Socialism Is the Only Way

[darkbeaver]

jimshort19

As you said"



"Smdfaru, "What brought the US capitalism out of the depression was a great war (”the war to end all wars”!!!)."
"I don't mean to nitpick but 'the war to end all wars' was the first world war, and the great depression came after it.
"So you see what 'dire straits' we are in. This kills me. Dire straits. No, YOU are in dire straits. If a

worker came to me to whine about capitalism, I'd tell him to grow up."

Who said "the war to end all wars? Whoever did, has no exclusive right to the expression. There were millions of people who had enough of WWII and didn't ever want to see another one. That is why the expression came to my mind. If you are looking for accuracy, an officially adopted expression, you got me cold. Does that alter the message in any way. But I will make sure in the future that I won't give a nit picker something to pick on.

"Grow up," you getting on to something, its the people who run countries that need to grow up. The ones that grew up stopped playing silly war games as kids.

Donald J Donaker

Mr Donaker, I sure your well used to the nitpicking fans of capitalistism, they are quite a few here who believe it's crap about being the wellspring of democracy and liberty, even in the face of the miles of evidence directly contray to that delusion.
The task of socialism first has always been to educate and generally make the proletariat aware of who actually feeds who, and what the power of labour is in reality, in that task we have failed miserably in the face of very stiff and long standing and deadly assault of capital and monarchy and the legions of unscupulous minions and bag men of that same capital.
We now at this time in North America, "the last bastion of freedom" if we are to believe the late not great at all Ronald Reagan, in what many believe to be a societal implosion brought on by a nearly depleted consumer base facing wholsale bankruptcy and depression not seen since the 30s.You know that the industrial capacity of the western capitalist world has been stripped and shipped to the Asian continent and subcontinent and replaced with the service industry, similarly agriculture has been stolen from the farmer and monopolized by agribizz and turned into a contaminating agent via the chemical and oil industry and now the basis of life itself is perverted by the crossing of genes between organizims in direct contravention of nature itself. In any case the situation today as it applys to the labour movement and universal socialism has never been more perilous. The hill is steeper than it's ever been we can easily see the dismal lack of progess since the manifesto was written, for all those who have lived worked and died in the pursuit of real democracy and real freedom we have little tangeble benefit to show, and we find ourselves living in the belly of the capitalist monolith which as Marx and Lennin and many others have determined is doomed by mathmatics to fail with disasterous results.
For the life of me I cannot see past the approaching blood bath at the end of the capitalist nightmare. The 95% to 5% split which represents the have to have nots on the planet contains the whole story of capitalist power and greed, they will never share the wealth no matter what it will have to be pryed from thier cold dead hands or we will simply cease to exist as a species.
What hope do we have to educate organize and mobilize labour in the face of todays lethal problems, imperialism being the first and overwhelmingly formost, exactly like it was in the time of Marx?

 

[jimshort19]

Lester, "...it can't go on like this forever..."

But it can, and it will. Capitalism contains the seeds of the destruction of socialism, which is tyranny warmed over.

Many deceivers point to the end, and it has not come. The socialism that we know is centralized capitalism, capitalism of the most evil kind. It's proponents say that they have the moral high ground, but they are in the sewer. Everything is upside down to the communist, everything is turned backward.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Basically I agree with all you've said, decentralization, community, stronger grassroots democracy. But I'll disagree on one small point capitalism and socialism are not two sides of the same coin. Capitalism and enterprise are not the same thing. Capitalism services capital, and nothing else, commerce and capitalism are not the same thing, commerce is all about bussiness and people and stable communitys, capitalism is about accumulation of capital, it does not care what commerce it has to monopolize and concentrate to meet that definition. Enterprise and capitalism are not the same thing, socialism easily embraces free enterprise and commerce, capitalism, through investment of capital seekd to concentrate and dominate and finaly monopolize and there is no way to turn it off once it's turned on untill the capital has eaten everything in it's path. That's why it is rightly considered the most destructive system ever put in place. The first thing capitalism destroys is regional and local commerce and enterprise, in other words it feeds directly on those hosts untill they are pale imitations of what they were and eventually dead, capitalism is a viral parasiticle system of wealth accumulation.

