Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Communism? Socialism? Capitalism?

Posted 2 years ago on March 3, 2012, 6:43 a.m. EST by toonces (-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why would Communism or Socialism be a superior way to govern than Democratic Capitalistic Republic?

130 Comments

130 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by elf3 (2681) 2 years ago

Corporatism?

[-] 2 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

Communist Dictatorship, run by me. It'll be honest, promise.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

with today's tech everyone should have access the the procedure of the government

[-] 1 points by sportswear13 (1) 2 years ago

NFL Jerseys to ascertain the draft purchase the NFL goes through the win-loss information on the prior season, to make sure that clubs with poorer information draft earlier than those people with much better records. <a href="http://www.jerseyhandsome.com/Arizona-Cardinals-Jerseys-88">Arizona Cardinals Jerseys</a> Attempt For NFL Jerseys-nixiaoyang0210

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Communism and socialism are somewhat old ideas. Borrowing some of its themes, sure. I keep saying this, but it's worth repeating. We have thousands of employee owned and managed companies in the United States, many of them multi-billion dollar companies, in both advanced high tech industries, and low tech industries. This model has successfully rescued distressed companies in hundreds of cases, so it's a proven model.

Yes, ESOP's are more sophisticated than anything you'll find in the writings of Marx or anything envisioned by early 20th century anarchists, but it still embodies the same virtues, it's just that a level of sophistication evolved in response to things like the needs of consumers. In other words, while it may be a hybrid model, it is a well refined model. We don't need to wonder whether it works or not, no need for elaborate theories, speculating on things like innate human nature, or whatever. We have the gold standard, real world testing.

We also don't need to wonder what our world would like if Glass Steagall were restored, we had new laws or an amendment that restored McCain Feingold to its full force, or a world where "K" street was full of restaurants instead of lobbying firms. In most of these cases, we can look back at our recent history, and see that our world was just fine before the corrosive influence of money in politics fucked everything up. What would a world where people were more involved in our democracy and where people cared about each other look like? These are the sort of things where we can make presumptions. But when it comes to economics, particularly in the case of our modern, advanced, and very sophisticated economy, we should look for evidence based solutions that correspond with our values.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Those employee owned companies aren't communist. In a communist company, all workers receive the same pay. In an employee owned company in America, workers are paid commiserate to their work, which is NOT communist.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Nor did I say or imply it was communist. It has some things in common with communism (in a basic sense, workers own the place they work at, and they participate in managing the company, which is the core virtue ideas like communism, socialism, and even anarchism, have in common).

It is a hybrid model, and it's sort of hard to define it using traditional terms like socialism or even capitalism. What I'm interested in is the fact that it works, and it embodies a noble virtue, human beings managing themselves and having ownership over all aspects of their lives.

When it comes to equal pay for all workers, this is an aspect of communism that has been tried, and it proved dysfunctional. As it turns out, people do like incentives. It might sort of work okay in the beginning, but as time goes on, it breaks down. Just from a technical perspective, you actually do need at least a semi-functional free market to ensure a half way decent allocation of resources. This may not seem apparent to many people, but it is a fairly well settled principle of economics.

So the challenge is, how do we have a world with strong virtues, while still enjoying the benefits that the free market offers? There's nothing inconsistent with the ideas of participatory democracy, employee owned companies, etc., and a functional free market. However, when we start dictating how much an accountant should earn versus a machine operator, well, dictates require dictators. Whether it's one person or a mob, it doesn't make much of a difference.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

I see exactly what you're saying and I agree completely. Companies where workers have strong incentives rather than just a wage do tend to excel

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yes, but I should also qualify my remarks further. Just because I think that we shouldn't be in the business of dictating what people earn, it doesn't mean that I don't think we need to address the wreck that has become our financial system. Conservatives are out there defending corporate raiders, the derivatives market, malfeasance in banking, etc., on the basis that this is some sort of defense of capitalism ... without even bothering to wonder whether or not some of this activity should be restricted.

