Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Abolish Capitalism!

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 9, 2012, 5:32 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

”I’m not against capitalism; I just think it should be regulated more”. This is an opinion shared by many people. I don’t agree with this. Yes, we should absolutely start to regulate corporations and the financial sector more, but eventually the current state-capitalist system should be not just regulated, but abolished. Capitalism, no matter how it’s organized or regulated, is intolerable; it must be dismantled. Here’s why:

  • Capitalism is undermining democracy

In Capitalism it is the financial elite and the huge corporations that have the overwhelming power in society. They control the important resources and the stock market; they have a huge influence and power in the economy, yet we’ve never voted for them. Wealth and power is very highly concentrated in the hands of a non-elected minority who make huge decisions that affect the entire society and our lives. This is highly undemocratic.

Not only are the rich and powerful in an undemocratic way controlling the economy as a whole in huge networks of transactions, investments and stock exchange, they also rule the institutions in society in a totalitarian way. The economic institutions in a capitalist society have a totalitarian model: a tyrannical non-democratic hierarchy in which the people at the top – the CEOs, board of directors, owners etc – dictate how the institution is being run, what’s being produced, working conditions and so on, while people further down the hierarchy must follow their orders. Capitalist institutions are in other words private tyrannies. These structures are not in any way resembling democratic organization.

  • Capitalism is exploitative

One of the hallmarks of capitalism is that the means of production are privately owned by some individuals, while others do not have this ownership. In other words, some own the means of production others are using. So it’s a system in which the ones using the means of production must sell their labor to these owners in order to have a relatively decent life. The owners can then make a profit from other people’s work by just owning. This happens when the value of the worker’s pay is less than the value that was added thru his/her work in the paid hours. That creates a profit for the owner of the means of production who did not create the value, but still gets paid in the form of profit. This profit is hence capital for future investments and more profits. So, the capitalist is making money simply by just owning, not adding or creating value. Since a capitalist economy is based on the need for growth and profits for the investors and owners, this method of exploitation – profiting on other people’s hard work – is of course used by more or less all of them. This exploitation is in other words just a logical result caused by the capitalist system. And we see this all over the place, from poor Indonesian girls working in Nike factories for 50 cents an hour, to people in America working for minimum wage for companies whose profits are skyrocketing.

  • Capitalism is demoralizing and encourages greed

Cooperation, solidarity, altruism etc. are essential and fundamental elements of our nature, but these things are being suppressed to a large extent in Capitalism. In today’s (especially Western) societies things like greed and consumption are being encouraged. In fact, capitalism requires corporations f.ex, to only think about the "bottom line". If they don’t, they’re out of business, and corporations that do think profits and greed replace them. A society like this will of course produce a lot of greedy and immoral individuals. Capitalism encourages greed and tries to manipulate us into mindless consumption. Take advertisement f.ex: Corporations spend huge amounts of money on pumping us full of this garbage almost everywhere we look, whether it’s TV, radio, internet, newspapers etc etc. This propagandistic capitalist system is a highly unnatural phenomenon; it’s been a part of human history for an extremely small amount of time, yet it affects us, many of us in a huge way. Capitalism demoralizes humans. This is unacceptable.

So as you can see, there shouldn’t be anything controversial about wanting to abolish capitalism. A system that’s undemocratic, tyrannical, exploitative and immoral shouldn’t just be fixed or regulated, it should be dismantled. Capitalism must be abolished and replaced by a libertarian socialist society in which the communities and the economic institutions are run democratically by the participants; a society where the people participate in the decision-making and are in control of their own work, life and destiny; a system of solidaric and cooperative communities that benefit everyone and focus on people’s needs instead of short term profits. Capitalism should be abolished and replaced by democracy.

..and here's how we can do it:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-fight-capitalism-the-1/

378 Comments

378 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

(Michael/sff continued)

Being able to enter/leave an institution, does not change the hierarchical structure of it. I explained why capitalist institutions are tyrannies in the forum post.

Again, the owner shouldn’t have the power and resources to invest in the first place. No individual should be able to dictate and control another. Also, many businesses are inherited, making your claim that investment justifies power, pretty meaningless.

Private institutions are private tyrannies. Read the article.

Successful democratically run workplaces are increasing in number all over the place. You’re not making sense. Democracy is important, including at the workplace, because people should have a say in the things they are a part of and affected by.

I suggest you stick to what I actually say, instead of trying to interpret what “I really mean” etc. I say no such thing.

I don’t want capitalism to be abolished because of a few evil CEOs; I want to end capitalism because of the things I mentioned in the forum post. The system itself is unacceptable. A system that’s undermining democracy and allows for exploitation of workers, shouldn’t just be regulated; it should be abolished.

Again, when the economic institutions are run democratically, it’s no longer capitalism.

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

The right to stay or go need not be important to you, it is to me. It means the workers are not slaves, it makes the existing hierarchical structure in business acceptable. Direct democracy isn't effective for bigger companies anyhow. Look at Mondragon, it's size makes it impossible to run as a direct democratic operation. It has a top down hierarchy. Workers have no direct say in hiring or firing middle or upper management.

Why shouldn't the original owner have the resources in the first place? Many simply took whatever resources they had, borrowed what they could and took a chance. The result, after a good deal of hard work, was a successful business. In a typical business (78% of all U.S. businesses have no employees, 19% have fewer then 20) the owner takes all the risk and I believe he deserves the profits. The employee gets only his pay. Over simplified this means no risk - no reward, no financial investment - no say in the operation, I see it as a fair system.

When you bring up inherited businesses your talking about another atypical business. Large estates are already taxed as around 40% by the IRS and there are additional State taxes. It doesn't really matter though, the original owner bought and paid for his business he has every right to give it to his heirs.

I read the article, I just don't see private businesses as actually meeting the definition of the word tyranny, labor laws prevent it. The idea of it being tyrannical is your interpretation. I don't agree that the typical business is a true tyranny. The owner may not do anything he wishes. He does have more power then the worker on the job, I see that as his right, it comes with ownership. The owner offers pay for a particular task, he sets the conditions the worker agrees or not, it's the worker's choice.

If successful cooperatives are being established that's great. Maybe more will form, it's up to people to decide to invest or not. I see no need to take away the right individuals have to own a private business. When it comes down to it I don't see democracy in the work place as being all that necessary, in some cases it's undesirable. One of the problems cooperatives face is poor management due to no one being accountable for decisions, they are being hurt by democracy.

I don't mind sticking to what you say, I wanted to be clear that it was only an impression I had and that I wasn't putting words in you mouth. It's simply that the vast majority of businesses are small (97%), with an owner that did build it from nothing and poured his time and money into it for years. He's earned the right to set the conditions of employment. The arguments about exploitation, tyranny, demoralization, in my mind, don't hold true for the typical business. On the other side of the issue I find the arguments for socialism weak and unconvincing.

I think the only way you're going to get a semblance of democracy in the workplace is if you encourage all workers to buy out the businesses they work for. In my opinion you have a serious problems with socialism. Americans in general don't trust it or believe in it, I doubt they ever will. The cooperatives you point to are simply privately owned businesses bought by the workers. You come out and state you want to end private ownership of the means of production. The instant you mention taking away any property from anyone, I believe you've lost the argument with Americans. This is seen as you wanting to prevent people from doing something. No matter what claim you make about the good that might come from your proposal no one is going to care. All they hear is you want to ban an individual right and have private property taken away without paying for it. That is far more intolerable then lack of workplace democracy.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

But you said that one of the reasons that the institution isn’t tyrannical, is because people can quit. The fact that you can leave a tyrannical system, does not change the hierarchical structure. A totalitarian state that you’re free to leave, is still a totalitarian state. Being able to leave a tyrannical system, does not justify the tyranny.

In Mondragon, the workers are in control. They elect the managers, and they can fire them at any time. Just give it up dude. Successful democratically run workplaces are growing in number all over. It works just fine. Private ownership of the mop is not necessary.

The owner shouldn’t have the resources and power in the first place, because it’s undemocratic. No individual should have power to control and dictate another individual. The economy should be democratized.

I don’t understand why you keep bringing up investment. Again, lots of businesses are inherited, making your claim that investment justifies power, pretty meaningless.

I am aware that an owner can give his property to his heir, but it's irrelevant. Again, the owner shouldn’t have the resources and power in the first place.

There have always been limits as to what tyrannical systems could do. Regulations or not, the undemocratic hierarchy is still there.

Tyranny/tyrannical means “Absolute power”, “Despotic behaviour or use of authority” etc. (Tyranny/tyrant: from Latin: ”tyrannus”=Absolute ruler; from Ancient Greek: ”turannos”=lord, master, sovereign, tyrant).

Private institutions are private tyrannies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYxGkFxb7f4

People should have a say in the things they’re a part of and affected by; the economic institutions must be democratized.

Private ownership of the mop is unacceptable. It undermines democracy and leads to hierarchy, control, dehumanization and exploitation (I explained why in the article). Capitalism must be replaced by democracy.

If a huge majority accepts an undemocratic and exploitative system, then it’s the task of the ones who want to end it, to try to convince the majority.

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

I agree with you and your dictionary on the meaning of tyranny, ABSOLUTE power. Chomsky is wrong, he’s listed a number of characteristics that are negative and claims a corporation is tyrannical because of them. When it comes to words and their meaning he should know better. Existing law limits the owner’s power and actions in a number of ways. The power isn’t absolute, so private business owners can not be tyrants according to your definition.

Chomsky is also talking about the large multinational corporations, they are atypical businesses and make up a very small percentage (less than 0.5%) of all U.S. capitalistic endeavors. Banning capitalism for the behavior of so few isn’t a fair solution to whatever problems he sees. We don’t punish all for the behavior of a few.

The hierarchical structure has nothing to do with the definition of tyranny. The structure of a business is up to the owner largely because of the rights associated with ownership. This is where the worker’s choice comes in, not as defining what is or isn’t tyranny, but more as mitigation in favor of the top down arrangement. If the worker doesn’t like the structure he’s free to work somewhere else or start his own business (nearly 400,000 did last year alone). What you are calling a tyranny I see as the right of an owner to run his property his way, it's legal and justified. Those property rights were given through a democratic process. You can try to change the laws, but the fact that it is legal today makes it acceptable to the majority today.

I keep referring to investment because it is one of the necessary components in providing a good or service. Without it there would be no business its importance is greater then that of any specific of worker. Any worker can be replaced, the investment is required. That's why the one that makes the investment get's to make the decisions. It’s where ownership begins and the right of control originates. A worker gives up his right to a say when he agrees to work on someone else's private property. Socialism seeks to take the means of production from those that own it. Ignoring the moral and legal problems with that for a moment. It's a one time solution. Where will the capital for any future businesses come from?

I ignore inherited businesses when mentioning investment for the same reason I ignore the big corporations in just about eveything. We’re talking about capitalism in general, that means the typical private businesses (again 97% have less then 20 employees) not cherry picking a few exceptions. Even if there were 1 million inherited businesses, that would only be 3% of all businesses. The typical owner adds more value to the business then the workers and he has the moral and legal right to have more say then the workers. Democracy in the workplace isn't deserved under those conditions.

Mondragon may have started the way you describe it, but it’s changed.

http://www.solhaam.org/articles/mondra.html .

Its structure has been changing. That may be due to human nature or the need to run a successful business or some other factor, but with it’s increase in size it’s begun to look more like a capitalist enterprise and a little less like a socialist one. Its evolution closer to a capitalist model casts doubt on the premise that socialist businesses can be successful. There are other reports I've seen on line about cooperatives that indicate democratic management is a hinderance. The hierarchal structure is there in capitalism because it works better.

When you say the owner shouldn’t have the resources in the first place you’re expanding the discussion. It hints at a massive and to most people a repulsive and dangerous level of redistribution. Just who gets to decide if an individual gets to keep whatever he earns or owns? You’re also making your task closer to impossible if you’re pursuing a libertarian socialist society. If you expand the argument in that way I believe your cause is lost. I see that a more likely to fail then a socialist or cooperative workplace. It’s also far less likely to ever be acceptable to people. You have every right to try to convince people, but libertarian socialism has been argued for for over a century and it isn't growing at all. At some point it might be fair to suggest that you accept the will of the majority, in your words, "just give it up dude".

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The owners and the CEOs have tyrannical power over the other people involved. A capitalist institution is an undemocratic top-down hierarchy. It has a tyrannical structure. Again, no totalitarian systems have had the power to do whatever they wanted. There were always limits as to what they could do - but they were still tyrannical. Let’s end this ridiculous discussion.

Existing laws set some limits, but the capitalist system still undermines democracy enormously. Regulated or not, capitalism is unacceptable.

It deosn't matter if the institution is multinational or not, it’s still unacceptable. People should have a say in the things that affect them; the economic institutions in society must be democratized.

Again, the fact that you can leave a tyrannical, undemocratic hierarchy, does not make the the system right. It’s still an unacceptable system.

The fact that something is legal, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right. Lots of tyrannical and oppressive system and practices have been regarded legal.

Tyrannical and undemocratic institutions don't become democratic just because a majority accepts the existence of these institutions

You use investment as a justification for power. That becomes pretty meaningless since lots of businesses are inherited. In fact, all sorts of property is changing hands all the time. Your argument is unusable

Production, and the start up of production, does not have to be made by capitalists. It can be started in the public sector, and by communities, organized workers and so on.

When one of the parties has much more power and control than the other, then that’s not a voluntary agreement. Claiming that you should have to give up your right to have a say in things by signing an agreement with a powerful institution, is just ridiculous. Do you apply the same principle to someone agreeing to work for a Stalinist state?

I have absolutely no problem with stripping people with undemocratic power and control, from their privileges. The only moral thing to do is to end capitalism.

Well, Mondragon is still worker owned, so workers are in charge. For some reason the article you linked to is the only one that shows up here when there’s criticism of Mondragon. How about some more sources? But it doesn’t make any difference. I have never claimed that Mondragon is, or has ever been perfect. The point is that we know that private ownership of the mop is unnecessary.

Decisions over the communities' resources and institutions, must be made democratically by the workforce and the communities.

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

You're right we're close to going in circles.

I don't see the typical private business as being tyrannical at all, but I stress the word typical. It's just a private entity and the owner has the right to direct it, non-owners do not get any say, they do not deserve to control another's property. It's an arrangement that I find acceptable and just. It's also been made legal and just through a democratic process, people have had their democratic say. The majority want capitalism and I would say they disagree with your assessment of it. That's part of why so very few are interested in socialism and why it hasn't grown. I understand that you want to change things, you're free to try, but you're not likely going to change the mind of the majority on private ownership of a business.

It goes beyond being simply legal when the vast majority of society find private ownership acceptable. The changes you call for are what is unacceptable to that majority. Even if you intend to buy the means of production from the owners, it's not likely that society would permit owners to be coerced into selling if they choose not to and you'll never get the legal changes needed to simply take private property.

Of course investment and ownership justifies the hierarchy and power of the owner, investment more important then any worker to the business. Without it there could be no business at all. The workers do not deserve a say in how a private business is run.

Inheritance doesn't create any conflict for me, the heirs still have legal ownership. As I said ownership begins with investment, but property can be handed down, the heirs get the legal right to own and control the business. It's a minor point anyhow, I don't believe there are a significant percentage of inherited businesses out there to bother getting worked up over. It's not something the census bureau keeps track of though so I don't have any numbers. Even one million inherited businesses would still be only 3% of all U.S. businesses. If you have some evidence that it's a significant percentage please share it.

How is starting up a business with public money different from selling stock to the public? Won't the public demand some right to control their investment? The use of money from the "public sector, and by communities, organized workers" can be done now, it is done now occasionally. I don't see a reason to take away the rights of owners when cooperatives can be formed now. Let them exist along side private businesses.

Of course the worker/employer arrangement is voluntary, there are no slaves dragged in and forced to work in businesses. Only people that go and ask for work are hired. That makes it voluntary. No individual private circumstance changes that fact in any way, employment in any specific company is voluntary.

If anyone wishes to go work for a Stalinist state and it doesn't violate some existing law then they may. I don't see what this has to do with capitalism that's more a worker's right to choose where he works. I imagine there are some people that have left the country and work for totalitarian regimes. There are a few nations the U.S. has placed sanctions on, but with few exceptions people can work for whom they choose.

Yes Mondragon is worker owned, but it's showing some shift in how it's operated and structured. It's gone from what may have been a direct democracy to a representative form of management. The workers must defer to the managers they did not vote on. I have no other sources on specific cooperatives. As I told you earlier I was unable to find any current information on that plant in Argentina and the coops in Cleveland. I have no idea if they are successful or even still in operation today. The only thing I know for sure is they started up.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

First, can I just ask you, are you the same person who has the username “Sandy0621”? I don’t mind if you’re the same person, it’s just that this discussion is very similar to the one I had with “Sandy” earlier, so I'm just a little curious.

Inheritance do become a problem for you as long as you use investment as an argument for power. As soon as the business is given to an heir, your investment-argument becomes useless. And because lots of businesses are changing hands all the time, your argument is completely meaningless.

I also don’t agree that investment justifies power and control. Like I said earlier, the capitalist shouldn’t have the resources to invest in the first place. Controlling and dictating other individuals is illegitimate to begin with, in my opinion. It doesn’t matter how an individual with undemocratic power and control gained power, it’s illegitimate no matter what. People should be able to control their own lives, including the productive life. Private ownership of the mop prevents that; it turns the institution into a tyranny: an undemocratic hierarchy in which the ones at the top – the CEOs, the owners etc – dictate everyone else involved. This system should be abolished and replaced with a decentralized, participatory democracy.

You don’t have to tell me about the property rights we have today, or how many people that support state-capitalism. I know. However, laws and attitudes and so on, can all be changed. A libertarian socialist society can only come when the communities and workers want it.

Cooperatives can be started today, but remember that the economy is all-encompassing; it affects everything and everyone. The fact that wealth and power is so highly concentrated affects the entire society. Staring cooperatives is great, but eventually the whole economy should be democratized. A good start would be to highly increase the taxes on the wealthy.

When we determine whether or not an agreement is voluntary, we have to look at the social factors. It’s not voluntary when workers have to sell their labor to powerful owners in order to survive or have a decent life. It’s not voluntary when one of the parties has the overwhelming power and control. You missed the point I was making about the Stalinist regime. If a worker living in a Stalinist state signs an agreement to work for one of the state-owned institutions, that does not justify the dictatorship. Nor is it a voluntary agreement. The elite are in reality the ones in control.

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

No problem ask what ever you like. No, I'm not Sandy, this is my actual name, but I have read other threads about this. I even made a couple of replies, but not to you, on the thread that appeared on the opening news page a while ago. This topic appears frequently.

Worrying about inherited property is like considering the multinationals. They are exceptions and relatively few in number, if we're going to talk about typical capitalistic enterprises then I'll stay focused on the majority (I've been using the US Census Bureau figures for all the numbers I've quoted). It's ownership that gives you the right to control. Investment is just a synonym for buying the m.o.p. as far as i'm concerned.

It comes down to what you think is more important. The democratic countries have chosen the individual right to ownership as the primary right. You can't have a vote at work, that usurps the owner's rights. Those laws are ones we all did have a say in, so capitalism has the blessings of a democratic society. Legally employees are not slaves, the social factors aren't considered important enough by society to give the employees any additional rights. I agree with things the way society has developed them. The idea of trying to make all things equal for all people is another idea I have a problem with, it can't be done.

When I think about it I don't really know what actual control the boss has that is all that unreasonable. Show up at a certain time, do the work you agreed to do, collect your pay. Laws cover many worker's rights issues. What unreasonable demands does the typical boss make? That might be another reason society isn't willing to change things. Voting just for the sake of having a vote doesn't seem all that important when balanced against property rights.

People and laws can change, but the feeling toward any kind of socialism in the U.S. is extremely negative. I don't see there being a real chance of changing. You might get a clue to how possible your task is from the efforts to amend the constitution and negate the Citizen's United decision. If the country can't be convinced that corporations don't deserve human rights then they're unlikely to support an amendment to ban private ownership of the m.o.p.

