Have you gone from being a Libertarian to Socialism?

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

You've a very poor understanding of history. The Nazis taking control of the German government was done by coup(putz ) not democracy.

You're anti democracy? Is that your point?

Yes, to a point I am anti democracy.

Democracy gave us the troubles in the north.

I prefer limited government republics that protect all citizens rather than mob rule.

How is democracy going now...TTIP and the like....?

gobsh!te

oscarBravo wrote: »

It pretty much did.

When I talk of a monopoly on violence, I'm talking about a state's monopoly on violence. Outside the confines of a state, no such monopoly exists, which is why wars happen.

The free market on violence would be the opposite of the state having a monopoly.

This would be the mafia for example....they were never going to build an atomic bomb where they?

MRnotlob606

Brian? wrote:

Just to be crystal I don't hold the idea of personal liberty in contempt. What I hold in contempt is the notion that personally liberty is achieved through capitalist means and is best served by a laisse fairs capitalist society.

gobsh!te wrote:

Marx would not have cared as long as Engels or someone like him kept giving him money to write more nonsense.

Marx's work cannot be easily discredited as nonsense anybody who thinks so lacks the maturity to understand it.Marx's findings did actually resonate well in the 19th century and his work highlighted the effects of moving from cottage industries to the industrial revolution.We should be grateful for Marx's contributions regardless whether we're Marxists or not.

MRnotlob606

gobsh!te wrote:

Don't you ever wonder why nobody goes from being a Libertarian to a Marxist while the other war around is quite common?

Libertarianism is just crazy as Marxism in my opinion.Really would not like to subscribe to any of those ideologies in any serious way.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gobsh!te

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Marx's work cannot be easily discredited as nonsense anybody who thinks so lacks the maturity to understand it.Marx's findings did actually resonate well in the 19th century and his work highlighted the effects of moving from cottage industries to the industrial revolution.We should be grateful for Marx's contributions regardless whether we're Marxists or not.

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Libertarianism is just crazy as Marxism in my opinion.Really would not like to subscribe to any of those ideologies in any serious way.

Libertarianism created the largest middle class the world has ever seen and took more people from extreme poverty to a very high standard of living.

Tens of millions of people died because of Marx's writings.

Can I say that Hitler misinterpreted Fascism....it's a really good idea but Hitler, Mussolini and Franco just did not get it right.....

I am amazed that people still take this stuff seriously considering the obvious effects....

As I stated earlier.........just compare a public toilet V a private one

This is Communism V Libertarianism

Where are you going to do your business?

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Yes, to a point I am anti democracy.

Democracy gave us the troubles in the north.

I prefer limited government republics that protect all citizens rather than mob rule.

How is democracy going now...TTIP and the like....?

Right so. You don't want democracy. I'm out.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't see this as an edorsement of free market capitalism but a criticism of religion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

catbear

To me the soviets were communist by name but capitalist in practice, they merely coopted Marx's universal writings to justify continued authoritarianism. Marx himself thought the revolution would be in the UK, he didn't consider Russia's surfdom a fertile ground for the worker to take control of the means of production.

Alternatively the USA was practically communist in introducing a set hourly wage and socialist in creating an income tax on labour.

Eric Cartman

catbear wrote: »

To me the soviets were communist by name but capitalist in practice, they merely coopted Marx's universal writings to justify continued authoritarianism. Marx himself thought the revolution would be in the UK, he didn't consider Russia's surfdom a fertile ground for the worker to take control of the means of production.

Alternatively the USA was practically communist in introducing a set hourly wage and socialist in creating an income tax on labour.

capitalism and authoritarianism are mutually exclusive. One of the biggest pillars or capitalism is the profit motive and that the accrual of wealth is how you encourage people to do things. Communism requires authoritarianism to function as with no reward, force is required to make people do things.

Any society with an authoritarian structure can not be a true expression of capitalism. However Communist and socialist societies can be expressed to the letter with as much or little authoritarianism as you like. Some cults manage just to do it through blind faith or brainwashing , all the way up to gestapo & KGB enforcement levels.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

Right so. You don't want democracy. I'm out.

You got it in the north between the Catholic and Protestants.....that's democracy right?

As stated in the German federal election, November 1932 the Nazis were the largest party with 37.27% of the seats...This went down slightly to 33% in the German federal election, March 1933 but they were still the largest party.

Voted in via democracy twice.

catbear

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Any society with an authoritarian structure can not be a true expression of capitalism.

Aren't the Castro's in cuba and the North Korean dynasty exercising a capitalist monopoly on power?

gobsh!te

catbear wrote: »

Aren't the Castro's in cuba and the North Korean dynasty exercising a capitalist monopoly on power?

Their monopoly exists via the threat of use of force against anyone that challenges it.

This is the opposite of Capitalism.

catbear

gobsh!te wrote: »

Their monopoly exists via the threat of use of force against anyone that challenges it.

