socialism, property, and the state

[Jon Miller]

I think that in the US the military is controlled enough to be able to be subverted

also I think communism should be implemented stealthily

have the government start buying up the corporations (it has the money), once the government owns the corporations we own the corporations (the workers) since we are the government

Jon Miller

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
anything that can be used for personal needs can be given to others for their production and is so private propery and should be banned

Actually, it's a function of the communist state to ensure that personal property is not used as private one.

[monkspider]

God bless ya for articulating the arguement against private property so well Che.
I must agree with Jon though, the most successful socialist revolution will be the one that isn't made up of guns and bombs, but of a mandate of the people.
Regardless of how powerful and inhumane our Corporate despots may be, I don't foresee a future where they couldn't be broken by sheer majority of the people's will.
We don't need to lower ourselves to the levels of the capitalist, imperialist pig-dogs by fighting a war to gain our freedom. As Final Fantasy II for Super Nintendo so elequently put it. "As long as there are those who will stand up for what is right, there will always be heroes". As a christian, I can argue that as long as we have faith in God, he will help us out against evil, regardless of the odds against us. But even non-christians can see that not even the worst the Corporations can throw at us can't break the will of the masses of humanity. One day we will be free, and the best means of acheiving this freedom is through non-violent means.

[Jon Miller]

especially when we have the mechanisms in hand

Jon Miller

[monkspider]

By the way, you're starting to sound like a Maoist in your old age Che. We can't have that.

[David Floyd]

Actually David, I can agree that I have a valid claim on myself without acknowledging natural rights. I live in a society that upholds the right to proerty in one's self, therefore I have that property. Had I lived two hundred years ago, I would have lived in a society that held that men had the right to property in women and in slaves, and I likely would have thought that this was natural and just, even though today we see that it is neither.

OK, so you think rights are determined by society. It also stands to reason, then, that morals are determined by society - if there are no property rights, then theft cannot be wrong, etc. So, then, the problem with saying morals are relative is that some clearly are not. Murder, for example, is absolutely wrong, regardless of what society says, wouldn't you agree?
If so, morals cannot all be relative, and as such should not be determined by society. If this is the case, because of the relationship of rights and morality, it stands to reason that not all rights should be determined by society or the State either.

Rights did not exist, floating around until someone figured out how to properly articulate them. Rights came out of a particular form of human society.

No, the discovery of and justification for natural rights came about when the morality of laissez-faire was proved by Locke, and later Rand. They existed before, but no one recognized that fact.

They are an ideology created to justify and support that society, at first against the arbitrary power of kings and now against their wage-slaves.

As I said, notions of natural rights do justify laissez-faire, and put rest to absolutist ideas. However, lower class people - wage laborers - retain just as many rights as their employers. They differ only in financial ability, which is not relevant or significant to the argument.

But is nothing more than an idea, an agreement among humans. And we can stop agreeing that we have a right to individual property.

I disagree - private property is an essential right for maintaining freedom, and is a natural right retained by all.

In the real world, of course, this argument will not be settled by reason argument, but by force, just as it has always been settled.

That is certainly true, and government coercion is the biggest problem today.

Capitalists initially gained their property by confiscating the land of nobility, the peasantry, the American Indians, and the forced labor of African slaves.

The nobles, in general, referred to whatever area they ruled by force. That is not a just entitlement. I assume by peasantry you mean the wage labor system, which would not work without the overt and tacit consent of the "peasants", "workers", whatever, themselves. The confiscation of AmerInd land was certainly wrong, as the settlers had no moral claim on it, but this does not invalidate notions of laissez-faire, but is rather an example of what should not be done. Finally, slavery was also a moral wrong, and not indicative of an actual laissez faire system because it did not involve the freedom of everyone, nor did it acknowledge natural rights.

Capitalism can never be free of its original sin, and therefore it has no moral claim to property today.

You are associating the system with the acts of misguided individuals whom I do not support. Capitalism itself strongly promotes freedom and individual liberty.

It holds its property through force, and ultimately it will be dispossesed by force.

True, in that if you try to rob me the guns are coming out, but if you have a bigger gun you'll probably succeed.

We shall take the stole property of our ancestors and reclaim it for ourselves. We shall hold it in common, as our ancestors once did, and we shall use it together for all our benefit.

No you won't - communal property is just not a workable, or moral, concept. There is no way everyone - or even close to everyone - would consent to such a system. I wouldn't, and I'm not a large property owner or a wealthy man by any means.

You may say that Americans would never elect socialists, but never is a very long time, and capitalism doesn't have that long. Besides, it wasn't too long ago that the Communist Party USA was the largest party in the United States in terms of party membership.

Explain, then, why communists didn't get elected.

Someday capitalism will fall. The only question is, will we go forward to socialism or will we become extinct as a species.

Capitalism will not fall, at least not before Armageddon, or the implosion of the Universe, or whatever Doomsdays scenario you believe. Why should it? It is based upon freedom, which is an enduring concept.

[David Floyd]

Where we differ is whether or not we can ultimately be successful using the capitalist state against capitalism. I think that as soon as we show our intention to be real socialists, rather than just carry out the capitalists orders, that they will begin to undermine our authority and eventually foment a military coup, ala Chile.

I doubt it. The US military is, and always has been, one of the most conservative aspects of the US.

[The Vagabond]

monkspider, I love your avatar. It's much more beautiful than Dalgetti's. It waves in the wind.

[David Floyd]

A Soviet flag....hmm a symbol of oppression

[Jon Miller]

communism is true freedom

freedom from the material, freedom from want and need

Jon Miller

[The Vagabond]

I have a formal question to commies. Do you really believe that it is possible to have an efficient economy with public ownership of all corporations? And I don't mean some distant future. I mean "here and now".

Of course, I can imagine that your answer will be yes, but still I would appreciate to get your direct answer to this directly posed question.

[David Floyd]

Communism? Freedom?

Ask the millions murdered in the name of communism. Ask the Poles, the Hungarians, the Czechs. Ask the Ukrainians and the Afghans.

The only thing that gives you freedom from need is working for a living, pulling your weight, being innovative and productive.

[Jon Miller]

tell that to all those who have died by the hands of the corporations

the young the old the women and children

tell that to those who died in Korea and vietnam

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Vagabond
I have a formal question to commies. Do you really believe that it is possible to have an efficient economy with public ownership of all corporations? And I don't mean some distant future. I mean "here and now".

Of course, I can imagine that your answer will be yes, but still I would appreciate to get your direct answer to this directly posed question. [/QUOTE

yes

government controlled corporations would be beacraticly controlled with importance on the good of the people

'free' corporations have lots of managment who act just like beaucracy, the only difference is that the corporation owes nothing to the people and will screw them over for property

so government owned is better

Jon Miller

[David Floyd]

tell that to all those who have died by the hands of the corporations

Corporations don't murder people

the young the old the women and children

Freedom doesn't mean there is a right to someone else's property.

tell that to those who died in Korea and vietnam

That had little to do with capitalism as the US was not a capitalist state.