F A N A T I C
Rant


3.2.97 18:31 Excuses of the Rich 3.2.97 18:37 Unemployment vs. incarceration. 7.2.97 13:51 The driving force for conformity. 7.2.97 20:33 Free food is bad. 9.2.97 Free market interference. 10.2.97 19:27 Fear and survival. 10.2.97 20:46 Real incentive. 10.2.97 22:14 Company and economic policy. 11.2.97 21:33 What is not yours. 11.2.97 21:52 Capitalist welfare. 12.2.97 18:33 What the man owns. 12.2.97 21:33 Centuries of civilization. 12.2.97 21:40 Without permission. 13.2.97 Criminals are made. 14.2.97 01:23 Management with consensus. 14.2.97 13:37 Public vs. private elections. 15.2.97 16:10 Capitalist magic. 15.2.97 16:26 Holding back progress. 16.2.97 16:38 100% unemployment. 16.2.97 16:52 The 49% minority. 16.2.97 21:45 Finance capital manipulations. 18.2.97 By what principle? 19.2.97 16:38 Can I keep that? 19.2.97 16:47 Politburo or board of directors. 19.2.97 16:52 Because it is stupid. 21.2.97 17:47 A good People's Republic. 21.2.97 17:57 The most idiotic things. 21.2.97 18:11 The very point of civilization. 21.2.97 18:35 No innocent by-standers. 22.2.97 14:17 The Senate filibuster. 22.2.97 14:40 The survival of both parties. 23.2.97 06:22 Cells and organisms. 23.2.97 08:55 Centralizing tyranny. 23.2.97 13:15 Property marches on. 23.2.97 19:58 Competing for dictators. 25.2.97 18:29 Hatred of technology. 25.2.97 18:43 The people who have the money. 1.3.97 Destroy democracy. 2.3.97 16:02 Fear of knowledge. 2.3.97 16:40 With liberty and Jaguars for all. 2.3.97 16:52 We are experts at. 4.3.97 17:20 Excuse for theft. 4.3.97 20:01 Genetic guilt. 4.3.97 20:13 In a world where. 4.3.97 20:19 Voluntary collectivism. 10.3.97 Every man for himself. 16.3.97 Creating communism. 17.3.97 21:42 Cain and Abel. 17.3.97 21:49 Serious wrist strain. 19.3.97 15:11 Capitalist students. 19.3.97 15:23 No looking back. 24.3.97 Envy, moderated envy, freedom. 1.4.97 Even more like a failed social program. 2.4.97 Afraid to admit their true fears. From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,sci.econ,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:28:35 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > >If greed= insatiable desire to accumulate property far beyond any need > > >then, well, hunter gatherers don't have it. It seems to be an > > >unfortunate psychological side-effect of civilization, which should be > > >minimized rather then encouraged > Actually, in Mr. John Bicketts case, even defining the terms as > he pleases, he's still unable to put together a rational argument. > So far he asserts: greed is evil ergo capitalism is destructive. Greed is created by marketing. The more marketing, the more greed. America is a country of mindless sheep, drooling in front of the that ultimate propaganda machine -- the TV screen. How else do you keep a capitalist economy running? TELL the people what they want, so you can sell more products. LISTEN to what they want? Nah. That's too democratic for us patriotic Americans.
From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 14:59:10 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Carrick wrote: > To say that unions exist to increse conflict is to deliberately > misread their role. Collective bargaining is a fully legal means by > which workers can attempt to improve their rewards and working > conditions. Just as employers have every right to bargain "tough", > union representatives are justified in striving to get the best > contract that they can for their people. Disagreement is, in fact, as vital to the democratic process as mutation to evolution. THAT is what makes freedom of expression important. Not just for managers, not just for workers, but for EVERYONE. Debates however, usually get bogged down because people are afraid to admit their true fears. So it becomes the job of the other side to try to figure out exactly what that fear is (like, loss of a job, loss of a say in the company, loss of respect, loss of his leather recliner) and to pacify it.
From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 12:20:54 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Armon wrote: > Third, alternative fuels etc., already exist. They will not be > implemented until their use is forced by governments. Why? Simply a > matter of economics, corporations won't invest in less profitable > advances in technology until they are forced. Sometimes though, those > "less-profitable" options are the ones with the greatest social > benefit so their use should not simply be left to the warped "logic" > of the "free-market". It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. "Socially beneficial" programs don't appear profitable, so the investment money goes somewhere else. As a result, "socially beneficial" programs have neither the funding nor the personnel to make itself work, and thus looks even more like a failed social program. So what IS a socially beneficial program? What is the point of civilization? Duh. Knowledge. We didn't get where we are today by killing eachother off or burning books. We can support so many people simply because we have learned how, and because we have learned to communicate our ideas quickly and efficiently. Just about every one of us should be on welfare, learning something new to give back to the farmers and home-builders. How many farmers and home-builders do we really need? How much is just time wasted doing busy work that could be better spent on REAL knowledge, production, and entertainment?
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:02:51 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Derek Nalecki wrote: > >An unanimous democracy creates communism. > >A majority democracy creates socialism. > >An autocracy creates capitalism. > Envy, and those who exploit it creates communism. > Moderated envy creates socialism. > Freedom creates capitalism. It would depend on your definition of the terms. These are mine: Communism: Nobody can possibly have more than anyone else. This happens when everyone has the power to veto any law, so the only way for society as a whole to move ahead is to improve everyone's life. Socialism: Some people have more than others, but must support a welfare and education system. Similar to what we have now. You can cut down the amount of welfare and education by concentrating power in the hands of the few by using campaign contributions and lobby groups. Capitalism: Whoever has the most power has the most money. Power is used to grab money, and money is used to buy power. Freedom: Everyone can say whatever the hell they want. No one is censored by either violence, coercion, or expensive airtime costs. Nobody fights speech with censorship, but with speech of their own. Education: Both opposing sides of an argument are actually willing to admit their mistakes. Both sides are able to pick out what is wrong with an argument and point it out.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 15:23:10 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote: > >> Willful ignorance will get you nowhere. Fiscal conservatives > >> are the ones who hold back the poor by denying them an > >> education as good as the one their own kids are getting. > >> Fiscal conservatives are the ones who hold down the poor by > >> perverting democracy with their money. Fiscal conservatives > >> are the ones, through their own cowardice, that hold back > >> the advancement of knowledge for fear of competition. > belonging to a past age that will not return. Don't be jealous, and > don't indulge in wishful dreams of egalatarian society. To get in > tune with the times you have to forget this 'great society' crap, > accumulate all the real muscle you can, find someone who has something > you want, and you take it. No regrets, no looking back. Here's what I see when I look back: I see one man smashing the skull of another man for a piece of land. I see the strong using violence to prevent the weak from having access to natural resources. I see the strong profiting from their might. I see the rulers establishing an "education" system to perpetuate their own version of the "right to property". I see the offspring of these rulers, deluded by their own fathers, taking advantage of people who want to eat, but have no access to any resources.