Who is in control of government is a matter of opinion. There are people that have too much influence, they tend to be the power behind the major corporations. I don't see it as right to end an capitalism and take away rights from the majority of business owners because of a few corporations. That's why I disagree with you about regulation. I see it as the best way to deal with the small number of offenders.

Under Stalin the state was the owner of the m.o.p. The agreement to work where you choose can be used to demonstrate that the workers are not slaves. I don't know what work options communism offered workers but i'd oppose slavery. In the case of a state run economy, we have quite a few examples of failure, so I wouldn't want state ownership of the m.o.p. If it does exist in another country that is their business, not mine. I might dislike the system, but it's up to the people living under it to change it or not. My concern about the economic system is mainly toward our own.

I'm not opposed to workers buying and owning the means of production. I'm opposed to banning private ownership, and opposed to any plan that would take property from the owner. I would oppose socialism fearing some new elite that would decide who has too much money or who does or doesn't deserve what they have.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The point is that one individual dictating and controlling another is unacceptable. It doesn’t matter what the owner invested, he shouldn’t have the right to control and dictate, period. Private ownership of the mop creates tyrannical, undemocratic hierarchy. This structure is illegitimate, in my view. People should have the right to control their own lives and work; people should have the right to participate and have a say in the things they’re a part of and affected by.

Lots of property is inherited all the time. Speaking of inheritance, if we look at the bigger picture, then we see that almost everything is inherited in one way or another. We’ve inherited technology, infrastructure, knowledge etc; we’ve inherited a wealthy, modern society built up by generations of people. The only reasonable thing to do in a society like this, is to control the resources together democratically.

Again, I am aware of the current laws regarding private ownership of the mop. But the fact that power centers have allowed something, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right and just. I’ve explained why I think capitalism is illegitimate.

People should be free; they should be able to participate and be in control of their own affairs. In order for that to happen, the economic institutions must be democratized and run by the participants.

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

The power distribution is unacceptable to you, but not to me. I'd be opposed to any move to take away the m.o.p. from it's owners and hand it over to others. I see more dangers from socialism then benefits. I find capitalism, when looking at the typical business, as preferable to socialism.

All past knowledge is certainly inherited. Inheritance, like ownership has been with us for thousands of years. Even nomadic tribes had a sense of certain area belonging to their tribe and not other tribes. Their land was handed down to their descendants. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just how we live and what the majority has come to agree with. You want to change it, but I don't see you arguments as strong enough to merit making any change.

I don't see anything in all you've said that convinces me capitalism is illegitimate. I also disagree that we are not generally free now. There are obvious limits imposed on us by various laws from traffic regulations to criminal statutes. Most of them we didn't have a say in because they were passed years ago. Work also places some reasonable limits on us. I don't see it as wrong, unfair, tyrannical or any other negative term.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Systems that allow some individuals to control and dictate others, should be opposed and dismantled. If you agree that people should be able to control their own lives, you shouldn’t support capitalism. Capitalism is (as I pointed out in the article) immoral, exploitative and it undermines democracy; it should be abolished.

In a libertarian socialist society people control their own lives, work and communities – they are free. It is the society we should strive for.

We have some freedoms in our western societies, but people should be even freer than today. People should have a say in the things that affect their lives; that means that the economy must be democratized. The closer we get to a libertarian socialist society, the closer we get to human liberation:

”Workers’ Self-Management & Workplace Democracy – A Step Towards HUMAN LIBERATION”

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

I don't see things the same way you do. Even if I did I'm not sure it's worth what we would have to give up. I resist any change where you have to ban something and end a right we've had for a good portion of human history.

I'm bothered by how you might dismantle private ownership of the m.o.p. will owners be paid for their property? Your comments about some people not deserving what they have make me suspect taking the m.o.p. is a first step. Your vision could lead to a slim majority taking any property they are envious of. A society run by a majority that can vote themselves things rather then work for them. Once in place how can a minority be protected from being tyrannized and enslaved by a slim majority?

Pushing aside the conclusions based on fears of your ultimate motives and how socialism can go wrong. I don't see an entire society organized around socialist principals as workable, my very first comment gives my reasons for that. Running a cooperative, where every worker has bought a part of the m.o.p. is not the same as running an entire nation.

We're not ever going to be "liberated" through socialism or any other system until human nature changes. I don't believe people are anywhere near ready to handle the individual responsibility that is required for socialism to work.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Many rights have been banned thruout history. The right to own slaves, for example; the right of business owners to deny blacks to enter the restaurant etc. etc. Many things have been banned/abolished, making society more civilized and just. Existing laws and rights aren’t graven in stone. The unjust and immoral ones should be removed. The right to control and dictate other people should not be allowed. Private ownership of the means of production creates tyrannical hierarchies; capitalism should be abolished. The institutions in society must be democratized so that people can be free to control their own affairs.

The entire population would benefit from a libertarian socialist society. A free, democratic and sustainable society would benefit everyone, including future generations.

Capitalists should be compensated in the sense that they should be given the same rights as everyone else: the right to participate and have a say in how your workplace and community are being organized.

Democratizing the economic institutions is an important step. All systems can be improved. We should always try to make society better, freer and more just than it is, incluiding in one with a co-operative economic system.

What I want is a democracy controlled from below. That way the ones who have to live with the decisions are the ones that make them. There will be differences of opinions in a libertarian socialist society as well of course, and sometimes you’ll not get your will when things are decided upon. A majority of people in a community deciding that a minority group should be enslaved just isn’t a realistic scenario in a civilized and participatory democracy. The fact that there is a possibility that injustice can occur in a democracy doesn’t mean we dismantle democracy; it means we seek out the injustice and try to get rid of it.

Systems in which workers and communities control the means of production democratically, can be implemented everywhere. Anarchism could be international in scale.

Human nature is very much in accordance with a libertarian socialist society. I explained why earlier. We’ve seen examples of people organizing society based on workers’ self management and direct participation, we know it works.

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

I know you’ve explained why, I believe you’re wrong. You see things your way and that isn’t going to change. Fortunately I don’t see any possibility for your arguments gaining much of a following.

We can spend a lot of time bouncing this back and forth to no end other then setting out our beliefs. We've done that so I guess it's time to move on. Maybe we'll run into each other on another topic, take care.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You believe I’m wrong, but you haven’t provided many valid counter arguments, though. But in fact, there aren’t really any good arguments against Libertarian Socialism. It is the only reasonable, logical way of organizing society. Having the right to be in control of one’s own affairs, is just common sense. Libertarian Socialism is about human libertarian; it is what we should strive for.

Thanks. You take care as well :)

[-] -1 points by jupolu (1) 1 year ago

The problem with Libertarian Socialism is that its advocates have no sense of criticism, they advocate it as if it were their cult. That's because they hide behind theory, instead of testing it in practice. They compare it with practically applied systems like representative republics and capitalism without realizing that any system put into practice loses the perfect shine it had in theory. There is no such thing as a perfect political/economic system. There are some better than others, but, until you put Libertarian Socialism to a real practical test, you can't know all the problems which will arise, and some surely will.

The proof is in the pudding, and, until you have that proof, it's unhealthy to pretend Libertarian Socialism is the best system. It's a theory, perhaps a nice one built on nice principals, but it's only a theory at this point. You shouldn't compare it with the big boys which have been used in practice for decades upon decades. Comparing a theoretical political/economic system vs one used in practice makes no sense.

Instead of pushing the theory with words, I suggest you start building small businesses which use the concepts of Libertarian Socialism. Start small. Build up. Prove to us that it works in practice. Then people will be more receptive to the idea. Occupy general assemblies failed meaning direct democracy doesn't look very good to many people here. If Occupy wants to promote anarchy, it must do so in practice and show it works. It doesn't matter how poetic and logical your words may be, without a test a theory is a theory.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28259) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

U argue that society should not strive to be better than what it has been? Just keep going with the same old same old as we are driven into the mud?

U make no sense =

Comparing a theoretical political/economic system vs one used in practice makes no sense.

How does one improve a process - with out looking at what is wrong with the present system and offering ways to improve and change the process?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You’re not making much sense. First of all, there’s a lot of debate among libertarian socialists. Lots of different ideas are debated and criticized. I welcome all criticism, but if it’s unreasonable (as it often is) then I will point that out. If there’s something you disagree with, then present arguments.

The core principles of libertarian socialism are pretty logical and reasonable:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-anarchism-is-the-way-to-go/

I think these are ideas that most people would embrace if they were properly introduced to them.

Societies and businesses based on many libertarian socialist principles are and have been tested in practice, and they’ve worked very well:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/workplace-democracy-and-workers-self-management/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/cooperatives-info-articles-documentaries-etc/

No society will be 100% perfect, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to implement a system in which people are in control of their lives and communities.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28259) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

FAIL

Sorry trashy-can but U contradict Urself in attacking SSF80. Ur arguments are always severely flawed. [ highlighted one flaw below - others can look and point out your other flaws if they would like ]

[-] 0 points by jupolu (0) 0 minutes ago

  • U argue that society should not strive to be better than what it has been? Just keep going with the same old same old as we are driven into the mud?

Nope, never said that. Please read the above comment again.

  • How does one improve a process - with out looking at what is wrong with the present system and offering ways to improve and change the process?

When did I say you shouldn't look at what is wrong with a system. You should. Always. It's very important. It's only when a system is tested in practice for a long time that you know all the problems of the system. [ How is something tested if not 1st put into practice? ] When the system only lives in theory, it all looks real good.

You missed my point entirely. It's very well possible that Libertarian Socialism is the future, or some other type of anarchy. I'm not against this at all. And, there are many problems with capitalism and representative republics. I really wish Occupy could have created the revolution! I really wish.

My point was that struggleforfreedom80's tone is too utopian when he talks about Libertarian Socialism. He often promotes its virtues against practical examples of capitalism, without realize that it would also have problems when put into practice. It's too early to say it's the best system. It would make sense to compare it the Marx's theoretical version of capitalism, and talk about it that way. A banana vs a banana. But, to compare it to practical systems as if it was on the same level is ridiculous.

You'll not that many anarchists always point out when people talk about communism, that Russia, Cuba, etc... were not really communist. They weren't like Marx's theory. Well, capitalism isn't either. Truth is, when a political/economic system leaves the page and becomes the way of society, a lot of problems creep in. Humans societies are complex.

So, all I'm saying is let's not put the carriage in front of the horses and jump too high for Libertarian Socialism until it's properly tested. Let's keep an open-mind towards other systems, an eye out for other theories to test, and so on. struggleforfreedom80's position in regards to an untested theory is too strong, too cult-like.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by jupolu (1) 1 year ago

U argue that society should not strive to be better than what it has been? Just keep going with the same old same old as we are driven into the mud?

Nope, never said that. Please read the above comment again.

How does one improve a process - with out looking at what is wrong with the present system and offering ways to improve and change the process?

When did I say you shouldn't look at what is wrong with a system. You should. Always. It's very important. It's only when a system is tested in practice for a long time that you know all the problems of the system. When the system only lives in theory, it all looks real good.


You missed my point entirely. It's very well possible that Libertarian Socialism is the future, or some other type of anarchy. I'm not against this at all. And, there are many problems with capitalism and representative republics. I really wish Occupy could have created the revolution! I really wish.

My point was that struggleforfreedom80's tone is too utopian when he talks about Libertarian Socialism. He often promotes its virtues against practical examples of capitalism, without realize that it would also have problems when put into practice. It's too early to say it's the best system. It must be tested first, step by step. It would make sense to compare it the Marx's theoretical version of capitalism, and talk about it that way. A banana vs a banana. But, to compare it to practical systems as if it was on the same level is ridiculous.

You'll note that many anarchists always point out when people talk about communism, that Russia, Cuba, etc... were not really communist. They weren't like Marx's theory. Well, capitalism isn't either. Truth is, when a political/economic system leaves the page and becomes the way of society, a lot of problems creep in. Humans societies are complex.

So, all I'm saying is let's not put the carriage in front of the horses and jump too high for Libertarian Socialism until it's properly tested. Let's keep an open-mind towards other systems, an eye out for other theories to test, and so on. struggleforfreedom80's position in regards to an untested theory is too strong, too cult-like. It's not healthy.

He's essentially trying to sell a product before testing it. It's possible to start businesses on this model to see how well it works and fine tune the kinks. Until people who believe in Libertarian Socialism start doing that, no one else will jump on their wagon. There's no way a country like US would change its system for an untested one. It would be really dumb.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

imo the ability of a system-any system- to function well is the ability of the people to maintain focus and participation.

[-] -2 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

Owning people is significantly different then owning the m.o.p. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral with owning property. Everyone has that right.

Trying to legitimize theft by calling it "democratizing the workplace" is a greater wrong for me then any hierarchal structure we have in business today.

Why isn't the majority enslaving or tyrannizing a minority realistic? The anarchists in Spain in the 30's used intimidation and violence to quiet dissent, given more time their rule could easily have become tyrannical against the minority. There are no controls built into socialism to prevent it. It's simply majority rule. The majority could decide to regulate all sorts of behaviors, nothing stops it.

Laws can be changed, but it certainly isn't likely. You have the fifth amendment to deal with plus even stronger property laws in the States. They may not have actually used stone, but in people's mind, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, they might just as well have. I doubt you'd ever get enough people to agree to change property laws allowing anyone to simply take over the m.o.p. from its rightful owners.

I don't believe that we'd all benefit from a libertarian socialist society. I also don't believe human nature is suited to it. We could very easily end up worse off. You believe it could work, but the only "societies" you have to show that are either primitive cultures or cooperative businesses. The largest one isn't really purely socialist any longer. There are no successful libertarian socialist governments.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Private ownership of the means of production is immoral and wrong. I’ve explained why.

I have absolutely no problem with the people “stealing” as you say, property from individuals who have undemocratic power and control. Whether they’re monarchs, Stalinist dictators, or tycoons; no one should have the right to dictate and control others. Workplaces should be run democratically by the workforce and the communities. Workplace democracy allows people to have more control in their own lives than they have now. You’re free to believe it’s wrong that people should have more say in how their communities are organized. I strongly disagree, though.

The real theft is the one that has been going on now for the last decades, with more and more cash and resources being handed over to private enterprise thru privatization, exploitation, bailouts and huge tax cuts for the financial elite.

There are no 100% guarantees. Injustice can occur in any kind of system, including in the one you want. Injustice can occur in a democracy, but it can definitely occur in societies with minority rule or poor functioning democratic systems etc.

It must of course be the people who have to live with the decisions that should make them. That means democracy from below: Libertarian Socialism.

We would all benefit from a libertarian socialist society. The resources would not any longer be highly concentrated in the hands of private owners and the financial elite, but shared among the people, as well as controlled by them.

I explained why human nature is best suited a libertarian socialist society in the article “Human Nature and Libertarian Socialism”. I gave you the link earlier in the discussion.

There are endless examples of successful cooperatives. In other words, private ownership of the mop is unnecessary. Capitalism can and should be abolished.

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

"Cooperation, solidarity, altruism, etc. are essential and fundamental elements of our nature," That statement may or may not be true, the important thing is few actually believe it. It's more likely our nature shaped capitalism and not the other way around as you suggest.

At present there aren't enough people that want to eliminate capitalism for that to be a reachable goal for generations.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"It's more likely our nature shaped capitalism and not the other way around as you suggest."

I don't agree with that. I countered this here: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html

"At present there aren't enough people that want to eliminate capitalism for that to be a reachable goal for generations."

That's what we're trying to change, right?

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

You're simply countering opinion with opinion. Chomsky simply believes man has the necessary qualities to make his brand of socialism work. There are many academics that believe he's wrong. You may believe what you wish, but simply saying we have this spirit of cooperation doesn't make it so.

The history of socialism in America from the late 1800's up to the present shows that even among the anarchists solidarity and cooperation have been severely lacking.

I personally don't see ending capitalism as a necessity. We need to get people engaged in the process of governing, get them to pay attention and participate. We have a system that is capable of properly regulating capitalism if the people wake up and direct their representatives and hold them accountable.

If you can't get people to stay involved it doesn't make any difference what kind of system you have. Without constant vigilance any system will be abused and corrupted.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Lots of the things in the article were backed by science. If there’s something you object to, then present counter arguments.

Why should there be private ownership of the means of production, then?

[-] -1 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

There are problems with capitalism, but they come from human nature not the theory of capitalism itself. Even if you could, through some miracle, manage to gather enough support for change I don't believe a libertarian socialist society could function for long. I don't believe people could stay engaged.

I don't object to or reject the scientific theories but I think you're misrepresenting them. The theory about the "selfish gene" doesn't go beyond explaining why the altruism we see in humanity is there. It doesn't say there are unseen reserves of untapped human cooperation or altruism. I agree there is some altruism in people, I just don't believe that it is enough for a libertarian socialist society to actually succeed. It certainly doesn't help that there are no modern libertarian socialist societies successfully operating today to decide the issue. Until there is, the matter will be simply opinion.

Beyond that your science is really more history and you've limited the scope of it giving an incomplete picture. We could focus on the savage treatment of one tribe at the hands of another to just as easily conclude mankind is naturally savage. These people that were altruistic with family and tribe members had no problem enslaving members of other tribes or wiping out entire groups.

The egalitarian societies that existed in the past were all primitive hunter-gatherer societies, that type of existence is no longer practical. I see it as a historical fact that mankind outgrew that tribal altruism when individuals began producing their own food. As Dawkins noted there is still a strong remnant of that tribal altruism.

Agricultural societies changed that when they developed a sense of individual ownership of the land. Beginning the idea of owning the means of production, when the means of production was simply the land itself. I see it as man turning away from an egalitarian society to one of individual ownership that eventually lead to capitalism beginning perhaps 10000 years ago. That idea of ownership expanded to merchants and tradespeople as early as 4000 years ago. It began as an individual making an investment in time and labor and keeping what he could defend. Societies developed that codified that into laws. It's expanded over time to include a financial investment.

Private ownership of the means of production exists in our laws now. It's certainly something anyone can aspire to and something everyone has a right to. Because it's a legal right we all have I see it as being as fair as anything in an unfair world can be. You may find the idea of private ownership of the means of production as unacceptable, that's another opinion. Most people do not share it. I don't find the actual theory of capitalism all that oppressive. Private ownership is a basic human right.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Notice that I didn’t claim that humans are angels. There’s variation in behavior, but things like solidarity and cooperation is a huge part of human nature. I explained why this is the case in the article.

Most people have left the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but how do you relate that to the issue of human nature?

Creating a LS society is perfectly doable. We’ve seen examples of libertarian socialist/libertarian socialist-like societies working very well. And we see bits and pieces of it all over the place:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/workplace-democracy-and-workers-self-management/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/cooperatives-info-articles-documentaries-etc/

What I want to end is private ownership of the means of production. This type of ownership is not, and shouldn't be a human right.

Capitalism should be abolished, because of the things I mentioned in the post.

[-] -1 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

The hunter-gatherer life lent itself to cooperation, at least within the tribe. An agricultural life could be led by an individual, providing him with surplus (call it a primitive form of profit). The change encouraged different aspects of our nature, one of which was a sense of private ownership.

I see a great deal of resistance from society in general to simply handing over the means of production to workers without them paying owners for its value. The Forja takeover in Argentina can certainly qualify as theft. It may be "doable" as you say but it's not a method I'd like to see encouraged. I can't find anything recent on it to know if it's been a success. My search only turns up articles about the film "The Take".

Mondragon is more a mix of things, not really a success story for socialism. It is actually privately owned, it's just that the owners all work there. It's run indirectly by workers, managed like any other corporation with managers appointed by a board, but receives a good deal of support from the government. I'm not sure you could count it as a successful example of libertarian socialism, without the government protecting it from competition and providing tax breaks I'm not sure it would survive. Does have a moral advantage over Foria, workers must buy a share, if you don't you can't work there.

