
Anyway, I think a mistake you often make is thinking that everyone who supports capitalism does so because they are bad people. Not so, many people support capitalism because they genuinely think capitalism is the best system for everyone. People like bornetokill support it because they are bad people, but not everyone is the same as bornetokill.
Anyway, I'm having an interesting debate with Lucent, he's really made me think about important issues, and I'd really like if this didn't descend into an insult session. I'm sick of the insults on Democrat DF from the likes of btk, finally there's a capitalist who argues reasonably we should make the most of that instead of just yelling at him.

It's quite all right hammer and sickle. I very rarely get offended.

As for the rest of society? Why should I give a damn about them? What, if any part at all, do they have in my life? Why should you care so much about other people when I'm trying to survive on your own? What happens when you realize that you cannot support everyone? You begin to accept UNEARNED guilt- which is what I deem as one of man's largest sins. They feel guilty for things they have no control over. They feel guilty becuase they have done something that society has deemed innapropriate. Oh, but you say that the masses are always right, and the individual is wrong? Why should I allow a cripple to work in a company where no cripple should quite evidentally belong?
WHAT RIGHT HAS ANYONE TO MY MONEY?


One man laughed a nation in the face and discovered that the world was round.

One man decided at a vote in the 1940's after WW II to make our Countries national language English instead of German.

These are just a few of many examples of the individual prevailing over the opinions of the masses.

Why should I sacrifice everything I am to help people who cannot help themselves when I know that it is possible to help oneself if you can think. My Grandmother is 91 years old and is still managing a resturaunt. She loves it to death, and the workers never complain about the way she manages a resturaunt.

You think it's just me who would apply fair prices to all of my products? Go to the Objectivism Online Forum and talk to the numerous rational capitalists who do not agree with our current form of distasteful mixed economy. Go to capmag. com.

There are indeed evil business men out there. In order for Capitalism or any form of political scheme to be successful, you need to have a rational being there to oversee it. That is what has prevented ANY form of PURE or TRUE government to exist. The mixed ideals of men taint it.


WE ARE NOT A CAPITALIST SOCIETY. I don't know how many times I've said this. There are principles of it in effect, yes, but not enough of them to perpetuate it's existence.

Just as true Communism has never existed, neither has true Leissez Faire Capitalism.



















































.

You ask me, "What about the poor people?"

My question to you is, "What about the rich?"

Are you saying that under Communism, only the poor would have individual rights? That sounds rather sickening to say the least. To say that they would simply have more rights than the rich isn't much of an improvement.
Capitalism holds that any individual has the right to persue liberty, property, and happiness. It holds that man interact socially by not stealing the product or money of others but to trade rational value for rational value.
The foundation of Capitalism is individual human rights. In Communism, people can't survive in such a climate, because they have to rely on themselves instead of others to provide for them. Capitalism's motto is, "I'll never live for another, nor will I NEVER ask ANOTHER to live for me."

I ask you which is more rewarding- accepting the hard-earned hand outs of your fellow men, or earning your own way?

Capitalism holds that no man is forced into poverty. Everyman who is able to think is allowed to utilize his ability to make a fortune. Capitalism has not made people poor. Our economy has inherited the poor. Our current mixed economy with the aide of haphazard rules and regulations is what has created poverty. The poor should not rely on the government controlled handouts of hard-working people. If they stopped doing so, maybe some of the rational capitalists would see people who are true valuers and worth helping.

You mean to tell me, that if we truly had a free government (free of taxation) and free to create as we chose and earn our own keep without having to sacrifice it to the whims of others- it would fail and create poverty. Especially when world-wide income increase, has been scientifically proven to reduce housing costs? If man allowed to create as he sees fit, how could he be poor? If he creates a product that another one enjoys, and sells it for a price he sets, the buyer doesn't have to agree with it. He's not being forced to buy it, he either makes his own or goes somewhere else.

As for the people who cannot work i.e. the crippled, retarded, etc...
Capitalism would, of course, allow voluntary charities to help these unfortunate individuals.

"Capitalism would, of course, allow voluntary charities to help these unfortunate individuals."

That is real nice of them to do that,capitalists are such great people that's why America does not have any social problems, because these nice capitalists and their charities continue to eliminate all the social ills of our society. I have been thinking about asking my congressman to declare a national holiday dedicated to capitalists to celebrate the great things they do.

