Are we reverting to Socialism again?

[Red Boyneside]

What about socialism with it's underproduction and miss-allocation of resources, causing shortages of even the most basic goods, where in a country that was the bread basket of Europe(Ukraine) and had more arable land than the entire EU(as it now stands) was unable to feed itself(Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, China after collectivisation).
That was hundreds of millions of their own country folk who starved, not some basketcase African nation(e.g.Zimbabwe) thousands of miles away...



The EU is run by socialists, who have the vast majority in the European parliment.


Statism or socialism perhaps(little difference), laissez faire capitalism it is not.



You mean like the Soviet Union fell, like North Korea would fall were it not the sheer terror the communists rule by?



Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot,Castro, and even Hitler as he was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party we could include him in that bunch, since the Nazi's policies were completly collectivist, socialist.

Are we going around in circles here? Socialism is the opposite of statism. The problem is most people including most of the people on this thread don't know what Socialism is.
Try to keep up...

http://www.politics.ie/economy/49633...ml#post1471848

As for WW2, Europe was approaching catastrophe before the war, that is why there was one.

Anyway, I fail to see how this example is a "testament" to the labour theory of value, seeing as Marx himself failed to defend it on theoretical grounds.

Did he now? Example please.

[Iwillin Mebollox]

Did we ever have socialism before? Certainly not in this country.

[dublinclontarf]

Are we going around in circles here? Socialism is the opposite of statism. The problem is most people including most of the people on this thread don't know what Socialism is.
Try to keep up...

Socialism is de facto statism, it is impossible for socialism to exist without the use of force by the state. Why should anyone work except under duration if the wealth the create is simply taken from them and given to another.

I read your "collection" of thoughts and it's short on details. You say when workers take power there will be a workers democracy instead of a capitalist democracy.

What is a "workers democracy" and how does it differ from a "capitalist democracy"? Is democracy not majority rules? Is that not what we currently live under?

You say capital is accumulated theft from workers over generations of capitalism but what of the savings of a worker who then starts a business? Did he rob the capital from himself over generations?

And your argument for why people would choose socialism is that human nature would change. And one of the conditions for socialism to exist is that it must be worldwide i.e. everywhere must become socialist for it to exist.

So essentially, for socialism to exist "real" socialism, not what has happened in ever other attempt(what you might call "practical" socialism), reality has to be suspended.

Essentially your rebuttal is to point to your article full of generalities, miss-truths, misunderstandings, blatant contradictions, falsities and so on.

For those who haven't read it here, Socialism or Barbarism In the grip of hysteria

[20000miles]

Are we going around in circles here? Socialism is the opposite of statism. The problem is most people including most of the people on this thread don't know what Socialism is.
Try to keep up...

http://www.politics.ie/economy/49633...ml#post1471848

As for WW2, Europe was approaching catastrophe before the war, that is why there was one.

The word "socialism" can indeed mean all things to all people and more. Kind of like "liberalism". But you do see the confution people get when they read the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto - a section that looks favourable on extreme Statism.

Did he now? Example please.

As I mentioned before, Bohm-Bawerk's work discussing how capitalists with differrent capital/labour ratios can earn similar profits. Then there is also the transformation of commodity prices into market prices and the explanation of the average rate of profit, also known as the transformaton problem.

[Pastradamus]

Socialism is de facto statism, it is impossible for socialism to exist without the use of force by the state. Why should anyone work except under duration if the wealth the create is simply taken from them and given to another.

Socialism and statist beliefs are one in the same. By definition:Government having a major role in the the direction of the economy, both through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the central planning of overall economy. But when one hears the word statism it reminds us of Nazi Germans so you are making a connotation of the facist definition of Statism which is:
"basic concept that sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The fascist concept of statism repudiates individualsm and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline."


Working class people dont work to have their productive wealth to be taken from them. Thats not socialism. Thats the basis for its existance. Thats what makes socialists. The seizure of workers capital existed for centuries and created Marxists and revolutionaries who questioned this system.

I read your "collection" of thoughts and it's short on details. You say when workers take power there will be a workers democracy instead of a capitalist democracy.

What is a "workers democracy" and how does it differ from a "capitalist democracy"? Is democracy not majority rules? Is that not what we currently live under?

You say capital is accumulated theft from workers over generations of capitalism but what of the savings of a worker who then starts a business? Did he rob the capital from himself over generations?