I don't see how you're ever going to convince a large minority, let alone the super majority you'd need to change the laws and end ownership of the means of production. I mentioned to someone on another thread that over half the people in the US own stock and many have pension plans that depend on stocks. You'd have to either buy out their interests or offer some very convincing proof that they would somehow be better off if society took away their ownership in companies.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I am aware that new ideas about how to organize society have been introduced since the first hunter-gatherers showed up. But that doesn’t counter anything mentioned in the article. There are different ideas about how to best organize society, but that does not change the fact that humans have developed certain characteristics as a result of millions of years of evolution.

If most people don’t want to be free to control their own lives, then we should try to convince them that there is a better alternative to capitalism/state-capitalism.

If you study the videos and articles etc in the two posts I linked to, you’ll see examples of anarchist or anarchist-like societies working just fine. None of them are or were perfect (no society is), but it shows that private ownership of the means of production is not necessary.

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

Your links don't show any anarchistic societies that are working today, they offer a lot of unsubstantiated opinion and just a few examples of cooperative businesses. If you were advocating for more financial support for starting cooperatives that would be fine. You're asking for a total change in society, the suppositions of Wolff, Chomsky or Alperovitz isn't likely to be enough to convince people to abandon an economic system. They've been preaching for change for a long time and to little effect.

Change was more on a societal level in Spain in the 1930's, but that video offered only the anarchist point of view and seems more a propaganda piece. The short time the anarchists ruled that part of Spain wasn't really enough to determine success or failure.

Mondragon is brought up by Chomsky and Wolff, but they ignore Mondragon's un-anarchistic top down management style where workers no longer have direct control over middle and upper management. Worse though, they ignore the fact that it's supported and protected from competition by the government. While it seems to be the best example people can come with I don't see it as a successful business as long as it has to be propped up by government.

When you say we should abolish capitalism, you're essentially asking to take away the right of an individual to own a business. I don't see that as something the majority of people will ever be prepared to do (I wouldn't). You also have a major problem of somehow buying out all existing businesses or making constitutional amendments to confiscate property. Again not something people are going to be willing to do.

Characterizing a privately owned business as a exploitive or undermining democracy is, in my opinion, both simplistic and overly emotional. Some certainly are, many are not. The typical business is simply an owner trying to be successful by running his property his way. I don't see anything wrong with that. Ending capitalism over the bad behavior of a few is excessive. Cooperatives can be started and capitalist companies can be run by the owner. These can exist side by side and people can choose who they wish to work for and who to make successful. I don' t think you're going to ever be able to make the jump from a capitalistic society to an anarchistic one directly and not in one or two generations. If it's done at all it will be in small increments one coop at a time over centuries, proving itself as it goes.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The links show what I told you they’d show: anarchist or anarchist-like societies. We see, and have seen, many examples of businesses and federated systems without private ownership of the means of production, working just fine (You find many examples in the links I provided). No system is completely without flaws, and that includes the anarchist or anarchist-like ones that exist and have existed. The point is, private ownership of the mop is unnecessary.

Yes, I want radical changes. I want capitalism to be abolished – and I explained why in the post.

How long ideas have been “preached” is irrelevant in terms of whether the ideas are good or not.

Chomsky and Wolff have never claimed that Mondragon is without flaws.

Libertarian socialism means everyone has the right to control their own work. In capitalism, only some can own a business.

A free, participatory democracy can only come when the workers and the communities want it.

Capitalism is exploitative and do undermine democracy. I explained that in the post.

Cooperatives can be started – and they are. However, the economy is all-encompassing; it affects everything. The whole economy should eventually be democratized.

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

The length of time socialism has been promoted is only relevant when looked at alongside its growth. You mention correctly that no changes will occur until workers and communities want them. The time and lack of growth together indicate, barring some major unforeseen economic catastrophe, society is, at best, generations away from accepting socialism. Its popularity hasn't changes significantly, except to shrink slightly since the 1940's. I don't see much meaning to the words good or bad being applied to the idea of socialism, that's opinion. To me it's bad, to you it's good, neither is relevant except to the individual. More important to consider, is the idea of socialism acceptable to people or not. Right now it isn't and that hasn't shown any hint of changing.

Sorry i didn't understand what you meant by societies, yes I read about the cooperatives and community efforts. In my mind I see the word society as referring to something much larger then a business or a community action group. Your goal is completely banning capitalism nationally if not world wide. That is a much bigger step then developing businesses run along anarchistic principles growing the idea slowly and refining it as you go. To consider a national ban on capitalism as a truly workable proposition I'd personally have to see an industrial nation ban capitalism and successfully run that way for a time. My lack of faith in socialism also says use someone else's nation to experiment on not mine.

I disagree when you say "only some can own a business". It may be factually true but I don't see that fact as important. Only having the legal right to ownership is important and required. Circumstances may prevent someone from buying a business or buying anything for that matter, but everyone has the right to own a business. The right to do something is all that society should be expected and required to provide, not the financial means. We all have things we can't afford, society doesn't owe them to us we must earn them ourselves or do without.

I don't believe true democracy could be maintained in any business that intends to actually be successful and produce products at today's levels. We don't review our constitution and all other laws every generation debating and voting on these things again and again. We live with decisions others made years or even centuries ago with refinements but very few major changes. No workplace could permit debate and reexamination of every major issue every time a new employee is hired and still get any actual work done. Some businesses see turnover as high as 45 to 50% per year, 20% turnover is typical of most businesses. It's most likely the rules will be made and voted on once and future workers will have to live with those decisions without significant say. I think back to Mondragon again, their management has evolved, workers don't have any direct say in hiring or firing upper or middle management. A top down hierarchy works better then pure bottom up democracy for any business even cooperative ones as they become larger. You can't expect larger companies to hold true democratic debates if they have several thousand employees giving everyone a say, their productivity would be seriously hindered by that.

I think you have several ways to proceed. One, try to build a socialist society one cooperative at a time over several generations until their success proves to people that this is the best way to run things. You won't have to ban anything socialism eventually could become the new normal if those cooperatives succeed. Two, press for the constitutional changes you would need to ban capitalism. Three, convince all employees to come up with the money to buy a controlling interest in the businesses they work for. When you look at the lack of growth in socialism, even in the labor unions, I don't see how anyone can believe the second or third options are possible to do in less time then the first.

I have a bias, I see socialism as unworkable no matter what path you choose to take towards it. As my very first comment indicated, I don't believe people have enough of the altruism, cooperative sprit, or willingness to work for the group. The flaws you see in capitalism are there because human nature is flawed, we put them in capitalism we made it to fit our nature. Just as human nature put it's flaws in communism and caused it to fail. We'll end up seeing human flaws corrupt socialist anarchism also if it ever happened to be implemented.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

How long it’s going to take to really change things around, no one knows. It will be a hard struggle, but as long as capitalism exists, it should be opposed. Capitalism is unacceptable. It must eventually be abolished and replaced with a real participatory democracy.

Yes I want capitalism to be abolished. I explained why in the forum post.

The fact that everyone has the right to try to “build” an institution that is tyrannical, doesn’t make tyranny right. People should be free to control their own lives. That means that the economic institutions must be democratized.

In a wealthy, modern, technological society we should make sure that everyone is able to have a decent life.

Workplace democracy works just fine. Successful cooperatives are growing in number all over the place. Democracy is important; people should have a say in the things they’re a part of and affected by.

[-] 0 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

The control the owner does have should be greater then that of the workers. His contributions in terms of entrepreneurial capacity, providing capital, and management skills are more valuable then the labor of the workers.

I just don't see capitalism as all that tyrannical. Regulations prevent the owner from actually exercising actual tyrannical power.

Workplace democracy works just fine in cooperatives because the workers have invested in the business themselves, they are owners/share holders. Today's cooperatives are not truly socialist enterprises, they are capitalist with many owners and only owners working in the business. They have the goal of making profit for the owners just like any capitalistic enterprise.

Fortunately the whole point is moot, at least for the next generation or two. Right now practically no one wants capitalism abandoned or banned, you'd never get the laws changed. Few believe socialism is desirable or even workable on a large scale.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

When there’s private ownership of the means of production, one individual can exploit and control another individual and make money by just owning. This is what should end.

Again, the fact that someone “builds” a tyrannical institution, does not make tyranny right. The owner shouldn’t have the right to this capital in the first place. Workplaces should be run democratically by the participants. People should be able to control their own lives.

In a wealthy, modern society, the only reasonable thing to do is to share the wealth.

I explained in the forum post why capitalist institutions are tyrannies. There are some regulations, but the top down hierarchy is still there. Capitalism undermines democracy; it should be abolished.

When there’s no private ownership of the mop, and the institutions are instead run democratically by the participants, it’s not capitalism. A market can exist in other systems as well.

[-] -2 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

I don't see the typical business as tyrannical. The owner does get to set policy but nothing forces anyone to seek employment. His power isn't the absolute power of a tyrant due to laws and regulations. His power is justified, the result of his investment and ownership. I see it as his right to control his property.

No owner builds a tyrannical institution, they build a privately owned one. You get to control what you own. You personally may apply the word tyranny anywhere you like, I don't see it as applying to private business, I believe the majority agree.

As I mentioned in a reply yesterday, the whole democracy at work issue is a false one, it can't actually exist. There may be something comforting about being in a democracy, but regulations can provide the workers the stability and protection at work that democracy gives us in government.

Work is a big part of life, but not the only part and the worker has the freedom to seek other employment or build his own business. The average American worker will change jobs 11 times and is likely to have several different careers, so the freedom to control your life is there.

You explain why you think private businesses are tyrannies, but I find your arguments simplistic and I don't have any faith in your solution working. You don't actually say it, but it seems you look at private business as though all were major multinational corporations. That isn't the case. It could also be why you likely to fail to gain any support. Most businesses are well run owner operated enterprises where the owner has invested his time and money to make it a success. Most people believe he deserves to control it.

There are certainly evils in the large multinationals, but they are the exception, not the rule. That's why regulation is a superior and more equitable solution then outright banning of all privately owned business. You want to destroy an entire system over the actions of a few corporations and replace it with something I don't believe would work, that most don't believe will work. Coops aren't actually socialist. Socialism is something the majority have rejected and even organized labor has turned its back on.

[-] -2 points by hamletandcornell (-27) 1 year ago

What's your roadmap to abolish capitalism?

[-] -3 points by tommylee (-5) 1 year ago

Why not create one coop at a time like MichaelB mentions and see if it works? Apart from that, we'd probably need an armed revolution to bring anarchy about.

[-] -1 points by MichaelB (128) 1 year ago

Armed revolution was how the Catalonian area of Spain went to anarchy for a few years in the 1930's. Considering anarchy's level of acceptance and support in the U.S. I don't see it having much of a chance any way except through cooperatives over decades. Then again I'm biased, I don't see anarchy as having the ability to be a successful economic system no matter how it's introduced.

[-] 0 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Excellent insights from you! Thanks. What basic idea or standard do you subscribe to for "properly regulating capitalism"?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I like this Link. It makes me wish I understood law or was a lawyer. It also makes me think and day-dream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_(feudal_tenure)

Capitalism was founded on Feudalism, and examples from the Catholic Church/Empire and Monarchies. Patriarchy comes from the same systems of course.

Land Grants, Property Rights, Tenure, Government Fees, Ransom, Feudal relief...

Actually it reminds me that power players only get to be executives by showing "Loyalty" to the real king-makers or patriarchs.

adding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villein#Villeins

A villein (or villain) was the most common type of serf in the Middle Ages. Villeins had more rights and higher status than the lowest serf, but existed under a number of legal restrictions that differentiated them from freemen. Villeins generally rented small homes, with or without land. As part of the contract with the landlord, the lord of the manor, they were expected to spend some of their time working on the lord's fields. The requirement often was not greatly onerous, contrary to popular belief and was often only seasonal, for example the duty to help at harvest-time. The rest of their time was spent farming their own land for their own profit.

Freemen, or free tenants held their land by one of a variety of contracts of feudal land tenure and were essentially rent-paying tenant farmers who owed little or no service to the lord, and had a good degree of security of tenure and independence. In parts of 11th century England freemen made up only 10% of the peasant population, and in the rest of Europe their numbers were small.

The word "serf" originated from the Middle French "serf", and can be traced further back to the Latin servus, meaning "slave".

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

This one describes the state-capitalist system pretty well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYxGkFxb7f4&feature=plcp

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Good one. That's what happens when corporations and the financial elite are in control of the economy. And there's no doubt in my mind that americans will be able to organize a better and more just society some day into the future.

There are alternatives to capitalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJnX96id-xI

Let's go! Occupy your workplace!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Occupy the workplace has been the most difficult to get people excited about because so many naturally fear losing their jobs.

But it is the right approach.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I know, it's hard. But democratizing the workplaces in society is one of the most important tasks on the way to a free and just society. There are lots of important things that we should focus on, though; I mentioned some of the things I think are important here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-fight-capitalism-the-1/

please check it out.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I will, & I will bump it to the top.

Definitely worker ownership/decision making is the best model to assure that 1 exec doesn't make 343 times the average worker.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Seen this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6tGIxFw3Uk

This is an excellent speech.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I will have to make time watch it, I have seen others, & I went to hear him lecture in lower west side of manhattan. He is great.

He was on chris hayes (msnbc) the past sat too.

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Great one. I always pick up more when I see Noam Chomsky again. I have a couple of books laying around too.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Good to hear.

[-] -1 points by abaiocchi (-1) 1 year ago

My support for all who protest in Europe, Argentina and around the world against this capitalist system that alienates, oppresses and suffocates people. Do not forget Africa, Latin America and the Middle East where a lack of interest, corruption and imperialism of the great powers and corporates are harmful to people. Power to the people! My name is Alexandre Collares Baiocchi, I'm Christian anarchist like Lev Tolstoy God Bless you and solidarity forever!

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Hi. We must also look outside Europe and USA in the struggle for a more just and democratic world. Thanks for your kind words. Solidarity.

[-] -3 points by GenerationOfPeace (-15) 1 year ago

Ya! Generation Of Peace! Damn those Latin American and Africa Capitalists! I heard about this guy named Joe Stalin or something, he really hates capitalism and loves socialism! Lets follow his lead!

[-] -3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Are you having fun?

Stalin is about as credible as a used car salesman.

[-] -1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 1 year ago

I agree they should be regulated and not by independent private companies, because they could corrupt them as well,. Government should be ., Like create a new ministry of regulation.,

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Private enterprise must be taxed and regulated more, but eventually, in the long term perspective Capitalism must be totally abolished, and replaced by a sustainable and free participatory democracy.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Hey, capitalism doesn't need to be regulated - You along with others who disagree with how capitalism is doing and don't agree with it can start your own co-operative business.

That way there you all can invest and you all can have a say and reap the benefits from it.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Starting co-ops is great, but the economy is all-encompassing. A co-op here and there does not change the fact that wealth and power is highly concentrated on a small powerful elite. The whole economic system must be abolished and replaced by democracy. Capitalism is tyranny - tyranny is intolerable.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well I hate to disagree with you about "capitalism being tyranny". Apparently a vast majority of the citizens of the United States like capitalism -

If you don't have the "knowledge" or "drive" to want to succed you won't and you can't blame that on "Capitalism".

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“Well I hate to disagree with you about "capitalism being tyranny". Apparently a vast majority of the citizens of the United States like capitalism”

There shouldn’t be any controversy about the fact that capitalism is undemocratic. When wealth and power is concentrated on people who have not been elected by the people, it’s tyranny. The economic institutions must be democratized.

The fact that many Americans like capitalism is largely because of propaganda. If people were introduced to the facts about what capitalism really is, and came to understand how tyrannical and destructive it is, I think a vast majority would reject it.

The fact that many people like x doesn’t necessarily mean that x is right.

“If you don't have the "knowledge" or "drive" to want to succeed you won't and you can't blame that on "Capitalism".”

I don’t understand how this is an argument against what I have said. This is not about laziness or something like that, this is about a system that is undemocratic, tyrannical, immoral and unsustainable. Systems that have these characteristics must be abolished.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Your argument "this is not about laziness or something like that" is bunk.

Ever talk to people who whine all the time and feel they are being treated unfairly - just ask them what their goal is - I will guarentee you they have no goals and 5 years from now will still be complaining.

So a person can be successful but I guess for some it's easier to complain and want the government to do for them what they won't do for themselves.

BTW - I know quite a few sucessful young men who succeded because they "did have a plan" and know that they have to work to "succede" and will succede because of that.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You keep on talking about people being lazy and complaining. You're missing the point. We're talking about an economic system - capitalism. A system that's undemocratic, tyrannical and immoral must be abolished. Don't you agree?

And why arn't you focusing on government welfare to the corporations and the wealthy? That's much bigger than what a few lazy people are getting.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Yes I am talking about people being "lazy and complaining". I know lots of successful people whom are satisfied with their station in life - they work for a living and are making a decent wage.

What they are not satisfied with is the government - the Debt - The Economy - The high cost of goods - The high cost of gasoline - and wanting people who are "less fortunate' to be able to get good paying jobs.

If a person wants to succede they can - but when you have a president who continually divides this country the successful are going to say "screw you" I'm not giving you what I worked for - you earn it yourself.

This country is not the best country in the world because of people who give up - it's the best country in the world because of people who have the determination to succede and do and everyone has that opportunity if they chose to do so.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The United States is not the greatest country in the world. It has some good characteristics and some bad ones - like many other countries.

Do you agree that Capitalism is immoral and undemocratic, and that it therefore must be abolised? Why/why not?

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

No I don't agree that Capitalism is immoral and undermocratic because anyone in this country can succede without being concerned with what the other guy is making.

And yes, this is the greatest country in the world. Apparently you haven't traveled the back roads of this country to find out.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“No I don't agree that Capitalism is immoral and undemocratic because anyone in this country can succeed without being concerned with what the other guy is making.”

Being able to “succeed” as you say, is a somewhat different issue then whether or not the society is democratic. I argued in the article that the capitalist system is undemocratic. Specifically, what do you disagree with?

“And yes, this is the greatest country in the world. Apparently you haven't traveled the back roads of this country to find out.”

I have never been to the United States, but I’d love to visit some day.

A country whose government is responsible for millions of deaths, support for brutal dictators and allowing millions of its own citizens to live in poverty do not deserve the title “The greatest country in the world”. USA has some good characteristics and some bad ones – like many other countries.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

No I don't agree that Capitalism is immoral and undermocratic because anyone in this country can succede without being concerned with what the other guy is making. ...... Ya, Shay is pretty "off".

Any money-based economy creates the same, doesn't matter if it's communist, "democratic" or whatever.

I think going through capitalism is an inescapable phase in the evolution of Earth. It is just nature. It will pass (like a kidney stone).

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"No I don't agree that Capitalism is immoral and undermocratic because anyone in this country can succede without being concerned with what the other guy is making"

Those are not counter arguments. How much some individuals "succede" does not change the fact that Capitalism is undemocratic and immoral. I explained in the article why capitalism must be dismantled.

"I think going through capitalism is an inescapable phase in the evolution of Earth. It is just nature."

You're making no sense. Capitalism is not part of nature or natural evolution. Capitalism is a highly unnatural system that has existed for an extremely short period of time in human history; it's a system that's based on tyranny and exploitation - it must be abolished.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Ya, it ran its course. It's over, or will be soon.

Humans and all human creations are natural if you think about it. Humans like every other living things on earth didn't exist at one point. Then the earth produced them.

Even the shit that happens outside of earth is natural.

Ya, you can say that computers and shit are unnatural but hopefully you know what I mean. People developed the potential to create such things, so naturally they got created.