Although a communist, I must say I'm glad there is finaly
a captialist that debates reasonibly.

'As for the rest of society? Why should I give a damn about them? What, if any part at all, do they have in my life? Why should you care so much about other people when I'm trying to survive on your own? What happens when you realize that you cannot support everyone? You begin to accept UNEARNED guilt- which is what I deem as one of man's largest sins. They feel guilty for things they have no control over. They feel guilty becuase they have done something that society has deemed innapropriate. Oh, but you say that the masses are always right, and the individual is wrong? Why should I allow a cripple to work in a company where no cripple should quite evidentally belong?
WHAT RIGHT HAS ANYONE TO MY MONEY?'

As well as the fact that they are your fellow human beings, society is interconnected. Unless you built your own house, made your own food, made your own computer for typing this very post, then you are dependant on others, and they are dependant on you. Someone else built your house, someone else made your food, someone else built this very computer. That's the part they have in your life, whether it's immiedietly obvious or not. Take out the contribution of others, and well, that's the end of you.
Everyone can be supported, the idea that they can't be is a myth created to support capitalism. The entire world could be fed with food that is dumped, we could wipe out world hunger without actually doing anything extra.
As to the thing about the cripple, if it is at all possible to accomadate them, by wheelchair ramps etc., then they should be accomadated. Communism doesn't just put unqualified people anywhere, that's a misconception you seem to have. Someone without a medical degree would never be allowed to perform an operation, a blind person would never be allowed drive a taxi, etc. The idea is to give people the best opportunities possible. To try to give them opportunities that are impossible is well, as crazy as it sounds.


'One man laughed a nation in the face and discovered that the world was round.

One man decided at a vote in the 1940's after WW II to make our Countries national language English instead of German.

These are just a few of many examples of the individual prevailing over the opinions of the masses.'

Obviously I believe an individual can be right and the masses can be wrong, I express this everytime I post because at the moment the masses disagree with me. But the best way I believe to have a just society is to have a society where the people rule, put a few individuals in charge, and they'll get corrupted.

'Why should I sacrifice everything I am to help people who cannot help themselves when I know that it is possible to help oneself if you can think. My Grandmother is 91 years old and is still managing a resturaunt. She loves it to death, and the workers never complain about the way she manages a resturaunt.'

People who cannot help themselves? Well let me ask you something, what's your plan if, for example, you end up in some terrible accident, and lose the ability to work. What's your plan then if no1 should take care of those who cannot work? This is the benefit of taking care of those who can't work, someday it might be you.

'You think it's just me who would apply fair prices to all of my products? Go to the Objectivism Online Forum and talk to the numerous rational capitalists who do not agree with our current form of distasteful mixed economy. Go to capmag. com.

There are indeed evil business men out there. In order for Capitalism or any form of political scheme to be successful, you need to have a rational being there to oversee it. That is what has prevented ANY form of PURE or TRUE government to exist. The mixed ideals of men taint it.


WE ARE NOT A CAPITALIST SOCIETY. I don't know how many times I've said this. There are principles of it in effect, yes, but not enough of them to perpetuate it's existence.

Just as true Communism has never existed, neither has true Leissez Faire Capitalism.'

I do believe this is a capitalist society. Sure there's a government, but government is subservient to the will of capitalists. Even if some of capitalism's ideals have been distorted, I believe there is still enough of its elements in this society to consider what we live in now capitalism.


'You ask me, "What about the poor people?"

My question to you is, "What about the rich?"

Are you saying that under Communism, only the poor would have individual rights? That sounds rather sickening to say the least. To say that they would simply have more rights than the rich isn't much of an improvement.
Capitalism holds that any individual has the right to persue liberty, property, and happiness. It holds that man interact socially by not stealing the product or money of others but to trade rational value for rational value.
The foundation of Capitalism is individual human rights. In Communism, people can't survive in such a climate, because they have to rely on themselves instead of others to provide for them. Capitalism's motto is, "I'll never live for another, nor will I NEVER ask ANOTHER to live for me."'

As Communists we believe that all large ammounts of wealth have one way or the other been stolen from the workers. If a buisinessman owns a factory and makes millions, where would he be without his workers? If all the workers decided to go away would he still be making money? Not at all. That's why in a communist society all wealth that can be demonstrated to have been stolen from the workers would be taken from its owner.
As to what you say is capitalism's motto, if this were true then everyone would have their own farm and would not interact economically with others.

