Are we reverting to Socialism again?

[JCSkinner]

And yet, if a LETS trader was offered €s for payment of debt he would have to accept it.

Again, not true. He could accept dollars. Or yen. Or gold. Or goods. Or services. It's up to him to work out his own deal with the creditor. Isn't that the free market in action?

I don't think this is discussion is going anywhere.

Because you were wrong in suggesting that there is a monopoly on currency?

As a final point, I'd like to say that the hallmark of capitalism is the prominance of voluntary exchange, private property rights and a market system.

They're all traits of capitalism, certainly. They're not the only traits of capitalism, however, and nor are those traits exclusive to capitalism. But do go on.

Right now the government has no interest in defending my private property rights

You really think someone could sequester your home and goods? Of course your property rights are protected. This is pretty much the last country in Europe that JAILS people for debt. Unless they're bankers, of course.

and allowing people to choose what money to use (as is evident through legal tender laws and capital gains taxes on precious metals). The state will not defend my contract if payment was stipulated in gold or silver.

The state doesn't defend any contracts. You do, in a court of law. And if legal it will be upheld. You don't like paying tax? Diddums. Neither do I. It's a necessary evil, though, and it would be lower if it were not for the state bailing out zombie banks.

The key hallmark of private monies is volutary exchange and competition, the hallmark of State money is violent monopoly

Get over yourself. We live in a globalised world. I probably do about 40% of my business via sterling, and more again in other currencies. I regularly engage in trades that involve no currency at all. I'd imagine the sum total of my interchange in euro currency would amount to a minority.
Get online, buy via the internet, shop up north, barter and trade. It's up to you. Hyperbole like referring to currency like 'violent monopoly' does your argument no favours.
Do you really believe that our currency system led to the current problems in the global economy?

[JCSkinner]

Then they are corrupting language. War is Peace? Is that the motto? So you are changing the definitions of words used to describe the theory of Marx and Engels by Marx and Engels. These un-named "modern political scientists" decided to invent a new nomenclature to confuse everyone, but they have not addressed how socialism is anything but communism in its end conclusion.

Language evolves. Nothing has been corrupted. I'm not changing any definitions. I'm working with the contemporary meanings of the words.

Democracy - The God That Failed
Democracy: The God That Failed
Democracy: The God That Failed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Democracy leads to socialism. Government grows into every facet of people's lives until they dwell in a socialist totalitarian state because all State-intervention demands further intervention until an entire economy has been over-run by government.

More madness. Well, at least we've identified that you're anti-democratic. That makes you marginally more honest than some of your fellow loons on this thread.

The neo-cons were not free-market at all. They are for big government. In fact, neo-conservatism traces its roots back to Trotskyism with Leo Strauss:
Trotsky, Strauss, and the Neocons, by Justin Raimondo

Oh, this is just precious!
The neo-cons were Trots! Has anyone told Dick Cheney? Or the Trots for that matter?

This kid you linked to at "conservative resources" has invented his own definitions which are totally false and he is anything but a free-marketeer.
This definition he uses is:
"Capitalism is an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor."

Informal economic system? According to who?
Largely privately owned? What isn't privately owned under capitalism?

"Socialism is a formal economic system in which society exerts considerable control over the nation's wealth and property in the pursuit of social justice."

Why is this now a "formal economic system" and the other not?

If you want to query his definitions, his contact details are there for you. His definitions seem distinctly more sensible than your own, where neo-cons are actually Trots.

1. He says "society exerts considerable control"? I love how he uses the word "society" as if it was in some way inclusive. It hides the bare nakedness of the tyranny that is involved in ordering people to do things against their will.

Like not raping or murdering. I know, what terrible tyranny society is.

2. It also ignores the method of how exactly "society" decides to exert control? How is the "golden circle" who dictate policy chosen from the masses? By violence and brute force perhaps?

Elections are preferable. Me, I'd like a more Swiss version of democracy. But people often get the societies they deserve, I feel.

3. "in the pursuit of social justice." This is the cherry on the cake. What exactly is social justice and how does it differ from normal justice. What is unjust about equality under the law? How about treat every one equally? What so unjust about that? But what this twisting of words hides is the fact that what it advocates is theft and violence of government against its citizens.

I'd have thought social justice was justice in the social context, as opposed to, say, vigilante justice.

This guy has completely missed the point.

Capitalism is specifically private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism is specifically 'collective' ownership of the means of production.

This is what truly makes the difference between socialism and capitalism if no other thing.

Now who's making up definitions?

I wish I was being silly, but this is a very important issue. Try reading this:
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian - Mises Economics Blog

Okay, so to summarise, the neo-cons are Trots, and Nazis were socialists.
Do you realise how nuts you sound?

[libertarian-right]

I believe with a simple flat rate tax system we would be able to implement good left winged policies due to every worker contributing to the system.

[20000miles]

Again, not true. He could accept dollars. Or yen. Or gold. Or goods. Or services. It's up to him to work out his own deal with the creditor. Isn't that the free market in action?