Capitalism happened and will pass naturally.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 1 year ago

I find it illogical for you to so easily dismiss the USA as the greatest country in the world after admitting that you have never been here. All countries have their faults, but in the short history of this country, no other has given the rest so much in such a short time. Where does the world go for hunger relief. Where does the world go for aid. What country is always donating more through government or private source programs? Where does the world go for when it is in trouble, such as in the world wars and Korea. What country has stood firm to communism's threat for world dominion? Take a poll around the world and what country would most choose to live in, have opportunity, etc. why do so many people try to immigrate here, legally or illegally? Millions of deaths? Every country has poverty, but poverty here is more desirable than poverty anywhere else. I have personally seen it on three other continents. So what country in your eyes is better?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Are you serious? So I’m not allowed to have an opinion about countries I’ve never been to? I also think North Korea is one of the worst countries in the world, although I’ve never been there. Is that ok, or is it only the United States I shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion about? Don’t you see how absurd and unreasonable this is? Do you have opinions about countries you’ve never been to?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“All countries have their faults, but in the short history of this country, no other has given the rest so much in such a short time.”

The United States has contributed with a lot of things, but so has lots of other countries. The United States has also contributed with lots of negative things.

“Where does the world go for hunger relief. Where does the world go for aid.”

All rich countries contribute with some aid. The governments give and care about 3rd world countries way to little. It’s only reasonable that the western world, which owns and consumes an overwhelming amount of the world’s resources contribute to the poor around the world.

“Where does the world go for when it is in trouble, such as in the world wars and Korea.”

Actually more and more people have become skeptical towards US foreign policy. It shouldn’t be a self proclaimed world police that takes care of troubles. That should be done by cooperation between people around the world.

“What country has stood firm to communism's threat for world dominion?”

Communism? I’m actually quite fond of communism. A classless, stateless society is what we should strive for. You’re probably thinking about Leninism and Stalinism. That was a big threat to world – and so was the aggressive imperialistic human rights violator, USA. United States foreign policy during the Cold War was extremely bloody, so I wouldn’t brag too much about that if I were you.

“why do so many people try to immigrate here, legally or illegally?”

To a large extent because the county they live in is much poorer.

“Millions of deaths?”

Yes, millions of deaths. What’s unclear? I am referring to US foreign policy the last 50-60 years. Do you want examples?

“Every country has poverty, but poverty here is more desirable than poverty anywhere else”

What are you talking about?

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

So how can you comment on what goes on in this country when you have never been here? You don't have a clue as to the people, the businesses along with the culture.

Come visit first then comment about your thoughts on Capitalism.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Are you serious? So I’m not allowed to have an opinion about countries I’ve never been to? I also think North Korea is one of the worst countries in the world, although I’ve never been there. Is that ok, or is it only the United States I shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion about? Don’t you see how absurd and unreasonable this is? Do you have opinions about countries you’ve never been to?

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

USA is so stinking corrupt, evil and 3rd world. Why is it hard to understand? Sure average ppl are nice but that's not what I'm talking about.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Sorry, but that made no sense.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

There is nothing "absurd" about this - you haven't experienced anything in this country other then possibly reading about it or being told by others what this country is about.

Sort of like a lot of others on this site who comment on "how to run a business" or who think the know what's best for business, but don't have "business experience.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Tell me what kind of "business experience" you have? Do you know anything about how much it costs to start up a business let alone manage and make it profitable?"

I have ZERO experience with running corporations (and I can assure you it will stay that way forever) just as you have zero experience with running a state dictatorship. Tell me, how do you feel about dictatorships?

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

How about staying on point - I can assure you that I have managed and run a business so I can say I have experience in knowing just what's involved with keeping them afloat.

So how can you comment on what you think is best for a business when you have "no business experience".

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"There is nothing "absurd" about this"

Yes, there is. I just explained it.

"you haven't experienced anything in this country other then possibly reading about it or being told by others what this country is about."

In this day and age we get all sorts information, reading material included, about the world.

Have you been to North Korea?

"Sort of like a lot of others on this site who comment on "how to run a business" or who think the know what's best for business, but don't have business experience."

You don't need business experience in order to criticize Capitalism and Corporate power and dominance - just like you don't need experience running the WPK in order to criticize Kim Jong-un. All tyrannies, whther it's private tyranny or state tyranny, deserve criticism and must be opposed.

Can we please stop this foolish debate?

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Tell me what kind of "business experience" you have? Do you know anything about how much it costs to start up a business let alone manage and make it profitable?

Tell me about your experience.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"I can assure you that I have managed and run a business so I can say I have experience in knowing just what's involved with keeping them afloat."

Totally irrelevant for this discussion.

"So how can you comment on what you think is best for a business when you have "no business experience"."

The same way you can comment and have opinions about the Soviet Union, North Korea, the Taliban, dictatroships in general, EU policies, US policies etc etc.

Give it up, dude.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Still mixing economic and political structures, still haven't convinced anyone on your misguided notion. Maybe it isn't them. Maybe it's you.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

There's no mixing. I want an undemocratic economic system replaced by a democratic economic system. I want a society where the economy is run democratically by the participants.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

There is nothing more democratic than a voluntary economic system, as opposed to your idea that socialism and state decided economic activity is democratic in any way.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"There is nothing more democratic than a voluntary economic system"

What are you talking about? Please elaborate on that one.

"as opposed to your idea that socialism and state decided economic activity is democratic in any way"

State? I'm an anarchist. A democratic economy would be one in which the people participating - the workers, the communites and so on - controlled the economic institutions democratically.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Group control and anarchy are a contradiction. This is why I steer clear of the anarchism topic. You socialist anarchist have no clue as to the roots of either. Anarchism is about individualism, socialism is about collectivism. You are one confused group of ideologs. If this is your idea of an attempt to re-spin socialism as is the case with the Venus and zeitgeist idiots, there is no shortage of holes in that platform as has been shown to you on this forum time and again. Get a clue brother. I have no room for trendy rebels (rebel without a clue).

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

It's a little strange to see someone expressing such strong opinions about something they obviously know very little about.

I suggest you read a little bit about Libertarian Socialism before you express such strong opinions.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Strong opinions and opinion based books are only that. Grow up.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

There were a lot of falsehoods in your comment above. Do you stand by them?

"Group control and anarchy are a contradiction."

No it's not. Libertarian Socialism strongly advocates individual, as well as collective rights.

"You socialist anarchist have no clue as to the roots of either."

How so? It seems to me that it you who haven't studied Socialism and Anarchism well enough.

"Anarchism is about individualism, socialism is about collectivism."

Anarchism and socialism - real socialism - strongly favor individual and collective rights.

"You are one confused group of ideologs."

I'm not confused at all.

"If this is your idea of an attempt to re-spin socialism"

Libertarian socialist and anarchist ideas - workers control, equality, anti-authoritarianism freedom and so on - go way back in history.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

anarchism

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles


Spin doctors on every side, even among rebels without a clue. You argue with the dictionary. I'm going to stick to the accepted definition. This is also why I loath you trendy anarchist wannabees. You just keep spitting your bullshit long after you know you're wrong because you just can't accept that you don't know shit. Move along kid.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

”Anarchism 1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups 2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles”

I can’t believe we’re still having this discussion. I don’t disagree with the above description. Did you read further down on the page you were linking to? It mentioned 1930s Spain, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Bakunin. Bakunin advocated Collectivist Anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism is about workers’ organizing a non-hierarchical socialist society – a society which was established to a large extent in huge areas in Spain.

Again, I highly recommend you studying issues before you criticize them.

“You argue with the dictionary.”

No, that would be you. Look up “libertarian socialism” or “anarcho-syndicalism”.

“I'm going to stick to the accepted definition.”

You presented a definition of Anarchism. Could you do the same with Libertarian Socialism?

“You just keep spitting your bullshit long after you know you're wrong”

What is bullshit? Libertarian Socialism is not a new idea; the idea of an antiauthoritarian anarchist socialist society has been around for a long time.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Libertarian socialism is another self contradicting concept but also has an apples and oranges sense. Just like capitalism, socialism by itself is ineffective and not suitable for all scenarios. Libertarianism contradicts socialism because libertarianism also seeks to defend individualism and socialism is to defend collectivism. Also, libertarianism is a political philosophy with preferences for economics but is not an economic platform so there is no chance of balancing it with socialism. For you to have a complete model, you need to move beyond catchy book narratives and talking points. A serious approach and suggested goal for societal transformation needs to encompass so many more aspects. Economics, politics, governance, philosophy, and they all need to be platforms that work together or in concert or at least can be used to balance each other such as blending capitalism and socialism, not platforms that outright contradict each other or have nothing to do with each other. I could spend days pulling this all apart for you or you could wake up and realize the ideas you continue to push are not sound in any way. They are just tools of unemployed professors to gain notoriety and push book sales for their retirement. Get out of the alternative book section and return to the core definitions of these ideas and platforms, then formulate something that makes sense. I know it's hard because you have a website and all this material but sometimes I have to scrap hundreds of lines of code because it just doesn't work. Continue wasting time on a failed path or admit to yourself that there is always room for growth and improvement, your choice.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Libertarian socialism is another self contradicting concept"

Concidering the history of anarchist socialism, how can you say that?

"socialism by itself is ineffective and not suitable for all scenarios."

It is defintely suitable for a modern society, and The experiments with Libertarian Socialism has shown that it is also very effective.

"Libertarianism contradicts socialism"

All thruout modern history libertarians were the socialist anarchists and communist anarchists.

"because libertarianism also seeks to defend individualism and socialism is to defend collectivism."

Libertarian Socialism strongly advocates collective and individual rights. There's no contradiction

"A serious approach and suggested goal for societal transformation needs to encompass so many more aspects."

Libertarian Socialism has this. It's about creating a highly organized society.

"I could spend days pulling this all apart for you"

You haven't pulled anything apart. What you've done is rant about something you obviously don't know much about. That's just sad.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 1 year ago

richardkentgates, you are a troll.

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 year ago

I can't help but take this opportunity to point out that unregulated capitalism rapes the planet into a useless ball of garbage. Capitals are for spelling the word DOOM. "There is nothing in the desert, and no man needs nothing."

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

a quote from from prince feisal in "Lawrence of Arabia? thats fiction.

[-] -1 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 1 year ago

Have you considered Stand Up?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Why do you ask?

[-] -1 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

"replaced by democracy"? What does that mean?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I explained it in the post. Capitalism is undemocratic and should be replaced by a real participatory democracy built and controlled from below - Libertarian Socialism. The means of production and economic institutions must be run democratically by the communities and the workforce.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

They need to regulate the multinationals and deregulate the rest of us.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Yes, we should start regualting the multinationals much more, but as I pointed out in the post: it is the entire system that should be not just regulated but abolished. All corporations are illegitimate - as is the system in which they operate.

[-] -2 points by randydandy4 (-12) 1 year ago

Only stupid, fucking communists here like struggle, can see socialism collapsing in real time around the world, and think it's a good idea for America. A bigger brain dead fucking idiot does not exist in this forum.

Possibly exceptions are his ignorant lemmings who agree with him

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Do you have any counter arguments, or is this the only thing you have to offer? What do you disagree with, and why?

And what exactly do you mean by "communism" and "socialism"?

[-] -2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

There is proably another thousand people behind the thousand people at Occupay Wall Street ...and other Occupations ... Right now.

I'm a lagger. I am lagging behind the main movement.

But I am watching this Video. Check 1 hour 38 minutes into ... Naiomi Klein is talking ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZc1YBpw0Qg (next stage for the movement)

Well my phychology is that I am a victim ...and I want to leave the country. But ...wait... maybe I would be in the next wave of Americans that would swarm ... US Capitals ... US financial Centers ... to demand Change.

I am sorry I have not protested on the Ground in OWS yet. I feel that I have missed the Love and Community ...that I would feel if on the "ground" - If Protesting, If Reaching out, If Trusting my Fellow Man, If saying "yes, men can join together, men can be a community, men can be mature, men can respect other men, men can support each other for Art, culture, Equality, Individuality, Civil Rights, Individual rights, and ...support each other in new ideas for philosophy/law/sociology/art/ and even health and nutrician....

My confession ... that I have not yet learned to Trust Community ... that I think Community is mean, nasty, and often run by bullies.

So I would have to ...trust and join an Occupay movenment in protest and solidarity to really grow... in spirit ...and just grow as a person.

Late add: 1 hour 53 minutes into the video Niomi Klein is great

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZc1YBpw0Qg

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Naomi Klein is awsome. I really liked what she said in the video. "Occupy Everywhere" was great.

Human beings must start to create sustainable societies and communities based on solidarity, cooperation, and with real participatory democracy in which people can control their own lives.

I believe the Occupy Movement has begun this work. Changing society and people's attitudes is going to take time, of course, but we're seeing the beginning of the end of the destructive capitalist/state-capitalist system.

[-] -2 points by amassa17 (-2) 1 year ago

My name is Andre and I have been a supporter of various left-wing ideologies such as anarcho-syndicalism, marxism, participatory economics etc. I believe that the localized, direct deomocarcies in the abscence of capitalism, the centralized state, and hiearchy are the utopian socieites that would solve the problems and oppression that are synonomous with capitalism and the centralized state (though socialism is a better alternative since it's at least a centralized deomcracy.) However, I recently came across a scientific theory, called evolutionary psychology. The theory states that, through evolution, there are certain apsects of human nature are gentically hardwired within us. The theory states that humans are naturally coalitional and will form groups with people they feel they are the same to, that humans are genetically hardwired to be hierarchial and organize themselves by social classes, and that humans, that humans only naturally pursue thier self-interest, and that property rights are natural. I was absolutley crushed when reading about this scientific theory because if this is true then it seems that the three aspects that are crucial for the societies of anarchism, libertaarian socialism, and communism (direct democracy, abolition of capitalism and hieracrchy and community ownership of property and the means of production) are just not possible because it goes against the human nature that is genetically hardwired within us. I was hoping you could give me some answers to how we might be able to overcome this. Here are the links to the articles. http://www.evoyage.com/BillsEssays/Capitalism.htm http://www.cato.org/research/articles/wilkinson-050201.html Thanks, Andre.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

And under feudalism, monarchy and slavery etc, there were also people saying that is was just in our nature to have these kind of awful systems...but then we got rid of them! There have always been reactionaries/racists/ultra right-wing people claiming that immoral and horrific systems had to continue because it's in our nature to have them, but they've always been proven wrong.

If you look at human history, societies with concentrated power and hierarchies have existed for a very short period of time. There are societies today that have more or less no hierarchic structures at all; we've also seen experiments with anarchism which have been very successful. In other words, these claims that are presented by these (very often) right wingers/ reactionaries are pure BS.

More and more science also shows that human nature is very remote from what the right wingers hope and claim.

I want people to be able to control their own lives, and to have a democratic say in the things they're a part of and affected by. That's perfectly feasible.

[-] -2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Sorry if I prompted you to evaluate this idea already, but it would be VERY complimentary to cooperatives: http://occupywallst.org/forum/beat-them-at-their-own-game-the-99er-conglomerate/

If it's not obvious how right away, I can explain.

Main advantage: Binds them to a common purpose/goal.

Eventually eradicates capitalism by fighting fire with fire.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The way we should create a better society is to fight the corporations and the immoral, undemocratic state capitalist system in which they operate, and work to create a real participatory democracy with communities based on solidarity, cooperation and workplace democracy.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Did you happen to read my post about the conglomerate? Do you think this is not a sure-fire way to beat down corporations and capitalism? The only way I see it failing is if it doesn't get started. I think your opinion, positive or not, would be very constructive. I'm also shamelessly trying to get more replies there so more people can see it.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I read it, and my response is the comment above. If you think my opinions are destructive you should provide some arguments.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I've agreed with and respect most of what I've read from you, and thought you'd be able to make sense of my idea. Don't you see how the conglomerate can create a better society?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Like I said, what we should focus on is democracy. We must try to create a more participatory democracy based on solidarity and cooperation, so that people can get control of their own lives and communities. I wrote a little about how we can achieve this here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-fight-capitalism-the-1/

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I read it and the conglomerate fits right in. Great post and links.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"I read it and the conglomerate fits right in."

Where?

"Great post and links."

Thanks.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Democracy, solidarity, cooperation, etc., I could probably tie into 80% of your recommendations. Unfortunately I'm pretty "occupied" and you'd find that my response would be reiterating what I posted in a few cross-linked topics. If things quiet down I'll come back and be more specific.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Oh? So how do these things fit together with "the most predatory corporation there ever will be" ?

Let's end this debate, it doesn't make any sense.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

It makes sense when you read all of it.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I read it all, and it kind of didn't.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Ok, well I may still come back and give specific examples so you see. I never did attempt or intend to debate.

[-] -2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

I'm sorry, I couldn't find the part of this post where we had our discussion, and so I'll append this here:

Because what I wanted to say was too long to post as a comment here, I answered the question you posed in this post on my blog - gypsyking1.wordpress.com.

The current post is entitled "Wealth and Scarcity," and I hope to follow it up with another that addresses capitalism specifically - what it is and is not - and how we can overcome the inherent injustice and spiritual paucity of this sytem as it is.

Thanks for the post, and for bringing up this unfortunately very complex subject. It is essential to our understanding of how we can transform society for the better, and so I feel we must stretch our minds to the task.

Ouch.

[-] -2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Hi I found this website http://gypsyking1.wordpress.com/ kind of didn't come up in a websearch engine, so I'm thinking you might want to look at that for a while.

i want to deepen my conversation, so i made it a favorite.

[-] -2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Thank you. I will look into why it didn't come up:)

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

It was good to talk to you. I'll take a look at your article when I find the time.

[-] -2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Thanks, I look forward to your perspective.

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I just read it. It had some good points. Our values and characteristics as human beings are being distorted in today's society.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

My essential point is that "structure" is nothing. Human nature is the key. We must finally get a grip on the way our biological, Darwinian nature finally overcomes any structure, no matter how well intentioned. This is not a recipie for hopelessness! It is not! It is an invitation to the light of UNDERSTANDING!

You are just regurgitating all the old, failed ideas, and worse, you see them as new!

There is a NEW dawn of understanding taking shape, and it demands that we stop regurgitating dead "truths"!

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Yes, human nature is absolutely a factor. Our knowledge of human nature is however far from complete, but we do know some things, f.ex that solidarity, altruism, creativity and so on, are fundamental elements of our nature.

I wrote an article about a year ago on this topic called "Human Nature and Libertarian Socialism"

Please check it out: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Ah, okay here is the basis for your comment on human nature. I like the debate video. I just really like Chomsky's words, but the premise of the debate is good too.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Yeah, the Chomsky/Foucault debate is really interesting - and I think Chomsky really nails it.

[-] -2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out:)

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I look forward to your perspective :)

[-] -2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Very interesting article, and discussion.

The thing the comes to me mostly in light of this is a question. Many educated people are aware that Chomsky has had answers to the questions regarding the failings of modern society, and has had them for a very long time. His advocacy of democratic, grass-roots socialism, as the most probably beneficial system is very likely correct. The question is this - Chomsky has been around a long time - I can't explicate the political / economic situation nearly as well as he can. I don't think anybody can . . .

Then why hasn't anybody listened?

This is a really good question when you think about it. When there are people with the answers, and they can be shown to have the answers, then why don't people follow them?

It is here, I believe, that we are forced to delve even deeper into the question of human nature, and concede that human nature, rather then political theory, is really the key question, and I believe that we are in a postion now to be able to do so, and to define mankind and being in a way that has not before been possible. In short, I think we can now answer the question - what is the meaning of life?

Mankind sufferes from a chronic lack of meaning, and this in turn is responsible for much of the simple recalcitrance of human nature.

And so, in really simplified summation here, I believe it is this: earthly existence is a halfway ground, defined by contadiction, existing between nothingness and pure being.

On the one side we have the Darwinian, biological order, and on the other we have transcendent powers, such as truth, which can be shown to exist as powerful forces, and yet do not actually exist in the material world, and we are in a process of passing from the lower, biological order, into the higher, spiritual order.

This is essentially Platonic cosmology, and it has been buttressed by breakthroughs in much modern, subsequent thought . . . to the point I believe it can be codified into an understanding of our place in the universe. All that is required now is synthesis.

The power of such an understanding could transform society. It is in fact what humanity has been seeking since time immemorial, and it may come to us at our time of greatest crisis.

This is a possibility we should be aware of.

Sorry, that's the best I can do here.