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 15:11:44 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Dream Machine wrote: > > Willful ignorance will get you nowhere. Fiscal conservatives > > are the ones who hold back the poor by denying them an > > education as good as the one their own kids are getting. > By "denying them an education" do you mean that fiscal > conservatives are not allowing enough money to flow into > the public education system? If so, you're way off. > Less money is spent per student in private schools than in > public ones. Fiscal conservatives want a good education for their kids (doesn't everyone?). But fiscal conservatives would RATHER have a better education for their OWN kids than anyone else's kids. Why? Capitalism. If my kids are smarter, then it's YOUR kids that will be unemployed. Capitalist students would sooner give their fellow students false information than actually help them learn. > There are many groups that pervert democracy with their money. > I'm not defend it, but it's not ALL fiscal conservatives. > There are plenty of liberal groups in there doing the same > thing. And I don't care who does it. It's time for all of it to stop. > > Fiscal conservatives > > are the ones, through their own cowardice, that hold back > > the advancement of knowledge for fear of competition. > Knowledge of what? Knowledge of how to design one of the > products they invent, yes. Isn't that fair? How hard would it be for someone else to use knowledge you've created? Not hard at all, UNLESS you hire mercenaries to prevent that person from doing so. THIS is how capitalism holds back technology and wastes resources HOLDING IT BACK. Society needs to find a new way to reward invention without having to resort to secrets and lies.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:49:46 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Comandante "Less-than-Zero" (D. J. Waletzky) wrote: > > And I suppose the people who put up and risked their hard-earned dollars > > pumping the oil, building the refineries, and inventing and developing > > the transmisson technologies deserves nothing in return for their hard > > work? > Not unless serious wrist strain was involved in writing that check. Nah, the secretary wrote the check. The accountant gave the thumbs up. The "investor" himself was very likely ogling Olympic wrestlers.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:42:56 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sheldon Scott wrote: > : Cain was the world's first capitalist. > Gee, J. McCarthy, tell us more! Does this mean Abel was the world's first > Socialist? :-) Abel produced what he could from what resources were available to him. He neither shared what he produced, nor did he take from others. Cain, of course, took Abel's life in a fit of jealousy. Jealousy is the emotion on which all of capitalism is based. And violence is the action on which all of capitalism is based. It is violence that conquers shared resources. It is violence that prevents other people from using shared resources. And it is this monopolization of resources that enables capitalists to pay their employees whatever the heck they feel like.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:17:08 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Derek Nalecki wrote: > >Poverty creates communism. > Envy creates communism. An unanimous democracy creates communism. A majority democracy creates socialism. An autocracy creates capitalism.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:07:28 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James Doemer wrote: > > ownership of the Moon or Mars will be decided? When the time > > comes, if the nations of this world are still capitalist, it > > will probably be decided by warfare (or at least intimidation... > > something we Amercians are experts at). > on the resources produced. I think your contention that war will decide > what goes on in space is in error for one particular reason.. Both space > exploration and warfare are big ticket expenses, it wouldn't take very long > for the point to become moot. If warfare were so expensive, they why do so many poor nations engage in it? The reason is simple. Capitalist competition takes their labor, steals their raw materials, leaving nothing behind but expensive "manufactured products" from all the mighty corporations, to drain more labor and resources out of these countries. And in order to prevent them from ever becoming as good as us, we hide behind trade secrets and copyright laws. Cuz, hey, every man for himself right? Cain was the world's first capitalist.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 20:19:02 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > Like I've been saying, kangas, "Aint nothing wrong with collectivism, > as long as it's voluntary" I know about such things, my ancestors > were there doing it, and much of it was still done when I was growing > up, and it was swell, but collectivism it was not. The land was > fenced, and the livestock were branded, and they hung people for > stealing private property, especially if the private property was your > means of production. Fact is, I'd be willing to bet that if you'd > started to describe a commune to my Grandad, he'd have been loading > his shotgun before you were done. Voluntary collectivism is great, > Kangas, forced collectivism is not. It's the difference between > giving and taking, and it's not the givers who have trouble with the > definitions. Good point. But how did our frontier ancestors manage to "volunteer" Indians, Mexicans, Tories, and them damn Red Coats out of their collectivism? You do not own the right to deny someone else use of any resource, unless it was by perpetual unanimous vote.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 20:13:02 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > In a world where Stephen Spielberg cannot get rich, how can I get to > see the movies I want to see, rather than politically correct movies > designed to improve my soul and give me the correct political outlook. A world where no one is denied the chance to reach their full potential by economic barriers set up by the rich to hold down competition. A world where no one owns any land that was seized by violence. A world where no one is prevented from using any resource by coercion. A world where employees no longer have to give a portion of everything they produce to someone who claims ownership of the resources that they have to use.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.democrats.d,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.poli Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 20:01:08 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > Pure altruism makes no sense to sociobiologists, indeed it is > classified as a deviation, like homosexuality. Kin altruism, > mutuality, and reciprocal altruism make sense, not because the > preserve the gene pool, but because they preserve the individual or > his kin. Wrong. For example, in a difficult environment, when two parents are not enough to raise children, homosexuality may just be the solution that adds the extra helping hand so that children carrying a (recessive) homosexual gene can live to reproduce. Altruism for anything that can help you survive IS selected for, be it someone you've never met before who later returns the favor (you might say even guilt is genetic), or be it a horse that can help you catch buffalo. It doesn't even have to be your own species. Why do ants protect the aphids that they milk?
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 17:20:13 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > alternatives with marketing (why else would you suppose so > > much is spent on advertising?). And the reason producers > > have control is because long ago, they conquered their > > resources, and today, they refuse to allow anyone else to > > use those conquered resources unless they submit to giving > > them a cut of what they produce. > Since this supposed conquest occurred long ago, it is strange that in > America most of todays rich are new rich, and most of the descendants > of turn of the century rich are either no longer rich, or considerably > less rich than their parents. The makeup of the rich today is no excuse for the theft that happened long ago, nor the theft that continues to happen because the poor are denied a right to make a living unless they submit themselves to the holders of stolen raw materials.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 16:52:47 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > >In the early agrarian societies of 10,000 years or so ago, most property > >was communal. There was indeed private property, but it was limited to > >immediate personal objects. > Well, of course, but until recently land was considered unlimited, and > the means of production was primarily one's hands and mind whose > ownership were not questionable. There was no reason for the concept > of private property, but because early man saw no reason to enforce > ownership does not imply a collective society, any more than to assume > that we live in a collective society today because we do feel the need > to claim private ownership of air and water, two of the most essential > commodities. Never heard of territorial waters or the violation of airspace? Early man saw no reason for property enforcement simply because they did not have the knowledge to make use of it all, nor the means to control it. But then came the armies, who took it by force - might makes right politics - soon to be followed by capitalists who buy it with money, but still enforce it with coercion - might makes right economics. Ever wonder how the ownership of the Moon or Mars will be decided? When the time comes, if the nations of this world are still capitalist, it will probably be decided by warfare (or at least intimidation... something we Amercians are experts at).