I mean, we restrict heroin, because we think that it's harmful to society. Some forms of derivatives were actually considered illegal gambling as recently as the early 1990's. The point is that we do not and cannot allow everyone to do whatever they want. Liberty requires law and order, and provided it's consistent with the ideals encompassed by our Bill of Rights, society has the right, indeed the obligation, to restrict harmful conduct.

Just like we don't defend the cocaine business on the basis of free market capitalism, we shouldn't defend activities that are really just as harmful, on the basis of free market capitalism (even if we can say that they're both sort of free market capitalism, technically speaking). I mean, loosely speaking, a professional hit man is a capitalist, but we still prohibit murder (as we should) :)

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Of course- those cases of corporations and other rich folks taking advantage of others is simple fraud, not a defect of capitalism- the executive branch of our government needs to be prosecuting these offenders to the fullest extent of the law

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yes, and we need to restore laws like Glass Steagall.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Only vaguely familiar with that law- that might be good but I think more enforcement is key- the laws are on the books- it's just fraud after all- we just need to use it

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

What or who is the Democratic Republic you are refering to?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Any capitalistic democratic republic.

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Rather easy. Communism failed miserably. Socialism is failing in every non homogenous large country.

Capitalism is flourishing everywhere, and is responsible for the incredibly easy lives of all Americans. Virtually all human ingenuity was released by the freedoms of capitalism. Cell phones, light bulbs, microwave ovens, washing machines, farm machinery, automobiles.

To hear people on this site we are all galley slaves. Nothing could more dishonest.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Your rosy depiction of capitalism I think needs substantial qualification. The microwave oven was actually invented by NASA, the internet by DARPA (the research arm of DOD), the combustion engine by Europeans, our highways (that facilitated the automotive industry) by government, our airports, dams, many of our bridges, etc., by government during the New Deal, but yes, Edison did invent the light bulb (I guess you can call that capitalism).

Even our railroad industry was spurred by government investment, the Transcontinental Railroad. So the idea of the rugged individual, the cowboy capitalist inventor sort of thing, is really more myth than reality.

Did capitalism enable these things? To a great extent yes, although national defense was also a strong incentive, as was our space program (and a number of other things). So numerous different factors worked in concert to bring us where we are today.

However, none of this implies that capitalism, as it's formulated today in the United States, is the best possible system. Surely, even the most conservative among us must realize that our system is plagued with abuses. Moreover, if you truly believe that communism has in fact been tried, read something from Marx, compare it to history, and then tell us what you think. Not that I necessarily endorse Marxism, I think lack of incentives eventually becomes a problem (in a true communist system), but the idea, speaking of the one actually formulated by Marx, was noble. It had the best intentions, but I guess the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so I'll agree with one implied aspect of your comments, we should always demand evidence that something can work before we implement it on a large scale.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

The first attempts at flying failed miserably too. Everything throughout history, every major change, has been incremental. Communism and socialism were both failed attempts to create a better world. Failed attempts to get from point A to point B. We will eventually reach point B just like how we learned to fly.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yes indeed, but we didn't put the entire country in the first plane ever built, before we knew whether the technology worked, we just put one guy in the plane (who understood the risks).

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we sent a monkey into orbit first

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I was talking about the first plane, not spacecraft :)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

when we won world war 2,

the USA was in control of the seas

and therefor international trade

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I have received no response that made the case that communism or socialism would be better. Every reply has just tried to tear apart capitalism. It is easy to give the reasons capitalism is better, because it is. It is impossible to make the case that communism and socialism is a superior system, because it is a system that crushes and destroys individual liberty.

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

The influence of capital perverts the democratic process and results in an oligarchy.

Capitalism isn't compatible with democracy.

Under capitalism, individuals can own large amounts of property and land while the majority of the population owns nothing. This is fundamentally undemocratic.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, communism or socialism is the answer to what would be a better system?

