Suit yourself and fair enough.

I'll leave it at that, then, having presented an argument and having not had it refuted.

Ah, yes.

Read this (which I've already linked you to): http://www.marxists.de/statecap/harman/revlost.htm

And this: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/stal-o20.shtml

Are you pleased with that? I'd rather have my argument refuted for the sake of learning something new.

Yeah, or having exposed the contradictions in someone else's argument; but whatever.

It's not as if I haven't, at several points in this thread, openly invited people to back their arguments up by leading me to the sources that have given them their conclusions on the matter.

I wouldn't say I am pleased. I am content at having presented my own arguments and having not had them refuted. And for the record, I never at any point in this thread suggested its intention was to attack the very weak argument that socialism is theoretically inept and empirically disproven. But when such arguments crop up, as they did here, here, here and here (not including the odd clever-dick snide remark directed at me), I'll happily defend the contrary.

Awwww.. please. Your argument is based on claiming that Cuba, or China, etc. were not socialist. There's no point arguing if you are going to exclude any miserable failure and say well, that isn't what I call socialism.

I necessarily disassociate myself from Stalinism and state capitalism because I'm a Marxist and therefore see in Stalinism and state capitalism a clear distortion of Marxism - clear for anyone to admit should they wish to trace its historical development. Trotsky was arguing against Stalinism and what it would do to the Russian Revolution whilst Stalin himself was creating the bureaucracy that defined itself as "socialist" and which, due to political genocide by that bureaucracy, was accepted by many thenceforth as such.

I heard the Marxist geographer and activist David Harvey say in an interview recently that we should be looking at "a new kind of socialism"; what he means is that if we're to accept on a linguistic level that Stalinism was "socialism" (and we might accept it because through this very distortion "socialism" may have become a "dirty word"), then we ought to return to the kind of socialism prior to its distortion and bureaucratic and systematic corruption - which is to in fact return to my first post in this thread in which I defended socialism against false claims against it.

You've already demonstrated that you have no clue as to what socialism is, or what state capitalism or Stalinism are; or, apparently, what capitalism is. If you disagree that you've demonstrated cluelessness about these things, feel free to tell me how. Otherwise...

Your notion of socialism as given in this thread:

- Socialism 'puts the welfare of society before individuals'.
- Socialism 'requires regulating laws to prevent free competition in favor of the majority'.
- In order to be a socialist 'you'd have to make the press shut up about infringing upon individual rights'.
- Under socialism - or to be precise if you 'whisper socialism' - 'money escapes, people suffer as the result, they start to complain'.
- Socialists 'silence those who complain'.
- Just as capitalism is here to stay (more below), so 'the hope for a socialist movement would never end', because there will always be people who 'would start reading shiny bright ideas and experience the same outcome over and over again', even though capitalism hasn't always existed and therefore socialism hasn't always existed, and even though a huge number of ideas once taken for granted are now regarded as silly, such as the earth being flat and that there were a bunch of Greek gods who ruled the earth.

Now this is what your notion of capitalism amounts to in this thread:

- Capitalism, or 'free competition', is 'actually the least set of laws in an economic system'.
- Capitalism is 'freedom of individuals to compete in the market and it doesn't stop people from sharing wealth if they choose to'. (A case in point is private insurance companies.)
- Under capitalism, 'people get paid for what they do, period'.
- Under capitalism, the fact that 'people get paid for what they do, period' doesn't 'give them any right to the wealth they are helping to create'.
- Under capitalism, if people wish to have 'any right to the wealth they are helping to create', then 'they can start their own business and see how that goes'.
- 'The true capitalism [sic] will take care of itself'.
- Under capitalism, 'People rise and fall in the economical ladder all the time'.
- Capitalism 'is and will always be here to stay'. (Might we say the same for the ice caps in the north pole?)
- Capitalism is 'based on greed'.
- Since greed is 'in our nature', capitalism is also 'in our nature', even if we're, erm, either not capitalists or, erm, against capitalism. (I suppose socialists or anyone who doesn't own their own property have some biological defect? Or are we talking about society, which is from your arguments to be accepted as something different to the individuals that comprise it?)

Do I really need to point out again the fact that these are either vague, transparent claims or outright truisms that have no benefit to your defence of capitalism or your attack on socialism?

So in a nutshell, you want socialism, which is essentially putting all the flow of economy in the hands of the government, but then claim there's no requirement for bureaucracy. And if it were to happen, there would be no corruption in the government with distributing all that money. More daydreams.

I think I should just shoot commies Denny Crane style. There's no point arguing.