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 16:40:01 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > >On one hand they don't think that democracy can succeed in the workplace, > >although they freely subscribe to the same principle when its stockholders doing > >the voting. > Get off it Kangas. Are you too dense to understand the difference > between voting power in accordance to ownership share, and one vote > per person? Who does the producing? Employees. Who does the paying? Consumers. Who does the owning? Those who kill people for land and make money by taking advantage of people who want to eat. > >sales would be determined by the supply and demand of the market, > >just as before. The only difference is that managers making decisions > >about paper-clip production are no longer dictators, but are democratically > >elected. > I'm running for manager in your department, Kangas. I promise that I > will give everyone a two hour lunch period with pay, and a couple of > one hour breaks, also with pay. In addition, you don't have to come > to work if you don't want to, and you all get to take home as much > company property as you want. Do you think our current citizens are voting to buy every American a Jaguar? Or are you more stupid than the average voter? Employees aren't so stupid that they'd vote to drive their own company into the ground. They would only "take advantage of the system" if that system didn't actually belong to them. Your only fear is that your employees hate your guts and probably think one of their peers knows far more about your department than you do. Face it, those who actually do the job everyday know far more about what their jobs entail than any paperpusher above you in upper management.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 16:02:21 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. JMH wrote: > > The point is that there are no innocent by-standers because > > land belongs to everyone. You cannot claim land by stepping > > on it or by killing for it. The only thing you can claim > > is what your own labor or thought produced. If you claim > > the right to use a natural resource, then you owe part of > > what you produce to everyone who lost their right to use > > that natural resource. > Let's not get too confused here. *Your* claim is that the land > is owned by everyone jointly. Some seem to claim that land must > be unowned. Others claim land can be severed and mad a private > possession. There's little difference to being owned by no one and owned by everyone. The use of a resource is a privilege. It only becomes a "right" when you are given it by perpetual unanimous vote. And if that can't be achieved, then you owe welfare, not just because you have denied someone her rights, but also because an educated public will actually find new resources and methods more efficient than your own. Only capitalists fear that this new knowledge will cost them their livelihoods because such is the fatal flaw of a society based on peer competition.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 14:26:26 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bill Koehler wrote: > > American "capitalism" is little more than feudalism held in > > check by a semblance of political democracy, which through > > attempted worker/consumer protection, truth in advertising, > > and anti-trust regulations have managed to scrape together > > a middle-class. > All of the legislation you like so much protects the rich. > By eliminating competition and driving up the price of > market entry. Fiscal conservative idiots blame all legislation for all problems. They're too stupid to take the time and figure out exactly which ones help and which ones hurt. Either that, or they expect that by taking what's left of out democracy out of business, they will have free reign over their employees. The ultimate goal of capitalism is to destroy democracy, destroy the government, rule by the heads of corporations, because the biggest fear capitalists have is that people might actually realize that all the natural resources they "own" came only from warfare. You own your labor and your thought, not the right to deny someone else access to something created by nature.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:43:50 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > >The money you paid for that spell checker when into a stock > >holder's pockets instead of to the person replaced by that > >spell checker. And what happens to all this extra wealth? > >We waste it on "new technology" like yo-yos and phone-sex. > >Because capitalism is always on the prowl for as little > >competition as possible, the most idiotic things are produced > >while the poor go hungry and uneducated -- leaving them to > >scrape for a living instead of researching new resources. > Here's your clue, Luther. You do not get to decide what products > should or should not be produced. You might ask the question, "who > should, decide?" The answer is obvious, the people who have the money > should decide what products to produce. This is because they are the > ones who will choose to buy them, or not to buy them. The people who have the money indeed do decide, but it's not the consumers, it's the producers. Producers who only have to convince consumers that there are no better nor cheaper alternatives with marketing (why else would you suppose so much is spent on advertising?). And the reason producers have control is because long ago, they conquered their resources, and today, they refuse to allow anyone else to use those conquered resources unless they submit to giving them a cut of what they produce.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:29:05 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Swobe wrote: > >The money you paid for that spell checker when into a stock > >holder's pockets instead of to the person replaced by that > >spell checker. And what happens to all this extra wealth? > >We waste it on "new technology" like yo-yos and phone-sex. > >Because capitalism is always on the prowl for as little > >competition as possible, the most idiotic things are produced > >while the poor go hungry and uneducated -- leaving them to > >scrape for a living instead of researching new resources. > Where is the professional spellchecker who was replaced by Mr > Donald's computerized spellchecker? > Is it true that Mr Donald would be sitting at his computer today with > a well-paid personal spellchecker at his side, if only no one had > invented these evil computerized spellcheckers that rob people of > jobs? That clerk is long gone, because she was made useless. Capitalism replaces people with technology instead of serving them. That's why there is poverty. If you can't do as much as what my computer can do, then why hire you? Thus, it leads to hatred of technology. A society based on cooperation would embrace technology because it will make EVERYONE's life better, not just the lives of the rich.
From: Steve Kangas kangaroo@scruznet.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.brithish,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 19:58:33 -0800 Organization: scruz-net James Doemer wrote: > > Methinks you are playing semantic games. In socialism, no ONE individual > > owns the means of production -- they ALL do. Just like they do in employee- > > owned businesses. I don't see the difference you claim to see. > Who makes the decisions? I assume there is some sort of hierarchy, could > the employee/owners vote to follow business plans that the "managers" know > to be fatal to the business? All systems have hierarchies. Even anarcho-capitalists admit that there must be hierarchies -- they simply advocate dictatorial ones instead of democratic ones. The business owner and landlord is the dictator of his property, and the only thing protecting workers and tenants would be the freedom to move, to contract with a different dictator. This might work if dictators were competing for workers and tenants, but that is not the case; unfortunately, there are more people in the economy than either jobs or housing, and so people are actually competing for dictators, as it were. This leads to their exploitation. Under socialism, there would be company hierarchies, but no company dictatorships. There would be a manager making immediately autonomous decisions, but ultimately he derives his authority from the workers and tenants, who could replace him at any time. > And if that consensus is detrimental to the business operations, is the chariman > bound to follow the will of the consensus? This is funny. You are making an argument that you would NEVER make in the public sector. Would you accept dictators over democracy, on the grounds that dictators are wiser than the consensus of the people or their representatives? I don't think so. Steve Kangas http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
From: gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n) Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: 23 Feb 1997 13:15:05 -0500 Organization: }"{ }"{ }"{ }"{ Mike Wooding mikew@wse.com wrote: | > Just to make sure I got this right, private property and | > the right to exchange it, both are recent inventions quite | > unknown to earliest man? Steve Kangas kangaroo@scruznet.com: | In the early agrarian societies of 10,000 years or so ago, most property | was communal. There was indeed private property, but it was limited to | immediate personal objects. Most of the land and other productive wealth | was held in commons. It's only been in the last millenium or so that we | have seen an increasingly sophisticated and well-defined system of | private property. When a desired resource becomes scarce, it must be parceled out in some way. The inventions of agriculture and slavery guaranteed steady population growth, so food and land became scarce; slavery ensured that the solution would be State division of resources under a military hierarchy, in other words, real estate. In the modern world, the need of the bourgeoisie to promote scarcity is leading to the propertization of the cultural and intellectual sphere of human life, formerly held in common; hence the grotesque expansion of copyright and other intellectual property laws, which reached the point of the Girl Scouts' being forbidden to sing certain songs around the traditional campfire a year or two ago. Property marches on. }"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf@panix.com }"{ ----------------------------------------------- NOTE: If your ISP permits junkmailing, you will probably not be able to reach me by email.