But if offered Euros he cannot refuse.

....

Hyperbole like referring to currency like 'violent monopoly' does your argument no favours.
Do you really believe that our currency system led to the current problems in the global economy?

It is violent becuase one is forced to accept € notes, and a monopoly in the sense that the State(s) grant the privilage printing of money and setting of interest rates to a central bank.

Yes, centrally planned artificially low interest rates and monetary expansion facilitated a boom and bust.

[Retrolives]

Language evolves. Nothing has been corrupted. I'm not changing any definitions. I'm working with the contemporary meanings of the words.

You still have to prove how the end goal of socialism is not communism, even using your terms.

More madness. Well, at least we've identified that you're anti-democratic. That makes you marginally more honest than some of your fellow loons on this thread.

Democracy is rule by the mob. You should read the article from LewRockwell I posted.

Oh, this is just precious!
The neo-cons were Trots! Has anyone told Dick Cheney? Or the Trots for that matter?

Try reading the article from antiwar.com

If you want to query his definitions, his contact details are there for you. His definitions seem distinctly more sensible than your own, where neo-cons are actually Trots.

I am using the definitions of Nobel Prize winner FA Hayek. You posted the link to that fools website. Your attitude is very aggressive. I want to engage you intellectually but if you continue like this I will ignore you.

Like not raping or murdering. I know, what terrible tyranny society is.

Capitalism is a system of voluntary transaction, private property rights and equality under the law. You are entitled to your liberties provided you do not aggress against others. What is illegal for the individual is also illegal for the 'government'. This is not the case under socialism. Socialism is the opposite of equality under the law. It is a philosophy of material equality. This is an impossibility because there is no method of rationally distributing resources without a price mechanism. Socialism over-rides the individuals rights to life, liberty and property and replaces it with lawlessness and chaos.

Elections are preferable. Me, I'd like a more Swiss version of democracy. But people often get the societies they deserve, I feel.

These elections create two classes, the rulers and the ruled once again. What if your favourite central planner didn't get elected? It is not the 'will of society' that one sees from the central planners under socialism, it is the will of the despot and the totalitarian because for society to function without a market there can be no dissent. Orders must be given and obeyed despite the individual wishes of the individual workers.

I'd have thought social justice was justice in the social context, as opposed to, say, vigilante justice.

That's the point, social justice does not mean equality under the law. It is an Orwellian turn-of-phrase that camouflages decrees that rob from peter to pay paul.

Now who's making up definitions?

FA Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and thousands of other economists apparently.
"To abolish private property in the means of production, to make the means of production the property of the community, that is the whole aim of Socialism."
Online Library of Liberty - 4: Collective Ownership of the Means of Production - Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis

Okay, so to summarise, the neo-cons are Trots, and Nazis were socialists.
Do you realise how nuts you sound?

You should really read that piece on socialism being totalitarian.

I expect a polite response or I will abandon talking with you.

[JCSkinner]

But if offered Euros he cannot refuse.

Says who? I bought a bottle of whiskey off a lad last week. He wanted paying in sterling, as we were in the sterling zone. I offered euro, as I had them on me and couldn't be arsed seeking out an ATM. We haggled over the rate, struck a deal and both went on our way. No problem.
Equally, he could always set such a high euro price, if his euro-phobia was so acute, that people would prefer to pay him otherwise.

It is violent becuase one is forced to accept € notes, and a monopoly in the sense that the State(s) grant the privilage printing of money and setting of interest rates to a central bank.

It is neither violent, nor a monopoly in the current globalised economy. You don't like the euro deal, go see out a dollar one. It won't be hard to find.

Yes, centrally planned artificially low interest rates and monetary expansion facilitated a boom and bust.

We've had boom and bust long before the ERM or recent low exchange rates.
This boom and bust was just another bubble market ponzi scheme.

[JCSkinner]

You still have to prove how the end goal of socialism is not communism, even using your terms.

How so? The distinctions are clear to all. I've already given you a series of succinct summations of the differences. It's not my fault if you still prefer to whistle the hoary old 'reds under the bed' tune.

Democracy is rule by the mob. You should read the article from LewRockwell I posted.

I'm part of the mob. So are we all. Democracy is the best we've got. And the more of it the better. I'd like rule via referendum ideally. But I'd settle for the Swiss model. Like Socialism in Ireland, true Democracy has never been tried.

Try reading the article from antiwar.com

That's your best source? Thank you, but no.

I am using the definitions of Nobel Prize winner FA Hayek. You posted the link to that fools website. Your attitude is very aggressive. I want to engage you intellectually but if you continue like this I will ignore you.

I doubt I'll cry a river over that.

Capitalism is a system of voluntary transaction, private property rights and equality under the law. You are entitled to your liberties provided you do not aggress against others.

Or what happens? Oh yeah, your civil liberties are denied because your actions transgress society. Just like in Socialism.