Clearly we need better definitions. Your definition of Capitalism seems only to include banks and large mulitinationals that seek ever more expansion and profit. And you see this as a terrible travesty. I, on the other hand, use the definition of capitalism as meaning private ownership of means of production. meaning that if I own a screen prinitng business I own the equipment, the screens, the ink, etc. needed to produce the product, I can produce as much or as little product and charge the price I see fit to charge, and my customers can choose to buy or not based on their own sensibilities. In your ideal of socialism, would this be the case, or are you talking about state ownership of my business? Can I buy and sell, lend and borrow? If so how is your vision of socialism different than what we have now?

Obviously we don't have pure capitalism. And, frankly, except for a total anarchy I can't see how such a system could exist. So we have some mixture of capitalism (call it free market if you want) and socialism (governmental control and state ownership). We have this now. We have a very active private sector (sole proprietors and partnerships and corporations small, medium and large) we have charitable corporations and government agencies and state owned corportations. Corporations, no matter how big, cannot do whatever they wish and must abide by the laws of this country. For example Walmart cannot sell sawed-off shotguns even if they thought there was good profit in it.

 

[smdfaru]

jimshort19

You said:

"But it can, and it will. Capitalism contains the seeds of the destruction of socialism, which is tyranny warmed over.

"Many deceivers point to the end, and it has not come. The socialism that we know is centralized capitalism, capitalism of the most evil kind. It's proponents say that they have the moral high ground, but they are in the sewer. Everything is upside down to the communist, everything is turned backward."

Capitalism contains the seeds of the destruction of the possibility of socialism. Such as the US were the guarantees in the Constitution is trashed by the capitalist class that dominates the government--not only dominates it but by-passes it. Capitalism also owns the major media sources and controls the news. The Minneapolis Star Tribune paper has printed feature articles about Norman Thomas, a leader of the Socialist Party, Gus Hall an icon of the American Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party. It never has published a feature article on one particular political party--Guess which one. I will not mention it least I fall under suspicion that I am using this site to toot the horn for another organization. If anyone askes for it I will provide it.

Why did the Minneapolis see fit to do that. It certainly wasn't because it had a love affair with those political parties. It was because they were all vanguardist--follow the leader, the cult of the individual--because depending on vanguardism instead of the will of the majority which requires an educated understanding of its goal and how to achieve it, such an organization is as weak as a limb in the path of a pack of wolves..

The Minneapolis Star Tribune didn't obfuscate the left out party because of strong dislike towards it, but because that party rejects vanguardism--follow the leader, the cult of the individual. That party advocates that only workers as a class can establish socialism, politically and economically. Politically by forming a political party in its own interest and economically by forming an industry wide union to back up the working class' mandate at the ballot box. By those principles, that party advocates its own adjournment sine die upon the victory of the united workers--it serves no more purpose. Not a limb but a giant chasing away the capitalist pack of wolves.

If it is true as you claim that socialism has always failed, which proves that it is impossible, then why do you dawdle on this site in defense against it? Why do you beat your head against the wall, you are safe, get a life and enjoy the fruits of capitalism--now and then take a peek to see whether workers have grown up yet?

Don

 

[jimshort19]

SMDfaru, "If it is true as you claim that socialism has always failed, which proves that it is impossible, then why do you dawdle on this site in defense against it?."

Good question. I think the main reason is that I was bored, had too much time on my hands, and was irritated by a pack of whiners who had it made, but fell under the spell of pied pipers the ilk of which deserve the noose.

SMDfaru, " Why do you beat your head against the wall, you are safe, get a life and enjoy the fruits of capitalism--now and then take a peek to see whether workers have grown up yet?"

Well, this is not a bad idea either. I know that many on this forum would rather that I just went away. Truth is, I don't even understand this forum yet, how it is sponsored or how it makes money. Do you?