'I ask you which is more rewarding- accepting the hard-earned hand outs of your fellow men, or earning your own way?'

Definately the 2nd one, but it's a difficult problem. People suffering from severe poverty will probably need some kind of rehabilitation, I don't think an exhausted and half starved person can go straight onto the job. When a proper and just system is established, the people who have been hurt by the current order will need to be helped by others until they can get back on their feet. Eventually the rewarding outcome of this will be that there will be a larger workforce which will be of benefit to everyone. And as explained earlier you can only, 'earn your own way,' to a certain extent.

'Capitalism holds that no man is forced into poverty. Everyman who is able to think is allowed to utilize his ability to make a fortune. Capitalism has not made people poor. Our economy has inherited the poor. Our current mixed economy with the aide of haphazard rules and regulations is what has created poverty. The poor should not rely on the government controlled handouts of hard-working people. If they stopped doing so, maybe some of the rational capitalists would see people who are true valuers and worth helping.

You mean to tell me, that if we truly had a free government (free of taxation) and free to create as we chose and earn our own keep without having to sacrifice it to the whims of others- it would fail and create poverty. Especially when world-wide income increase, has been scientifically proven to reduce housing costs? If man allowed to create as he sees fit, how could he be poor? If he creates a product that another one enjoys, and sells it for a price he sets, the buyer doesn't have to agree with it. He's not being forced to buy it, he either makes his own or goes somewhere else.'

Capitalism, and this also applies to the type of pure capitalism that you seek, is about profit, nothing more. Once companies have created a profit, they care about nothing more. They hire enough workers to create a profit, and no-more. That's how poverty happens, that's why poverty is happening now. I believe in creating a society that cares for the needs of everyone instead of the profit of the handful of buisiness owners. The consequence of taking profit out of the equation is that there would be employment for all those who are physically able to work.

As for the people who cannot work i.e. the crippled, retarded, etc...
Capitalism would, of course, allow voluntary charities to help these unfortunate individuals.'

And why shouldn't help for these people be guaranteed? Having an adaquate home is a human right, not a privilage. If someone cannot work through no fault of their own, then society will just have to do its duty and take care of them. Most people even if disabled can work at something, those who absolutely cannot work are in a small minority, even just in terms of numbers helping these people isn't a big deal.

Instead of taking the time to answer your flawed post word for word, I'm going to answer it with this post that I recently made in another thread. It pretty much answers all of your questions-
Specifically the fourth issue (Capitalism is solely for profit):




Re: If communism is so great, why dont they allow for democracy like in Cuba and N. Korea?
No score for this post January 15 2005, 9:20 PM


Let's look at it this way.

Capitalism is founded on moral principles: You cannot innitiate unretaliated force. To include taxation.

Communism on the other hand wants to initaiate force, seize peoples' jobs (property), sieze their money, and regulate everything. s

How are they going to do it with everyone happy. What happens if someone is caught making a little extra money for himself on the side? Will he go to jail for it? Will he get whipped? Or will the government hang him for it in the middle of the street?

What happens if someone doesn't like the job they are forced into under communism and goes into private practice for himself?

So will they make the rich poor, or the poor rich? How will they do this?

If Communism was forced upon America, I'd exercise every attempt that I could to escape the country. If I were poor, I would not accept my pay, because I know that I would be extorting money from just about every hard-working American out there. I'm profiting not off of the backs of hard-working employees, I'm profiting off the backs of a hard-working nation. THAT, is being selfish.

Communism is founded upon immoral principals. Stealing is wrong. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor is wrong. I do not see anything wrong with supporting the poor just so long as it's not lessening the way of life I have for myself. Then it would not be a sacrifice. But, if I was forced to get rid of some of my property, to come up with the money to save an old crippled man on the street? That is wrong.

At least Capitalism gives everyone a free shot to achieve something better. Communism takes it away.

'Let's look at it this way.

Capitalism is founded on moral principles: You cannot innitiate unretaliated force. To include taxation.