[-] 0 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Anything that leads to redistribution of wealth and self governance would be a better system.

I'd highly recommend understanding Marx's theories before criticizing any modern 'left-wing' party. Under a global capitalist economy it's impossible for any real social revolutions to occur.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Might as well sit on my lazy ass and do nothing if the fruits of my labor are just given to someone else

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Might as well sit on my lazy ass and do nothing

That's exactly what most landlords are doing right now, except they make money hand over fist.

fruits of my labor are just given to someone else

The fruits of your labor are already given to somebody else. Your boss pays you less money than what your labor is worth.

The idea behind left wing ideologies is that people should have the freedom to do what they want to, instead of having to be slaves to the market in order to survive.

You'd still have to work, except instead of the product of your labor going mostly to your CEO, executives and shareholders, it goes to you, and you get to decide how much it is worth. The nature of the work would also change, as would the amount of labor-time needed would most likely lessen.

Your place of work comes under your control, not under the control of some phantom owner who is never present or involved in the work, yet claims the majority of the profit.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

My profit does go to me you idiot- when you get a paycheck, your profit is revenue minus costs. Revenue is however much you are paid, costs are transportation food- anything you have to pay for to be able to work. I am a wage earner and I am a capitalist, profiting off the capital of my labor and knowledge. To condemn yourself to wage slavery is trying to blame others for your failure to turn a profit on your own labor.

The fruits of my labor are never 'given' to a CEO- when I work for someone, I am an independent contractor who the corporation has to pay for the product I produce.

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Why resort to name calling?

If you work for a company, the amount of revenue generated by your labor is always than what you are paid. The difference goes mostly to the owner of the company, much less is spent on what you define as 'costs'. Rarely does a company pay for a workers cost of living.

It's the same for you. The labor you undertake generates more revenue for your client than what you are paid.

Don't call me an idiot please. Like I said, I'd recommend reading and actually learning about economic theory before criticizing Marx.

Or you could just call me names if that's the limit of your maturity and wisdom.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

I'm calling you an idiot because it's idiotic to use disproven theories to try and accomplish something. It also pisses me off that you would try and let this crap fly everywhere when you know damn well that communism is a sham.

The money that the company pays me is my revenue, and it damn well had be greater than my costs or else I wouldn't work that job in the first place. DUH The revenue that they generate is the product of the labor that I trade to them plus the labor of others plus raw materials. My revenue is their costs. It costs them money for my labor DUH that means that my labor isn't their revenue. They earn their revenue because they use the raw materials and labor products that they bought to create a product of value to sell.

For example, if I am an auto worker in an assembly line, I should only be paid for the product that I produce. I.e. I should be paid for only the part of the car that I made, not the whole car. I shouldn't receive any money for other parts of the car that other people made, the engineering and design work for the car, the financing or the sales. I didn't do any of those things

Learn some basic economics before you poop out of your mouth all over this forum

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

The payment you receive is less then the revenue which your labor generates generates. The profit is not allocated accordingly to those who produce it.

On the example of the auto worker, the worker receives significantly less payment for the amount of time spent on labor per car compared to the complete absence of labor from those who claim most of the revenue.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

You actually think CEOs don't work? How naiive- try being one for a day. I know a couple ( my dad is one) and they do more than anyone else in the company

And by the way you aren't understanding how business works- you have poor knowledge of basic economic theory as demonstrated by your laughable arguments, and your philosophical paradigm is illogical. You argue everything based on the premise that profiting off of capital is evil (without realizing that you are a capitalist yourself lol)

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Profiting off of capital essentially means destroying capital.

Ever increasing economic growth is upheld with no regard for a reality of finite resources or the environment.

The whole financial institution is abstract and unnecessary. All the labor involved in finance and legalities is based on incorporeal entities, and merely owning property involves no labor whatsoever. The distribution of profit occurs entirely undemocratically.

