Who should own and control the means of production?

[JBeukema]

In a nutshell an anarcho-syndicalist believes that labor should own the means of production via their own capitalist ventures/companies/corporations/coops and that EVERYBODY should be in the labor class.

Wouldn't owning a capitalist venture make you a capitalist?

And is not the syndicate just another cartel?

 

[JBeukema]

And that is your excuse for Trillions of debt YOU owe because capitalism failed? And you surely will never repay the debt, so who is left to do that for you? For the good of the Corrupt corportions??

No, idiot.. it is not because capitalism failed... the debt is because an overbloated and corrupt government has failed... failed us bad

Well imbecile, do you happen to know who owns government? Let me give you a ******* vowel, not U.

yet you can control the government once we give it ownership of the means of production?

 

[JBeukema]

history has shown a blurring between these forms. For instance, in the Soviet Union the means of production were controlled by a ruling elite (Politburo)

authoritarian bureaucratic collectivism

If social security were to become "privatized," the means of production would be at least partly collectively owned by all the workers.

Clarify

 

[shintao]

Where have you seen a successful Socialist program? Never. Capitalism has been the most successful program ever. Problem is everyone wants to be boss and most aren't smart enough. At least with Capitalism if you are smart enough the bosses will make sure you get ahead. You don't have to be some 3rd cousin of the current dictator

Capitalism is bankrupt to the tune 14Trillion, so stop talking nonsense. It has murdered millions in its Empirical wars, polluted the Earth, and starved the people it was to serve. And while you ignore it, socialism does work, and is shown to you over & over & over again, so you must be blind if you missed it. I am sure I could point out a country today and you would ask the same question tomorrow.

This debate has to do with what capitalism is capable of doing to the serfs, which is move you back to #1. if left unabated.

You mean socialist country's never had a war?(Germany), Polluted anything?(China),starved people?(China). I guess if it works so good over and over it's because none of them last too long. And WHAT country's that were so successful did you mention? Oh that's right, NONE. GOD BLESS AMERICA. Best country EVER. Only problem we have is too many Socialist Politicians.

Write these on your forehead...................
GDP per capita, (Nominal) in USD.

1 Luxembourg 111,240 (Christian Social people's party)
2 Norway 94,353 (Socialist)
3 Switzerland 64,015 (Socialist)
4 Ireland 63,185 (Independant - ?)
5 Denmark 62,332 (Socialist)
6 Iceland 52,557 (Socialist)
7 Netherlands 52,321 (Socialist)
8 Sweden 52,057 (Socialist)
9 Finland 51,062 (Socialist)
10 Austria 49,900 (Socialist)
11 Australia 47,498 (Socialist)
12 United States 46,716 (NOT SOCIALIST!!!!)

(World Bank)

 

[shintao]

Have y'all ever considered having a civil conversation? o_0

While you are here, who do you think runs America?

 

[JBeukema]

Jusus Christ, can Rdean ever post without '90% of Republicans are White' or '10% of scientists are Republicans'?

 

[JBeukema]

Have y'all ever considered having a civil conversation? o_0

While you are here, who do you think runs America?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSpOjj4YD8c&feature=related[/ame][ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZI_aEalijE"][/ame]

 

[Agit8r]

Capitalism is bankrupt to the tune 14Trillion, so stop talking nonsense. It has murdered millions in its Empirical wars, polluted the Earth, and starved the people it was to serve. And while you ignore it, socialism does work, and is shown to you over & over & over again, so you must be blind if you missed it. I am sure I could point out a country today and you would ask the same question tomorrow.

This debate has to do with what capitalism is capable of doing to the serfs, which is move you back to #1. if left unabated.

You mean socialist country's never had a war?(Germany), Polluted anything?(China),starved people?(China). I guess if it works so good over and over it's because none of them last too long. And WHAT country's that were so successful did you mention? Oh that's right, NONE. GOD BLESS AMERICA. Best country EVER. Only problem we have is too many Socialist Politicians.

Write these on your forehead...................
GDP per capita, (Nominal) in USD.