 

[darkbeaver]

Clearly we need better definitions. Your definition of Capitalism seems only to include banks and large mulitinationals that seek ever more expansion and profit. And you see this as a terrible travesty. I, on the other hand, use the definition of capitalism as meaning private ownership of means of production. meaning that if I own a screen prinitng business I own the equipment, the screens, the ink, etc. needed to produce the product, I can produce as much or as little product and charge the price I see fit to charge, and my customers can choose to buy or not based on their own sensibilities. In your ideal of socialism, would this be the case, or are you talking about state ownership of my business? Can I buy and sell, lend and borrow? If so how is your vision of socialism different than what we have now?

Obviously we don't have pure capitalism. And, frankly, except for a total anarchy I can't see how such a system could exist. So we have some mixture of capitalism (call it free market if you want) and socialism (governmental control and state ownership). We have this now. We have a very active private sector (sole proprietors and partnerships and corporations small, medium and large) we have charitable corporations and government agencies and state owned corportations. Corporations, no matter how big, cannot do whatever they wish and must abide by the laws of this country. For example Walmart cannot sell sawed-off shotguns even if they thought there was good profit in it.

In our mixed economy what do you suppose the mix is? The market is never free. Why insist on that term when it's an oxymoronic just like many of the concepts associated with the neo-liberal revolution, in any case the free market has ensured no regulation, no regulation has ensured consolodation and monopoly, read about monopoly during the time of the robber barrons a situation analogous with today. Most of the capital has migrated to the multi and transnationals, corporations write the laws of the US, it,s all done through the lobby, NAU will ensure our corporate body of law and the lobbying practices will mirror those American laws. Walmart and the rest of the big box slavers has destroyed small business in every community they entered. During the rape of the Asian sub-contient in the times of Adam Smith the term free market was in vogue, that's where it comes from, it had the same meaning as well, it meant capital had a free hand, with that free hand they murdered and destroyed, India was decimated, starvation and butchery was good for the British capitalist machine, today we have the same only on a larger scale, barbarity of money. It leads to societal collapse. Recession has begun in the USA it will in about eighteen months become depression, that depression will triger the extermination of millions, those millions will die for your insane belief in capitalism. But as long as you love the free (hahaha) market everything will be just peachy in your world, right. iART, you're a wide eyed innocent romantic virgin.:lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

This System’s Achilles’ Heel

By Malcolm Martin

08/01/08 "ICH" -- -- The American electorate again slogged through the political muck to try to be heard in 2006. Their effort turned out to be an exercise in complete futility or the nation’s symbol of anti-war motherhood Cindy Sheehan would not be challenging the nation’s first female House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2008. The experience, frustrating as it was, will open more minds to the real source of our oppression and the true telling of our nation’s history. The fact is that the story of the United States of America is bound up in the birth and rise of capitalism, and the nation’s present descent into dictatorship is part of the same economic system’s decline and inevitable death.

Coincidental with the birth of the US, fueled by the Industrial Revolution, the capitalist system was beginning to break the brutish shackles of feudalism on the people of that day. At the same time capitalism began creating the only force capable of destroying it—the working class. Nascent capitalism enjoyed explosive growth and it spawned revolutions around the world, including the American Revolution. The young and dynamic economic system found that a bourgeois democracy was the most fertile soil for development. The new nation and several other rising industrial countries adopted this form of government.

From the birth of the republic, capitalism has been able to provide the American people with several powerful incentives to buy into the program. Five percent of the world’s population is invited to consume 30% of the world’s resources by way of imperialism. Then the white American majority is invited to enjoy a disproportionate share of that material wealth by way of racism. An especially comfortable place is provided to politicians, intellectuals, academics, bureaucrats, and entertainers in the narrow strata of society Marx called the petty bourgeois.

 

[smdfaru]

darkbeaver

I got a message from you on the "wall." I haven't yet found out how to reply to it. Can you stir me to the process. I wasn't avoiding you.

Don

Donald J Donaker

 

[darkbeaver]

darkbeaver

I got a message from you on the "wall." I haven't yet found out how to reply to it. Can you stir me to the process. I wasn't avoiding you.

Don

Donald J Donaker

I didn't think you were avoiding me Don, so don't worry about it man. As for the wall or PMs I think you need a certain number of posts to take advantage of that feature. Try to and click on my name and that should take you to my wall where you can leave a message. Maybe that feature is open ti you, try it.

 

[smdfaru]

darkbeaver

It appears that I successfully posted a message on your wall.