From: Steve Kangas kangaroo@scruznet.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 08:55:14 -0800 Organization: scruz-net Henry Blaskowski wrote: > After following this thread for a while, I've finally figured out > what the flavor of socialism is that these people are proposing. > Here's how you can find it, too. > Step 1: Get a picture in your mind of what they are describing. > Step 2: It's something else. > Step 3: Get more details > Step 4: Go to step 1 > And by the way, it is definitely *not* like all those previous failed > experiments in socialism -- apparently the only characteristic of > this new-and-improved socialism that is static. > hblask What amuses me about this thread is the inconsistency of socialism's opponents. On one hand they don't think that democracy can succeed in the workplace, although they freely subscribe to the same principle when its stockholders doing the voting. They criticize socialism for centralizing power, but this happens no less with dictatorial managers in private companies. They criticize socialism for the excessive transaction costs required to bring all employees to unanimous agreement on company policy, although the Coase Theorem frankly admits that excessive transaction costs would torpedo the agreement process as well in a free market. They assert that democracy leads to dictatorship and tyranny, but admit that the republican principle has succeeded for 220 years in America. And this is not to mention the fact that worker-owned and operated companies like United Airlines not only exist, but make record profits. And then, with altogether delightful obtuseness, these critics complain that they can't picture a socialist economy. At the risk of beating against invincible stupidity, let me outline a social democracy based on the republican principle: Workers vote on their supervisors, who become delegated to carry out company policy. Any time the supervisor incurs the displeasure of the majority of workers, he can be instantly recalled. This is closely analogous to a company whose employees are its stockholders. Furthermore, the employees would vote on their trade representatives to regional and national congresses. Again, these representatives would be delegated a certain amount of autonomy, and would only be recalled if the voters so desired. This is closely analogous to our current public sector, where such economic decisions as the minimum wage and safety regulations are decided. Notice that in this hierarchy, policy becomes more general the higher up you go. It is a strawman to claim that a zillion specific things like paper clip sales would be determined at the highest level, or that sheepherders would be voting on paper clip production. Paper clip sales would be determined by the supply and demand of the market, just as before. The only difference is that managers making decisions about paper-clip production are no longer dictators, but are democratically elected. The above is a republican form of socialism. You could gradually turn it into a more direct democracy by allowing workers to vote on a few central issues. Some socialists go so far as to advocate a completely direct democracy, with managers simply enacting the will of the voters. But most political scientists think that a completely direct democracy is unworkable. Critics who cannot picture such a system show a distinct lack of imagination, in that nearly all the elements already exist out in the real world. The only reason why they whine "I don't understand!" is because they wish to cling to the fiction that the system is unfeasible even in theory. Of course, to be able to picture it would lend a certain amount of credibility to it. The far right would NEVER do that, and that is why they are stuck in the dilemma of arguing that, theoretically at least, bumblebees can't fly. Steve Kangas http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-socialism.htm
From: Steve Kangas kangaroo@scruznet.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:22:46 -0800 Organization: scruz-net In article 330907c5.47970470@news.binc.net, John Parker jhparker@mailbag.com wrote: > Man, indeed, no life form, is naturally collectivist, they are >naturally individualistic. We do not voluntarily enter into >collectivist arrangements unless by so doing we improve our individual >selves. It's common practice for liberals, and Kangas does this, to >argue against this by demonstrating the many collectivist arrangements >that mankind has entered into, but these are all strawmen. We will, >and often do, form collectives, but only when they are advantageous to >us individually or have no other choice. There is a genetic component to both individualism and collectivism, as any competent biologist will tell you. On one hand, humans are naturally selfish, because this is a survival behavior that would be selected for. On the other hand, humans experience genetically caused sexual and romantic attraction, which result in that social unit known as the pair-bond, or the parenting couple. Biologists have argued that non-familial genetic altruism exists also. For a greater look at their arguments, check out: http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-spectrumone.htm The examples of genetic altruism in other species are as common as they are striking. Bees, for example, are genetically programmed to become drones, workers or queens, each with a specific job to do. They do not exist independently, and subdivisions of the hive do not exist. You could say the entire hive is the organism, with individual bees operating as mobile cells. And they often defend the hive with their lives, if necessary. In other animals altruism takes the form of sharing food, sounding alarms, cooperating, etc., which may increase the survival of the group, even if it decreases that of the altruist. This is not to say that I favor sacrificing individual lives for one's country (I am a pacifist), but that altruism is a natural part of life. Humans rarely or briefly occur outside of groups, and they are programmed to become lonely if they do. The idea that we are individuals who operate in groups only for selfish reasons is one that has no scientific backing. Indeed, all the evidence points in the other direction. Steve Kangas http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 14:40:58 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > Both since the right in general does not distinguish between free > > exchange of property and the existence of private property. > Just to make sure I got this right, private property and > the right to exchange it, both are recent inventions quite > unknown to earliest man? Early man invented the concept of property in order to avoid violence, which is completely counter-productive to the survival of both parties. However, it is by violence through which property is enforced, and it is by violence that property is declared. You own your thought and your effort. You don't own the resources that when into it.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:35:28 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. JMH wrote: > > >If I > > >bought land from someone who killed your Dad for land, > > >does the government have a right to *force* me to give > > >up my ownership? > > Yes. And force whoever sold you the land to pay compensation. > This one might also need some qualification. If the buyer > of the tainted property was bona fide and there was no > reason to suspect they had any foreknowledge of the theft > you might be expected to put the buyer in his original condition > and then seek compesation from the thief who wronged you. And if the thief has squandered the money and the original "owner" never wanted to sell in the first place?... or is now dead? > It's not clear to me that an innocent by-stander in the > situation should be exposed to any real risk of loss (though > perhaps some cost minimizing sharing arrangement also exists) > where as each of us have some responsibility for protecting > our own property. The point is that there are no innocent by-standers because land belongs to everyone. You cannot claim land by stepping on it or by killing for it. The only thing you can claim is what your own labor or thought produced. If you claim the right to use a natural resource, then you owe part of what you produce to everyone who lost their right to use that natural resource.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 14:17:53 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bill Koehler wrote: > > Capitalism on the other hand is based upon the notion that the > > "capitalists" appropriate the surplus value of workers and ultimately, > > by doing so, enslave them. When a capitalist talks about freedom he > > means the freedom of the market and the freedom to excercise his power > > over others, nothing else. > How about a demonstration of how you would accomplish this without > the use of force? Unfortunately whenever any decision has to be made, someone is going to disagree, either because of ignorance or because of a different set of values. So either nothing gets done, or you set some sort of guidelines on how much agreement is necessary to make a decision. In a way, even the Senate filibuster is vital to democracy. It tries to ensure that even a minority can fight for its rights. However, if a minority is NOT represented in the Senate, then the power of the filibuster is useless. And so, today, we have no members below the median income in the Senate (some may used to be, some may have forgotten), despite being (by definition) half the population.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:11:30 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > Here's how science produces labor: 100 years ago, you write > > a book. You hire someone to check the spelling of every word. > > Today, you write a book. You click your mouse a few times, > > and you've just checked the spelling of every word. The > > difference in effort between what it took the clerk to do > > 100 years ago and what you just did yourself is the labor > > that was "produced" by technology. And *that* is the wealth > > that capitalism misappropriates to lazy stock holders instead > > of to the benefit of society. > That's an interesting switch from science to technlogy. But > nevertheless, are we then to assume that those who produce > the spell checker that saves Mr. T. Hobbes so much effort, > should not be compensated for his efforts? And yes, the inventors do deserve to be compensated. But not the venture capitalists who fund the project using stolen property. So how *much* does he deserve? That is hard to measure. Perhaps enough to support him for the rest of his life. However, what about all the clerks that are now unemployed? It is society that owes the inventor a debt, and the price is paid by society. When that inventor is gone, the continued wealth produced by his invention belongs to the rest of society. However, this is all a moot question because it is based on an economic system intent on competition and driving your neighbors into the ground. The entire goal of civilization was cooperation, helping your brother do something so that together you can achieve more than the sum of the parts. Capitalism has perverted the very point of civilization and is doomed to warfare, crime, and racism.