1 Luxembourg 111,240 (Christian Social people's party)
2 Norway 94,353 (Socialist)
3 Switzerland 64,015 (Socialist)
4 Ireland 63,185 (Independant - ?)
5 Denmark 62,332 (Socialist)
6 Iceland 52,557 (Socialist)
7 Netherlands 52,321 (Socialist)
8 Sweden 52,057 (Socialist)
9 Finland 51,062 (Socialist)
10 Austria 49,900 (Socialist)
11 Australia 47,498 (Socialist)
12 United States 46,716 (NOT SOCIALIST!!!!)

(World Bank)

Actually, those are all free market/mixed economies with a vigorous social safety net. Their economies are only partly planned, or have some portions that are strongly regulated. Socialism, strictly speaking involves a governing authority planning the whole legal economy

 

[shintao]

America worked best when there was a blending of capitalism and socialism. People who were able to make lots of money invested in middle class America.

Today, you have two political parties, one that is 90% white and blindly follows a greedy leadership that sends American jobs overseas for a buck, wants to turn America into a cesspool for a buck and will pass tax breaks for people who have so many bucks, they will never be able to spend it all.

Then you have the other political party that is made up of everyone else and is so diverse, they are constantly hamstrung by incessant attacks from the other party and by their inability to present a unified front.

One side is united and unknowingly anti American.

If you are against the middle class, you are anti American. If you vote people into office that hurt the country, then you are anti American. Call yourself patriotic, but if you vote people into office and the very first thing they do is hold the middle class hostage to bring hundreds of billions to 1.7% of America, then you are most definitely "anti American".

The other side is simply too fractured.

The fact that the Republican Party is 90% white makes it the "natural leader" of the country, not because they are white, but because they are "unified" in a way the other party isn't.

But the Republican Party has simply become too stupid. Seriously, how can the base accept their leadership apologizing to BP? The fiasco that is Iraq? Another 1.1 trillion added to the deficit and the reason for that? To give money to millionaires and billionaires? And still, they defend the "indefensible". The Democrats have too much to lose standing against the Republicans.

Simply the FACT that the Republican leadership is whining about having to work close to Christmas when they wanted to deny unemployment benefits to millions of Americans JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS simply to give money to "Scrooge" that Scrooge didn't even ask for. It's so over the top is a disgrace. Deep down, the Republican base has to feel spit on. If they don't, then they are truly stupid.

a greedy leadership that sends American jobs overseas for a buck, wants to turn America into a cesspool for a buck and will pass tax breaks for people who have so many bucks, they will never be able to spend it all.


So could you be more specific as to who this greedy leadership is made up of? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but some here think the greedy leadership are those that give Americans entitlements. Who are you referring to?

 

[Agit8r]

Have y'all ever considered having a civil conversation? o_0

While you are here, who do you think runs America?

a bunch of dead presidents ;-|

 

[JBeukema]

Antifa

 

[shintao]

One of the central questions of any political ideology is "Who should own and control the means the production?" (Means of production refers to factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.) Generally there have been three approaches to this issue.

1.The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood.

2.The second is capitalism, which disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded.

3.The third approach is socialism, which is defined as "the collective ownership and control of the means of production." That is, everyone owns and controls productive wealth, which is accomplished through the vote.

As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
====http://www.huppi.com

I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.

1) such is not the only definition of socialism

2) through the vote? That would mean the State owned the means of production. Sounds like fascism

Correct, there are many types of socialism. Not fascism if the people vote their society means, which is democratic socialism.

 

[shintao]

Shin's come out of his shell


I say we burn the fascist at the stake

At 50 degress outside, I would gladly be staked.

 

[JBeukema]

One of the central questions of any political ideology is "Who should own and control the means the production?" (Means of production refers to factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.) Generally there have been three approaches to this issue.

1.The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood.

2.The second is capitalism, which disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded.

3.The third approach is socialism, which is defined as "the collective ownership and control of the means of production." That is, everyone owns and controls productive wealth, which is accomplished through the vote.