Communism on the other hand wants to initaiate force, seize peoples' jobs (property), sieze their money, and regulate everything. s'

It wants to take their jobs and their money for precisely a reason you have already said, because stealing is wrong. A worker in a factory actually makes the product, but the do nothing capitalist makes all the profit. This is stealing. This is no different from going into a shop (owned and operated by one person) and robbing all the money from the till. What's the difference? In both cases the person who actually does the work is robbed. When you say that we want to, 'steal,' from the capitalists, you mean to take what they have already stolen from the people.



'How are they going to do it with everyone happy. What happens if someone is caught making a little extra money for himself on the side? Will he go to jail for it? Will he get whipped? Or will the government hang him for it in the middle of the street?

What happens if someone doesn't like the job they are forced into under communism and goes into private practice for himself?

So will they make the rich poor, or the poor rich? How will they do this?'

I'm against whipping people or execution. As to the making extra money, it depends on how he made it whether or not there's a problem. If he did a few extra hours at his job, genuine overtime, then there would be no problem. But if he one way or the other stole it from someone else, then there would be a problem.
As to the forcing someone into a job, where have we ever indictated that we would force someone into a job? This is just your own assumption. Everyone could have whatever job they have the ability to do, there would actually be a greater choice of jobs than under capitalism. By, 'forcing them into a job,' you mean simply not allow them to live off of the work of others. As to go into private practice, if you mean employ others, who are they going to find to work for them? The attitude that it's ok to work for someone else would have died out, everyone would work for themselves and others through democratically controlled buisinesses.

'If Communism was forced upon America, I'd exercise every attempt that I could to escape the country. If I were poor, I would not accept my pay, because I know that I would be extorting money from just about every hard-working American out there. I'm profiting not off of the backs of hard-working employees, I'm profiting off the backs of a hard-working nation. THAT, is being selfish.

Communism is founded upon immoral principals. Stealing is wrong. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor is wrong. I do not see anything wrong with supporting the poor just so long as it's not lessening the way of life I have for myself. Then it would not be a sacrifice. But, if I was forced to get rid of some of my property, to come up with the money to save an old crippled man on the street? That is wrong.

At least Capitalism gives everyone a free shot to achieve something better. Communism takes it away.'


What do you mean, 'forced upon America?' It would not, and cannot be brought about unless the vast majority of people wanted it, you're making assumptions here again.
Exactly, 'stealing is wrong,', the vast majority of people are robbed every day under the current system.
Where does capitalism give people a, 'free shot?' The vast majority of people are kept down, forced to live under the command of someone else. Is this freedom?
As far as I can see your concept of, 'freedom,' allows giving anyone the opportunity to oppress the majority. Any person who is in the right place at the right time is entitled to take the best years of the population's lives. Your concept of freedom is the, 'freedom to oppress.' Which is plenty of freedom for the person lucky enough to be committing the oppression, but no freedom at all for almost the whole population.

"It wants to take their jobs and their money for precisely a reason you have already said, because stealing is wrong. A worker in a factory actually makes the product, but the do nothing capitalist makes all the profit. This is stealing. This is no different from going into a shop (owned and operated by one person) and robbing all the money from the till. What's the difference? In both cases the person who actually does the work is robbed. When you say that we want to, 'steal,' from the capitalists, you mean to take what they have already stolen from the people."

So you're saying that all Capitalists just fell out of the sky and landed in his executive suite without any work at all? He never earned his right to run a business that he loves doing and is extremely knowledgeable? How do you know that the capitalist sits on his ass? This is a general assumption of all people. You furthermore make it sound like the employees have no choice in the matter as far as where they are. You make it sound like they were sucked out of their home by some vampiric capitalist mongul. I'm not saying that you want to steal from the Capitalists. I'm saying that you want to steal from people period. You make it sound like the workers don't get paid at all. I work for the government, take home $30,000 a year and live just fine. Do you think that all of the money goes into the capitalists pocket? No sir, it get's reinvested into his own business to expand on a market that allows more people to be voluntarily employed. What happens if the worker starts to have a monopoly on his company? The facility he works at suffers. Production goes down. Boom, another cold war. Does someone being poor autimatically give them the right to my money?


"I'm against whipping people or execution. As to the making extra money, it depends on how he made it whether or not there's a problem. If he did a few extra hours at his job, genuine overtime, then there would be no problem. But if he one way or the other stole it from someone else, then there would be a problem."