Democracy is a greek word meaning "Mob" or "people" rule. If im not mistaken, the vast majority of people in high positions in the Dail did not come for a working class background and instead are former Solicitors, Barristers, Businessmen and professionals.Puritan Socialist beliefs of a workers democracy are Working class seizure and control of the means of production. Control of the means of production means political and economic control of the state. You seriously cannot attack the claim of "capital is accumulated theft from workers over generations of capitalism" . . . Because it has been proven true. Look at the huge buildings and boulevards in Spain, England and Italy accumulated from colonialism and exploiting foreign and slave workers.


You have to read up on writings of Socialism, Dialectial Materialism, Marx, Engles, The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital vol 1,2,3 to understand the various concepts involved in its ideals. Stop reading anti-socialist rabblings because you cannot grasp the idea and analyse something critically if your getting your information from propaganda.

[dublinclontarf]

Socialism and statist beliefs are one in the same. By definition:Government having a major role in the the direction of the economy, both through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the central planning of overall economy. But when one hears the word statism it reminds us of Nazi Germans so you are making a connotation of the facist definition of Statism which is:
"basic concept that sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The fascist concept of statism repudiates individualsm and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline."

Fascism in Germany was only a heartbeat away from socialism in Russia. Socialism repudiates individualism in that there is no private property and that individuals are compelled to the will of the state by force, in Nazi Germany the state set wages, prices, controlled factory production, factory ownership was in name only.

Working class people dont work to have their productive wealth to be taken from them. Thats not socialism. Thats the basis for its existance. Thats what makes socialists.

Oh so the capitalists become the slaves of working class people having their productive wealth seized. Or are you implying that there will be no government, as the existence of government requires the appropriation of wealth to support it's existence.

The seizure of workers capital existed for centuries

It did, and it continued in every socialist state that ever came and went from existence, otherwise how would the state have survived unless in used wealth created by workers.

[quote]
Democracy is a greek word meaning "Mob" or "people" rule. If im not mistaken, the vast majority of people in high positions in the Dail did not come for a working class background and instead are former Solicitors, Barristers, Businessmen and professionals. Puritan Socialist beliefs of a workers democracy are Working class seizure and control of the means of production. [\QUOTE]

Which means the vast majority of people vote for them, these positions are not simply seized (unlike a workers revolution) they are filled by elected representatives.

What you advocate is a minority seizing power by force, and thus becomes a totalitarian regime; for if this group were the majority they would already be in power, such is the nature of our democracy & democracy in general.

You have to read up on writings of Socialism, Dialectial Materialism, Marx, Engles, The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital vol 1,2,3 to understand the various concepts involved in its ideals. Stop reading anti-socialist rabblings because you cannot grasp the idea and analyse something critically if your getting your information from propaganda.

Did you know that Marx never worked a day in his life, and allowed his wife and children to live & die in abject squalor and poverty?

I used to be a card carrying communist, like my father and read all the literature; until I came to the conclusion that the only way socialism could be brought to Ireland would be by means of an armed revolution. That people here needed to be forced to do what was good for them, and it was then that I realised what socialism was.

It wasn't until after I was married that I became anti-socialist. My wifes family (grandparents, mother, father, aunt & uncles)lived through the communist takeover and cultural revolution in China.

They were not an wealthy family but were not poor. Everything, EVERYTHING was taken from them. Their home, their savings, family heirlooms, their meager possessions all taken. They were beaten, starved, imprisoned, sent to labour camps for re-education. It was a sheer miracle none of them died.

No I learned my distaste for socialism from history books, not anti-socialist texts.

You seriously cannot attack the claim of "capital is accumulated theft from workers over generations of capitalism" . . . Because it has been proven true. Look at the huge buildings and boulevards in Spain, England and Italy accumulated from colonialism and exploiting foreign and slave workers.

A worker (lets say in McDonnalds, minimum wage) saves their money from their work( 5 years). They then use this money, this savings, otherwise known as financial capital is used to rent a building, equipment and hire staff for lets say his own fast food joint. This worker has just created their own capital (stole from none), and the result is a wealth creating venture which can allow more workers to accumulate their own capital should they wish.

So I say proven true by whom and how, I would love to know how this person might refute reality in such a manner. I mean look at the huge buildings in Dublin, the Custom House, GPO etc. wasn't built with foreign slave labour. And the last time I checked slavery has been outlawed since some time in the 1800's, so what are you getting at?

But when the "workers" seize this restaurant in their glorious revolution who is stealing?

[Red Boyneside]

Socialism is de facto statism, it is impossible for socialism to exist without the use of force by the state. Why should anyone work except under duration if the wealth the create is simply taken from them and given to another.