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:57:02 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > You click your mouse a few times, > > and you've just checked the spelling of every word. The > > difference in effort between what it took the clerk to do > > 100 years ago and what you just did yourself is the labor > > that was "produced" by technology. And *that* is the wealth > > that capitalism misappropriates to lazy stock holders instead > > of to the benefit of society. > Funny, I thought it accrued to me, the guy who just spell checked this > message. The money you paid for that spell checker when into a stock holder's pockets instead of to the person replaced by that spell checker. And what happens to all this extra wealth? We waste it on "new technology" like yo-yos and phone-sex. Because capitalism is always on the prowl for as little competition as possible, the most idiotic things are produced while the poor go hungry and uneducated -- leaving them to scrape for a living instead of researching new resources.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:47:15 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Libertarius wrote: > >Socialism may indeed be government ownership, but > >the government would be owned by consumers instead of > >by corporate contractors, campaign contributors, and > >political lobbies. > Find yourself a good People's Republic to live in. > Hurry! Not too many left, because the people in most > places discovered it didn't work! Hah, what doesn't work is a lack of democracy. Your People's Republics never achieved socialism because those who could not be voted out of office grabbed money by force. Your Representative Democracies never achieved democracy because those who refused to give up conquered land bought their way into office.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:52:06 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sam Hall wrote: > However, you did not answer my question. Why do not large unions buy > their companies on the stock market? Because it is stupid to buy something that was stolen from you in the first place. Whether it's labor you performed that added value to the company, or the raw materials obtained from an army that just marched in and declared was theirs.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:47:13 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > It seems obvious to me, that this sort of organization > funnels all power to the top of this hierarchy, no? And > is this not the sort of central planning which Mr. Kangas > claims could not arise? So what he needs to do (I do like > to be helpful) is to explain how this sort of organization > does not result in critical decisions being pushed further > up the hierarchical layer, until ultimately all power rises > to the top. As it does in a republic, does it not? Do our legislature, president, and Supreme Court not have final say? The only difference between a republic and an autocracy is that our representatives depend (supposed to anyway) completely on their voters for being in that position in the first place. If the voters want them gone, then they're gone. Far better than having all appointments and decisions come down from either a Politburo or a board of directors.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,a Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:38:12 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Derek Nalecki wrote: > >If I > >bought land from someone who killed your Dad for land, > >does the government have a right to *force* me to give > >up my ownership? > Yes. And force whoever sold you the land to pay compensation. So, what now do you propose we do with all this land that our glorious government got by killing "natives", Mexicans, Brits, and Tories? Tell the government to pay the "natives", Mexicans, Brits, and Tories? Sorry, they never wanted to sell that land in the first place, and (of course) you can't pay them because they (and many of their sons too) were already killed. > >If my Dad, using stolen land, made a > >billion dollars, does the government have a right to > >*force* me to give up that billion dollars? > No. Just force you to give up the land. > Everything else is valued added trough his own labour (if it _is_, it > _would_ depend on specific circumstance - the example you give is too > vague) Ok, what if I drained that land of both oil and gold to make my billion dollars? Can I keep that? What if I used that land to grow crops to make my million dollars? And the family that used to "own" it starved to death because they no longer had a farm...
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:18:20 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > Saying "since sheep herders shouldn't vote on paper clips, > > therefore economic democracy is unworkable" is like saying > > "since Californians shouldn't vote on Maine school prayer, > > therefore political democracy is unworkable". What it comes > > down to is limits. No has yet abandoned political democracy > > on the basis of hard-to-draw limits (thank God). > So the question still stands unanswered. If the sheepherder > is not to vote on paper-clips, then by what principle? The framers of our Constitution had the same dilemma. Do we actually let our citizens vote on the Presidency? Being the elitists that they were, they decided on an electoral college system instead. But surely, they did allow citizens to vote on their electoral college rep. And surely we can allow each employee to vote on the person he directly reports to, and his manager would have a say in upper management as well.
From: James Doemer bigtoe@provide.net Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:45:21 -0800 Organization: Provide.Net NetNews Site G*rd*n wrote: > jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski): > | > | This is all very nice, but unless the people who *create* a means of > | > | production or *create* a new business out of their head agree to > | > | voluntarily give up ownership to "the collective", this form of > | > | economic socialism will never occur. And since somebody who works > | > | 16 hours a day for five years in anonymity to finally succeed is > | > | unlikely to feel much sympathy for "the collective" that has been > | > | sitting on their butt all this time.... > G*rd*n wrote: > | > In going on -- whew! -- forty years of working, mostly in > | > very inventive fields like high technology, I've known > | > people who worked 16 hours a day (me, at times) but I have > | > never once seen anyone create, all by himself, the means of > | > production or a new business. I did know one inventor who > | > mostly worked by himself in a garage, but he used a lot of > | > tools and research done by other people -- and in the end he > | > had his invention marbles taken away, not by socialists, but > | > by the normal process of capitalist business. There is _no_ > | > provision in liberalism-capitalism for creators to own or > | > control their work. Creation is labor; and you know who it > | > is who says the laborer ought to own and control the means > | > of production. > James Doemer bigtoe@provide.net: > | Your inventor, how did he "loose" his invention marbles? Did they come > | and steal it?? Or did he sell the rights to it? > He fell in with a couple of fellows who were good > at running on the edge of law in finance capital > manipulations. They got him to go in with them on a > corporation which would own and develop his inventions. > He sold his inventions to the corporation in exchange for > stock. Then they sold stock publicly, while maintaining > control of the corporation. So then they had a few > million, plus some they were able to borrow. Then the wise > guys drained the funds out of the corporation playing > various complicated financial games over a three-year > period, like buying and selling stock in other corporations > and giving themselves lots and lots of salaries, bonuses, > and expense money, when they were supposed to be selling > the product. Meanwhile other people with competitive > stuff came along and got the market. Eventually, the > corporation went bankrupt. Mr. Inventor may have gotten > to keep his garage. I don't think anyone did anything > provably illegal, although some of the representations made > to the secondary investors were very, very close to the > line. > This story isn't in support of my point, by the way, which > was the social nature of the creation of the means of > production. I'm just printing it because you asked, and as > a cautionary tale. > -- Thanks, I was curious, I've seen this type of thing happen before.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.brithish,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 16:52:44 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Aaron Bilger wrote: > Feudal lords did not acquire the land from the peasants consensually, but > acquired it by force from the peasants who already worked it, then forced them > to enter into the contract to give so much grain, work, military service, etc. > and be protected to whatever level the feudal lord did or did not see fit. Such > action is akin to government action, not corporate action. As much as you wish > to attack corporations, you certainly cannot claim that GM or Microsoft or any > other corporate giant gained its employees by seizing their land by force and > them making them work for them. And how does GM or Microsoft acquire their resources, like silicon, iron, or office buildings? One might say, by buying the property "acquired" by feudal lords. > >The system I advocate is the one we have now. Voters, through representative > >government, are the ultimate owners of the property system. They can define it > >any way they want, and distribute property any way they want. > So 51% of the people can vote to take away the property of the other 49%. Far better than 20% of the people voting to take away the property of the other 80% in a society ruled by the rich. (Of course, we try not to take TOO much, for fear of backlash. Either that, or we invest heavily in marketing that will convince you other 80% that we have a right to do what we've been doing for hundreds of years.)