The influence of capital over politics is irreparable.

Private property is concept of religion, originating from the kings supposed divinity, which was then distributed to the aristocracy.

The whole system is fucked, unsustainable, fundamentally unfair, toxic, destructive and suicidal. It rewards psychopathic exploitation, venerates scarcity, and exemplifies thievery with a military industrial complex.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

I'm going to save this crap and post it on my bathroom wall so that every time I take a shit I think of you.

Profiting off capital means destroying capital? Seriously?!!! So I guess when a factory is built and profited on it goes 'poof'

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I am in crazyland!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Profiting off capital means destroying capital? Seriously?!

Pollution and rubbish is the final product. Forests are cleared for profit. The atmosphere get's filled with CO2 for profit. Coal, gas, oil and all other commodities are consumed for profit.

There's no future for this system.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

What? Matter can't be created or destroyed. The end products of industrial processes are still the same matter but in a different form. We have ways of converting supposed 'wastes' for other uses, our system isn't finite, it is never ending because of the ways in which we can manipulate matter for our purposes.

(btw global warming is already fixed- a company called intellectual ventures (I think) has created a way to offbeat global warming for $150 million using waste products fo Rom industry)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

communication if the economic theory is poor

show why ?

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Dude he's trying to argue that communism works and that redistribution of wealth is morally right! If you believe that then go empty your life savings and equally distribute it between you and 50 bums of your choice

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

national parks are public land owned by the people for everyones use

I believe that is communism

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Omg Do you work in a national park? Do the workers in a national park own it ? NO that's not communism- communism is where the workers own the means of production.

According to your logic the freaking beach is communist

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if workers own the factory,

it's doomed to failure ?

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

No actually- it's only doomed to fail if the owning workers all get paid the same. It can succeed if the owning workers are paid commiserate to their output (which is NOT communism). There are many companies that are employee owned that are doing quite well, Jasper remanufacturing being one of them

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Really? How about really working hard at something and redistributing income by talrnt, not just taxes. Buy real estate intelligently. Dont get into debt. Dont use a credit card.

[-] 4 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

How about really working hard at something and redistributing income by talrnt, not just taxes.

What opportunity is there? There are not enough jobs to support the population. Without access to the basic needs of life, how is one supposed to contribute anything at all. Independent research puts USA unemployment is around 20%. Half the population exists on the borderline of poverty.

With technological automation and outsourcing, it doesn't matter how 'talented' you are, if your talents can be replaced by a machine, or your talents aren't able commodifiable, then you are on the street.

It doesn't matter how hard you work. The demand for the goods you produce aren't affected by arbitrarily increasing labor.

Buy real estate intelligently.

Most people can't buy real estate at all. Minimum wage barely covers rent and the rising the cost of living, let alone land.

Capitalism doesn't revolve around the needs of human beings, it revolves around the needs of the market. It's a system which doesn't account for the finiteness of the world's resources, the health and well being of people and the environment.

All that capitalism stands for is ever increasing growth and profit for those who own the resources - even if that means replacing all workers with machines and turning the planet into a toxic industrial wasteland, which is what is happening.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Anything that leads to wealth redistribution has no self governance. It has an oppressive government that must take from those who earn. The "wealth" then gets redistributed to the people and the friends of people who have the power to take the property from the people in the first place.

Wealth redistribution does not lift societies, it makes everyone (except for those in charge) equally miserable.... I do understand Marx's theory, have you considered it? Has it ever worked in the past? What has been the results of implementing Marx's theories in the past?

[-] 2 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

The land and resources would be distributed democratically by the population, not by an oppressive government.

Whenever a social revolution occurs in the world, it is crushed by capitalists, either through violence or trade embargoes. Some examples are the Spanish revolution and the Paris commune, or more recently the Vietnam war.

This isn't due to a failure of Marxist theory, rather it is a testament to the brutality of capitalism.