I meant what would happen to the person who decided to open up his own business without anyone knowing about it and earning his own way that way?


"As to the forcing someone into a job, where have we ever indictated that we would force someone into a job? This is just your own assumption. Everyone could have whatever job they have the ability to do, there would actually be a greater choice of jobs than under capitalism. By, 'forcing them into a job,' you mean simply not allow them to live off of the work of others. As to go into private practice, if you mean employ others, who are they going to find to work for them? The attitude that it's ok to work for someone else would have died out, everyone would work for themselves and others through democratically controlled buisinesses."

I apologize for not being clear on the "forcing." You want a monopoly on the minds of men. You want total control of what they produce to fit the needs of people who don't deserve, but just need. That is immoral. The product of a man's mind belongs solely to the individual who created that product.

Since you're a socialist, I suppose you do have a different moral structure than I do, and you think that the poor deserve whatever new thing comes out.


What do you mean, 'forced upon America?' It would not, and cannot be brought about unless the vast majority of people wanted it, you're making assumptions here again.
Exactly, 'stealing is wrong,', the vast majority of people are robbed every day under the current system.
Where does capitalism give people a, 'free shot?' The vast majority of people are kept down, forced to live under the command of someone else. Is this freedom?
As far as I can see your concept of, 'freedom,' allows giving anyone the opportunity to oppress the majority. Any person who is in the right place at the right time is entitled to take the best years of the population's lives. Your concept of freedom is the, 'freedom to oppress.' Which is plenty of freedom for the person lucky enough to be committing the oppression, but no freedom at all for almost the whole population.


Right, from what Marx said, a new economic structure can't supercede the current one if it hasn't fufilled it's purpose yet.

You make it seem like earning a huge amount of wealth is "luck." As to how you came to this conclusion- well, I'll let you reason out that one. People just don't drop out of the sky into corporate fame. Bill Gates developed his first program in his own basement.

You're right, people are robbed on a daily basis, to include the Capitalists. That is because we are not a capitalist society. Taxation is a huge no-no for capitalists. You're forgetting one thing though. These so-called theives who are 1 % of the population are paying 1/3 of all of American taxes. Whereareas the poor are paying only 4%.
If there has to be taxation at all, everyone, in my opinion should be taxed equally.

How are people forced to live under the command of someone else? What do you want to do, have them take over a position that they are too incompetent to do? Does a janitor at a hospital have a right to a doctors money, let alone position just because he needs it? No, he needs to earn it. As I said before, monopoly of men of ability. Need I say that he is working their voluntarily?

The bottom line is this, and I've seen no argument and only avoidence of it. Communism is all about government regulation, wheather by a democratic group of people or a single dictator. No one is morally right to prosper off of another human being. Capitalism would never let it happen.

'So you're saying that all Capitalists just fell out of the sky and landed in his executive suite without any work at all? He never earned his right to run a business that he loves doing and is extremely knowledgeable? How do you know that the capitalist sits on his ass? This is a general assumption of all people. You furthermore make it sound like the employees have no choice in the matter as far as where they are. You make it sound like they were sucked out of their home by some vampiric capitalist mongul. I'm not saying that you want to steal from the Capitalists. I'm saying that you want to steal from people period. You make it sound like the workers don't get paid at all. I work for the government, take home $30,000 a year and live just fine. Do you think that all of the money goes into the capitalists pocket? No sir, it get's reinvested into his own business to expand on a market that allows more people to be voluntarily employed. What happens if the worker starts to have a monopoly on his company? The facility he works at suffers. Production goes down. Boom, another cold war. Does someone being poor autimatically give them the right to my money?'

Oh he worked alright, at the very start. How does this entitle him to anything now? Basically he set up the buisiness, and while he was the only one there he wasn't doing anything wrong. But as soon as he hired an employee, then he should have turned over half the profit and half the decision making power to said employee, but he didn't. From that point on, his efforts were partly shouldered by a worker who had no say in what type of work he would do, and saw none of the profits. Eventually the employer hired more workers, eventually more and more of the work was done by said workers, until the employee did nothing at all. And the reality is, most capitalists do not work. They hire managers to go about organising the company. So there's the capitalist sitting on his millions, and what did he do to deserve it? He set up a small company twenty years ago, while the workers who will have to work till retirement do not have as much money as he.
As to choice, what choice? At the moment almost all companies are privately owned, there are almost no worker co-ops. The only, 'choice,' is lose all say over what you do with your life or starve. And if they set up their own buisiness it is likely to be outcompeted. So how precisely do they have a choice in the matter? And what you said about putting money towards expanding the market, well that's just a way of indirectly making more money. If the market is expanded, there is more money for the capitalist.