This is the opposite of Capitalism.

If to capitalise power is to take advantage for personal benefit then that's what they did.

gobsh!te

catbear wrote: »

If to capitalise power is to take advantage for personal benefit then that's what they did.

What are you talking about?

Maybe you'd like Capitalism if you knew what it was.

catbear

gobsh!te wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Maybe you'd like Capitalism if you knew what it was.

What's your definition?

gobsh!te

catbear wrote: »

What's your definition?

Different owners making different products in competition with each other to satisfy the market.

A monopoly never lasts long in true capitalism due to a competitor either coming along with a similar product at a lower price or a better product.

The consumer has total power in capitalism as they can choose which products and at what price....only when the state gets involved to enforce a monopoly such as the type of money we use(which is 50% of most transactions) or when "regulation" is passed to protect the consumer, which in reality prices out competition do we see monopolies or oligopolies.

We have not had true capitalism since the early days of the US.

catbear

gobsh!te wrote: »

A monopoly never lasts long in true capitalism due to a competitor either coming along with a similar product at a lower price or a better product.

Then why do we have anti-trust laws?

AP said the Justice Department was investigating whether airlines were now conspiring to grow slowly in order to keep ticket prices high. By limiting the number of routes and available seats, airlines could charge higher prices.

The Justice Department, which investigates mergers to assess whether they violate antitrust law, has approved a string of airline deals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33353360


To quote Adam Smith:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

The NK and Cuban leaders have capitalised on their positions. Fidel had promised free elections within a year after revolution but then capitalised on his monopoly of power.

coolemon

gobsh!te wrote: »

Communism has only ever existed through use of force.

Capitalism is not a system in itself. It is what happens when people are free.

For most of human existence people lived in a form of primitive communism. And they were also arguably more free that people are now.

Private Property needs to be enforced and maintained???

Of course. Without a state you have no private property.

Do you prefer your own toilet or public toilets? It's a good analogy. The public toilets do not need to be maintained and that is why they are as they as.

Public toilets are not profitable in existing society and therefore human labour is not allocated to their maintenance.

Toilets in 5 star hotels are nicer than most domestic toilets because it is profitable to maintain such services, where labour and material resources are allocated for that purpose. Its not a question of private vs public, but rather how social resources are allocated.

That's capitalism. Social activity follows the profit motive.

Private Property needs to be respected not enforced.

That's more ideological. A belief. It is not grounded as some empirical fact.

I think quite the opposite. Various forms of state and private property should not be respected.

How strongly do you believe in Marx? Are you using the dirty public toilets or do you sh!t in your own PRIVATE toilet?

I would gladly have a toilet like many state owned hotels have. Unfortunately my private toilet would not be comparable in neither quality or luxury to these.

But this is all tangential to anything to do with Marxist socialism.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Probably some coercive force would be needed to prevent that.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not quite. The bourgeois state holds a monopoly on violence. This is often cited as a Bad Thing, but the alternative to a monopoly is a free market. If anyone wants to argue that a free market in violence is a Good Thing, I'm all ears.


(Hat tip to Jill Leovy's excellent book Ghettoside.)

It holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. And it uses this by the minute to subdue and coerce deviant social behaviour that, while not violent, contravenes the terms of law.

And, the fear instilled indiscriminately with this use of violence contains deviant social behaviour or actions.

The bourgeois state most certainly can be described as violent. Its existence is about asserting, by force, its terms.

coolemon

gobsh!te wrote: »

Different owners making different products in competition with each other to satisfy the market.

A monopoly never lasts long in true capitalism due to a competitor either coming along with a similar product at a lower price or a better product.

The consumer has total power in capitalism as they can choose which products and at what price....only when the state gets involved to enforce a monopoly such as the type of money we use(which is 50% of most transactions) or when "regulation" is passed to protect the consumer, which in reality prices out competition do we see monopolies or oligopolies.

We have not had true capitalism since the early days of the US.

What you describe could more accurately be called Utopian Capitalism.

It never existed and you have no basis to believe that it will ever exist. Its an ideal and every bit as religious as ISIS.

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

The bourgeois state most certainly can be described as violent. Its existence is about asserting, by force, its terms.

Let's accept that as a given. The alternative, as I've said, is a free market in violence. If you think that's better, please explain how.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's accept that as a given. The alternative, as I've said, is a free market in violence. If you think that's better, please explain how.

I never advocated a free market in violence. I think most violence that exists results from specific conditions which would not exist in a communist or socialist society - chief among them private property [or property in general]. And I include the process of arrest, incarceration, and so on, from the state, in this.

Second, I think while organised coercion and violence may very well exist in a communist society, to describe that organised coercion as a state I think would be inaccurate.

But anyway. I was simply pointing out that when people are talking about violence in relation to 'Communist States' they often overlook that violence is integral to the present social order. The overwhelming majority support violence or its coercive threats, whether they know it or not or see it that way. That is the point I was addressing.