Socialist and communist countries in the world today still retain private property, wage labor and profits, therefore they are capitalist, and not true to their name.

Capitalism is global, and the crisis we face today is a direct result of that.

It has an oppressive government that must take from those who earn

Under capitalism, this could be a person who inherits land from his/her parents, and then charges rent on it. That's not really 'earning' now is it.

[-] 2 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

So a parent csnt pass along the fruits of his labor to his children? Wow are you envious.

[-] 2 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

There are millions of people on this planet with no land, no property, with limited access to clean water let alone an income.

Conversely, there are people with thousands of acres and millions of dollars, who control enough resources to feed, cloth and educate everyone on the planet.

Envy has absolutely nothing to do with it. If anything, it's the wealthy who are envious, the idea of human beings living as equals and sharing the planet makes them jealous.

The impoverished are not envious, they don't want 3 story houses and Lamborghinis. All they want is basic human needs, and the capitalist system denies that from them.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

who would divide the land? Wouldn't that be an unequal distribution of power? Wouldn't granting on party power over another party be more unfair than having property owned by those who have earned it?

[-] 2 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

The land and property would be distributed democratically. Instead of one person owning millions of acres and millions of people owning nothing, the whole population would have a say in who owns the land.

The workers would own the factories they operate, and decide on their own working conditions and what they do with the products they create. All industry and economy would be organized democratically by everybody, instead of a handful of financiers.

be more unfair than having property owned by those who have earned it?

Define 'earned'. In today's world, a person could inherit land from his/her parents and then charge rent. They don't labor or contribute anything at all, yet are able to take wealth from those who do work. There's a big difference between owning and earning.

A capitalist extracts wealth from his employers without doing any work himself. The wages he pays are worth less than the value of the labor they produce. This is not true earning, it's exploiting.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

If the land was inherited, the family would have earned it and passed it olong to their heirs.

As far as dividing the land up, who decides who gets the beachfront property and who gets the farmland? Who invests the money for the factory and who decides how it should be run? There is a reason the janitor is not ordering the goods to make the products the factory produces, but may very well be in charge of which toilet cleaner to get. Who does purchasing? Who makes the goodies? Who does the book keeping? Who decides?

[-] 2 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

If the land was inherited, the family would have earned it and passed it olong to their heirs.

So? Being given a piece of paper from your parents doesn't equate to 'earning' it. Besides, all the land in the commonwealth was claimed illegitimately by the crown to begin with. That is not earning, it's stealing.

I also mentioned that a person who accumulates land through capitalism doesn't really earn anything, as it's a system of exploitation. A landlord is completely idle, they don't need to work at all, and by merely holding a little piece of paper called a deed, they take wealth from other people who weren't fortunate enough to be born into money, and would otherwise be homeless. A landlord is more like a parasite than a person who actually earns their money.

All those questions you asked - like I said, are answered via the democratic process. All decisions are made by the people collectively, not from just shareholders or executives, but by everybody. That's what democracy actually is.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Who gets your parents home? How is that particular piece of property distributed?

[-] 2 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

How is that particular piece of property distributed?

All property would distributed democratically. The people would decide collectively on how the land is used.

The fundamental flaw with today's systems of government and economic system is a there is no democracy.

There's no shortage of houses, it's likely nobody would lose their house.

All that would happen under a functioning democracy is that the thousands of empty houses which have been foreclosed upon would be inhabited by those who don't have access to shelter.

Those who profit from those houses being empty are in the minority, therefore therefore their vote would be weaker compared to the majority of people who desperately need shelter.

Most people realize that human needs are more important the needs of the market.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, upon your parents death, we all would have to go down to the polling place to vote on what to do with your parents home?

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

There would be committees organized at the community level. Each street, suburb, school, factory, university etc would have it's own assembly where decisions are made by the people who are involved in that community.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

That's not democratic. Everyone in the world should have the chance to vote in a true democracy. Are you saying that you would like to orchestrate the democracy to only the people you choose to help guarantee the outcome?