Thanks for that very interesting link:)

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Could Chomsky ever be taught in K-12 school? Is it a good idea?

I actually think I heard the name Chomsky only in an art class. and i think there were students that were telling the teacher she was not suppose to talk about Chomsky or bring him up. I didn't know who Chomsky was, if he was an artist, if he was a philosopher, or what....

The point is that I was going to school in a Suburb in the 1970s ... and that Chomsky was supressed totally, he was deliverately, and systemically removed from all K-12 curriculum.

[-] -2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I dont mind tipping my hat to someone that seems to have studied a subject. I feel that I must tip my hat now. I am interested in Philosophy as a structured way to look upon our society and law making.

But i only get one piece at a time in study. On the other hand if you look at the history of third world countries - you see a contrast in philosophies or the clear Divergence from stated philosophies,Religions.

Could be we see the Hypocrictical Statements of Politicians ... Could be we see the all out run amuk Ego of Dense Europeans ...consumed by lust for gold, power, or status. Seems pretty clear that Western european Explorers were Slavers, and Exploiters.

And today we are decendants of Exploiters and their slanted History books.

Let's all go look at Howard Zinn's book: http://www.lifeaftercapitalism.info/downloads/read/History/Howard-Zinn/Howard_Zinn-A%20Peoples-History-Of-The-United%20States.pdf

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Great link, great book! This is a really important book for those who would like to know the American history that's been buried.

I'm not that much of a philosopher, or anything, really. My hope is simply that people will be able to achieve the insight necessary to break the cycles of behavior that have had us wrapped in chains - that have forced us into the same mistakes over and over again, as though we had no free will. I really think we are finally capable of breaking those chains, we just haven't realized it yet.

Thanks.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Well you and I might agree that we each have tremendous potential ...at least as a teacher or just as an influence to others. But I'd like to point out that for instance our culture doesn't support artists or people that are fringe dwellers ...people that don't the public relations messages. So wonder if I can brain storm some value we might have that is overlooked.

1) Maybe we have vision of equality that many others don't.
2) Maybe we have keen insight into how people are dominated.
3) Maybe we have BS detectors.
4) Maybe we care about history & anthropology & Truth.
5) Maybe we sense how Institutions can be cruel or absurd.
6) Maybe we understand the maxum "First Do No Harm".
7) Maybe we know Governments have their own interests, are run by people with empires, and outside Influences who can get benefits from the government.
8) Maybe we sense that older principals of law and philosophy are being slowly eroded and removed from everyday business in most US Government Institutions.
9) Maybe we sense that Truth is key to reform, and this truth is found in principals, philosophies, histories, and anthropology.

Didn't know where that was going, but I like the way the list ended.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

I believe we all have tremendous potential - greater potential then we are generally aware of. Each one of us is the expression of an aspiration towards something more than our lives seem to offer us. In this, I think we are alike, and ironically this common condition gives me hope.

I think truth is real, that we Know what it is instinctively, and that we can live in accordance with it, at least to the greatest degree of our ability. This does not make life easy, but it makes it real, and in the long run real is better than easy:)

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yes, and I wonder about changing our culture to value humans for being humans. My sense in my community is that people are valued because they work, they look like they work, they have shaved faces & neat haircuts...

My value to my family or community should not be whether I work or not ... or what kind of work I do ...white collar or blue collar ... or how much money and influence I have, status, ...

And history shows people with hobbies advance science & Astronomy.

Asia is very similar to the West & America, but there is a place in society Asia for Monks, Aestetics, and those who decide to follow religious or spiritual ideas. I guess I used to be attracted to Asia for this reason....

[-] -3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Many educated people are aware that Chomsky has had answers to the questions regarding the failings of modern society, and has had them for a very long time. His advocacy of democratic, grass-roots socialism, as the most probably beneficial system is very likely correct."

I think the Chomsky/Foucault debate excerpt shows how ahead of his time Chomsky was back then. Science has shown more and more evidence that Chomsky was correct about these characteristics being part of our nature. And now, after advocating libertarian socialism/anarcho-syndicalism for several decades, we now see more and more people becoming fond of these ideas.

"Then why hasn't anybody listened?"

Well, a lot have listened, but not enough obviously. I think a big part of it is corporate propaganda. Concentrated private power has gotten more and more control of the media, and they have, of course, no interest in plugging Chomsky's ideas.

"It is here, I believe, that we are forced to delve even deeper into the question of human nature, and concede that human nature, rather then political theory, is really the key question"

I'm not sure if I totally agree with that. Our nature has a certain amount of determination, but we've also evolved a certain amount of free will, allowing lots of variation in our behavior and thinking.

"and I believe that we are in a postion now to be able to do so, and to define mankind and being in a way that has not before been possible."

I'm not sure if I agree with that either. There's a lot we don't understand about human nature - and the natural/physical world in general for that matter.

Now, I'm not saying we shouldnt try to reach these things you mention here, what I'm saying is that at this point in time we should be a little humble.

There's a lecture called "The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding" by NC, which I uploaded on youtube that I think you'll like. This is a very interesting lecture on human nature/philosophy/metaphysics. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5in5EdjhD0

"Thanks for that very interesting link:)"

No problem. Thanks for sharing your thoughts

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Unfortunately, I'm not able to address your points here one by one. These questions are simply too complex for me to be able to do that. But I would say that I think if people look at the implications of Plato, Darwin, Carl Rogers and recent discoveries in particle physics, among many other things, they will see the possiblilities in what I am saying. I would like here, however, to question your assertion that "at this point we should be a little humble."

If any times ever did, then current times call for a little audacity. Americans, for one, have been humble (intellectually and politically) to a fault. Our audacity has generally been restricted to the realm of being boors. This is what has been socially acceptable.

With a little impetus, perhaps we can all change that. A lot of Americans have very good ideas, but peer pressure (and the corporate media) has kept most of those ideas marginalized. Chomsky, whose ideas I have been following for about 40 years now, has been marginalized. I think Americans need to break these chains by becoming a little more audacious. :)

[-] -3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I agree, we should be bold and try to create a much better society. In my opinion we should eventually radically change the society.

All I'm saying is that when it comes to human nature we should be not very, but a little humble. We know some things about human nature, but our knowledge is far from complete.

But maybe we're splitting hairs a little here; like I explained in the article I linked to: our nature is fully in accordance with libertarian socialist principles, so let's work towards that goal, and see what science finds of new discoveries along the way.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Kind of chiming in to this string. Not sure the implication that human nature is unknown. Seems we know something:

1) Structure helps people learn, and helps many people accomplish goals or objectives.
2) Many press that Behaviorism is the strongest phychology, but I have many reservations about how humane it is.
3) Many hold up Humanism as a better school of pshychology.
4) We know Kings and Dictators often serve their own wishes at the expense of people, poor people, or serfs.
5) The nature of man often presents itself as greedy, covetous, jealous, egotistical, narcasistic,
6) We know slavery is wrong and believe Equality, inididual rights, and the right to self determination applies to men and sovereignity applies to nations.
7) We know Capitalism demands men work & Compete, and we must have money to buy things to make life comfortable, and this means survival depends on work or money.
8) Looks like Capitalism leads directly to war in the case of the USA. We know this because all of the wars since WWII were undeclared and completely unneccessary. Some faction within the US Political system keeps starting undeclared wars.
9) We know black is white and white is black in the US, due to propaganda/public relations which hold no one responsible for National Security Crisis of 2008 Financial Crisis.

Sorry don't know where I was going with this. It just helps if I get into the discussion.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

response to http://occupywallst.org/forum/abolish-capitalism/#comment-895225


Sure, think freely, challenge the established, but if you present claims you have to provide good arguments and sources. Science has a lot of unanswered questions in regards to human nature and the human brain, and we have to remember that when discussing complex issues like this.

If we're going to discuss human nature, I think it would be a good idea to pick one or a few topics at a time, and back up ones claims and opinions with good arguments and sources.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

It is easier to show corruption or show a reason to investigate corruption ... than it is to prove soft science. Economics, Philosophy, Psychology, sociology, it is all soft science. I think Marx said that ... or well I forget. You will wait a long time for me to try to prove anything in soft science. I won't try. It is too much like capitalism. screw that. Medicine is even soft science.

The problem with USA ...Is that people believe 90% of what they are told by an authority ...whether it is some study conducted some where, a news anchor, or a politician on the side they want to live with. BS.

You want facts, hard science. You want a revolution, then look to propaganda, persuasion, public relations, education, history, ....

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You presented claims, but I don't think you backed them up good enough. Human nature is such a complex topic, you need pretty good arguments and scientific work to back your claims.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Thanks. I was in left field ...I had to go back and see the debate videos and your web posting. I see there is a depth of unknowing. I also see how a structured examination can lead to deeper ideas and conclusions. Last night I was thinking of trying to pull structure from the videos ... and try to post them here. I actually think I am missing most of the Debate and the parameters or agenda that was agreed to. Chomsky is so smart, he probably wouldn't require a debate guidelines or agenda though.

As you can see I like to brainstorm and see where it leads. Free thinking. But I like what you had added to Anarcho-Syndicalism or Social Libertarianism... You already have the ground level knowledge, the rest of us are trying to see the structure for a discussion.

[-] -2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Yes, let's not split hairs, because I believe we are all working toward the same ends, and there is no reason that we should agree in every single detail. The important thing is fundamental change of the prevailing world-view and human ethic, which is corportatism, and which is degrading humanity and destroying this planet. Any means of waking people to that fact and persuading them of it's folly has my entire support.

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Agreed.

[-] -3 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I just inspired myself. I said "Or it could just be Gouging as we always suspect. Instead of shutting off sales overseas ... someone can profit from depleating the US Market of Potatos ... and profit off the Price Doubling. Of course. How very Wall Street."

This opens up a Subject of Protectionism. Shouldn't we Protect US workers by shutting off Outsourcing and Off Shoring ... just as we would if Exporting Oil or Food was driving up Prices by Creating Shortages in US Markets.

I think this is really a Mercantile Policy to protect our Merchants, our Producers, Our Manufacturers, Our Textile Industry, Our Agriculture, and ... Our Labor Force which has to be able to get Education and Job Skills Training.

Am I making any Sense.

Wikipedia talks about Mercantile Policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism Government Policy to Protect Industry ... which protects workers as well as the owners of the factories ...

If Neoliberalism has a basic goal of driving down wages and driving down US worker benefits ... then why wouldn't they want to destroy the Middle Class workers ... through Off-Shore Production ... through Off-shoring Services... through outsourcing Office or professional work ... through establishing off-shore corporate headquarters ...

But Why wouldn't the US Federal Government Move in to Protect the Future of US workers, the future of training of US workers, the financial security of the US workers, the affordablity of Food, Medical Care, Universities & Colleges, Trade Schools, Housing, .... Unless the US Government was "all in in the Neoliberalism" ...that anything goes ....that insider trading is okay ... that Shadow banking is okay ... that paying off US Ratings Agencies and paying off US Independent Audit Agencies is A-Okay ... that US Government Agencies that Regulate banks and finanical Instituations are "Feckless", toothless, have low staffing levels like thirdworld countries, don't have funding to support expensive civil court costs, and don't enforce the remaining laws that keep structure in the US banking and financial markets....

Does that make sense?

[-] -2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I don't know how many people took the time to read your entire OP above, but I did and must say it is an impressive display of writing that I agree with almost 100%, except that I have not yet totally made up my mind what type of socialism should replace capitalism. But your general arguments for the abolishment of capitalism (which I view as a form of slavery, and slavery was abolished on moral principles), seems unassailable to me.

The power-elite in this country has, in times past, attempted to merge economics with the state in order to defend "democracy" against "socialism/communism" by demonizing the political regimes of the time (e.g. Stalin or Mao), without actually pointing out the fact that capitalism, socialism, and communism are all economic frameworks whereby goods and services are provided to societies. That is NOT the same as the political/social frameworks of democracies/republics or dictatorial/militaristic governments. That is why I strongly advocate refering to countries by both their economic and political/social descriptors such as USA = Capitalistic Democracy, or Stalin's USSR = Socialist/Communist Dictatorship, etc.

The thing to be noted is that those countries such as the old Communist USSR or Communist China under Stalin or Mao were superceded politically by dictatorial histories going back centuries (Czars in the case of Russia, and Dynasties in the case of China prior to their revolution in the 20th century), so people had a natural inclination or toleration to be governed by dictatorship that was deeply ingrained in the culture of those regions of the world. To think that a country like ours, that has had over 200 years of democratic elections, would somehow "go dictatorial" with the implementation of socialism is a childish fantasy and propaganda promoted by the state-capitalistic power-elite who wish to preserve the status quo. But this is the type of fear-mongering that has gone on and that goes on, perhaps reaching its zenith with the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, when the "Red Scare" had reached the pinnacle of paranoia. Hopefully, the majority of US citizens have grown beyond such nonsense and can discern the difference between the sensible improvements socialism would provide over capitalism versus the propaganda that state capitalism would foist upon the population because it wishes to maintain the status quo that favors the capitalistic wealthy class.

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Glad you liked it.

I think it's pretty obvious what kind of socialism we should replace capitalism with: Libertarian Socialism. Libertarian Socialism is the reasonable, logical and just society we should strive for.

I wrote a post explaining this. I also put together a video. Please check them out:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarian-socialism-is-the-best-way-to-organ/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp

Leninism is awful. It would have lead to tyranny no matter how history would have looked like; and wherever it was implemented it did just that. Too much centralized power is not good; power corrupts.

What we should strive for is a libertarian socialist society which is based on non-hierarchical structures, with the workers and the communities controlling the economic institutions.

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I'm just not entirely sure you understand the difference between Captailism, and a constitutional republic. Have you ever researched microeconomics?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What kind of economic system do you want?

And what would you like to see happening now in terms of taxes, welfare etc in order to get to this dream society of yours?

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Dream society? Why use subverting terminology? Why insult? That's damaging to your message.

My economic view is based on barter and trade, precious metal trade, as well as other digital currencies tha have been adopted (outside of the banking system).

You avoided my question. So I ask again:

Do you know the difference between economic policy and governing policy? Also, have you done the research on Neo-fudelistic trends in American "capitalism"?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Dream society as in what kind of society would you like. It wasn't an insult.

So you want a more or less laissez faire economic system, with no/very little regulations. In your system there's private ownership of the economic institutions. That's undemocratic; it prevents people from having control of their own lives. The economic institutions must be run democratically.

The answer to your questions is yes. Is there a point to these questions. Present the arguments, please.

What would you like to see done with taxes, welfare, medicare etc on the way to the society you want?

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I believe in the freedom of choice. Banking needs to be decentralized. Every source of fiat banking is poisionous. However if the citizen wants to have their currency, of choice, into a bank they have the choice of where that goes. Public, Private or Corp. You cannot make that choice for an entire community of people.

Taxes need to be ended or equally represented for all. Welfare should be done on as needed basis. However the people can either choose to donate to keep those institutions running or create solutions to generate jobs.

Healthcare needs to either be made completely universal or ended completely. We need a new model for Healthcare moving forward.

What other issues concern you?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

This boils down to DEMOCRACY. If we want people to be able to have control over their own lives, work and community, we must build a participatory democracy without private ownership of the economic institutions. Communities and workplaces must be democratically controlled by the participants. Tyranny - which is what capitalist institutions are - should be dismantled.

A society in which the amount of influence and control you have in your community is determined by how much cash and resourses you have, is immoral and undemocratic.

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

But you see that's where your logic breaks down. Private banks are privately owned and ran. Smaller banks or credit unions that open help recover local economies.

You telling those same local people they can't have a private bank is also tyranny.

I think the use of democracy is a little over exaggerated here...we were never a democracy. But you're partially right. But it isn't our place to make morality calls.

We must clean up or economies, instate alternative currencies, end the fed, and produce jobs. Ending capitalism isn't going to do that. Most anti-capitalists want to keep the fed in tact. That is asinine.

Also why ignore my points?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Workplaces and communities should be controlled democratically by the participants. That way people are in control of their own lives.

When the economic institutions are owned privately, it weakens democracy (as I explained in the article). These institutions must therefore be democratized, so that they're run by the people participating. Capitalism must be abolished and replaced by democracy.

You were going in a lot of different directions with your points.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Which could be a choice for the people. However it's not our place to say there can't be private banks. That's tyranny.

You seem to be confusing the regulation of capitalism and democracy again. Governing process and economics need to be separated.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

It's not about forcing people to abolish capitalism. A libertarian socialist society can only become reality when the communities want it.

The economy is all encompassing; it must be controlled and run democratically by the participats and the ones affected.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

How else do you expect to abolish it? It's either by force or by vote. Our voting machines are fixed therefore this idea, much like other ideologic social movements, would be quashed by voter suppression.

Again I ask you address my points:

1)Ending Fiat money 2)instate alternative currencies 3)Make inside trading illegal and pusishable by law 4)End voter suppression 5)Elect liberty minded candidates

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"How else do you expect to abolish it?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-fight-capitalism-the-1/

It's about getting the people engaged and convinced of fighting capitalism in their community.

"1)Ending Fiat money 2)instate alternative currencies"

This is not important. The important thing is to create a more democratic society.

"3)Make inside trading illegal and pusishable by law 4)End voter suppression"

Sure. That sounds fine.

"5)Elect liberty minded candidates"

Libertarians don't advocate liberty, they advocate tyranny:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-are-gary-johnson-and-ron-paul-really-advocati/

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

You're wrong. Very wrong. I personally do not label myself within the paradigm, however perpetuation of disinformation concerning libertarians is dividing the resistance.

Also it is important to to end FIAT currencies and instate alternative currencies. Our system continually devalues our economy. How does your plan plan to fix this issue?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"You are wrong. No true libertarian believes that corps and government should have more access to money, nor power."

Libertarians want to privatize more goods and services and give enormous tax cuts to the wealthy. Do I really have to explain to you that this will make the financial elite even more richer and powerful?

"You are spouting disinformation."

No, I'm not. Libertarian ideology wants more or less free marked capitalism; in this society you have power and infulence based on your access to wealth and resources.

"Now it shouldn't be our only forcus, but you still have to give the choice to those who prefer private banking the choice."

Like I argued in the article: privately run institutions limit democracy and individual freedom. Institutions that are exploitative, undemocratic, and immoral shouldn't be alternatives, they should be abolished.

There are lots of alternatives one could set up in a society, but which are so immoral and grotesque that we simply don't implement them. That should the case of Capitalist institutions as well

The economy is also all-encompassing. It must be democratized so that the people are in control.

"Taking that away is tyranny."

Please pay attention. I said that LS can only become reality when the people and communities want it.

"You once again are mixing up economic policy and governing rule of law. Please address this."

I've said it many times now: The economic institutions must be run democratically by the workforce and the communities, so that people are in control of their own life and work. What is it about this that you don't understand?

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

You are spouting disinformation. You are scapegoating.

I agree that mega banks need to be ended, but not capitalism. In fact we need to instate both democratic banking options and true capitalism. Our society lives through crony capitalism.

I was paying attention, but you are demanding capitalism be abolished. The only way to do that is by force, which is un democratic.

Community ran banking isn't a bad idea bit once again you haven't touched on the idea of equal choice.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"I agree that mega banks need to be ended"

How so? You want to give huge tax cuts to the owners and the big corporations. You want to hand more power over to the wealthy who own these big and powerful institutions.

"but not capitalism."

Systems that are undemocratic, tyrannical, exploitative and immoral must be abolished.

"Our society lives through crony capitalism."

and you wnat to deregulate capitalism even more making the wealthy even more powerful.

"I was paying attention, but you are demanding capitalism be abolished. The only way to do that is by force, which is un democratic."

You're still not paying attention. Which part of the sentence "A libertarian socialist society can only become reality when the communities want it." did you not understand?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Actually, I'm a reformed libertarian.

If you actually understood the parties goals you would run away screaming.

It's you who needs to look more closely. I already did.

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I look at the facts across the board, outside the paradigm. I see that on both sides of the paradigmatic machine that disinformation is propagated by those who don't look at the entire truth.