What is illegal for the individual is also illegal for the 'government'. This is not the case under socialism. Socialism is the opposite of equality under the law. It is a philosophy of material equality. This is an impossibility because there is no method of rationally distributing resources without a price mechanism. Socialism over-rides the individuals rights to life, liberty and property and replaces it with lawlessness and chaos.

Seriously, Eamon Gilmore might be under your bed RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!

These elections create two classes, the rulers and the ruled once again. What if your favourite central planner didn't get elected? It is not the 'will of society' that one sees from the central planners under socialism, it is the will of the despot and the totalitarian because for society to function without a market there can be no dissent. Orders must be given and obeyed despite the individual wishes of the individual workers.

That's not socialism. That's McCarthyist nonsense of the highest order.
If your favourite whatever doesn't get elected, suck it up. That's democracy.

That's the point, social justice does not mean equality under the law. It is an Orwellian turn-of-phrase that camouflages decrees that rob from peter to pay paul.

How do you make that out?

FA Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and thousands of other economists apparently.
"To abolish private property in the means of production, to make the means of production the property of the community, that is the whole aim of Socialism."
Online Library of Liberty - 4: Collective Ownership of the Means of Production - Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis

You read some of the most disturbed websites I've come across. Would you not try a bit of porno instead?

You should really read that piece on socialism being totalitarian.

Catch a grip. I wouldn't waste my time reading an article describing how Mary McAleese eats babies for breakfast either, because I can recognise tinfoil hat madness from a distance.

I expect a polite response or I will abandon talking with you.

I know, I know. You REALLY better check under that bed.

[20000miles]

Says who?

Legal tender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal tender or forced tender is [COLOR=#0066cc]payment[/COLOR] that, by [COLOR=#0066cc]law[/COLOR], cannot be refused in settlement of a [COLOR=#0066cc]debt[/COLOR].
[COLOR=#0066cc][/COLOR]
Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 (3 May 1998)

I bought a bottle of whiskey off a lad last week. He wanted paying in sterling, as we were in the sterling zone. I offered euro, as I had them on me and couldn't be arsed seeking out an ATM. We haggled over the rate, struck a deal and both went on our way. No problem.
Equally, he could always set such a high euro price, if his euro-phobia was so acute, that people would prefer to pay him otherwise.

Irrelevant to the point I was making.

It is neither violent, nor a monopoly in the current globalised economy. You don't like the euro deal, go see out a dollar one. It won't be hard to find.

No, if I am given € in payment of debt, I am obliged to take it. And claiming I have a choice in State currencies does not equate to a free market in currencies.

We've had boom and bust long before the ERM or recent low exchange rates.
This boom and bust was just another bubble market ponzi scheme.

But where do people get the money to bid up resources from? Booms are always associated with monetary expansion - all the way from Tulipmania to today. Central banking, as well as the concept of fractional reserve baking are at fault here.

[Red Boyneside]

This thread should be on the political humour forum. What it does show is that the majority of people on this forum have no idea what the word Socialism means. Its understandable to an extent given the deliberate misrepresentation of the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and others in our education system and the confusion caused by the Soviet Union, once a world power calling itself a "Socialist State" - the greatest oxymoron of the 20th century, but you'd expect a group of people who spend all day, every day shooting the breeze on a political internet forum to know better. Or maybe I'm giving you guys too much credit.

How can I put this? Government regulation, bank bail outs, even nationalisation, does not directly imply Socialism. Using taxpayers money to bail out capitalists is in fact an attempt to save Capitalism. Its been done many times before. After World War 2, Europe was in ferment. Progressive measures were taken all accross the continent by governments to quell this. Sure, there were nationalisations, free healthcare, free education and these were good things. But they were a far cry from Socialism. Even the Societ Union, before the Stalinist counter-revolution was not Socialist. Lenin never claimed it was. He described the infant Soviet Union as a Workers' State with bureaucratic deformations. A step on the road to Socialism he felt, but a far cry from it. It was Stalin who proclaimed that Socialism had been achieved, in the 1930's. A claim ably dismissed by Trotsky in The Revolution Betrayed.

If anyone is actually interested in finding out what Socialism actually means, and if it wouldn't spoil your fun too much, I recomend Lenin's "The State and Revolution" which along with many other interesting texts can be found at the Marxists Internet Archive

Its not that long ago that Bertie was berating Joe Higgins in the Dail, saying that if "his lot" were in charge, we'd be back to 1980's levels of unemployment. Well Bertie, who's in charge now? Ah I forgot, the country was grand when you left office!

I don't post much on internet forums on this subject nowadays because I spent years at it and it gets you nowhere with people who already have their minds made up but I did compile some of the main points I used to make on a blog I used to write - http://gripofhysteria.wordpress.com/...-or-barbarism/ For the more open minded among you.

[Retrolives]

Hi Red,

If you are saying that the bank bailouts are to preserve capitalism, shouldn't you be arguing that they should not happen so that the free-market works as efficiently as possible until its ultimate doom and is not hindered and delayed by government intervention?

True Marxists should be against all things that hinder the free-market system like the minimum wage, the central bank credit inflation, social welfare, taxation etc in that case shouldn't they?