LMFAO! You can't make this stuff up.

'Putting all the flow of economy in the hands of the government' could easily apply to state capitalism, the very thing I've disassociated myself from in this thread.

It depends on the economy, and that would determine the government.

So to the first list above we can add:
- Socialism 'is essentially putting all the flow of economy in the hands of the government'.

'More daydreams'? You've not put a single argument forward in this thread which isn't utopian or idealist.

Cool! Good luck with that. Make sure you don't do society a favour by shooting them, just make sure you do yourself one.

Redistribution of wealth needs force. Who else would be in charge of such a force if not the government, even if you want to call them working class (Now promoted to government)? And how capitalism in this sense could have a hand in such a distribution?

Laugh your ass off, if anyone with such thoughts came at my doorstep, I will shoot them before I gave up my property.

Not necessarily. The distribution of wealth as things stand isn't done by force.

If you mean a change in class relations cannot happen without force, you're probably right: if a ruling class can be displaced by legal methods, it isn't a ruling class. Hence revolution.

What?

Oh yes, the class struggle.

Do you own your home and do you own a gun?

This is an insightful read, afs:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

No. But I'm thinking I should get a gun and should shoot some commies. And no, I don't own a house, but I still would shoot commies.

And I'm sorry, no matter how open minded I'm trying to be, every line of that link makes me cringe.

Now what news should these articles tell me about the two mass murderers Lenin and Trotsky?

LMFAO!

No you woodaaaant!

It's less about being 'open minded' than being rational in thought and sensitive to history thus society. I suspect you didn't read much, and if you did, I'd like to hear some actual response to it that isn't a deliberate attempt to bury one's head up one's ass and admire the puerile view therein.

Anyway, how many times has someone had their cluelessness exposed in an argument only to resort to childish humour? All answers to be sent via PM, Pizzaboy.

How about you tell me?

And stop being silly.

Here is an interesting thought by H.W. Brands, author of "American Colossus - The Triumph of Capitalism." Noting the coincidental publication of the US Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith's "Wealthh of Nations" in 1776, Brands writes:

"Democracy depends on equality, capitalism on inequality. Citizens in a democracy comem to the public square with one vote each; participants in a capitalist economy arrive at the marketplace with unequal talents and resources, and leave the marketplace with unequal rewards. Nor is inequality simply a side effect of capitalism. A capitalist economy can't operate without it. The differing talents and resources of individuals are recruited and sorted by the differential rewards, which reinforce the original differences. Inequality drives the engine of capitalsm as surely as unequal temperatures drive heat engines--including the steam engines that were the signature devices of industrial capitalism."

And would you agree, Turnbull, that society is in an unprecedented position to collectively change the class relations in order to redistribute its wealth evenly, based on social need and not self-expanding profit?

Oh, yes, I would. Try me.

Rational? You call seizing people's property rational? Either there is a new meaning to rational, or rational has become subjective as well.



For example gold is a commodity, wouldn't price of it fall if there are more gold than what we ask for in the market? How is not taken into account?

Do I need to read passed that? And I did, and frankly, some of it only applies to 18 century England. I'm not sure how life under Queen is nowadays. Is it still like that? Only the eldest male get the state? Who else does that anymore? Don't we have mandatory state paid education for all children even under capitalism?

I would argue for the seizure of all private property and its abolition in order for collective ownership to happen.

You needn't worry, since you're not a capitalist, and don't have any property to seize. (Save the gun money for a cannoli.)

How is what not taken into account?

The eldest don't take charge of the state, but then neither do the most able. What's your point?

Arguably yes to a certain age, but education isn't removed from society and therefore isn't removed from the gulf of wealth between classes; education is becoming increasingly privatised and expensive.

Yeah, since I'm not a Jew, need not to worry about rounding up Jews either, right? No, thank you. I'm gonna get that gun.



Labor means shit nowadays. You are easily replicable by robots, by cheap Chinese, etc. When you start talking about labor like it is such a valuable commodity, you wouldn't be taken seriously, even by the working class.



So how is it done then? Is it divided between the heirs? My point is, when that manifesto was written, they were opposing feudalism rather than capitalism. And you bring your English problems into an American capitalism, where most of these issues have been resolved.



So what? State is required to provide basic education for all according to that manifesto, which it does. If I choose to teach my kids more, what's it to you, or the state?

And we add:
- Socialism 'rounds up Jews'.

I smell the theory of conspiracy. These posts are starting to amount to a suggestion of severe social and political paranoia. WTF?