I read your "collection" of thoughts and it's short on details. You say when workers take power there will be a workers democracy instead of a capitalist democracy.

What is a "workers democracy" and how does it differ from a "capitalist democracy"? Is democracy not majority rules? Is that not what we currently live under?


And your argument for why people would choose socialism is that human nature would change. And one of the conditions for socialism to exist is that it must be worldwide i.e. everywhere must become socialist for it to exist.

For those who haven't read it here, Socialism or Barbarism In the grip of hysteria

Socialism or Communism by definition is a stateless society. It can only exist when class antagonisms have been eradicated by a revolutionary workers democracy which tends towards, but is not yet, Socialism. The difference between Capitalist democracy and workers democracy rests in who controlls the wealth. Under Capitalist democracy there are 500 companies who controll 70% of the world's wealth. Workers' Democracy based on workers and community councils like the original Soviets before their dissolution by the "Communist Party", or the Paris Commune or the strike committees in the Vendee during France's 68 general strike. These councils, federated would control the wealth of society. All delegates to these councils would earn no more than the average workers wage, be subject to recall by those who voted for them etc.

You say capital is accumulated theft from workers over generations of capitalism but what of the savings of a worker who then starts a business? Did he rob the capital from himself over generations?

When I say Capital I am talking about the 500 companies mentioned above, the banks etc.

So essentially, for socialism to exist "real" socialism, not what has happened in ever other attempt(what you might call "practical" socialism), reality has to be suspended.

Essentially your rebuttal is to point to your article full of generalities, miss-truths, misunderstandings, blatant contradictions, falsities and so on.

That is a misreading of what I said. I said that human nature is flexible. We have the capacity for greed but we are essentially social animals which makes it possible for us to co-operate.

20000miles, I'll get back to you tomorrow.

[Pastradamus]

Fascism in Germany was only a heartbeat away from socialism in Russia. Socialism repudiates individualism in that there is no private property and that individuals are compelled to the will of the state by force, in Nazi Germany the state set wages, prices, controlled factory production, factory ownership was in name only.

Nowhere is socialist theoretics does it state that Workers are subjects at the states will by force. You are saying Authoritharianism is socialism. Whilst Socialism can become Authoritarian the same is true for any other Idealistic Governance ie Capitalism, Fascism etc...

Russia is not a good example of socialism. Russia was a Marxist-Leninist state. Lenin short-circuited Marxist theory for imposition in Russia. While Autocratically its reasonable to compare Stalinist Russia with Nazi Germany there were quite a few differences. The NAZI's, for example, considered themselves a "Third Way" between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism, in that rather than completely nationalizing industry and taking over the means of production, the government had a very powerful influence. So its absurd to say "in name only".There are corporatist elements in many countries that are not fascist, especially some of the East Asian democracies, notably South Korea. Secondly, many nations have strong central leadership and even a powerful autocrat in command of the government, but are neither communist nor fascist. Many political scientists argue about the extent to which generally accepted fascist and communist governments are truly fascist or communist.

Oh so the capitalists become the slaves of working class people having their productive wealth seized. Or are you implying that there will be no government, as the existence of government requires the appropriation of wealth to support it's existence.

Thats where the Marxist/Anarchist split arises. Some would argue that a utopian society is required and that the state should not exist but mostly leftists have faith in the state and government.

No the capitalists dont become anyone's slave. I never said anything remotely implying that. The Appropriation of wealth is instead to be used for the workers benefit.

It did, and it continued in every socialist state that ever came and went from existence, otherwise how would the state have survived unless in used wealth created by workers.

What about wealth forced from labour? Such as Serfdom?

Which means the vast majority of people vote for them, these positions are not simply seized (unlike a workers revolution) they are filled by elected representatives.

What you advocate is a minority seizing power by force, and thus becomes a totalitarian regime; for if this group were the majority they would already be in power, such is the nature of our democracy & democracy in general.

Where did I say anything about seizing power? or for that matter a Minority seizing power? or that I was anti-democratic? And what minority seizing power do you speak of?

Did you know that Marx never worked a day in his life, and allowed his wife and children to live & die in abject squalor and poverty?

I used to be a card carrying communist, like my father and read all the literature; until I came to the conclusion that the only way socialism could be brought to Ireland would be by means of an armed revolution. That people here needed to be forced to do what was good for them, and it was then that I realised what socialism was.

What has Marx's personel life to do with his theories?
Why is it not possible in Irish society for Socialist policies to be applied in the Dail by a elected representive?

It wasn't until after I was married that I became anti-socialist. My wifes family (grandparents, mother, father, aunt & uncles)lived through the communist takeover and cultural revolution in China.