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

I think most violence that exists results from specific conditions which would not exist in a communist or socialist society - chief among them private property.

The idea that violence will go away with the abolition of private property is a strange one.

In a socialist society, where there is no private property, let's imagine that someone builds a fence around some land and its contents, says "this is mine", and is prepared to defend this claim with force.

What happens next?

catbear

oscarBravo wrote: »

In a socialist society, where there is no private property, let's imagine that someone builds a fence around some land and its contents, says "this is mine", and is prepared to defend this claim with force.

back up there, since when has private property been outlawed in socialist states?

I think you're getting mixed up with the autocracies that use western ideologies as a beard to mask that they're really just new dynasties. Castros and Kims.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea that violence will go away with the abolition of private property is a strange one.

In a socialist society, where there is no private property, let's imagine that someone builds a fence around some land and its contents, says "this is mine", and is prepared to defend this claim with force.

What happens next?

I think the idea of socialism or communism is that people are placed in such conditions where there is no need for most forms of violence or "greed", or for them to act in certain ways.

But you cite a good example, as housing is quite a distinct commodity that is not entirely reproducible due to its geographic exclusivity.

To answer your question. I don't know. I could speculate about some things but I cannot give you a model on how issues such as these are resolved.

I think to begin with the house is possessed by the individual. That is its status. However it is commonly 'owned' and subject to the systems of governance of the society or community. Such society/community would, I assume, have at least the capability to assert coercion where necessary.

But unless the person is 'de-possessing' someone of their home, or causing some sort of social problem, then I don't think it would be such an issue. Nobody is out to de-possess him of his house. And without society and the community he has not the means to be self sufficient or to live.

So, I guess, it would not be in his interests to act in such a way. If he does then you have at least the possibility of economic coercion. And finally there may also be the possibility of physical coercion.

oscarBravo

catbear wrote: »

back up there, since when has private property been outlawed in socialist states?

Read the post I quoted.

coolemon wrote: »

I think the idea of socialism or communism is that people are placed in such conditions where there is no need for most forms of violence or "greed", or for them to act in certain ways.

But you cite a good example, as housing is quite a distinct commodity that is not entirely reproducible due to its geographic exclusivity.

To answer your question. I don't know. I could speculate about some things but I cannot give you a model on how issues such as these are resolved.

I think to begin with the house is possessed by the individual. That is its status. However it is commonly 'owned' and subject to the systems of governance of the society or community. Such society/community would, I assume, have at least the capability to assert coercion where necessary.

But unless the person is 'de-possessing' someone of their home, or causing some sort of social problem, then I don't think it would be such an issue. Nobody is out to de-possess him of his house. And without society and the community he has not the means to be self sufficient or to live.

So, I guess, it would not be in his interests to act in such a way. If he does then you have at least the possibility of economic coercion. And finally there may also be the possibility of physical coercion.

I'm not just talking about a house. What if he took a few cars? A herd of cattle? Some jewelry that has sentimental value to someone else?

Once you allow for the possibility of physical coercion, that leads to the question: by whom? Who is authorised to use physical coercion, and who is not?

If you have a group of people (let's call them "police") who are authorised by everyone else (let's call them "society") to use physical coercion in order to enforce the rules by which everyone has agreed to live, how is that different from a bourgeois state?

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Read the post I quoted.

I'm not just talking about a house. What if he took a few cars? A herd of cattle? Some jewelry that has sentimental value to someone else?

As I said, the point of socialism is that people are placed in such conditions that they would not desire or need to do these deviant things. Cars and cattle, why would they take them?

I mean what if a person starts hoarding the leaves falling from the trees. Well theyd more than likely be seen as having something wrong with them. As with someone who seeks to accumulate stuff with no particular social value, like cars and cattle.

Once you allow for the possibility of physical coercion, that leads to the question: by whom? Who is authorised to use physical coercion, and who is not?

Perhaps the systems of social governance would authorise it. Coercion and violence are also used in tribal and primitive societies, but that does not make those who partake in the organised coercion a state.

If a "mob" of people turn up to prevent an eviction (as happens around this country), or to prevent water meter installation, it does not make them a state - despite being both organised and coercive.

If you have a group of people (let's call them "police") who are authorised by everyone else (let's call them "society") to use physical coercion in order to enforce the rules by which everyone has agreed to live, how is that different from a bourgeois state?

Well firstly because such people may not operate on a full-time basis. They do not form a separate full-time community which "organises domination", but rather, would come from the community itself. So on this basis it is not classified as a state.

But how would it differ from a bourgeois state? - well that's a broader question. Obviously the social system for which they maintain would be dramatically different than that maintained by the bourgeois state. Not only that, but the bourgeois state can generally be seen to act in the interests of a minority owning class, rather than in the interests of the larger subordinate class.