'I meant what would happen to the person who decided to open up his own business without anyone knowing about it and earning his own way that way?'

If it was just a buisiness where he was the only one there, fine, that's his choice. He'd just be making an honest living. But if he wanted a 2nd person to work for them, he would have to give up half the decision making power and half the profits. So he'd have a choice, stay on his own or give others their fair share of the earnings and the power.

'I apologize for not being clear on the "forcing." You want a monopoly on the minds of men. You want total control of what they produce to fit the needs of people who don't deserve, but just need. That is immoral. The product of a man's mind belongs solely to the individual who created that product.

Since you're a socialist, I suppose you do have a different moral structure than I do, and you think that the poor deserve whatever new thing comes out.'

So you are saying that if someone invents a new product, they deserve to make a sizable sum of money off of it. The only way they can do this is to charge an incredibly high sum of money for it, or get other people to work for him so he can mass produce the item. As to the 1st choice, if it costs too much, nobody will buy it. As to the 2nd choice, what if nobody wants to work for a private individual? What if they have evolved beyond that mentality? If nobody wants to work for a private individual, how is it possible for an inventor to make a lot of money off his product without forcing people to work for him? It's not possible.
In the communist society, the only motivation to produce anything would be for the product's own good, not for profit. This is a good thing as far as I can see, because there would be no s h i t products that sell only because of a clever marketing technique. The only motivation to invent something would be for its own sake. Wasn't there a greater could than making money created from putting a person in space? Wasn't there a greater good than making money created when various vacinations against illnesses were invented? Wasn't there a greater good then making money created when the technologies to allow us to have this conversation were invented?

'Right, from what Marx said, a new economic structure can't supercede the current one if it hasn't fufilled it's purpose yet.

You make it seem like earning a huge amount of wealth is "luck." As to how you came to this conclusion- well, I'll let you reason out that one. People just don't drop out of the sky into corporate fame. Bill Gates developed his first program in his own basement.

You're right, people are robbed on a daily basis, to include the Capitalists. That is because we are not a capitalist society. Taxation is a huge no-no for capitalists. You're forgetting one thing though. These so-called theives who are 1 % of the population are paying 1/3 of all of American taxes. Whereareas the poor are paying only 4%.
If there has to be taxation at all, everyone, in my opinion should be taxed equally.

How are people forced to live under the command of someone else? What do you want to do, have them take over a position that they are too incompetent to do? Does a janitor at a hospital have a right to a doctors money, let alone position just because he needs it? No, he needs to earn it. As I said before, monopoly of men of ability. Need I say that he is working their voluntarily?

The bottom line is this, and I've seen no argument and only avoidence of it. Communism is all about government regulation, wheather by a democratic group of people or a single dictator. No one is morally right to prosper off of another human being. Capitalism would never let it happen.'


Alright, maybe it's not just luck, and maybe they did put in work at the start, but that only entitles you to so much. It only entitles you to a certain ammount of wealth, and it does not entitle you to control over your fellow human beings by controlling what work they have to do.
I said I didn't want people living under the control of someone else, I NEVER said they should be put into a position they are not competent for, I don't understand how saying no1 should be under the command of someone else implies incompetent people should get positions they can't handle. As to the thing about janitors, a doctor needs to earn more than a janitor, it's a necessary evil. I never said everyone should earn the same, that's a myth about communism.
But let's go back to the thing about how you think it's wrong to make someone who cannot work be cared for. Surely at some point in your life you have had to go to hospital for a long period. You weren't pulling your weight then, you weren't working, how do you justify this by your own logic?

"Oh he worked alright, at the very start. How does this entitle him to anything now? Basically he set up the buisiness, and while he was the only one there he wasn't doing anything wrong."

How does it not. He got their first, set up his property, set up his business. How does that not give him a right to run HIS business?

"But as soon as he hired an employee, then he should have turned over half the profit and half the decision making power to said employee, but he didn't."