Maoism is not something that Socialists en masse would accept or agree with.

They were not an wealthy family but were not poor. Everything, EVERYTHING was taken from them. Their home, their savings, family heirlooms, their meager possessions all taken. They were beaten, starved, imprisoned, sent to labour camps for re-education. It was a sheer miracle none of them died.

This is Autocratic terrorism which could happen in any state. I not defending the action as I have a strong dislike for any Authoritarian Implimented by a government but I dont believe the people who carried out this slaughter were real socialists, Because its unbecoming of a socialist.

A worker (lets say in McDonnalds, minimum wage) saves their money from their work( 5 years). They then use this money, this savings, otherwise known as financial capital is used to rent a building, equipment and hire staff for lets say his own fast food joint. This worker has just created their own capital (stole from none), and the result is a wealth creating venture which can allow more workers to accumulate their own capital should they wish.

Thats a very naive view of capital akin to that of the "American Dream" concept. But I must hammer home the concept that its the exploitation of the worker's labour in order to produce capital by what Marx called "the Bourgeois" that is the problem here its not "stealing" in its clearly defined principles that bothers the leftist.

So I say proven true by whom and how, I would love to know how this person might refute reality in such a manner. I mean look at the huge buildings in Dublin, the Custom House, GPO etc. wasn't built with foreign slave labour. And the last time I checked slavery has been outlawed since some time in the 1800's, so what are you getting at?

But when the "workers" seize this restaurant in their glorious revolution who is stealing?

It has been proven true by fact and history. Colonial powers DID amass huge amounts of wealth through forced labour and exploitation. The huge buildings in Dublin were created mostly by a foreign colonial power the United Kingdom. While it is untrue to say that colonialism is not the source of large buildings it definetly was a contributing factor in the past. The worker is seizing the means of production and taking something into public ownership. Call it stealing if you want I dont care.

[ArtyQueing]

Time to turn to distributism

[dublinclontarf]

Socialism or Communism by definition is a stateless society. It can only exist when class antagonisms have been eradicated by a revolutionary workers democracy which tends towards, but is not yet, Socialism.

The problem with the term "socialism" is that it means many things to many people, it is not a concrete philosophy or fixed doctrine. So when you say by definition I have to ask by whom?

Merriam-Webster, Britannica and Wikipedia all mention collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production.

Socialism without a state results in Somalia, with a state it's Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam etc.

The difference between Capitalist democracy and workers democracy rests in who controls the wealth.

In who controls the wealth as opposed to who creates it? By what right should workers control the wealth CREATED by others, and by control don't you mean seized?

Under Capitalist democracy there are 500 companies who control 70% of the world's wealth.

Wealth doesn't just exist, it has to be created; gold has to be mined from the earth, food has to be grown & harvested, technology must be developed with R&D. Houses have to be designed & built, steel has to be refined from Iron ore, electricity has to be generated etc.

Your view is that there is a fixed amount of wealth, and the only way to get it is to take it from someone who has it already (well how did they get it in the first place?).

Heres an article further explaining How to Make Wealth


Companies in the Fortune 500 such as HP,Dell, Microsoft, Intel, & Cisco all these companies created vast amounts of wealth from hard work and innovation. They have vastly improved the lives of people across the world; their products have allowed the creation of entire industries (everything now uses computers) why this very computer you use is the result of their work.

I myself have worked for a large company, Sun Microsystems and I can say I would prefer being "exploited" by one of these companies for a lifetime than a single day in a "socialist democracy".

And who owns these companies? None are the property of a single person, everyone is free to buy a share of any of them. You say 70% of the wealth of the world (that these companies created) is controlled by 500 companies (and by controlled we mean property of). These companies are the property of millions, shoot even hundreds of millions across the world, anyone who cares to want a piece.

Art? Wealth thats created, by the artist, not the workers.

Music, artists not workers.

Books, writers not workers.

All wealth, all created, all products of the mind, work and capital (their own or/& someone elses as an investment).

Workers' Democracy based on workers and community councils like the original Soviets before their dissolution by the "Communist Party", or the Paris Commune or the strike committees in the Vendee during France's 68 general strike.

So you mean to say the best example of socialism in practice was only able to survive for a period of months at best?

That is a misreading of what I said. I said that human nature is flexible. We have the capacity for greed but we are essentially social animals which makes it possible for us to co-operate.

Flexible meaning you can throw around the phrase and have it mean what you like or that human nature can be changed? And some of those qualities you have named happen to be a part of human nature.