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 16:38:26 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James Doemer wrote: > Capitalism rewards people through hard work and merit, I started with nothing > and have managed to do quite well, eventhough I doubt that I will ever, or ever want > to be, VP. Capitalism also rewards some people through accident of birth, but I really > don't see that changing in a socialist system. Capitalism also punishes people despite hard work and merit. It's like trying to justify a feudal society because the smarter and more talented nobles will rise to the top and the idiot nobles will sink to the bottom. > > Direct refutation: Northern Europe. They have less poverty (both > > relative and absolute) and better systems of individual merit. > They also have very high unemployment, and a huge welfare state. And the goal of civilization, of course, is to achieve 100% unemployment and universal welfare (unless you actually *want* to work, or just do fun things that happen to be productive). It may or may not happen, but a system that can afford more welfare is a sign of a more productive system.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.brithish,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 16:26:47 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Dave Diduck wrote: > >Here is an accident of history for you. Dan Quayle happens to be > >born to one of the richest families in Indiana, a newspaper dynasty. > >Dan Quayle grows up to be as dumb as a bag of rocks, says things > >like ""It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the > >impurities in our air and water that are doing it." > >Meanwhile, a friend of mine at my local chess club has earned his > >master's rating, has an IQ in the 99th percentile > >He's pulled himself up by his own bootstraps now, making a decent > >living, but he's 45 and will never ascend to the heights > >of Dan Quayle. > The accident of intelligence is rewarded by utilizing itself to it > fullest, just as the accident of birth. Neither by itself means very > much unless it is put to practical use, in your example Quayle did > just that and the chess player hasn't - whether or not it is good, > only time can tell. Capitalism holds back progress because idiots are getting more resources than they deserve and geniuses are not. And because the truly intelligent do not have the resources, they usually die without achieving their potential (while bastard son Dupont got enough to go as far as he could possibly ever go). While it is very difficult to measure intelligence, at least shared resources will give the poor a far better chance to fight past all the Quayles and Duponts that stand in their way.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 16:10:56 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. STIMPY wrote: > > Quite right. It's not free. At least, in a capitalist society > > it will *never* be free... somebody MUST to own it. When the > > day comes that some nerd invents a real replicant, her venture > > capitalist is going to be jumping for joy. Not only does he > > now own the means to wipe out all need for human labor, he > > now also owns the right to all the wealth produced by > > mechanical labor. > So, like, he could replicate another replicant and sell it for lots of > money. Or better yet replicate the money and forget all the bartering. > Never mind, who needs money when he can make anything he wants. Proof (if > needed) that you live in your own little dream world. > Jordy set a course for schizophrenia. Engage! Looks like you mistake a Blade Runner replicant for a Star Trek replicator. Science fiction dream worlds aside, how about the capitalist dream world? As long as airline, electronics, software, telecommunications, or motion picture companies keep charging what they're charging, you idiot consumers are always going to believe that everything *must* cost an arm and a leg. The fact is that civilization has been able to produce enough food for everyone for hundreds of years. The result is that other people have been freed to industrialize. However, by capitalist magic, we're still able to convince all of you that feeding even this country's poor is just too damn expensive despite being the most technologically advanced nation in the world.
From: Steve Kangas kangaroo@scruznet.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:37:02 -0800 Organization: scruz-net Mike Wooding wrote: > Repeated like a mantra: the workers will vote on company and > economic policy. Be more specific. Which workers will vote on > which policies. Does the Tibetan sheep herder vote on the > production quota of paper clips? Does the paper-clip worker in > Albania vote on what color to paint the fence around the "chip" > plant in San Jose. Does the "chip" designer vote on which pasture > to graze which sheep in Tibet? No, this is another of your nit-picking objections to a system you don't really want to understand, only disprove. The difference between me and you, Mike, is that I actually try to understand my opponent's point of view before trying to argue against it. Workers would not vote on every last detail in the economy. In one form of social democracy, workers would vote on their company supervisors and their industry representatives to regional and national congresses. They would have the power to recall them instantly, if they wanted. The more immediate supervisors would campaign on the specific issues related to the company; the higher representatives would campaign on more general issues about the industry as a whole, or the nation as a whole. A good analogy is the election for town mayor (who deals in local issues), state governor (who deals in state issues) and president (who deals in national issues). Or the voters could vote more directly on company policy. I could vote directly on my department's very specific policies, less specifically on the company's policies, generally on my industry's policies, and even more generally on national issues. I would NOT be voting for the pay of paper-clip producers in Peoria. That is a strawman that you are creating, and you can attack it all you want; it doesn't concern socialists. Again, this system has 220 years of success in the public sector; all socialists are proposing is that it be applied to the private sector as well. Many socialists propose different points on the spectrum of democracy, ranging from direct democracy to representative democracy to anything in-between. Debate continues within the socialist community as to which one is best. > Does the grounds keeper have the same voice in company policy as > the technician who controls the production room environment? Or > the 18 year old hospital orderly an equal voice with doctor who's > been practicing in the hospital for 40 years? Again, they would vote specifically on their department issues, and more generally on company issues. There are a number of ways to design a fair and logical system, and if you devoted your imagination to seeing how they could be constructed before you devoted it to seeing how theymight fail, your criticisms might be more credible and deserving. > Surely without some detail as to how Mr. Kangas' version of > socialism would be different than the collosal failures of > socialism like the USSR, we cannot expect his version to fare > any better. No? Worker-owned and worker-management-participation firms already exist, and do wonderful business. I have empirical evidence on my side; all you have are theoretical objections. Of course, theoretically, anything can be proven theoretically. > mikew@wse.com (Mike Wooding) Steve Kangas http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-socialism.htm
From: Steve Kangas kangaroo@scruznet.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.brithish,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:23:37 -0800 Organization: scruz-net Mike Wooding wrote (on Steve Kangas's descriptions of socialism): > All these questions which Mr. Kangas pretends are strawmen are > the obvious and logical questions which must be answered to > show how his version of socialism is different from all the > collosal failures. Mike is simply raising a blizzard of objections to a system he really doesn't want to understand. Most of his nit-picking has the quality of "Did you know that it's aerodynamically impossible for a bumble-bee to fly?" Yet about 6 percent of the companies in the United States are employee-owned, and they are doing great business by anyone's standard. Here is what the National Center for Employee Ownership says about employee-owned and employee-participation companies, from http://www.nceo.org/library/fact.html : "Companies that combine employee ownership with employee workplace participation programs show substantial gains in performance. A 1986 National Center for Employee Ownership study found that employee ownership firms that practice participative management grow 8%-11% per year faster with their ownership plans than they would have without them. Note, however, that participation plans alone have little impact on company performance. These NCEO data have been confirmed by several subsequent academic studies that find both the same direction and magnitude of results." They also write: "The largest companies principally owned by employees are: Publix Supermarkets (95,000 employees), United Airlines (75,000 employees), Science Applications (17,000 employees), Avis (car rental, 12,500 employees), and Amsted Industries (8,000 employees). Among other notable employee ownership firms are W.L. Gore Associates (maker of Gore-Tex), Quad/Graphics (one of the country's largest printers), Journal Communications (publisher of the Milwaukee Sentinel), and Hallmark Cards." And here is an excerpt from an interview with Gerald Greenwald, the CEO of employee-owned United Airlines. The interview is located at: http://www.netvigator.com/hkpathfinder/fortune/1996/961014/fro.html : United has been a highflier since Greenwald took the controls in 1994. Operating margins and productivity are up, labor grievances have plunged, and the stock price has more than doubled... [Question:] After spending most of your career at traditional corporations like Ford and Chrysler, you've devoted the past two years to running the biggest employee-owned company in the U.S. As a manager, what has been the greatest change in the way you operate? [Greenwald:] What I have learned in these past two years is how to manage with the consensus of all employees. I've come to believe strongly in the value of consensus, and I've come to believe that it is becoming a prerequisite in the 1990s for almost any corporation. There are national surveys that show there is less trust in leadership than ever before -- political leadership, business