Your damn right he didn't. It's his company. As for decision-making, your thinking in collectivist terms, which is contradictory in terms. Since man's consciousness is a separate entity from all else, man cannot think for another. What your asking the man to do is tgive up a part of his mind to another individual. That person (your brother's keeper), has a monopoly on your mind and your production.

Of course, you cannot explain how the social system would work, because if you read my other recent post, Marx never could nor did either.
\
"From that point on, his efforts were partly shouldered by a worker who had no say in what type of work he would do, and saw none of the profits. Eventually the employer hired."

Partly yes. He is being compensated for the expenses of running a business. By saying that the worker had no say in what type of work he could do. You're suggesting that he should hold any posistion regardless of ability. This is horrible business management. All I need is some half-wit crying to me because he isn't a manager like his buddy Sam and I'm forced to put him in that position. Meanwhile my business (the one I supposedly do no work at) loses production value, because I was forced to submit to the need of the common working man. You're forgetting one key issue of Capitalism: Capitalism holds that man's production is based upon the capacity of his mind, not how much he produces. A man can only physically do so much. But mentally, his capacity to run a business, while utilizing the tools that capitalism has provided (computers) is nearly unlimitied.


"And the reality is, most capitalists do not work. They hire managers to go about organising the company."

I'm sure you have proof that no capitalists work. Of course they hire managers to organize the company. Who do you think pays and organizes the managers. The managers don't do it, they mearly supervise and give out the owners orders for that day.

As to choice, what choice? At the moment almost all companies are privately owned, there are almost no worker co-ops. The only, 'choice,' is lose all say over what you do with your life or starve.

You lost me their. Not once has Capitalism taken away a man's reason to do what he want's with his life. Perhaps your forgetting that their is more to just work in living your life.


And if they set up their own buisiness it is likely to be outcompeted. So how precisely do they have a choice in the matter? And what you said about putting money towards expanding the market, well that's just a way of indirectly making more money. If the market is expanded, there is more money for the capitalist.

How are they garanteed to be outcompeted? Every business had to start from the ground up. It's the most rewarding aspect for an individual. Yes, investing money into a growing market is a way to make money- for the people who make it possible (to include the workers, and the consumers who will be rewarded with lowered price drops.) There is more money for everyone.

So you are saying that if someone invents a new product, they deserve to make a sizable sum of money off of it. The only way they can do this is to charge an incredibly high sum of money for it, or get other people to work for him so he can mass produce the item

No the only way they can do this is to invent the product. Then they have a right to do whatever they want to do with that product. Yes, price is an attribute of that product. How is a capitalist going to make money if no one can by his product?

If nobody wants to work for a private individual, how is it possible for an inventor to make a lot of money off his product without forcing people to work for him? It's not possible.


Simple, by starting off small, selling his product to people who want to buy it, and people who see a man with money, see job openings openening up. You nor Marx nor anyone here has ever explained how Capitalists pull people from their homes and make them work.

Oh the hospital scenario is easy. I was hospitalized for 2 weeks. See, I was smart enough to research my job before taking it. Volition is a wonderful thing if you understand how to use it. Anyway.... My health care provided for everything. Since I'm on salary, I got paid regardless of being at work...Hmm.. capitalists really don't seem that inhumane now, do they?

At least you have health care, millions of americans cannot afford the annual premiums of aprox. 6000--7000 dollars for decent coverage.

Tell me how Marxism will ensure that all of these Americans will have health care without the immoral act of government regulations having their hand on them as they do now?

You also totally ignored what I said about choice of jobs. I don't blindly stumble into a job simply because I need money. I take it when I know I'm going to be treated fairly by a rational Capitalist. (Someone who understands what value is.)

I don't support a planned economy LS, but realy, how is even a little regulation immoral? Regulation isn't about taking money, its about setting limmits. Sure someone could set bad limmits, but that doesn't mean it should be abandoned just because of a small threat.

------------------------------------------
Fairy Tales are important, not because they teach us dragons are real, but because they teach us dragons can be defeated.

Setting limits imposes upon a person's freedom. How is that moral. I'm not saying let everyone run ape crap. I'm saying that laws should be meant to protect individual human rights--something, if I understand correctly, facists severely oppose.

'How does it not. He got their first, set up his property, set up his business. How does that not give him a right to run HIS business?'

