Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[coloradoatheist]

Funny coming from a guy who says he is an anarchist but the solution to every problem is bigger government as long as the government agrees with you, which it doesn't here in the case of drugs.

Anarchists say the answers are complicated and include recognition of all rights, not just property rights, and most importantly democracy.

Democracy and more democracy.

Bottom up democracy where representatives actually are part of the same class of the majority of people they represent.

Democracy where a sustainable future means more than present day profits.

It's funny that you are doing the same thing we are doing, classifying the system. The traditional definition of anarchy is no government at all. You want us to accept your definition of anarchy, but you won't let Jason, dismal and I define our capitalism.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Socialism is an economic system wherein the government/collective owns/controls the means of production.

Owns?controls should read owns or regulates. In practice most countries that are identified as socialist do not have major government ownership of industry.

 

[untermensche]

Funny coming from a guy who says he is an anarchist but the solution to every problem is bigger government as long as the government agrees with you, which it doesn't here in the case of drugs.

Anarchists say the answers are complicated and include recognition of all rights, not just property rights, and most importantly democracy.

Democracy and more democracy.

Bottom up democracy where representatives actually are part of the same class of the majority of people they represent.

Democracy where a sustainable future means more than present day profits.

It's funny that you are doing the same thing we are doing, classifying the system. The traditional definition of anarchy is no government at all. You want us to accept your definition of anarchy, but you won't let Jason, dismal and I define our capitalism.

Democracy is not a system of government.

And it is not enough.

Anarchism is concerned with power systems of all kinds.

Including the dictatorial power systems inherent to real world capitalism.

 

[dismal]

Socialism is an economic system wherein the government/collective owns/controls the means of production.

Owns?controls should read owns or regulates. In practice most countries that are identified as socialist do not have major government ownership of industry.

Regulation is a form of control. Regulation to the point where an owner is not free to do much of anything with his property approaches socialism. Regulation around the edges of capitalism is not "socialism".

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's funny that you are doing the same thing we are doing, classifying the system. The traditional definition of anarchy is no government at all. You want us to accept your definition of anarchy, but you won't let Jason, dismal and I define our capitalism.

Democracy is not a system of government.

And it is not enough.

Anarchism is concerned with power systems of all kinds.

Including the dictatorial power systems inherent to real world capitalism.

Yes. democracy is just how you elect a government. Anarchy's traditional meaning is no government. You aren't an anarchist. You are a democratic fascist.

 

[untermensche]

When capitalists control the government regulation is many times just one group of capitalists trying to create an advantage for themselves.

Or of course the regulation might be something like doing something to reduce pollution or harm.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny that you are doing the same thing we are doing, classifying the system. The traditional definition of anarchy is no government at all. You want us to accept your definition of anarchy, but you won't let Jason, dismal and I define our capitalism.

Democracy is not a system of government.

And it is not enough.

Anarchism is concerned with power systems of all kinds.

Including the dictatorial power systems inherent to real world capitalism.

Yes. democracy is just how you elect a government. Anarchy's traditional meaning is no government. You aren't an anarchist. You are a democratic fascist.

A fascist does not believe in democracy.

Like most capitalists.

 

[coloradoatheist]

When capitalists control the government regulation is many times just one group of capitalists trying to create an advantage for themselves.

Or of course the regulation might be something like doing something to reduce pollution or harm.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. democracy is just how you elect a government. Anarchy's traditional meaning is no government. You aren't an anarchist. You are a democratic fascist.

A fascist does not believe in democracy.

Like most capitalists.

Normally yes. But yours is letting the government decide what you can or can't do and run everybody's lives.

 

[untermensche]

Normally yes. But yours is letting the government decide what you can or can't do and run everybody's lives.

You are describing a society.

Where there are rules, like you can't rape other people.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Normally yes. But yours is letting the government decide what you can or can't do and run everybody's lives.

You are describing a society.

Where there are rules, like you can't rape other people.

Hence why most people aren't anarchist, they want some body to protect them from that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately, "socialism" to many on the right means a government that has the audacity to actually work for the people.

Yep. For good reason, socialism has a terrible reputation. So, the right calls any social spending socialism. So, Warren Buffet is a socialist because he wants more affordable college! But the greater mystery is why so many on the left have adopted this definition.

1000x this.

Taxation for social spending is not socialism. Socialism is about who controls the companies.

It's possible to fuck things up with bread & circuses but that's a different issue.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's funny that you are doing the same thing we are doing, classifying the system. The traditional definition of anarchy is no government at all. You want us to accept your definition of anarchy, but you won't let Jason, dismal and I define our capitalism.

Democracy is not a system of government.

And it is not enough.

Anarchism is concerned with power systems of all kinds.

Including the dictatorial power systems inherent to real world capitalism.

I've challenged you several times to come up with a technical definition of capitalism. All you've done is given us your opinion of capitalism.

The definition of socialism is "collective ownership of the means or production." My opinion of socialism is "it sucks". See the difference?

 

[Tristan Scott]

Socialism is an economic system wherein the government/collective owns/controls the means of production.

Owns?controls should read owns or regulates. In practice most countries that are identified as socialist do not have major government ownership of industry.

Regulation is a form of control. Regulation to the point where an owner is not free to do much of anything with his property approaches socialism. Regulation around the edges of capitalism is not "socialism".