Please don't tell me what I NEED to do. I devote my life to exposing the entire truth and work towards an attainable economic goal.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I have yet to meet a single libe(R)tarian willing to admit that the modern party was co-founded by a Koch, with the endorsement of their daddy who founded the John Birch Society. Let alone that today the Kochs have paid to wrest "independant" control of CATO, back into the Koch fold.

Libe(R)tarians are the most misguided political lot out there.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What really baffles me is that so many of these libertarians actually dispute the fact that corporations would get enourmosly more powerful if they had it their way. I mean, how hard is it to understand that privatizing and giving tax cuts to the rich will make them even more wealthy and powerful..

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Well I personally know a handful of libertarians working alongside occupy that expose the Koch brothers. You are scapegoating an ideology you haven't taken the time to research thoroughly. I will give some credit towards the notion that brainwashed libs support the GOP, but that isn't the consciousness across the board.

Once again you are dodging my question:

'How does your plan of democratic economics plan to address the devaluation Of the USD without ending the fed?"

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No, I'm right!

Libertarians and other like-minded people want to privatize more services and give huge tax cuts to the super wealthy and the big corporations. That means more wealth andpower into the hands of the non-elected financial elite - tyranny!

It's not alternative currencies that should be our focus. The important thing to focus on and deal with is the enormous concentration of private wealth and power, and working for a more democratic society so that people can have control over their own lives.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

You are wrong. No true libertarian believes that corps and government should have more access to money, nor power. You really need to look into the facts on this subject because you are wrong. You are spouting disinformation.

Now it shouldn't be our only forcus, but you still have to give the choice to those who prefer private banking the choice. Taking that away is tyranny.

You once again are mixing up economic policy and governing rule of law. Please address this.

[-] -2 points by Kinetica (14) from Houston, TX 1 year ago

Democratic Socialism is the way.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Socialism that is built and controlled democratically from below is what we must strive for. I advocate Libertarian Socialism, which advocates a real participatory democracy in which people are in control of their own lives, work and communities:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarian-socialism-is-the-best-way-to-organ/

[+] -6 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

the implementation of socialism ( marxism , fascsim) has murdered over 80 mil people. capitalism encourages people, they work, save, spend, start business's. everybody prospers.

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Looks like there are big distictions between kinds of Socialism. Mao's Program killed like 30 Million people through starvation & Poverty. Stalinism Killed 20 Million. Pol Pot killed 8 Million under whatever system or Regime. There should be a number placed on people killed by US, NATO, or UN Sanctions ... since we are talking Ideology.

1) Marxism is different 2) Leninism or Trotskyism are different
3) Bolshevism is different
4) Russian Communism is separate
5) Chinese Communism (seems like Russian, but probably was a Maoist style revolution)
6) No clue if Cuba Communism is different
7) France and Europe have Social education and Social Medicine, and so for most US Political Discussion they are called Socialist and unworthy of any examination. In truth most US political thought and philosophy comes from Europe. We should learn more. But Social Control in the US has reduced Political discussion to Right or Wrong (Partly due to MSM control).

Killed by the Catholic Church? guesstimate of 100,000 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080829095434AAuK2UD

But Oppression and Domination by a Foreign Power or a Totalitarian Regime probably is another question. Europe seems to have been dominated by Feudal systems Historically that also enslaved many people until a few centuries ago. Does anyboby think that is acceptable...probably not many.

Noam Chomsky says that Communism in Russia/USSR was more of a Totalitarian Regime than a Socialist Regime. He also says it was predicted by noteable Socialist...and Trotsky himself.

Sorry obviously I just watched some videos and am not really directing much of this toward you. I haven't posted much in like 2 weeks, so don't know if I will see any reply quickly.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

There are very significant differences between marxism/socialism and leninism/Stalinism. The Soviet system was awful. Socialism on the other hand, real socialism that is, with workers controlling the means of production, is a very good idea.

Capitalism is, like I said in the article, an awful system. It's undemocratic and immoral, it must be abolished.

[+] -4 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

workers controlling the means of production? never happend . there will always be an elite that will kep the workers down. socialism is a left wing wet dream.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

There are no elites in libertarian socialism.

We've seen many examples of workers' self-management working very well.

[-] -2 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

you so naive.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

How so?

Again, could you present some counter argumnets?

[-] -1 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

i read the link you posted, it has no base in the reality of life. it's a left wing fantasy. im too tired to go through it all with you.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"it has no base in the reality of life. it's a left wing fantasy."

How so. Explain.

"im too tired to go through it all with you."

Then get some sleep, and then explain.

[+] -7 points by newShep (-179) 1 year ago

socialism never worked in other Countries and will not work here either

[+] -4 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

every generation thinks that the only reason socialism has never worked is because it was never done the right way, never done by the right people .. the truth is, it will never work, it can never be a success, its a failure from the get go. BUT the mush minds of every generation that get indoctrinated with this crap in the school systems ( by socialist teachers) keep pushing it. they have also been taught that capitalism is BAD. capitalism isnt perfect , but its the best system around, it lifts everyone up, socialism brings everyone down.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Libertarian Socialism has worked very well (cf 1930s Spain fex).

Capitalism is one of the worst systems around, it must be abolished and replaced by a real participatory democracy.

[-] -3 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

capitalism is the best ( but not perfect) economic system, it lifts everyone, socialism brings everyone and everything down. there is no perfect economic system , but capitalism is the best.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No, capitalism is one of the worst systems. I mentioned some of the reasons in the article. Did you read it. What do disagree with?

[-] -3 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

capitalism is great, the article is crap.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What's crap? What do you disagee with and what are your counter argumnets?

[-] -3 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

the whole thing.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

But explain why. Present some counter arguments.

[-] -2 points by GregT (-1) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Clearly, in the US at least, the root of all of this is the Fed. Should not the thrust be Occupy the Fed. It is owned by the mega banks and has usurped the US money system in violation of the Constitution. Surely, the crucial step in breaking the grip of capitalism is to cut off its funny money supply, the Fed!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No, the root of all this is the enormous concentration of private power. Capitalism is immoral and tyrannical, it must be abolished and replaced by a participatory democracy - libertarian socialism.

[-] -3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Can you stop dodging the question... Why do always avoid the fed question?

[-] -3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I'm not dodging. My answer to you and everyone else who have asked me this is:

As a libertarian socialist I think there are many problems with the fed, but making it our main focus is a mistake. The real problem is that enormous wealth and power is highly concentrated. What needs to be ended is corporate tyranny.

[+] -5 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I do agree that corp. tyranny needs to be ended, but the fed is one of those establishments. We need to end the elites hand in economics across the board.

So ending the FED, as well as the FiAT currency it is attached to, is a step in the right direction.

Also something I agree with is your beliefs in concentrated power and wealth...however to say one cannot have wealth is tyranny. What about those who worked their way from the bottom, to the top? Their work would all be vain according to your philosophy.

I agree banking needs to be decentralized, but we have to make progress towards attaining that goal. Forcing that change is tyranny.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28259) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

People can have wealth - it just needs to be healthy - they the wealthy need to support society - they benefit from society. So shifting the income discrepancy back towards a closer parity is not tyranny - but the removal of past tyranny and a restoration of a healthy economy for ALL.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

That's not what SFF is advocating. SFf wants capitalism completely abolished.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28259) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And perhaps someday that could happen - as society matures. Right now society/humanity has an awful lot of growing/maturing to do - before that is likely to happen.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Well DK, the only thing I can say is that we better hurry up and "mature" real soon because we are running out of time under the current mode of operation. That, in fact, is THE problem...we are running out of time. We are destroying the planet with overconsumption of resources, overpopulation, destruction of environment/habitats, etc., etc., etc., so I'm not so sure I can agree that we must take a "wait for society to mature" approach to this. I think we are going to have to force the issue if we can and speed up this social maturation process...drag people kicking and screaming along to the next level, simply because there is too much at stake now, and the planet has never been in a situation like this before in all of recorded history to our knowledge.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28259) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No you are correct - we can not take a wait and see attitude about our environment. I responded to another post about electric cars today - only I think we would be much further ahead of the game to switch over from fossil fuel use to using liquid hydrogen in all forms of transportation or work vehicle - anything that currently uses an internal combustion engine - even for powering generators for producing electricity.

I had run across a report on the use of liquid hydrogen for use in fueling airplanes/jets and figured that this would be used in a bottle storage/delivery system - the same as using bottled liquid propane or natural gas. The hang-up till now has always been the pursuit of a fuel cell - I mean WTF(?) why do we need to use a fuel cell if we can just use a bottle same as for propane? Gas stations already refuel propane cylinders/bottles why the hell couldn't they do the same for liquid hydrogen? It is the same process.

As for the needed changes in the manufacturing of transportation - it would be absolutely minimal even to the point of upgrading most gasoline burners on the road today. There are already hybrid vehicles which use liquid propane as well as gasoline and all that is needed is a flick of a switch on the dashboard to switch from the propane to the gasoline tank and back again. It just requires an upgrade to the carburation and the mounting of a liquid hydrogen cylinder/bottle in the same manner as with the propane bottle. Diesel would be a bit tougher in that the oil would need a separate delivery to the mixing point going into the cylinders.

As Liquid Hydrogen production ramps up to meet the demand - gasoline can be removed from the process - it could perhaps be removed quicker by using a hybrid liquid propane ( or methane ? - don't need to frack for methane - just ferment garbage or plant material waste - sewer gas is methane ) and liquid hydrogen set-up.

But high volume liquid hydrogen storage and delivery already exists as Air Products company delivers or delivered to NASA what they needed for launches.

[-] 0 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Check this out

And this is the latest bad news that I just heard about today.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28259) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

BTW - people who do not want electric heat - no prob - burn liquid hydrogen in your furnace.

Liquid hydrogen stove/oven?????

Delivery could use natural gas pipelines????

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Agreed. I think aspects of both a socialist and capitalist influence on economy are beneficial to society as a whole.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"I do agree that corp. tyranny needs to be ended"

So you think privatization and tax cuts for the wealthy is going to end corporate tyranny?

"however to say one cannot have wealth is tyranny."

Having undemocratic control in the economy and over the institutions in society is tyranny.

"What about those who worked their way from the bottom, to the top?"

Irrelevant, if one likes the idea of democracy and people being able to contro their own lives.

"Their work would all be vain according to your philosophy."

Work, production, distribution etc must be controlled democratically by the participants, and it must be based on human creativity and cooperation, not hunt for personal wealth.

[+] -4 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I believe that people have a choice to go private or public. That's what democracy is all about--the choice. How is it irrelevant? Don't dodge the question. That's all well intentioned, but once again how do you plan to fix the issue with devaluation and market manipulation?

Also you dodged the question.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"I believe that people have a choice to go private or public."

Again, there are lots of choices we could offer the public, but which are too immoral and awful to actually implement. Any systems that are tyrannical must be abolished.

"That's what democracy is all about--the choice."

No, democracy is about people controlling their own lives and work. Democracy shouldn't stop once you enter your workplace; workplaces must be run democratically.

"How is it irrelevant?"

Because rich people have more power in society than the non-rich. Decition-making in society should be based on democracy, not by your access to wealth.

"how do you plan to fix the issue with devaluation and market manipulation?"

Anarcho-syndicalism.

"Also you dodged the question."

That would be you.

So you think privatization and tax cuts for the wealthy is going to end corporate tyranny?

[-] -3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

No democracy is about a vote, not about forcing your will unto the public. Wealth is earned, I don't agree with your narrow view on capitalism.

That's not an explanation, that has nothing to do with devaluation. Do you understand that concept?

No, not once did I state that. However, I do think that given the chance to choose, citizens will take the banking system back. However forcing them to do so is tyranny. Abolishing Captailism is use of force.

So once again how do you plan to address devaluation and market manipulation? Do not judge or rephrase...just answer the question....

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Like I've said 3-4 times now:

A libertarian socialist society can only become reality when the communities want it.

Do you have a problem with this; if so, why?

There are lots of different circumstances in which people have become rich. Rich people have more power in society; that's undemocratic. I explained this more thoroughly in the article.

There shouldn't be anything controvercial about what I written about Capitalism. What I have stated are pretty obvious facts.

"So once again how do you plan to address devaluation and market manipulation?"

I gave you an answer. What's unclear? Anarcho-Syndicalism would solve a lot of problems in society.

Please answer this question:

Do you think privatization and tax cuts for the wealthy is going to end corporate tyranny?

[-] -3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I don't have a problem with that. Just don't expect everyone to accept abolish Captailism.

But what about those who have worked for their wealth their entire lives? What about their wages? Do you not believe that people should be compensated for their work?

What's unclear is how your plan would focus on devaluation and market maninuplation, without end to FIAT, banker controlled, fictional notes.

As I replied earlier in the thread: I don't agree with tax cuts for the elite, I don't believe in tax cuts for anyone. Privatization of banks is a choice. If the citizens choose to go that route, it isn't our place to deny that. What will end tyranny is a change to our economic system, decentralization of money, as well as focusing on local economies.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

It's up to every individual if he/she wants to organize to try to create a society without capitalism.

Rich people have gotten most of their wealth at the expence of others. In capitalism there are lots of examples of pay not being proportional to hard work. Many work super hard for minimum wage, while others make huge profits simply by just owning economic institutions.

People should be able to have a decent life no matter how efficient they work. We have enormous wealth; we should spread it so that everyone at least can get access to necessities.

What I'm concerned with is creating a society in which people control their own lives, work and community. Creating a real libertarian socialist participatory democracy, with workers and communities controlling the economy, would make the problems we see today disappear. How all the details are handled is up to the ones participating

If you like the idea of democracy, you'd be against privatization. Privatization means handing power over to corporate tyranny.

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Also, I'm for democracy, I'm just not for overstepping to make the choice for the people. Direct democracy, in government applications, leads to dictatorship.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I wrote a little bit about libertarian socialism here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarian-socialism-is-the-best-way-to-organ/

LS is completely different from AC. In AC you'd have all the things I mentioned in the forum post.

You're way off.

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I'm not actually. Now I never said that they were exactly the same. Ones a leftist ideal, one is a rightist ideal. I personally believe a mix of the two is attainable.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Democracy must be controlled and run from below.

If you really believe in democracy, you should advocate people having the right to democratically control their own workplace and community .

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I do support that. I just believe that everyone should be given a choice. ABOLISHING Neo-Fudelism is what we need to see in this world. However, capitalism is an entirely different subject.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

You're way off in the comment I responded to, and you'd understand that if you read my forum post and this: http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarian-socialism-is-the-best-way-to-organ/

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

See this is where your thought process encourages intellectual tyranny. I have considered and included some of what you stated here. But you insist on dodging my statements. So I'll end this.

Your view is biased.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Then they don't know what they're talking about. Libertarian Socialism is about abolishing capitalism.

No, these are your claims, so you're going to have to explain how AC and LS share the common qualities of economic freedom.

Please also give a link to the NC reference.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Well first of all not everyone is going to share your same view. Labeling yourself as one set ideology is damaging to society as whole. Literally if play into paradigm politics, and not free thought.

As far as the blurring qualities of ideologies, both LS and AC believe in the freedom that citizens have the right of vouleentary trade, human rights, communes, and a strong background in worker focus & ousting of any authortarian embodiment in citizen run economics.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Meaning that AC/LS share the common qualities of anti-state, and economic freedom (from corps., governments, as well as NGO's)"

No they don't. And as long as you don't understand that what you said here is totally false, I see no point in continuing this. Like I said before: It's meaningless to have a discussion on ideas and ideologies if you don't understand what they are.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I know a lot of LS who will debate you on this subject. What don't you agree with? Because in NH there is a huge anti-state LS commune.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

First you have to elaborate on what you meant by

"To also be frank LS still fall under the category of anarcho-capitalism"

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Meaning that AC/LS share the common qualities of anti-state, and economic freedom (from corps., governments, as well as NGO's). There are however distinct differences between the two. In America these two sepreate ideologies are blurred by implementation. Which basically boils down to how it's introduced to society. Noam has touched on this many times.

Which is why I asked you how your LS plan will safeguard against devaluation of monetary value, as well as GDP.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I don't think we can have this discussion anymore. You're going to have to do some serious studying in order for this to work. It's meaningless to have a discussion on ideas and ideologies if you don't understand what they are.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

No, I addressed your points. You address mine. I thanked you for your information and have considered incorporating LS ideals into my current local campaigns.

So please answer my questions.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I understand the concept. Do you understand that these things you're talking about arn't going to do anything to weaken/dismantle an immoral, undemocratic and exploitative system, and that if a LS were established, the economic problems today would disappear?

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I disagree. I believe that no matter who is in control of FIAT money, will be manipulate the markets and devalue our economy. We have to change that idea and connect our monetary system to commodity. (Given this idea is one the people stand for...) however you can't abolish an idea. To also be frank LS still fall under the category of anarcho-capitalism, so truly the right wing policies will never be dead in America.

That isn't to say they aren't corrupt. They are. I believe that we need to make change by winning our battles and making change locally by putting economics into the hands of the citizens. Do you agree or disagree?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What would happen in a libertarian socialist society is that the economy would be controlled democratically. Production, distribution and so on, would be run and controlled by the participants thru democratic process. There'd be no central state power or capitalist owners to whom enormous sums of cash would go to. It would be a soceity that uses its resources for production and distribution for the wellbeing of all. If this kind of society were to be established we'd not have the problems we see today.

In other words, It is establishing this kind of participatroy democracy that must be our goal, not dealing with things that are not going to end/weaken an unsustianable, immoral and undemocratic system - capitalism.

Again, there are lots of choises that could be offered, but which are too immoral to implement. Private economic institutions weaken democracy and are immoral and exploitative. Systems with these characteristics shouldn't be alternatives. Besides, the economy is all-encompassing; all economic institutions must be run democratically. But that can of course only happen when the people want it and take action.

I explained in the forum post why capitalism must be dismantled.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

That still doesn't explain devaluation. Do you understand this concept? Thankyou for the info though.

[-] -3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Thank you for responding with an actual thoughtful response. But I what I'm asking that keeps getting dodged is how this economic system would address devaluation and market manipulation directly? Being as the FIAT notes are being printed in mass without representation of commodity.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I'm not dodging. I gave you an answer; it's just you who aren't satisfied with it.

In an anarcho-syndicalist society, all the economic problems we see today would eventually disappear. Don't you agree with that?

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

No. I don't. Because if you study history, you'd see any FIAT system of money goes through devaluation. Specifically what will LS do to safeguard against this?

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

'Cause the FED is just a scapegoat for neolibe(R)tarian economic activity, but just when it goes wrong.

Gotta blame all that inflation on something else.

Hey!!!!

Look over there!!!

A liberal!!

[-] -3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I don't blame anything on the left or the right. I blame it on those who were coddled to devalue and manipulate our markets.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I blame it all on neolibe(R)tarians, because they really are who did all this shit.

You know, the guys that run all WallStreet style operations?

Notice that they are the ones that have profited throughout the recession.

[+] -4 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I disagree. It was the the neocons and DINO's, both who serve the agenda of .001%.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'm sorry. The point you're missing is the that top .001% ARE the neoliobe(R)tarians.

You can't disagree with reality.

Isn't the illusion Ayn created a funny thing?

[+] -4 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I agree Ayn is a threat, but not all libertarians are. We have to out an end to paradigm disinformation.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Too bad for you.

Ayn is the heart and soul of the modern libe(R)tarian party, like it or not.

That's why the Kochs and a whole lot of (R)epelican'ts distribute her books.

Why the fuck do you think they they call him Rand?

And if he and daddy are such wonderful libe(R)tarians, why do they both serve as foils within the GOP?

LOL.... The biggest disinformation paradigm around was the one behind Ron Paul.

[+] -4 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

PS Rand is a goon. He is not representing the liberty movement, he represents the GOP.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Name calling isn't really useful in this context.

Rand was raised on libe(R)tarianism by his father.

If it wasn't for Ayn defining it in the 30s and 40s and the Kochs and their corporate partners founding and promoting it in the 70s and 80s, you and I would likely have never heard of it.