He can do whatever he wants with his buisiness if he remains the only person there, but he has no right to control other human beings by being their boss.

'Your damn right he didn't. It's his company. As for decision-making, your thinking in collectivist terms, which is contradictory in terms. Since man's consciousness is a separate entity from all else, man cannot think for another. What your asking the man to do is tgive up a part of his mind to another individual. That person (your brother's keeper), has a monopoly on your mind and your production.'

Now here is a major flaw in your logic. You complain that the capitalist would be made to give up part of his decision making, but have no objection to capitalism where the vast majority of people have to give up all of their decision making power.

'Of course, you cannot explain how the social system would work, because if you read my other recent post, Marx never could nor did either.'

That's actually one thing that annoys me about Marx, he didn't put enough focus on how the new society would work. I intend to write a long post on how the new system would work, but getting to the computer is awquard in my house so it probably won't be till the weekend. I want to give it as much time as possible.

'Partly yes. He is being compensated for the expenses of running a business. By saying that the worker had no say in what type of work he could do. You're suggesting that he should hold any posistion regardless of ability. This is horrible business management. All I need is some half-wit crying to me because he isn't a manager like his buddy Sam and I'm forced to put him in that position. Meanwhile my business (the one I supposedly do no work at) loses production value, because I was forced to submit to the need of the common working man. You're forgetting one key issue of Capitalism: Capitalism holds that man's production is based upon the capacity of his mind, not how much he produces. A man can only physically do so much. But mentally, his capacity to run a business, while utilizing the tools that capitalism has provided (computers) is nearly unlimitied.'






'Oh the hospital scenario is easy. I was hospitalized for 2 weeks. See, I was smart enough to research my job before taking it. Volition is a wonderful thing if you understand how to use it. Anyway.... My health care provided for everything. Since I'm on salary, I got paid regardless of being at work...Hmm.. capitalists really don't seem that inhumane now, do they?'

According to you anyone who can't work should not be taken care of, but you were taken care of for two weeks. So for two weeks the company was giving money to you for doing absolutely nothing, and according to you this is wrong. According to you it is wrong to take someone else's money, and this is exactly what you were doing, getting money for nothing. You expect anyone else who can't work to just, I don't know, end up in a cardboard box or something, and now you tell me when you couldn't work you were well taken care of. I'm afraid the rules apply to you too.

I'll have to come back to this later..........

Fascists believe the only rights society has are rights gained by effort of the whole community. There are rights, but they are not concieved of as natural or inaliienable. Freedom is not something that is absoloute but is in fact a relative concept. If you let people do whatever they want, then they will take others freedoms. So obviously, the freedoms that people loose are only the freedoms that could be used harmfully or no real usefull purpose.

Think about it, what is freedom in the modern world but economic? Sense we can't realy see any real way to live without money, we can assume freedom will be economic for a long time. Thus, the soceity where people are truly free is a society that promotes economic faireness. All individuals should be able to move forward or backward based on their own actions, and so the society would have to regulate the market somewhat, to insure that individuals are not bogged down or trampled by other individuals.

------------------------------------------
Fairy Tales are important, not because they teach us dragons are real, but because they teach us dragons can be defeated.

You know damn well as soon as a widespread need for his product arises. The government(the people) will open up their own factories and exploit his product. This is a monopoly of man's mind. Read my other post for more clarification and irrefutable truths.

If he is the only person running the business, how could he expand his market and therefore the ecomony without the government getting a hold of his business. So communism limits a man's production value as well. Very interesting.

This is a monopoly of man's mind, you said these words and I had to laugh, the oposite is true, capitalisim/materialisim has a monopoly on mans mind.

I love your use of stolen concepts. Explain how Capitalism is a monopoly of the mind of men. I probably scared the **** out of you because you can't.

Then explain how making everyone the same and therfore taking everyone's desire to achieve (since everyone is equal) not a monopoly of man's mind. How is not allowing a man of reason and intellect the regulate his own product not a monopoly of man's mind? How is forcing the genius to support the wants and needs of the people by regulating his product and handing it out without his consent not a monopoly of man's mind?

I await your answers that will most likely be devoid of reason- such as the one you supplied above.

I'm still awaiting any visible indication that you understand the least little bit of Capitalism.