I agree, however successful socialist governments recognize this and adjust accordingly. One of the axioms of regulation is to help a broad spectrum of businesses succeed and to maintain higher employment levels as well as wage levels. We used our tax system to regulate these aspects of our economy for 65 years in the twentieth century through progressive taxation. Businesses thrived as well as workers.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Socialism is an economic system wherein the government/collective owns/controls the means of production.

Owns?controls should read owns or regulates. In practice most countries that are identified as socialist do not have major government ownership of industry.

Regulation is a form of control. Regulation to the point where an owner is not free to do much of anything with his property approaches socialism. Regulation around the edges of capitalism is not "socialism".

True, and that is the key difference between socialism and fascism. Fascists had one (and only one) insight, and it was that you do not need to own the means of production in order to control the means of production. Instead of collectivizing ownership they collectivized control, setting of a debate that has lasted for decades over the relationship between the two political philosophies.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Regulation is a form of control. Regulation to the point where an owner is not free to do much of anything with his property approaches socialism. Regulation around the edges of capitalism is not "socialism".

True, and that is the key difference between socialism and fascism. Fascists had one (and only one) insight, and it was that you do not need to own the means of production in order to control the means of production. Instead of collectivizing ownership they collectivized control, setting of a debate that has lasted for decades over the relationship between the two political philosophies.

The only debate should be which way will our economy and our people have the best chance to succeed. Without regulation we always tend to have a larger percentage of our wealth controlled by a smaller number of people. Not only that, the unregulated businesses fail to the point that there are only a few. Its impossible for a nation's economy to thrive under these conditions.

 

[untermensche]

It's funny that you are doing the same thing we are doing, classifying the system. The traditional definition of anarchy is no government at all. You want us to accept your definition of anarchy, but you won't let Jason, dismal and I define our capitalism.

Democracy is not a system of government.

And it is not enough.

Anarchism is concerned with power systems of all kinds.

Including the dictatorial power systems inherent to real world capitalism.

I've challenged you several times to come up with a technical definition of capitalism. All you've done is given us your opinion of capitalism.

The definition of socialism is "collective ownership of the means or production." My opinion of socialism is "it sucks". See the difference?

All these labels are ill defined.

What an Anarchist looks at are power structures.

And there is a difference between a dictatorial and a democratic power structure.

The problem with capitalism as it exists is far too much power in far too few hands because of the acceptance of dictatorial power structures. Structures where all real power resides in a tiny few.

Anarchism condemns dictatorial power structures.

In all it's ugly and destructive forms.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I've challenged you several times to come up with a technical definition of capitalism. All you've done is given us your opinion of capitalism.

The definition of socialism is "collective ownership of the means or production." My opinion of socialism is "it sucks". See the difference?

All these labels are ill defined.

What an Anarchist looks at are power structures.

And there is a difference between a dictatorial and a democratic power structure.

The problem with capitalism as it exists is far too much power in far too few hands because of the acceptance of dictatorial power structures. Structures where all real power resides in a tiny few.

Anarchism condemns dictatorial power structures.

In all it's ugly and destructive forms.

They aren't ill defined though. You are just trying to create your own system and try and call it something it's not. Your's is more in line with trying to define a class-less society, but it doesn't really fall under any label.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I've challenged you several times to come up with a technical definition of capitalism. All you've done is given us your opinion of capitalism.

The definition of socialism is "collective ownership of the means or production." My opinion of socialism is "it sucks". See the difference?

All these labels are ill defined.

What an Anarchist looks at are power structures.

And there is a difference between a dictatorial and a democratic power structure.

The problem with capitalism as it exists is far too much power in far too few hands because of the acceptance of dictatorial power structures. Structures where all real power resides in a tiny few.

Anarchism condemns dictatorial power structures.

In all it's ugly and destructive forms.

So you're not going to define any of the words you use. Is there some reason you are adverse to doing so?

Personally, if I thought a label was ill defined, I'd try to come up with a better definition.

And, of course, you keep thinking Democracy means everything will work out great because the majority never votes away the rights of the minority. [/sarcasm]

 

[untermensche]

They are incredible ill defined.

The way the US economy works now has little resemblance to how it worked 100 years ago.

But both systems are somehow called "capitalism".

The way you straighten out systems of power is to make them democratic.

That is the only solution to human concentrated power. Something always a danger.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

They are incredible ill defined.

Then define them better.

The way the US economy works now has little resemblance to how it worked 100 years ago.

But both systems are somehow called "capitalism".

Yes, you do say "capitalism" to any and every "me no likey." I've been careful to describe the current US economy as a mixed economy, as is anyone who is careful with their wording and analysis.

The way you straighten out systems of power is to make them democratic.

Because the majority never votes away the rights of the minority.

That is the only solution to human concentrated power. Something always a danger.

So we should put all power in your hands instead.

 

[dismal]

Regulation is a form of control. Regulation to the point where an owner is not free to do much of anything with his property approaches socialism. Regulation around the edges of capitalism is not "socialism".

I agree, however successful socialist governments recognize this and adjust accordingly. One of the axioms of regulation is to help a broad spectrum of businesses succeed and to maintain higher employment levels as well as wage levels. We used our tax system to regulate these aspects of our economy for 65 years in the twentieth century through progressive taxation. Businesses thrived as well as workers.

In socialism the government owns the means of production. If there are businesses that produce things, it is clear sign socialism has been relaxed. Some capitalism is being allowed.