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

That's not democratic

It's completely democratic.

Everybody would be given the power to influence their lives. Every institution of our society would be subject to the democratic process by the people involved.

The whole idea of democracy is the empowerment of people - not just rich people, not just the government, not just the landowners - but every single person.

Are you saying that you would like to orchestrate the democracy to only the people you choose to help guarantee the outcome?

People would only have influence over decisions which affect them directly. Any powers which extend beyond the local community would become a form of tyranny - just like the federal government outlaws marijuana for everybody, even a great number of families and communities think it should be legal.

[-] 0 points by BearDickinson (125) from Ewing, VA 2 years ago

Dudeism rules ! abide and the world will be a better place. http://dudeism.com/

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by 1169 (204) 2 years ago

communism, socialism, liberal, democratic,republican, etc., etc, all words IMO what we live in now is a Capitalistic dictatorship, with little "rights" left and rapidly losing them.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Because Progressives have been eroding the Constitution.

Restore the Constitution.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

How about we don't nitpic over the name? Let's look at the history, closely and carefully and see what is most likely to work and take as few steps and suffer the minimal disruption getting from here to there?

Then, when we have it working pretty well we will have a naming contest.

Otherwise we will have all of the champions of this system or that system claiming victory. People looking to claim victory before the race, seldom help win it.

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

Libertarian Socialism is what we should strive for. Libertarian Socialism is about building democracy from below, making democratic influence proportional to how much things affect you. That means democratic control of workplaces, democratic control of communities, democratic federations of different cooperating communities, and so on.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-must-be-replaced-by-real-democracy-libe/

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1317735903_chomsky_explains_libe.html

[-] 1 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I love that I can always count on you to spread a message I support. Thank you for all you do <3

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

And thank you for having done something much bigger than writing articles and comments: creating a wonderful, solidaric and growing Occupy Movement now spreading thruout the entire world!

Thanks for those kind words. Solidarity :)

sff

[-] 4 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Thank you for your kind words of support! I consider myself one of the founders, but I certainly wouldn't call myself the creator. I do however love to serve this wonderful movement :D

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

I thought you were a communist.

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

Libertarian Socialism is a group of very similar, but on some areas different, political philosophies . Anarcho-Communism (aka Anarchist Communism) is one of the these philosopies.

[-] 1 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I'm an anarchist communist but libertarian socialism is close enough and sounds a lot less scary to most people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

[-] 0 points by human6 (88) 2 years ago

libertarian socialism works but only on the small scale (sports team, family, tribes, small towns, schools ETC) not on the large scale, on the large scale markets are better, now I believe humans will tend towards mutualist markets and market co-ops in a voluntaryist system and the fact that most communities would be socialist makes the world in voluntaryism very socialist. forcing people into socialism is wrong

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

I was addressing Ms. Jart.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Screw your made up libertarian socialism

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

You mean as opposed to your neo-liberal fascism?

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Lololololololol oh funny

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Just asking...

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Dick.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Fuck your trolling ass.

[-] -1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Lol that's right. I trolled there because it pisses me off when someone makes up bullshit than tries to pass it off as credible theory. What a bunch of crap

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

LOL Wrong answer, Cornflake. You troll because you are a dick. Period.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Lolololol yeah I'm being a dick. Doesn't make me wrong though.

(and 'cornflake' WTF lol)

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Oh, you are wrong and your a dick.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

I'm wrong because I'm a dick? Doesn't make sense. Libertarian socialism is a made up ideology that is based in fantasy, not fact

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You are wrong and you are a dick. I am sure that this is difficult for you but if you meditate on your wrongness and your dickiness then all will be revealed.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Fine. Continue to believe your stupid Mythology. I'm going to go and actually live.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Good deal! Scram!