Don

 

[darkbeaver]

darkbeaver

It appears that I successfully posted a message on your wall.

Don

ok Don I'll go read it, what about that old Einstien essay, I'd not seen that before, powerful statement from a great man but still they'll bash him instead of trying to understand.

 

[darkbeaver]

Sorry about my confusion Don I thought you meant a message in addition to your first, it's sometimes confusing useing this medium, keeping things and people straight is difficult sometimes.

 

[Niflmir]

Remember, socialism is not communism. Marx's vision was of a society where no one owned anything, but he phrased it as everyone owning everything. Most people work for a better life, for them and their children. A strict version of communism states that there is no inheritance, so why bother? Most professed socialists wouldn't agree with this policy.

To say that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive is to eat lumps of sugar because they are your favorite part of the coffee and the two are different things. Many so called socialists and capitalists commit the same sin: not practicing what they profess.

 

[jimshort19]

niflmir, "Remember, socialism is not communism... To say that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive is to eat lumps of sugar because they are your favorite part of the coffee and the two are different things."

Remember that capitalism is not freedom because you are not rich. Socialism is craven materialism, which is centralised capitalism imposed by lies and violence.

Capitalism is a child making too much lemonade.

 

[smdfaru]

Niflmir

You said:

"Remember, socialism is not communism."

Could you give me a reliable source to support that contention. I don't recall Marx or Engles alluding to that.

Don

 

[Niflmir]

niflmir, "Remember, socialism is not communism... To say that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive is to eat lumps of sugar because they are your favorite part of the coffee and the two are different things."

Remember that capitalism is not freedom because you are not rich. Socialism is craven materialism, which is centralised capitalism imposed by lies and violence.

Capitalism is a child making too much lemonade.

But there you just show your slant and maybe a desire for argument as opposed to debate. Fair enough, I suppose, given the essay by Mr. Martin. From your simplifications, I take it you are unwilling to budge in your beliefs about socialism and your preconceptions about socialist's beliefs of capitalism. Take a look at the Nordic prison system, lies and violence? Take a look at German utilities, too much lemonade? I will take my coffee with sugar, thank you, the cold war was idiotic in its propagandization of important concepts.

 

[Niflmir]

Niflmir

You said:

"Remember, socialism is not communism."

Could you give me a reliable source to support that contention. I don't recall Marx or Engles alluding to that.

Don

In the communist manifesto, Marx and Engels espoused two views: socialism and communism. In their view, before the ``ideal'' government (communism) could come about, there would be and intermediate one: socialism. Of course, since that time the meanings of the word have changed (English not being a dead language) and so those original definitions no longer hold. Also important is to note that a pig that claims to be a duck, is still a pig. One does not take for definition of communism or socialism those nations which claimed to be.

 

[Zzarchov]

Well if no nation has ever been communist or socialist despite all those that try..

Did you ever assume those government styles are simpley not possible for humanity to create and live in?

The government style of 'benevolent dictator' was written about thousands of years ago and would make the best government ever. With the exception that it is impossible for humans to create or live in that environment.

 

[darkbeaver]

Socialism by definition serves society (by definition), capitalism serves capital (by definition) if there were democracy either or both would serve people first. As I understand our problem today and yesterday,with capitalism, it cannot be regulated to serve the public best because it must by definition of its effieciency accumulate additional capital by growth, whereas socialism must or should serve the best interests of the combined public even if it has to use the tool of capitalism. So I'm saying capitalism is a tool of accumulation and cannot in of itself be used to serve the best interests of the public the same entity it feeds on it must drive public wealth downward even if it means depleting that public it has no reverse gear.
The two are diametricly opposed one must concentrate wealth the other must distribute wealth. IMSO

 

[Niflmir]

Well if no nation has ever been communist or socialist despite all those that try..

Did you ever assume those government styles are simpley not possible for humanity to create and live in?

The government style of 'benevolent dictator' was written about thousands of years ago and would make the best government ever. With the exception that it is impossible for humans to create or live in that environment.

I certainly did consider that, but I also realized that all the petty despots in history always clung onto some mantle of ``for the greater good''.