I also smell meaninglessness. Seriously, what was the significance of that analogy? Did you think it through before typing it? I've read it three times now and still don't know what you're on about.

Ah, what a great system!

It hasn't occurred that being 'easily replicable' 'by cheap Chinese, etc.' isn't itself a product of an economic system based on profit through exploitation? And what of the living conditions faced by 'the cheap Chinese', who are themselves wage slaves?

Is what divided between the heirs? The heirs of whom?

What are you talking about?

Which 'English problems' am I bringing into 'American capitalism'? What 'issues have been resolved'? What does the USA economy offer that the British doesn't?

Where in fact have we been discussing the USA and England?

Seriously, what are you talking about?

I'm talking about capitalism as we face it today, during an international economic crisis. Where have I talked about England here? Or America for that matter? This whole discussion started because I told RRA that Cuba, China and the Eastern Bloc states weren't and aren't socialist. You seem to be arguing against a giant straw man, under the assumption that socialism has been empirically disproven and/or theoretically inept, and your arguments have been carried through with firstly idealist lingo and then secondly a sort of humour that does indeed amount to sticking one's head up one's ass and enjoying the view found therein.

It's reactionary nonsense. You haven't addressed many if any of the concrete arguments I've put forth in this thread, in response in the first place to your often nonsensical posts.

In fact, my first actual response to you in this thread points out the literal nonsense of your post!

I'm not sure if you misunderstood what is meant by 'privatisation', but what you do at home with your children or anything else hasn't been a part of my discussion.

Oh, and you've provided me with such insight to my questions with "what?" and "what are you talking about?" to just swiftly drift away without answering them.



As for the analogy, you say you shouldn't worry, since you are not the target. It's that simple and it applies and it sticks and it hurts, right? It should. Because it is just the same. Why shouldn't I be worried about the individual rights of those who own? Because I don't own? How about you, did you think what you said through?



And suppose you made the whole world a socialist state. Again the number of workers exceed the amount of work, and maybe the work conditions of Chinese get better and that of American's get worse compared to what it was. Which brings us back to the point that if the labor is commodity, it is an insignificance one these days and doesn't call the shots. Next we should start fighting robots as a socialist states. Those bastards stealing our jobs.



Great, another great answer to an obvious question. Inheritance. How is a state divided between the heirs amongst the queens subjects?

Bunch of blah blah here to avert the issues. Nice. Your answer: blah, blah blah. Now I feel much better.


How is the private four walls of a school different than the privacy of my home?

How am I supposed to answer something that doesn't make sense other than by pointing out that it doesn't, in fact, make sense?

I thought what I wrote through, yes: I read what you'd written, didn't know what it meant, and pointed that out.

I told you not to worry about the propertied class because you told me earlier that you care about individuals over society, so I would from that find it absurd that you would worry about a class that you're not a part of; and if by 'individual rights' you simply mean the 'right' of the propertied class to own property (which is a privilege, not a right) and not the right of the exploited class to education, shelter, food, work and so on, then I can only disagree in the extreme with your conservative viewpoint and call upon anybody who cares for anybody other than themselves to cry out in line with me, right here in this very thread.

You keep insisting on imposing certain assumptions you have about socialism - in this case 'workers exceeding the amount of work' - onto a continued capitalist method of production. Frankly, how am I supposed to respond to this other than to point out its dreadful meaninglessness?

Oh dear.

The queen doesn't rule the state, hence my confusion in response to your meaningless post.

None of my posts here amount to 'blah blah blah' and you know it. If you don't want me to point out how nonsensical your posts are, don't post nonsensical posts in response to my own.

Is that a serious question, one I'm supposed to answer?

There are numerous differences between the social space of a school and the domestic space of the home. You could name some yourself, I'm sure.

We have to ask why someone would opt to send their children to a private school in the first place, and then ask how they would be capable of paying for this education. The notion that one can receive a better education by paying more for it is itself a product of capitalism and economic inequality.

Great. This post doesn't even amount to a single blah. I've better things to do, which doesn't even include buying that gun.

Hardly. The entire world is in a frenzy of "gimme/gimme/gimme." I doubt there's a society anywhere in which collective responsibility trumps individual greed.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Nice ideal, Karl, but not even Lenin believed it.

As I've said already, society isn't based on greed. Under capitalism, the economy operates via the self-expansion of profit, which requires exploitation.

Sure, there are greedy people - there may always be greedy people - but from the fact that society isn't based on greed, it follows that its economic transformation is very possible indeed.

But hey, suit yourself.