socialism, property, and the state

[Jon Miller]

but the goal will be of what they want

rather than what will cause the corporation to have the most property

Jon Miller

[David Floyd]

Well, I'm going to bed. G'night all.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's ridiculous - the West never had any intention of invading the USSR, outside of the half-assed attempt to support the White Russians in the civil war.

In what part of Europe was Nazi Germany? The West! Who was constantly verbally threatening to attack the other party? The West! Who kept sending terrorists in to destroy their infrastructure? The West! Which side threatened the other verbally with nuclear destruction? The West!

The USSR had good reason to be paranoid. The West really was out to get them.

[Jon Miller]

desperate measures are needed in a revolution

that is the reason I do not want one

and the USSR was ultimately a failed revolution

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Unless, of course, it's true.
The point was, though, as an example, that regardless of what society thought, the earth was not the center of the Universe - someone just had to prove it. Same thing here. Rand and Locke have already adequately proved the existence of natural rights, you just don't accept it.

Because they're wrong. If they proved natural rights then let me ask you this, what does it look like? How does it feel? Is it tangible? If not, can we build a machine that will detect it? If not, then they cannot have proven that it exists.

So you think that the unjustified killing of someone can be justified? That's incoherent.

No, the problem is you're trying to put 21st century morals on a situation from before 8,000 BCE. I'm trying to show you that it doesn't work.

Yes, and slaves "belonged" to their masters. Some even believed it - coercion can do a lot to a person's brain.

Not necessarily. If you are raised to believe that is the way the world is, then that is likely what you will believe. Just as most people in the West belive that capitalism is the natural order, rather than scientifically understanding that it is only a phase of human society.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If you were a murderous/barbarous pariah state you should expect a cold shoulder

I see that this propagandistic cliche has penetrated deep inside your brain.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not really. In the US, we are moving away from socialism rather than towards it, and many European nations are electing right wing governments.

Hmm, I suppose you are referring to the "Le Pen" incident. It is true that Le Pen did do surprisingly well, but France does not have the two-party structure that the US does. Most of the votes were gathered by leftist parties, even parties such as the "Revolutionary Communist League" and the Neo-Trotskeyists did very commendably. Italy had a Communist leader recently, Germany's Communist party made huge inroads in the last parliament election (they may have actually made the most inroads of any party, my memory is somewhat hazy). Countries such as Finland and Sweden are blatantly socialist-leaning. Australia is socialist-leaning. So Fascist Le Pen can be largely viewed as a fluke in that regard, a fluke resulting from the highly splintered left.
In regards to the US, I do think that an arguement can be made that we have been moving away from it in the past fifteen years or so. But in the larger picture, we are a lot closer than we were one hundred years ago. The rise of Corporate power in the past decade is also possible to have a huge backlash effect. Let's just see what the next couple decades hold

Further, how can you argue socialism is the natural progression of man?

I think it's fair to say that, aside from a few localized incidents such as the United States in the fifteen years or so, the industrialized world as a whole is considerably closer to socialism now then we were one hundred years ago. That is virtually inarguable.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
but the goal will be of what they want

rather than what will cause the corporation to have the most property

If there is no mechanism to implement what they want, what they want will never happen.

[Jon Miller]

there is still an inherent difference between something done for the people versus something done for profit (where the people could be screwed)

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

monkspider, we're not neoTrotskyists (though I suppose that's better than Trotskyites). We're the same old Trotskyists we've always been. It's just that now that the old Stalinist parties have collapsed, people can see us.

The other point that I would make is that while there are short-term swings in politics, the long-term trend is towards socialism. David, like so many pro-capitalists, thinks of the here and now as eternal, both into the recesses of time and on into the infinate future.

[Jon Miller]

yah Che, you are old school

still having the old and outdated coldwar veiws

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Very old school, back to Marx and Hegel. But I see the post-ColdWar period as confirming my views, rather than demolishing them.

[Jon Miller]

your veiws on the government and the military and the like are deffinitely old school and counter to the overall success of our cause

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

Hmmmm...

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.

You're confusing two things: legal rights and moral rights. If there are no legal rights to an act, then undermining an act is not illegal. Legal rights are indeed defined by the society.

Moral rights are defined by the individual, who is shaped by the society. If I think something is immoral, it is according to me. What you believe is moral or immoral doesn't change my beliefs.

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?

We've been through this before.
Murder is defined as an illegal killing, which may be moral IMO.
If you define murder as an immoral killing, as you did in the other thread, you're getting into circular logic and don't prove anything at all.

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.

They're determined by the state, the society, and the individual, not nature.

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.

Nah, Rand and Locke are cranks. Just theists masquerading as atheists, threatened by the lack of absolutes.

The nobles, in general, referred to whatever area they ruled by force. That is not a just entitlement.

So did the capitalists. Liberty is a pipe dream except under socialism.

[Blisterz]

Originally posted by David Floyd




Slavery implies forced labor. The wage labor system is, and always has been (under capitalism and capitalist-type systems) voluntary, based on voluntary individual contracts.

The best slave is one that thinks he is free.