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

If someone else is controlling our workplaces, how is that individual freedom for you or me? Who would be the one who controls our workplaces? Why would that person be preferable to a boss controlling our workplaces? Wouldn't that person just be "the boss"?

If the democracy is "built from below", wouldn't there be someone in charge? How is that different than what we have now?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Why do you assume someone form the 'government' is controlling the work place?

How about worker owned and run collectives as the model here, 100% democratic, with all people involved getting equal shares of the profits of the operation. There are many of these now, and the history shows that they can be just as stable and profitable as single 1% private ownership. In fact this organisational structure wins on so many levels that it seem inevitable that this is the model will be widely adopted.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

There are NONE of these companies that you described. All employee owned companies that are profitable pay the workers salaries commiserate to their work- everyone doesn't get paid the same

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

What you know this because you just 'thought about it' and came to this conclusion? Reality is not based on what you say about it, but on actual facts. There are MANY worker owned/run business, and yes some are based on equal shares for all members.

Try; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative or; http://www.usworker.coop/front

to get some actual info. not pointless conjecture.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Yeah read that stuff the definitions examples etc. Didn't specify on the examples how the shares were distributed between workers. The definition on wikipedia did, but not the examples

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I asked him who would be in control because he said "That means democratic control of workplaces, democratic control of communities, democratic federations of different cooperating communities".... I was interested in who would be the one that exorcized the "control". There will always have to be someone in control.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You got the answer in the links that were provided to you. If you want the info (which we all know you really don't,) you would go to the links.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Your links give no reason why communism or socialism would be superior to the system we have here now. Is the benefits so nebulous you cannot define the positives yourself? Is it possible that the system we have now is superior and you cannot think of any reasons that communism and socialism would be better for the citizens of the US?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The link are not about Communism or socialism. That wasn't the question you asked that I replied to. Your questions was : "Who would be in control" in an Anarcho/syndicalist (libertarian/soclialist) workplace.

In the workplace, the people who be exercising control. They would elect the CEO of the company, they would comprise the board, either through representatives or direct votes on budget or policy. Such companies already exist (and have for 60 years or more) and have been shown to be competitive concerns in the marketplace.

In terms of local politics, the mechanisms would be set up according to each community's decisions, but all decision making would be done via direct democracy. He people themselves, rather than representatives, would pass the laws, and administrators would be hired by the community to administer and enforce the laws.

I personally don't see that being workable. There are indeed too many vagaries that I see. And on a national level it would be a disaster. Direct democracy has unlimited potential for tyranny and manipulation, as witnessed in California's referendum process. It would simply swap out today's known problems for tomorrow's known AND unknown ones. At best, on a national scale, it is just as Utopian and ill thought out as right wing Libertarianism. And, as the saying goes, one man's utopia is another man's tyranny.

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

We´d be controlling our own lives and workplaces. Read the links

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Okay, I came back here for more room.

What is your idea of communism and how would it be structured?

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

I´m not sure what you´re asking.. My idea? Communism, Anarcho-Communism, that is - what the word was originally intended to mean - is a political philosophy you can read all about on the net.

I have given you the links that says how I wnat the society to look like:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-must-be-replaced-by-real-democracy-libe/

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Are you published, or is the issue so complex you are unable to articulate it? Oddly, freedom is very easy to understand and articulate, oppression is complex because it involves justifying reasons to take individual liberties away from the people.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

We have controlled our own lives and workplaces to this point, why should we take a chance on changing to an unknown? Why change what has worked so well for so long?

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

We don´t control our own lives: Enormous wealth and power are highly concentrated in the hands of the finacial elite. They have huge power society, hence power over our lives.