[-] -3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I disagree. It wasn't an insult. It's a fact.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So is what I wrote, and it provides useful information too, unlike what you wrote.

Information that you refuse to acknowledge.

[+] -4 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

What information? You blindly scapegoat and call out the right with no criticism of the left....

[+] -4 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I have always stood behind the notion that politicians can't be trusted. I put my faith into the people. The citizens who stand for true liberty and freedom are who I will defend to my death. Just as you will continue to slam the right wing.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The "right wing" slammed me first and foremost.

I reserve the personal right to slam them back to the best of my ability.

BTW: Faith is for the religious and I don't trust your personal libe(R)tarian definition of "true liberty and freedom".

It would seem, by your definition that ultimately all law is tyranny.

That's just one more thing about libe(R)tarianism that just doesn't work.

[-] -3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

That's your choice...I just feel that it's a waste of time when we could focus on real issues.

Nope. Actually I am a Pre-law student that focuses on human rights and environmental law.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

WTF are you talkin' about?

Those fuckheads on the "right" made the "choice" to slam me without mercy.

Fact is, it was they who drove me to libe(R)tarianism.

Now that I've learned my lesson, I will not hold back on the truth of what they BOTH have done.

To do so, would be to practice lying.

As far as your pre-law? We'll see where you end up and who your heroes in law are.

The libe(R)tarian view on human rights is really, really fucked up, and so far, not much better on the environment...........Neolibe(R)tarians are as bad as anyone in history on both counts, so it doesn't look too good.

[-] -3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

What's funny is you are ranting about libertarians and assume I am one lol...

I don't have heroes in our system. It's corrupt and I refuse to idolize dirty politics.

[+] -4 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Also the FED is responsible for the 2008 Economic crisis, in which $17B of assets were traded backdoor with wall st. , instead of used to equalize our economy.

This is not a left issue, this is not a right issue!! This is a human rights issue. The moment both sides stop scapegoating, is the moment we can progress together.

[-] -2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 1 year ago

To replace the capitalist system, we would still need careful decision making regarding economic prosperity. To do this we would need to elect our decision makers, with the ability to remove those making poor decisions. As is now the case the decision makers over our economy have all the wealth and can not easily be removed .. The power stays in their capitalist' hands to control the over all wealth of the people. To change this can only be done through democracy and legislation. And we have democracy and legislation, but yet the capitalist system remains intact. Is this due to the fact the wealthy have the upper hand, the wealthy control/own the media,(and perhaps own our politicains too) and therefore block the path to 'change of any real democratically sponsored condition ?

The good news: An unfair system such as we have in our current capitalist system, will not hold on forever. Mankind will eventually unite on fairness, and greed will be conquered.

Excellent post SFF.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Careful decision-making when it comes to the economy is important at any point in time. What we must do is work to create a society in which these important decisions in the economy are done based on democracy and participation. Libertarian Socialism is, as you know, about creating a very well organized society, but unlike capitalism LS advocates that it must the participants who control society.

I think that direct action by the communities and the workers is very important. Electing representatives in a political system such as the American one for example, I see many problems with. Party politics in the US is run by the corporations to a large extent, so organizing outside party politics is important.

The more people that start organizing, the closer we get to dismantling corporate tyranny.

“but yet the capitalist system remains intact. Is this due to the fact the wealthy have the upper hand, the wealthy control/own the media,(and perhaps own our politicains too) and therefore block the path to 'change of any real democratically sponsored condition ?”

Yes. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suVPWNo4rcM&feature=plcp

“Mankind will eventually unite on fairness, and greed will be conquered.”

Absolutely! A free, just participatory democracy, based on solidarity, workers control and equality is the way to go. Occupy your Workplace! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRy5ZIYZok&feature=plcp

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 1 year ago

" Careful decision-making when it comes to the economy is important at any point in time."

President Obama recently spoke of reducing the debt. It made me wonder if any of the 1% really care about the debt, or what state the economy is in ? Like seriously, for the greedy rich to be losing sleep over the state of the economy or the size of the National Debt.. hardly likely. Back when Mr Obama announced his 780 Billion dollar bailout package, the greedy wealthy were sharpening their knives getting ready to dig into the pie ! The point is this : Careful economic decisions are not being made by the rich on the poors behalf.. no no no not at all . That is how /why we have such an unbalanced distribution of wealth. But if we could replace these decisions makers with elected qualified people ..than perhaps the balance of wealth would equalize across the land. It's a lot to ask for , for those in power and control will not give up without a fight.. fairness or no fairness , they will not give up their lust/greed for power.

How did the power ever get in such criminal hands ...? I am pretty sure it is those powerful wealthy criminals that are spreading the rumours about Capitalism being the best system on Earth.

Have a nice day.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Making sure more decent and left-leaning politicans replace the right wing, so that there'd be more people like Kucinich, Sanders, Stein in office etc, could be a short term goal. But like I said, activism and organizing outside party politics is very important. Things like striking, civil disobedience, community organizing, workers' takeover of industry etc etc is definitely worth prioritizing.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

From what I noticed they care very much, because they have many investments and are going to lose a shit ton of money when this thing falls apart. Most of the 1% didnt see anything from the stimulus.

The problems we have are really more like .01%. Anyone who knows a few millionaires knows they are far from the problem going on right now.

The power got in their hands because the people are too worried about nonsense. Just go on facebook and look around....

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 1 year ago

If I recall , the stimulus brought the stock market back up yo where it is today.. which is where most of the 1% hoard their wealth.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I think that QE 1, 2, Twist and now QE3 are way more of reason for it continuing to stay where it is.

Either way, its just bullshit stimulus. With the ECB and the Fed having already commited to open ended stimulus, they really dont have any more tricks up their sleeves to use.

Now its up to Congress to fix the mess they were paid to create.

Uh oh!!

[-] -2 points by rickMoss (435) 1 year ago

Capitalism died in 1929. It's impossible to kill what does not exist.

“Be Smart!” - FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://revolution2.osixs.org )

Non U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.2” at ( http://SaveTheWorldNow.osixs.org )

How else can I say this? "We Are Free!"http://WeAreFree.osixs.org "Spread the News"

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

We have state-capitalism. It is this current system I'm criticizing in the post. No, we don't have laissez faire capitalism..that would be awful. Lf would be even more tyrannical and destructive than today's system.

Capitalism - regulated or non-regulated - must be abolished and replaced by a participatory democracy in which people are in control of their own lives.

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 1 year ago

I agree, we need to replace our democratic republic.But talking about it is not the same as doing it.OsiXs is a group of scientists that came up with a brilliant plan to transition to a direct democracy where the people actually are in charge of their government and their own lives. Now who the hell could have thought that the people would actually want to be in charge of their own lives - Brilliant. That's what “Common Sense 3.1” ( http://revolution2.osixs.org ) is all about. But of course the 1% won't like it. They won't have anymore poor dumb slaves to serve. Oh-well! See you on the other side.

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

OsiXs (Government 2.0)

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Do you think that capitalism/state-capitalism eventually must be dismantled, in favor of a society based on workers and communities controlling the economic institutions democratically?

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 1 year ago

Capitlism if that's what you want to call it, is collapsing as we speak. We don't have a choice but to move on to something different and more advanced or we've had it!

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

OsiXs (More Power and Technology to the People!)

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

So you agree that capitalism must be dismantled and eventually replaced by a libertarian socialist society?

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 1 year ago

Capitalism is destroying itself and us with it. It's unsustainable. We have the technology to build a society that is more than just socialist and libertarian. We really don't have much of a choice. We can choose to be free or we can choose to be slaves to the end. And it will end...

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM How else can I say this? "We Are Free!"http://WeAreFree.osixs.org "

Spread the News"

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

How should the economy be controlled and run, in your view? Do you agree that it should be organized democratically by the institutions and the communities?

[-] -3 points by GenerationOfPeace (-15) 1 year ago

Ya! Get rid of capitalism! It sucks! It only got us to 12th in per capita GDP (according to the UN) with ten times the population of the next most populated nation! Ya! Lets go with socialism!! Venezuela does it right! $10,000 per capita GDP!!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

GOP - joined . . . today! Bringing us the GOP message. Had a diiferent username yesterday. Wants us to believe he's somebody new here. Yawn.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28259) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You - you can't - youcan't mean it has all been....... A .... Sham???

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

LOL!!!!!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28259) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Oh - my shattered dreams.................

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Stop! You're killing me!!!!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28259) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It was such a lovely name .... so full of ..................... hope

sigh..............

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

You know they're going to have to give these guys some kind of drug to keep their minds from accidently getting expanded!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28259) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I think they are made to chew lead while on duty.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha . . . !!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

It's not x profiting on y's work that causes wealth and increased standards of living.

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Aww...someone just took their first poli-sci class in college.

Adorable.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Don't discredit, face the content presented by SFF

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"Don't discredit"

don't tell me what to do. so typical of you hypocritical progs. I suppose you've solved all the problems in your own life and now you want to bestow your infinite wisdom on the rest of us by realizing it is your destiny to solve everyone else's problems and forcing (via state power) your own failed solutions on everyone else. I'm sure it has nothing to do with ego.

"face the content presented by SFF"

see, you're doing it again. always with the commands for others to do things you can't be bothered to do yourselves.

"abolsih capitalism" - what else needs to be said to such inanity?

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I see that you clearly have no interest in facing the entire truth. I'm not forcing you to do anything. You are of your own violtion.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Condescending and meaningless! I guess that's all you got.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

FTFY...

"Right? That comment you responded to was condescending and meaningless! I guess that's all OWS has got."

Well, that and bomb making, gun-hoarding, radical-chic wannabe terrorists in Greenwich Village....

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/bombmaking_in_the_village_LoRDqNzP02SDZyfC1pLVXN

another proud, proud moment for the OWS hypocrites.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28259) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Not the description of your average occupier - Hey?

From your article:

The privileged daughter of a prominent city doctor

OWS/Occupy is not and never has been about violence.

Perhaps this is instead another proud moment for the FBI home set-up squad - Hey?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It appears only the repub party pr machine (Murdochs post) have suggested a connection to OWS.

The other respectable news sources did not make such unproven, reckless, partisan claims.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Non sensical isolated incident most likely not related to Occupy at all.

We are a non violent movement. We are progressives that believe in helping people (occupy sandy, rolling jubilee)

Nothing about what we do is violent.

Try again.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Well, it's been a couple of years since I took such classes, but you're right, I have studied political science at the university.

But was that all you had to say? How is what I've studied/not studied relevant to the things I wrote in the post? Do you have any counter arguments to the things mentioned in the post?

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"But was that all you had to say?"

in response to the idea of abolishing capitalism? the only other thing would be very harsh and personally insulting.

abolish capitalism? grow the F up.

(that better? was your need for attention salved?)

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The Capitalist/state-capitalist system is not graven in stone, it can be dismantled. Capitalism is tyrannical, and should be dismantled and replaced by a free, sustainable participatory democracy: Libertarian Socialism.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago
  1. everyone has equal vote. And corporations dont get to vote.
  2. Capitalism does not forbid anyone from starting a private enterprise and owning it. If you wanna own something, go build it. But not everyone wants to own. I founded my own startup but many of my friends are perfectly happy in the security and predictability of their jobs and don't want the stress of owning a company.

  3. Demoralizing to losers only. For me, its a system where the best wins. And I have mostly won (lost some too). But unlike you I am not a whiner

Please stop whining and go get a job and give it your best.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Corporations are incapable of Patriotism or Going to War.

Fact is Corporation serve only Mission, Objectives, Strategies, and Goals. But the real problem might be that executives are looting the Corporation through complex compensation packages. Better Ratings Agencies should look at that. Organizaiton Ratings should look at high administrative costs. If I am a Shareholder I want to know how much Executives are taking out of the Company. Just as much as I want to know what Off Balance Sheet Transactions are taking place (Non GAAP Practices). And I want to know how much debt is going to be placed on a company after a Leveraged Buy Out ... since it might lead to Layoffs due to debt after Huge, One Time, Dividends have been paid to Investors ... and leaving all the Social Costs to the US Taxpayer (Unemployment, Food Stamps, Medical, Housing, Domsteic Violence)

[-] 0 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

" If I am a Shareholder I want to know how much Executives are taking out of the Company" - Yes you get to know that. It's all clearly stated in the annual reports. Such info is not hidden from shareholders.

Off balance sheet transactions - They are in the grey area. And many are perfectly compatible with GAAP.

Leveraged Buyout - Usually LBOs (as practiced by PE firms) is done with privately held companies not public ones, the shares of companies usually bought by PEs aren't traded in the stock market. And for someone who believes in the survival of the fittest, I think a company has the right to fire employees as much as employees have the right to quit their jobs and join another company.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

That was fair enough, except I never got anything out of an Annual Report. And executive compensation is well hidden. How would you like to Deffer part of your 2012 Income, put it into a Trust Account for 20 years, Earn Interest on it, then claim it when the interest can pay the whole tax that was due in 2012.

A lot of the Financial Reports or Financial Filings are written by Lawyers or whatever, but they don't want to reveal too much. No one wants to be regulated or have people looking closely at what they are doing. Transparency is always going to be iffy. If you want to buy a company they let you look at the books, but you really are not going to know everything going on till after you run it for a while.

Yes, Privately held companies are not going to publish anything and they don't have to. But if I am an investor in a Private Equity Fund that is buying a corporation ... I am going to want to know a lot about what is going on and know a lot about the Equity company.

But look if a company borrows assets to make their company look good while auditors are looking at their books - that is not Transparent and stock holders may be deceived. Many practices can deceive stockholders. And ratings companies they can be deceived.

Of course we are not talking about Pension Funds or 401K owners who no doubt didn't fully understand the risks in many US Scandals. But we would call these Investors. New York TImes did a story this year about Pension Funds that are invested in Zombie Private Equity Funds ... where they can't see to get out of non-performing funds because of loss of price or terms or other. Anyway Investors here are again in the dark about what was happening.

[-] 1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

Annual reports and filings with the SEC are very clear on exec compensation. Sure the lingo in those reports may not be for the utter layman but it still quite easy to understand.

These links may interest you http://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/executive_compensation.asp#axzz2CUfoeHAQ

I agree that exec compensation has gone through the roof and the disparity between the lowest employee and the CXOs salaries have widened hugely. If you ask me, I believe normalization is needed. But its easier said than done in practice. Companies compete with each other to hire top notc exec talent in effect driving salaries higher, the demand supply gap for exec talent is far higher than for middle or lower level employees.

If a company borrows assets, then I am assuming it is through debt. In that case, its books wont necessarily look good. In fact a PE firm would not target such a company, PE firms target low D/E ratio companies and THEN take the LBO route. For a early stage or high potential company taking on debt is not a bad idea. It becomes a bad idea if the company cannot generate the kind of growth it hoped for. You win some, you lose some.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“everyone has equal vote. And corporations dont get to vote.”

Democracy should be about more than just putting a piece of paper in a box every 2nd year. Also, when the elections and the two major parties are, to a large extent, run by the corporations – the private tyrannies – then that’s pretty far from being democratic.

”Capitalism does not forbid anyone from starting a private enterprise and owning it.”

If one like the idea of having a democratic society, then this is totally irrelevant. The economic institutions must be run democratically by the workers and the communities.

“For me, its a system where the best wins.”

I assume you’re not talking about today’s society where tax payer bailouts and subsidies are enormous.

“But unlike you I am not a whiner”

A whiner? If advocating freedom, justice and democracy is whining to you, then that’s your problem.

“Please stop whining and go get a job and give it your best.”

First, I have a job. Second, if I didn’t, it would be totally irrelevant for the discussion. Third, most people who are unemployed want a job.

[-] 2 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

Research suggests money doesnt buy elections (read the book Freakonomics. It talks about this). Yes, I agree however that corporations are way too cozy with govt for my liking, and this coziness often is not in the best interests of the polity. But that is no reason to banish corporations altogether. It's like burning down a forest to kill one errant man eating tiger (I am bad at metaphors).

Corporations arent (usually) someone's fiefdom. Collaborative decision making is what happens in practice. Sure, they don't get a vote from every person for every decision - that would be time consuming and detrimental. Not every employee is aware of the whole picture and doesnt necessarily even wants to be aware of the whole picture. Understand that 100% democratic decision making isn't desirable in most cases, whether it's sports, business or even politics. The majority doesnt always need to be correct.

And if we compare, then economic institutions (and private enterprises) in countries with democracy have been far more open than countries with a communist/socialist form of govt. Do you think Chinese firms are more democratic than American ones?

Capitalism is still the system where the best wins. The current crisis will be a mere blip in the annals of history. You have good times and you have bad ones.

Also, sorry for the rather harsh tone in the earlier post. I was just a little jittery due to work issues. I mean no offense.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

People should have a say in the things they’re apart of and which affect their lives. That means that the economic institutions must be run democratically by the participants and the ones affected – the workers and the communities.

Capitalism is tyranny (for the reasons I explained in the article); it must be replaced by a sustainable, free, and democratic society in which people are in control of their own lives, work, and community. A classless, free and democratic anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist society is what we must strive for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp

[-] 2 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

If you look at history socialist/communist governments have been the ones that are tyrannical not capitalist. In capitalism each one has the freedom to engage in economic activities based on their liking, and no one will come and tell me what I should be doing. The same cannot be said for socialist/communist countries.

In theory communism looks fantastic (my parents were once staunch supporters of communism and they still do not have much affinity for stock markets) and I did get influenced, but the more I saw and read about it, the lesser I liked the whole idea

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Perhaps something between capitalism & socialism should be tried?

[-] 0 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

Well many modern democracies are like that. Germany, France etc are the successful ones. Greece is more socialistic and hence its current situation

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh I thought Greece was having trouble because of the excessive austerity and lack of stimulus.

[-] -1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

And why have the austerity measures been taken? Because it has been overspending for over 2 decades now, beyond every limit prescribed by the EU after it was formed. Greek govt fudged statistical data to make its finances look good. And then you would know of the currency swap deal with Goldman so as to postpone it debt obligations into the future.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The austerity was implemented because the 1% oligarchs crashed the world economy, because the war mongers here put 2 wars on a credit card, because no one (not Greece, or other western countries) have imposed fair taxes on the 1% oligarchs.

Remember?

[-] -1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

haha.... u cudnt be more wrong ... the US subprime mortgage crisis had nothing to do with greek profligacy

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The 1% oligarchs crashed the world economy! Period.

All countries suffering with recession are victims of that irresponsible, criminal greed.

I gotcha austerity, right 'ere

[-] -1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

Yes that kind of thinking sure fits squarely in your ignorant black and white world view. I dont think there is any point caryying this discussion further. Thank you

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You keep protecting the corp 1% oligarchs who've screwed the 99% forthe last 30 years.

I will stand with the 99% makin sure your bullshit is challenged.

[-] -1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

Bravo.. Lets give this guy a medal of honor for displaying hollow bravado on the internet.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

And you keep providing cover for the right wing wacko tools of the corp 1% oligarchs who prey on the 99%.

You betray your class, and you have NO HONOR!

[-] -1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

Your comments remind me of this : Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

Thank you for the enlightening discussion. This bring a free country, sadly even you are entitled to air your opinion in public. My best regards to you

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Since the Fed is independent from the Admin you have in fact left out Bush (who you claim you don't support)

You lyin' fuckin right wing wacko piece of shit.

Now THAT is an insult genius!

[-] -1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

Fuckin idiot. You don't have a job do you? I would ask you to read up the Federal Reserve Act but that would be too much for your little brain.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh. so you claim that we didn't come through the largest economic downturn since the great depression starting in 2007 (ending only after Pres Obama stimulus started taking affect)

And then you claim it was the blame of everyone else, (FED, EU, Glass Steagal) but not the Bush Admin.

You are obviously dishonest, & partisan.

Good luck in all your good efforts

[-] 0 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

Just to clear your doubts 1. am not a bush fan 2. When i said Fed, doesnt it imply the then administration which in the said case wud be Bush, genius.