leadership, you name it. That alone should be clue enough that it is important that we communicate with all our people and justify what we're doing to all our people. There's no point running up a hill yelling "Charge!" if no one is following you. The success of these employee-owned and employee-management-participation firms shows that Mike Wooding simply has no idea what he's talking about. By the way, I am not a socialist. I am a liberal democratic capitalist. I have been defending socialism these last several days simply because libertarians like Mike Wooding have absolutely no idea what socialism is, and I wanted to help define it for them. My definition and defense of socialism is not intended to be an endorsement -- I'm simply tired of hearing people attack ideas they don't understand. I have good reasons for prefering capitalism, but, amusingly, Wooding hasn't stumbled onto them yet. Steve Kangas http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:15:27 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > Capitalism rejects the notion that those who choose not to > work have any claim upon those who do the work. Socialism > then is the opposite. This is coercion. Not the fact that > someone must work. Socialism rejects the notion that labor produced by science belongs to the capitalist. Any additional labor granted to us by science is free in the sense that the only thing that "earns" the wealth produced by technology is the technology itself, not the owner of the technology. A machine operator does put in his share of effort, but that can be very small compared to the amount of production produced by non-human labor. If you want to argue that the additional wealth belongs to the inventor until the day she dies, then fine. However, it is not the inventors in our world who are rich. It's their managers and stock-holders. > > 2) This invariably will lead to revolution. I say this because of > > history. People don't let themselves be starved, and they don't let > > themselves be threatened with starvation if they can avoid it > Why would those who cannot be troubled to work for their living > (something which is easier now than at any time in history, > thanks mostly to capilatism) go to all the trouble of revolution? For the same reason criminals are made. Those who AREN'T too lazy to do something about their own poverty, but ARE nicely disillusioned with legal paths to success, opt for crime.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:40:28 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Derek Nalecki wrote: > The enclosure movement refers to the ***owners*** of agricultural land > fencing it and using for productive purposes, rather than leaving it to > be used for pasturage of animals owned by agricultural workers as a form > of fringe benefit for cottagers. And how did the "owners" come to own that land? Did they pay the government for it, like nice little citizens? How did the government come to "own" that land? They either robbed it from another government or chased off anyone else who wanted to use that land without its permission.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:33:51 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > In capitalism, workers work on threat of starvation. Not quite > > as severe as true slavery, but quite similar. In socialism, > > if technologically possible, yes, if you don't work, you > > still get food. And that in itself is bad? As more and > > more human labor is replaced by technological labor, more > > and more wealth is created for "free". This is the wealth > > that could be given away for free. > Only in the sense that under ANY economic system, if no one > worked, then yes indeed, there would be starvation. Correct, at least with our current state of technology. However, if we actually apply what centuries of civilization has taught us, one group of people alone could feed a much larger group (which is why not too many people starve in our country despite the fact that there's so much labor being thrown at web sites and motion pictures). If you gave that food away for free, then no one would have to work to eat. Instead, they would work in order to be able to surf the web and watch motion pictures.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.brithish,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:33:38 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Aaron Bilger wrote: > More accurately, 'homesteading'. You seem to also be ignoring an important > point of homesteading, the underlying justification of property rights being > derived from a person adding labor and modifying and settling something to make > a claim legitimate. For example, the first person over the Bering straits into > north america could legitimately claim a piece of land that they actually farm > and built a dwelling on, but to cross into North America and suddenly say, > "MINE! ALL MINE!" would be ludicrous. They have not shaped the land, combined > their effort with the soil, done anything to legitimize claiming anything > outside their immediate domain. So how do you define "shaping the land"? Building a fence around it? Digging a mine on it? Spraying Chem-Lawn over it? How much of the property around a person's house does he own, or does it stop at the boundaries of his house? Does he own all the air above his house as well as all the ground below? If not, then does someone else have a right to dig out a huge hole right under his house, or to enclose his house within a cubic mile of concrete? What the man owns is the effort he put into building the house. He neither owns the property it rests on, nor the raw materials that went into it.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:52:33 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Anti-rumor wrote: > and collect welfare except as a last and temporary resort. Welfare is the > totally defeated state, for when it lasts too long, all hope is gone of > working over-time to earn a few extra dollars or to prove you are a good > worker and get a better job and so forth. The welfare system in this country is a capitalist's welfare. We don't *really* want them to work, what we *really* want is to stop paying. The only reason we don't stop paying is because they'll rob our banks if we do. Here's what will happen if they do actually get off welfare and go to work - they will compete with us in school, they will compete with us for jobs, they will compete with us for raises, and some may even start companies that compete with our own. So that's why our welfare system punishes people for taking that first step off welfare. If they get a part time job, no more welfare. If they save too much money, no more welfare. And of course, we'll do anything to fight for more education for the rich instead of the poor.
rom: reply@nym.alias.net (intrusionist) Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: 11 Feb 1997 21:33:08 GMT Organization: One more out numbered In article 5dq371$9ns$1@nntp2.ba.best.com, jamesd@echeque.com says... >student@brandeis.edu (Computing Services) wrote: >>. Many people attack Socialism on a moral ground, equating it >> with the Stalinist lengend of what happened in the Soviet Union. >And Lenin, and, by a curious and amazing coincidence, also happened in >every single place, every single time, that people attempted to >abolish private ownership of the means of production. >Funny thing that. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because >of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this >right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. >http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jamesd@echeque.com The American Indians did it for thousands of years untill we came along with are capitalism democratic freedom for white males of course we see the mistakes now, but we tell them it's impossible to go back to the life you never had. you can not own what is not yours.
From: Steve Kangas kangaroo@scruznet.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:14:33 -0800 Organization: scruz-net Anti-rumor wrote: > LOL! you are funny. In capitalism, if the worker doesn't work the worker > doesn't eat. In socialism, if the worker doesn't work, someone else will > feed him. Hence, capitalism is a far better incentive to work then > socialism. No, this only happens if the system guarantees employment and food. The Soviet Union made that mistake, and, true, everyone jumped into the safety net. But the Soviet Union was not socialist; it was a dictatorship, and a misguided one at that. In true socialism, workers would vote on company and economic policy. This system has never been tried at a national level, although it's worth noting that when it's been tried at smaller levels (like the company), workers have voted to keep a system of incentives and disincentives. Therefore, you're criticism that socialism would guarantee the people their bread is way off target. Steve Kangas http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. From: klo_mckinsey@mecsys.mec.ohio.gov Date: 10 Feb 97 20:46:39 -0500 Organization: Metrop. Educ. Council, Columbus, OH In article 32febda0.5727121@news.blarg.net, postmaster@127.0.0.0 (Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin) writes: > J. Hancock wrote in talk.politics.theory: >>Anti-rumor wrote: >>> LOL! you are funny. In capitalism, if the worker doesn't work the worker >>> doesn't eat. In socialism, if the worker doesn't work, someone else will >>> feed him. Hence, capitalism is a far better incentive to work then >>> socialism. >>In capitalism, workers work on threat of starvation. > In a sense, true. If you don't work, you don't eat. Boy did you get this wrong. Under capitalism if you don't work you don't eat and if you do work you get an amount of food nowhere near the amount of work you did, assuming you get paid at all. Under socialism if you don't work you don't eat and if you do work you get an amount of food equal to the amount of work you did. How many times did Lenin say that if you don't work you don't eat. Anyone who really knows who gets what for doing what knows that socialism provides real incentive while exposure of this kind under capitalism would generate mass resentment, if not revolt. That's why the books are kept closed, even to the union negotiators. The fat cats know who is getting what for doing what. The aren't stupid; they are ruthless. > Which is different from socialism. In socialism, if you don't work, > you may or may not eat -- and if you do work, you may or may not eat. > It doesn't matter whether you work or not. So, of course, working is > a silly thing to do (unless, at the moment, you really feel like doing > your job). >>Not quite as severe as true slavery, but quite similar. In socialism, >>if technologically possible, yes, if you don't work, you >>still get food. And that in itself is bad? As more and >>more human labor is replaced by technological labor, more >>and more wealth is created for "free". This is the wealth >>that could be given away for free. > I'm glad to know that technology -- the knowledge embedded in it; and > the embodiment of that knowledge in equipment, materials, and > supplies; and the maintenance and transportation of all that stuff -- > is free. > It really makes a difference. > I think I'll hop in my new starship tomorrow morning and take a cruise > around the galaxy. After all, all this knowledge and equipment is > free, so why not? >>And even if our country isn't able to feed everyone >>with technology (despite the fact that $.40 a day >>can feed someone in a third world nation), at >>least everyone will have the chance to make something >>of themselves, drawing from shared wealth, raw >>materials, and technology. > Everyone has a chance to make something of themselves today. But > today, in order to get continued access to those resources, they have > to convince someone who has a personal interest in the resources that > they are making reasonable progress toward becoming something that > that person thinks is worth becoming. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, > any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address > is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 > US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