We dont control workplaces. Workplaces are not controlled democratically by the workforce and participants, but by leaders giving orders. Today´s society is - to a large extent - private tyranny and command economy.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

How were you controlled today?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Don´t go into my personal life, let´s stick to the political issues, please. I just told you how we - to a alarge extent - dont control our own lives and workplaces.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, you cannot come up with one instance of being controlled today. I will take that as a point for me.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Means of production, capital and wealth is highly concentrated on the financial elite. They control the insitutions and the economy to a large extent. They decide what you have to do at your workplace, they decide what you get to watch on TV, they decide which products you can buy etc etc.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You are forced to do what you do at work? To what extent are you forced? Do they retain you for 24 hours a day or are you ever permitted to leave?

Does your workplace only provide just one channel for you to watch after the work you are forced to do, or are you forced to work while they play one channel on a TV in front of you?

What kinds of products are you forced to buy? We are not required here to purchase any product, with the exception of the new Obamacare bill, which will force everyone to purchase health insurance whether they would prefer to purchase it or not. We here are very concerned that once precedence is set, there would be no restriction on what we could be forced by our government to purchase.

Have you ever visited the US? We here are not forced to do work or watch a channel anyone prescribes for us.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

You can´t be serious. The finacial elite have an enormous power in society. They control the mainstream media, the control the multinational powerful corporations etc

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You were the one who said you were forced to work. You said someelse decided what you watched on TV. You said someone else made the choice over which product you bought and used. Apparently, you can't be serious.

[-] 1 points by flip (7011) 2 years ago

who do you work for?? first of all you are mixing systems - economic and political - democracy is a political term and communism is an economic term - you need to understand what you are talking about

[-] 1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Communism is an economic term as well as a political term. You cannot enforce communism withoout the force of government. Communism erases freedom... ALL FREEDOM.

[-] 1 points by flip (7011) 2 years ago

you have your own definition - that's ok - speak nonsense if you like just not to me- did you answer my question about your work??

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

My own definition for what?

I work for many people.

[-] 1 points by flip (7011) 2 years ago

your own definition of political and economic terms and you are controlled by those you work for - it is dumb and dumber on this site!

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Communism and Socialism are pretty well understood by those who know history and the results of the adoption of that type of system. Both result in the government and officials exercising oppressive power and imposing their will on the people. Both erase individual freedom... All freedom.

What is you definition?

[-] 1 points by flip (7011) 2 years ago

look it up yourself

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Are you published, or is the issue so complex you are unable to articulate it? Oddly, freedom is very easy to understand and articulate, oppression is complex because it involves justifying reasons to take individual liberties away from the people.

[-] 1 points by flip (7011) 2 years ago

political and economic terms - that is the issue - not hard to understand except for those who do not want to. you have your own definition - look it up! you are confused or stupid. democracy and capitalism are terms of politics and economy - same with communism - believe what you want but go away

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

When you say "communism" do you mean leninism or Anarcho-Communism?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Communism is communism....

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I don´t follow. Are you saying that L and AC are synonyms

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

No, I am saying that you can put any adjective in front of communism and it will still be communism. Fuzzy baby bunny communism leaders will still resort to killing individuals to make the fuzzy baby bunny communism work.

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

It´s just that many have referred to "communism" as totalitarian leininist/stalinist dictatorship.

When you say "communism" which kind of society/ imagined society are you then referring to?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

In more ways than you can count.

If you can count.

[-] 0 points by human6 (88) 2 years ago

give me one

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Every product I've ever bought that has obsolescence planned into it.

Every one of those is a form of control.

[-] 0 points by human6 (88) 2 years ago

By that logic hunger forces you into buying food

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

A more narrow, uninformed point of view, would be difficult to come by.

I won't bother to explain planned obsolescence to you, as it's something you should at least be aware of.

You're not aware.

[-] 0 points by human6 (88) 2 years ago

I know what it is, thats not manipulation any more that me having water, you wanting water and me charging you for water is manipulation. (though if your stupid enough to buy bottled water...)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

How is designing a product to have a limited life span not manipulation?

It is nothing but manipulation.

[-] 0 points by human6 (88) 2 years ago

We must have different understandings of manipulation because to me its fraud