At least read properly before insulting, notwithstanding the anonymity provided to every idiot by the internet where they can go about blabbering just about anything.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you do not deny you stand with and protect the corp 1% oligarchs who've screwed the 99% for the last 30 years.

Think of your family. The freedom, equality, and pursuit of happiness of all the 99% is at stake.

Support OWS! Stand with the 99%!

[-] 1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

Aargh, thats why ppl like me wont take OWS seriously. All you guys do is name calling and make stupid assumptions. Big words like "stand with", "protect". Idiotic. From a trader, I am now myself a entrepreneur and owner of a startup competing in the market with some of my former clients who have many times the R&D budget and marketing budget than my entire seed capital combined.

Pls get real and stop this stupid sloganeering.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You avoided the question of who created the worldwide economic 'great recession'.

[-] 1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

This economic downturn is not exactly a 'recession' and certainly not 'great'. Who created it? Well it was by and large caused by faulty macro economic policies, by the Fed who kept interest rates artificially low since 2001-02; by a plethora of European govts who have been over spending for decades owning to the safety net of the Euro (and EU) or who have badly screwed by banking reforms (Iceland). All these and many other factors combined caused it. And if I should add, Glass Stegall played a rather minor role in this whole episode.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You disagree that the corp 1% oligarchs crashed the world economy and created our existing problems?

I suppose you believe it was the low income mortgage borrowers who defaulted that created our problems?

[-] 1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

i wish the answer was as simple as the two explanations you provided. i really wish

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well then I guess you know.

Have you been to red hook, Staten Isl, Rockaway, Sunset park, to see the Occupy Sandy.?

[-] 0 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

Nope. Been busy lately. Also been in and out of the country during that time.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Don't believe the hype from the corp 1% tools.

[-] 0 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

i hv been to Zuccoti and Portland protests myself. Not as a protester but just to observe

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Your welcome, you plutocrat apologist, you 'blame the victim', 'you're on your own' oligarch tool.

[-] 0 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

I don't blame victim. There are enough people who could have and still can escape the vicious spiral of poverty if provided some assistance. But iPhone totting, designer wear clad OWS protesters sure ain't one of them

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"If you look at history socialist/communist governments have been the ones that are tyrannical not capitalist."

socialist/communist governments have never existed. If you're thinking of leninist/stalinist regimes, then yes they've been tyrannical, but these societies have very little to do with a classless society with workers controlling production. Lenism/stalinism is awfulI and tyrannical, but so is capitalism.

"In capitalism each one has the freedom to engage in economic activities based on their liking, and no one will come and tell me what I should be doing."

This is obviously false. You're describing the freedoms of the super wealthy.

"The same cannot be said for socialist/communist countries."

In a libertarian socialist society people would be in control of their own lives. The communities and the economic institutions would be run democratically by the participants.

"In theory communism looks fantastic"

So glad to hear. You are however contradicing youreself. Above you were kind of praising Capitalism, now you say that a society where capitalism has been abolished would be fantastic.

I've written some suggestions about how we can achieve a just and classless society. Please check it out: http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-fight-capitalism-the-1/

[-] 1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago
  1. Agreed Soviet Russia was never quite the worker's paradise people thought it would be. But textbook Marxism has never been practiced anywhere. A implementation of Marxism has ultimately degenerated into bloodsheed, poverty and mass violation of human rights.Capitalism on the other hand has worked considerably well in practice

  2. No not the super wealthy. Unless you are massively poor you have a decent chance of living life your way. And hey, however rich you may be you can't buy talents in art, music or even good grades in exams. People like you and me never had to fight for our daily survival. We studied in decent schools, got a decent education and made something out of ourselves. I wasn't forced or compelled to get degrees in CS and Maths, I love those. And now I have quit my job to start my own company, again my own wish. Steve Jobs and Gates also weren't super wealthy (though Gates was considerably well off but then he didn't have his father's backing)

  3. I think I am pretty much in control of my own life and I live in a capitalist society.

  4. I said communism looks good in theory. I never said capitalism is bad. And what looks good in theory need not be good in practice.

I would say America is far more classless than USSR ever was or China ever will be.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago
  1. Leninism and Stalinism led to bloodshed. Marx' theories and analysis have very little to do with these awful ideologies. His work is actually very good.

  2. Yes you are. Go back and read what your statement. Don't bring arts into this. We're talking about capitalism

  3. You should be able to have even more control over your own life than you have today. That should inculde having the right to control your own workplace.

  4. So ideally, if it was possible, you'd want a communist society, yes? So what about communism looks good in theory, then; and why wouldn't it be good in practice?

[-] 2 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago
  1. Leninism and Stalinism are basically Marx's theories put to practice. Some of his work is good, some utterly ignorant. That being said, I am no expert in Marxism or even capitalism for that matter. What is say is either my opinion or borne out of observation

  2. No I am not. I would not be this free in erstwhile Soviet Russia or even China, where to set up a private enterprise I would have to bribe a few dozen govt officials.

  3. The way I see it, I have been so far able to shape my life my way. I pretty much achieved all that I wanted to (though as a kid I remember wanting to be an astronaut at one time but I guess we cant send everybody to outerspace). It is now that I am taking the biggest risks of my life, quitting my job and starting my own company.

  4. I would want some features of a communist society. I would want increased social security, free education and healthcare. That being said, I would also teachers and health care professionals (doctors, nurses etc) well compensated for their services and paid based on the quality of service rendered. I donot think it is necessary for workers to own the company (the best performing companies are all in capitalist countries particularly America). I also don't think everyone should have equal income, some inequality is needed. Too much inequality is bad though. I would also want a healthy balance between public and private organizations. Actually most of what I want already exists in America or Europe.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago
  1. No, they're not. Leninism was much more authoritarian. Marx was not an anarchist, but he pointed out the importance of workerscontrolling the means of production, rather than too much state control. Besides, Marx main work was the analysis of capitalism (cf Das Kapital). His work is in many respects very good.

  2. I'm not saying that you're less free than the people living under leninist/stalinist regimes. You are more free than they were/are; what I'm saying is that in a capitalist society your freedoms depend on your access to resources and cash.

  3. Your personal acievements aren't relevant to the discussion. This is about principles and how to organize society. Do we want a society where people are in control of their own life, work, and community. If the answer is yes, then working to create a libertarian socialist society with a real participatory democracy should be our focus.

  4. We should absolutely have workers self management (for the reasons above). The important thing is that everyone should be able to have a decent life, with, at very least, guaranteed access to necessities. A society based on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be our goal.

[-] 3 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago
  1. I agree. But Marxism in its pure form has never been put to practice. And therefore it is hard to say how it will turn out. But its derived forms Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism have been violent. The way I see it communism destroys individuality

  2. Not entirely. Sure someone living on say $10000 a year is not 'free' enough. But that doesnt mean someone living on $100,000 is twice as free as someone living on $50,000. After a certain point money ceases to matter much. Sure Bill Gates is 'free' to buy any island (and a few countries) at his whim and fancy but is that extent of freedom needed for everyone? Sure if you have a fair bit of money, you are free to send your kids to pretty much any school you want, your kids would be free to pursue any major they wanted in college (or forego college altogether) whether on not the said major provides any employment options. That kind of freedom sure is good on the individual level but for the society as a whole thats detrimental. As much we like to be artists or doctors or scientists, not everyone has the skills, dedication and capability to be one and someone has to do the mundane tasks too. There needs to be a balance between individual freedom to do what we want and the overall good of the society. I wanted to be a astronaut as a kid but I was also rather satisfied being a banker and now an entrepreneur. Life did not end because I cudnt become an astronaut.

  3. You said I am not free. hence the detour. Again, individual goals and work should be aligned to overall benefit of the society. I dont see 100% independence as either desirable or even possible.

  4. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - the problem with this is that it eventually makes everyone a slacker. I doubt I would be busting my ass off on my startup if I was a trust fund baby with billions in my bank account. Guaranteed access to necessities is fine.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

You make eloquent statements 1-3, and I agree.

Re 4 If one is committed to goal or group they will keep working on. Volunteers do so. But they are not majority I presume.

My little family at times is similar to a socialist model, except we have bonds and genetics, and I suppose it is voluntary. Some will have drive to work, some less so. You see it on reality show survivor. Some just don't have work ethic, prefer to hang out.

Still there should be a baseline of societal supported goal for all in this day and age.

Basic Shelter, food, medical that should be supported with govnt and private sector cooperation. Correct?

But sure, not the Cadillac plan. These human rights for everyone on planet, I believe. Like right to life, but right to a humane life.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago
  1. What we have seen is that societies organized based to a large extent on libertarian socialist ideas can work really well (cf 1930s Spain fex). Successfull co-ops are also growing in number. A free, participatory democracy is perfectly feasible. Communism, real communism that is, with social organization based on egalitarianism, cooperation, solidarity, and without classes and state would create an enormous individual freedom - for everyone!

  2. You said a lot of stuff here that was not very relevant to my point.

  3. No I didn't. I said you should be more free than you are today. You should have the freedom to control your workplace f.ex. People should be free to control their own lives, work and community.

  4. This is absurd. Humans want to be creative and contribute to their communies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNhd4j4mzzc&feature=plcp

[+] -5 points by lisa2100 (7) 1 year ago

Capitalism IS democracy. People don't want to get dictated by others about what they want to do, how much money they can make, or what occupations they can have. Ever read that one book where everyone looked the same, people who were beautiful were covered up, people were LITERALLY born into their occupations, and everyone had the same houses and properties???? Let them have their OWN opinions!!! Freedom rings!

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Capitalism is about the ability to choose between which can of beans that you would like to purchase. No more and no less.

[-] 0 points by bringourjobsback (64) 1 year ago

Business - Economics "capitalism" is about turning $1.00 into $1.50 or more.

Government - Politics Choosing a brand name is what our government is supposed to encourage for free enterprise business and the customers they serve.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

There is no democracy in capitalism. Your freedom is found in your beans.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 year ago

Now wait a minute. What about monopoly?

How about the same company owning both those cans of beans, just to create a sense of veriety and corner the market, secretly making both untested gmo, playing a blind god with the all of humanity?

How about the war capitalism creates to get the most at any cost. How that war destroys the quality of everything and promotes the abuse of anything, the rape of our planet into a useless ball of garbage.

Maybe capitalism is about choosing your beans but it's definitely a lot more than that.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

There is a monopoly. You go down a canned vegetable aisle with 24 brands but they are owned by 2 or 3 companies. You get the freedom to choose between the pretty labels.

I am talking about the war capitalism creates. They aren't out there fighting for democracy, they are out there fighting for capitalism. The right to exploit someone else's resources.

[-] 2 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 year ago

Yeah i got confused what you guys were talking about. I'm not much of a "verbal thinker" and i have a hard time a lot. There're so many comments and so many words on some of these posts it's like swimming through an ocean for a glass of water.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

We are all good.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

except some got warehouse beans

some got none

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

If Capitalism is Democracy and the stock market is the ballot box, then some Americans have more votes than me and that's not very democratic. IF Capitalism is democracy, then being born poor is the new Jim Crow

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“Capitalism IS democracy.”

No, capitalism is tyranny. I explained this in the article. Do you have any counter-arguments to what I presented?

“People don't want to get dictated by others about what they want to do”

In capitalism you’re being dictated big time. The owners and the wealthy have enormous power and control over the society.

“how much money they can make”

Who has more power to decide how much you make? You, or the ones you sell your labor to?

“Let them have their OWN opinions!!! Freedom rings!”

People should be free, and they should be able to think and believe whatever they want. Real freedom, however, can only be achieved in a classless society.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Neo-feudalism is tyranny. Neo-capitalism privileges us to participate in their system of monetary choice. Now what conservation of money was truly about, during the confusing period of settlement in our country, was freedom to provide services and products to people who needed them in an open market. We need an alternative currency, as well as small business ethic to restore our economy. End the fed, and pull your money out of the mega banks today!

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Capitalism, no matter how it’s organized, must be abolished. I explained why in the article. If you like the idea of democracy – people having a say in the things they’re apart of and affect them – than you should reject the ideas of capitalism.

These so called “libertarian”/Ron Paul/"end the fed"policies are just advocating corporate tyranny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI&feature=plcp

I written about this libertarian ideology and the ones supporting it here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/dont-tread-on-me-except-for-all-you-capitalists-ce/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/debunking-libertarian-myths-pt-1/

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I support Ron Paul and I do not advocate tyranny. Neither does dr.paul. In fact last year Dr.Paul exposed $17B worth of back door deals with NGO's and buercrats with Wall St.

The system is corrupt but I personally do not believe in the abolishment of any ideology.

Left/Right paradigms do nothing except propagate party wars.

Unite the resistance do not divide us.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"I support Ron Paul and I do not advocate tyranny."

Yes, you do. You advocate private tyranny.

"Neither does dr.paul."

Yes he does. This ultra right wing politician wants to privatize more services and give huge tax cut to the corporations and the 1%. He wants to cut welfare and hand more power over to the non-elected financial elite - private tyranny

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

You should really research the facts. None of that is true. He believes the federal government as well as dark agency regulations are bad for the world. He doesn't believe In the elite, he believes in the people.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Ron Paul is a libertarian/libertarian-leaning. So-called "Libertarian" ideology advocates giving more power to private enterprise. The consequences of the policies he's advocating is that democracy will be weakened even more than it already is.

The way to organize society is to democratize the economic institutions, not privatize them.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Let me ask you have you ever listened to Dr.Paul speak? He has a passion for liberty. Your rhetoric is supporting the paradigm. Constitutionall democracy is the only form that works in our sovereign union.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Let me ask you have you ever listened to Dr.Paul speak?"

Sure.

"He has a passion for liberty."

First of all, do I really have to remind you that when a politician says something, it's not necessarily his honest opinion? He talks about liberty and freedom, but the actual concequences of more free-market capitalism (which he advocates) means that the corporations and the wealthy will become even more wealthy and powerful than they are today. By wanting to privatize more services Paul is in reality advocating handing enormous power and wealth into the hands of the corporations.

"Constitutionall democracy is the only form that works in our sovereign union."

No, the only reasonable, logical organization for a future just and sustainable society is a libertarian socialist society with democracy built and controlled from below.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I don't agree with socialism due to the fact that it can be easily expolited by humanity. But agree we must be weary of politicians. However to scapegoat entire communities of liberty resistance members you are propagating party wars. In which discredits any progress we have been working towards. I do however believe some socialist ideals can benefit our society.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"I don't agree with socialism due to the fact that it can be easily expolited by humanity."

How so?

"However to scapegoat entire communities of liberty resistance members you are propagating party wars."

All I'm doing is explaining the consequences of Ron Paul/Gary Johnson etc policies. Their policies advocate giving corporations even more power than they have today.

"I do however believe some socialist ideals can benefit our society."

Which ones would that be?

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Consolidated power, resources, and control of national GDP by the people has been proven to work in a social arena. However, if you take a look at history social movements in which leaders become pariah always leads into tyranny. One man or woman controlling the people, rather than doing the will of people, will always lead into tyranny regardless of the title you place on it.

Now if you aren't scapegoating economic libertarians than explain how ending the fed, ending wars, expanding free thought and intellectual conversation, and wanting an alternative currency outside of the mega banks is corporate tyranny?

The ideas of creating sustainable jobs through collective action. Such as:

Free Energy Alternative currencies Barter and trade Universal Healthcare Human rights for all

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"We thirst for power"

First of all, what do you base this on, exactly?

When power gets concentrated too much it corrupts, of course. But in libertarian socialism this power is decentralized, and it would be highly democratically organized at every level. No powerhungry individuals would get to rule others.

"and attempting a new constitutional republic, in our time of complete systematic corruption, will only lead to one emerging as a leader."

The state- capitalist system is unsustainable and immoral, it must be aboilshed as soon as possible and replaced by a democracy built and controlled from below.

"Of course we need to focus on ousting the entire system of corruption, I just do not believe that an socialistic order, nor consolidation of power or resources, can/will be a good thing for our nation."

I want an end to corruption, tyranny and oppression. Capitalism must therefore be abolished.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Based on sociological studies and patterns of world history.

We aren't living in a true capitalist society. We live in broken republic. However, it can be fixed. We need an alternative currency and collective consciousness, and emobodiment within a system of control.

True freedom is giving the people the choice to choose.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"That in theory is a good concept. However like many forms of socialism, libertarian socialism may look good on paper, but in utilization can be manipulated to a one world view."

Societies based to a large extent on LS principles has actually worked very well in hte past. LS is about building a non-hierarchical society without leaders and demagogues in charge

"My question is in acheiving this new power of democracy do we throw out our constitution in favor of a new one?"

It must be the people living today that should get to decide what kind of society they want to live in, not a piece of paper written by dead slave-owners. Not everything in the constitution is bad, however.

"If that's the case having a new constitutional convention, in our current system, would only harm the rights of the people and strip them of liberty."

No, a LS society would strenghten people's rights and freedoms substantially. The rich and powerful, however, would be stripped from their power - as they righty should.

"Our main economic issue is secret back door deals, dark money in politics and NGO's pushing their agenda to stockpile money. The FED is part of that same elitist agenda. It also devalues our economy and kills jobs at the bottom of the tier."

Lots can be done with all this, but focusing mainly on the Fed is amistake. Our main focus should be stripping the financial elites from their wealth and power.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

But once again you fail to address the frailty of the human psyche. We thirst for power, and attempting a new constitutional republic, in our time of complete systematic corruption, will only lead to one emerging as a leader. This has been the case since the dawn of time.

Of course we need to focus on ousting the entire system of corruption, I just do not believe that an socialistic order, nor consolidation of power or resources, can/will be a good thing for our nation.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"However, if you take a look at history social movements in which leaders become pariah always leads into tyranny."

Systems which allow one man or one party to have total control of the state lead to tyranny, of course. Stalinism, Facism etc are all awful. You don't want that and I don't want that, so we can end that discussion.

What I want is a libertarian socialist society in which there are no leaders and where democracy is controlled from below.

"One man or woman controlling the people, rather than doing the will of people, will always lead into tyranny regardless of the title you place on it."

I agree. But take a look at how corporations are organized. It's a undemocratic hierarchy in which one or a few people at the top gives everyone else orders - tyranny....

Economic institutions must be controlled democratically by the participants; capitalism must be abolished.

"explain how ending the fed, ending wars, expanding free thought and intellectual conversation, and wanting an alternative currency outside of the mega banks is corporate tyranny?"

Free speech and discussion and ending imperialistic wars we agree on, but the other things you mention is missing the point a little. The main problem is that wealth and power is highly concentrated on the finacial elite, and by privatizing and lowering taxes for the wealthy these elites become even more wealthy and powerful.

How about we stop all forms of tyranny, including private tyranny, and create a real participatory democracy where people cntrolled their workplace and community?

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

That in theory is a good concept. However like many forms of socialism, libertarian socialism may look good on paper, but in utilization can be manipulated to a one world view. My question is in acheiving this new power of democracy do we throw out our constitution in favor of a new one? If that's the case having a new constitutional convention, in our current system, would only harm the rights of the people and strip them of liberty.

Our main economic issue is secret back door deals, dark money in politics and NGO's pushing their agenda to stockpile money. The FED is part of that same elitist agenda. It also devalues our economy and kills jobs at the bottom of the tier.

I am in favor of more local citizen sovereignty, however without ending un nessacary regulations we are chasing our own tails in an paradigmatic lie machine.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think he gave his last congressional speech today. End of an era.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I think he did. I only have caught part one of that speech. It was a great source of information and called out these thugs in our midst.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Also we are not a democracy. We are a sovereign country backed by a constitutional republic. Aspects of democracy are utilized but the framers warned on direct democracy.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"Capitalism IS democracy." Democracy is one man vote. Democracy is not one wealthy man, ten million votes.

Sheldon Adelson, Goldman Sachs, and George Soros literally defecate on that most fundamental principle of Democracy. An equal voice to each person, regardless of wealth or poverty.