From: student@brandeis.edu (Computing Services) Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:27:28 -0400 Organization: Brandeis University warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote, on 2/10/97: > Which is different from socialism. In socialism, if you don't work, > you may or may not eat -- and if you do work, you may or may not eat. > It doesn't matter whether you work or not. So, of course, working is > a silly thing to do (unless, at the moment, you really feel like doing > your job). Although, factually this isn't that correct, let me only address one point here. Many people attack Socialism on a moral ground, equating it with the Stalinist lengend of what happened in the Soviet Union. People say that socialism is evil, coercieve and destructive. In fact, it would seem from this very post that it is Capitialism that is evil, morally reprehensibly, ect... By its very nature, capitialism's main incentive (and, for the vast amount of people, the only incentive) is threat of starvation. This does a few things. 1) This is by far the most threatening form of coercion known to man. The only incentive this gives to the worker is his/her own life. I say the word only, because although in a socialistic soceity starvation is less rampent, the worker is motivated by the emotion of fear. Fear that the firm won't suceed, that the factory will close, that they and their fellow workers will not have the means in which to survive. Yet this fear is different that the one above in capitialism. People, in socialism, have a say in what happens. In capitialism, it is only up to the boss whether or not the worker starves; in socialism it is up to the workers themselves. In cap. the boss can say "you know what, you are a good worker, and you need this job, but i can find a worker who will do this job cheaper than you, and with this extra money, i can spend 40 instead of 38 weeks in the Bahammas now." Now you starve, merely at the whim of your boss. In socialism, this would never happen. The workers work for themselves, not for the boss. They work for the good of the fellow worker, the good of themselves, and the good of the society. Their is a little bit of greed involved, socialism isn't without that emotion. People want themselves, their fellow workers, and the company to do well so that everyone (including themselves!) will benifit. 2) This invariably will lead to revolution. I say this because of history. People don't let themselves be starved, and they don't let themselves be threatened with starvation if they can avoid it. In america, this little "right to bar arms" thing we got makes it more possible to have a revolution. It is not in the best interest of the elite to have a truly "laszie-faire" system since it will lead to people being pushed out of the system. Social unrest isn't a thing of other countries, or even just urban centers in america. The militia movement is, in part, a result of people being pushed out of the sytem. In one way, either the person was a soldier who didn't make the next promotion, or a farmer pushed out by a big farming complex, or a factory worker who sees his/her firm move to Thailand and doesn't know where to recieve training for a move into the "services" industry. People, if they see starvation as a choice, are not happy with that choice. If they can avoid it, they do-- by any means necessary. that is all...thanx
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.brithish,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 09:51:18 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Aaron Bilger wrote: > >1. What makes you so sure that your income is 100 percent yours? > >The market is supported by countless public goods and services, > The market operates on its own; free market is hindered by government > interference and force, even if the government tries to label what it does as > goods and services. A "free" market is also hindered by child-labor laws, lemon laws. A "free" market is hindered by marketing run amuck, where shoddy snake oil is being passed off as a tonic for all ills. A "free" market is hindered by high entry costs, where great ideas are stifled before they even get off the ground because the manufacturers, distributors, marketers, and providers of raw materials all want pieces of pie that add up in the end to over 100%. A "free" market is hindered by giving the owner both the sole risk and the sole reward for success, because employees are less likely to work hard to save the company, or they are less willing to work much harder for a small increase in their salary.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 20:33:00 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Anti-rumor wrote: > LOL! you are funny. In capitalism, if the worker doesn't work the worker > doesn't eat. In socialism, if the worker doesn't work, someone else will > feed him. Hence, capitalism is a far better incentive to work then > socialism. In capitalism, workers work on threat of starvation. Not quite as severe as true slavery, but quite similar. In socialism, if technologically possible, yes, if you don't work, you still get food. And that in itself is bad? As more and more human labor is replaced by technological labor, more and more wealth is created for "free". This is the wealth that could be given away for free. And even if our country isn't able to feed everyone with technology (despite the fact that $.40 a day can feed someone in a third world nation), at least everyone will have the chance to make something of themselves, drawing from shared wealth, raw materials, and technology.
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 13:51:03 -0600 From: cybernetman@usa.net Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory Organization: Deja News Usenet Posting Service You make some very astute comments. We need more input like this in the newsgroups. It is a welcome reprieve from the typical capitalist cronies that seek to espouse their propoganda. -Cyberman In article 5ddq05$ji8@new-news.cc.brandeis.edu, st963792@pip.cc.brandeis.edu wrote: > People confuse socialism as being a system where the worker has no incentive > to work. A place where the worker is working for the government. This goes > against the very defenitions of the word socialism. In socialism, the > worker has the ultimate incentive to work, since they are working for > themselves. The worker owns the factory, therefore they want the factory > to produce well. > In capitialism, you have the opposite. The worker deosn't have any stake in > the production, except to keep his or her job. The company must only do > well enough to keep that employing around. The workers only incentive is > hunger, homelessness. It is in capitialism where fear is the driving > force for conformity. -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.brithish,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 18:37:06 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > This is factually wrong, and if you attempted this definition on a political > > science test, you would flunk the question. Socialism is the collective > > ownership and control of the means of production. > Which is collectivistic, and in practice necessarily requires > conformity enforced by terror in order to work effectively. Ever try comparing socialism to a company? Both collective? Yes. In one brand of "socialism", if you don't work, they throw you in jail, but they still feed you. If one kind of company, if you don't work, they fire you, but they still put you on welfare. Is capitalist unemployment as terrifying as socialist incarceration? Well, depends on the state of capitalist welfare and socialist jails.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.brithish,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: democratic socialism. Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 18:31:38 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. > > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:24:05 -0800, James Doemer bigtoe@provide.net wrote: > > >> Actually, the problem is not that the wealthy can spend more on their > > >> own campaigns, since becoming a lawmaker is not really a useful end in > > >> and of itself. The problem is that lawmakers have too much power over > > >> the average person's life -- and that is what makes becoming a lawmaker > > >> valuable to the rich. > > >There ya go!! And the more power that becomes inbedded in those > > >legislators seats, the more attractive they become to the rich, and the > > >more the rich strive to farther power in those seats! Bravo!! Somone > > >finally gets it!! > > >Reduce the Government's power, and you reduce their interest in the > > >offices. Typical supply-side idiot's excuse to keep the rich rich: "If they're out of water in New Mexico, hey, let's flood Arizona with water and some of it will flow to New Mexico!" "Let's cut government to decrease campaign contributions! Yeah, that's it! We all know that actually getting rid of campaign contributions won't work NEARLY as well! -- Why? ...oh, err... ask that other guy, I haven't finished reading up on all this yet -- it's called Excuses of the Rich... good stuff."

|HOME| CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu [email/index]

Click Here! |count|
|11/13|