As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
====http://www.huppi.com

I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.

1) such is not the only definition of socialism

2) through the vote? That would mean the State owned the means of production. Sounds like fascism

Correct, there are many types of socialism. Not fascism if the people vote their society means, which is democratic socialism.

I know what democratic socialism is. What you've outlined in this thread is fascism:

You want Der Staat to own the means of production

You want to make it clear that The People don't control Der Staat

You think you'll be one of the elites controlling Der Staat

Der Staat is- or should be- the boss, you say

You want to merge State and corporate power into an entity you control

That's authoritarian bureaucratic collectivism at best, and more likely to end in fascism and totalitarianism.


You've been added to the Antifa League's Watch List, as well as to the ATL's Suspected Troll list

 

[shintao]

I am me, who is everyone but the owner of production that I must make a living wage from. He the owner is a known dangerous person who must be owned and controlled from destroying us all. He should only exist as the government where I can control him.

You are a communist. Isn't there a communist country you could move to?

Actually, Shin's a fascist, if you read carefully

The State (government) should be the Boss who owns the means of production- because some little idiot on the Internet can control it (become the dictator) then

BUT if you asked nicely, your might find out I want a democratic socialist society where government controls the means of production, where the voters decide what is acceptable to their control. I don't subscribe to Marxism or fascism. I want a system that favors the citizens, not the corporate Elite. The Euro state is close to what I wish for America.

I do have a mustache.

 

[Agit8r]

You are a communist. Isn't there a communist country you could move to?

Actually, Shin's a fascist, if you read carefully

The State (government) should be the Boss who owns the means of production- because some little idiot on the Internet can control it (become the dictator) then

BUT if you asked nicely, your might find out I want a democratic socialist society where government controls the means of production, where the voters decide what is acceptable to their control. I don't subscribe to Marxism or fascism. I want a system that favors the citizens, not the corporate Elite. The Euro state is close to what I wish for America.

I do have a mustache.

Sounds like what George Orwell was for

 

[Agit8r]

history has shown a blurring between these forms. For instance, in the Soviet Union the means of production were controlled by a ruling elite (Politburo)

authoritarian bureaucratic collectivism

If social security were to become "privatized," the means of production would be at least partly collectively owned by all the workers.

Clarify

If social security taxes were invested into the joint stock ownership of companies, the workers whose taxes were invested such would each own a part of the means of production

 

[shintao]

No, idiot.. it is not because capitalism failed... the debt is because an overbloated and corrupt government has failed... failed us bad

Well imbecile, do you happen to know who owns government? Let me give you a ******* vowel, not U.

yet you can control the government once we give it ownership of the means of production?

Of course, I doubt workers would corrupt themselves in a system they design.

 

[loosecannon]

In a nutshell an anarcho-syndicalist believes that labor should own the means of production via their own capitalist ventures/companies/corporations/coops and that EVERYBODY should be in the labor class.

Wouldn't owning a capitalist venture make you a capitalist?

And is not the syndicate just another cartel?

Anarcho-syndicalists are capitalists. Except everybody is labor and a capitalist at once.

 

[shintao]

1) such is not the only definition of socialism

2) through the vote? That would mean the State owned the means of production. Sounds like fascism

Correct, there are many types of socialism. Not fascism if the people vote their society means, which is democratic socialism.

I know what democratic socialism is. What you've outlined in this thread is fascism:

You want Der Staat to own the means of production

You want to make it clear that The People don't control Der Staat

You think you'll be one of the elites controlling Der Staat

Der Staat is- or should be- the boss, you say

You want to merge State and corporate power into an entity you control

That's authoritarian bureaucratic collectivism at best, and more likely to end in fascism and totalitarianism.


You've been added to the Antifa League's Watch List, as well as to the ATL's Suspected Troll list

I didn't say that. The people control the state by their vote, thus they have the control over the production. The state merges, controls production to pricing, worker benefits, and keeps a stable economy so all benefit from it.