beyelzu

August Spies, sure no state for 99.9 percent of human existence, those hunter gatherer's definitely didnt have a state. But once agriculture kicks in and people can grow enough food to create villages and cities and division of labor

BAM


you have states, so unless you want to go back to hunter gathering, which by the way would entail killing off most of the humans on earth, the state is going to stay. which was kind of my point, but then I was assuming that I didnt have to go through this to point that out, (in retrospect given my experience with you august, I should have realized that I needed to spell it out.)

The power in those countries is derived from the consent of the governed, so the people do have supreme power.

August Spies

Beyelzu: There are plenty of other examples in modern history, but this is getting off topic.

David Payne: Didn't you basically just say "communism would have to be capitalism".... does this really address the question?

ieyeasu

To answer Q.1:

Make the socialistic part voluntary.

My major problem with socialism is that it places society over the individual by requiring the individual to give up a majority of his incomes--

(earned by his toils
[or, as I think Moon might say, stolen from others toils through unfair, mercantile pressure. Keep in mind, however, that mercantilism isn't capitalism. Capitalism is mutaul trade with mutual consent to mutual benefit])

--to the "workers" for distribution.

This distrubution necessetates a state, because we are all duly suspicious of individuals.
(Why the less sentient of us
[that is, those who can't carry on conversations such as this, or on metaphysics, et al.]
trust a government, I'll never understand.)

But why should I be forced to relinquish my earned resources to others? Why must my toil be spread to the society?

Because according to the collectivist theory that is the basis of socialism,
(or at least, how I interpret it [and I'll be honest, I haven't read Marx]),
the happiness of the individual is depedent on a healthy state, due to class oppression.

So-maybe the so-called "ungodly existentialism" of Sarte?

Now, I also believe in an ungodly existentialism, but instead of placing the happiness of individual man at the hands of his society, I place it upon him. Each man is capable
(ordinary case, mind you, I don't want to hear about Down' Syndrome examples [just throwing this set of brackets in to confuse you])
of making himself one of those capitalistic fat cats--Was it Carnegie that immigrated from Scotland near penniless?

So, in short,
(or in long, I suppose--perhaps medium... Of course, when I run the mile, it gets murky--not a sprint, but not endurance--hmm...)
I support capitalism
(true slightly mixed capitalism, mind you--which is somewhat practiced domestically in the US--but not the imperialistic bilk we pass as capitalism with overseas trading partners [might as well call them bitches])
with voluntary socialism--and that, of course, is called charity. Give till it hurts--if you want to.

Now, then, Moon, if my post is worthy of your response, please be gentle. I'm but 17, have but a wee bit of that dangerous knowledge, and it's nearly 1AM here. I just got done working for my capitalist "man"--who, ironically, is a 4 foot 8 inch Vietnamese woman who immigrated about 20 years ago.

A note about my parentheticals--Sorry, but I don't concentrate well--(hey, look, a bird....) and often, as I think a thought, a little ( pops up... and then a [.... and even, occasionaly, a {... Fortunately (for you), my keyboard runs out of brackety things at this threshhold.

Pardon me for attempting to inject a wee bit of humor--Feel free to throw spoons at me.

moon

Such as?

In fact, this question gets right to the heart of the topic.

John Hancock

Whyisit that we agree with social democracy and Duya and the rest like Loren Pechecl (or what )+ youngun's like 99 and Elwood .
Seem to think us pink?

Martin Buber

August Spies

well I suppose it would depend on your definition of "the state" but id say the pirate utopias, Zapatistas, Makhonovist russia etc... would count. However, this cleary has little to do with what communism and capitalistm need to change. Start a new thread if you want.

beyelzu

I cant think of much that would convince me to go to communism, hell it would need a major overhaul to be tolerable. I know too many people that came from communist countries, turns out those places really, really sucked. So if you could change it to keep it from destroying individual rights and killing technological innovation and economic progress, I guess I would embrace it, but what would be the point, we already have capitalism and mixed economies.

John Hancock

Venezuela? Ifn' well you know the old story.
Martin Buber

moon

I am trying to understand what you mean here, but it isn't quite clear. What do you mean by "society"? Is not the individual constrained under capitalism? In fact, capitalism is a highly authoritatian system.

As I have posited above, the state, in the sense of special bodies of armed men (police, military, etc.) who have at their disposal prisons, etc., exists only when society has broken up into classes whose interests are not reconcilable.

In other words, you only need the police when there are rich and poor, powerful and weak, and so on. When a society has developed in such a way as to necessitate the use of violence to maintain the position of a privileged class, then you see the rise of the state. What socialists and communists seek to do is to eliminate the state by eliminating classes.

There are two major classes in capitalism, the owning class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat). In captialism, the state exists to maintain the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. Socialism is where you still have a state, but where the working class is in charge. Socialism is a type of democracy, but democracy for the working class, where power flows upward from institutions like workers councils (which were called Soviets in the USSR). In a true socialist state you would have total economic democracy, where the workers would actively participate in every level of economic planning and allocation.

One important point to make is regarding democracy. What is democracy but the dictatorship of the majority over the minority? Well, that is exactly what it is. Therefore, democracy cannot be the highest ideal to be reached, since you would still have a dictatorship under the purest form of democracy. The highest ideal of human liberty, where nobody has power over anybody else, is communism. Socialism is a stage of communism, the lowest stage, where you still have democracy and the need of the state.
Well, that is what we are told capitalism is. In reality, it is something quite different. I would recommend Marx's Capital, but it is quite an undertaking. For a real understanding of capitalism, you can check out Marx's short pamphlet Wage Labour and Capital.

Capitalism is marked by three essential characteristics:

• A commodity economy. Products are produced not for use, but to be sold on the market.
• A monopoly on the means of production (the major industries that produce the necessities of life and trade) by a small owning class (the bourgeoisie).
• The existence of wage labour. In capitalism, labour power itself is a commodity to be sold on the market.

Far from being a trade for mutual benefit, the vast majority is left without any means of production of their own, and are forced to sell their labour power on the market. The owning class is constantly trying to push wages down, while the working class, through organizing, is constantly trying to push it up. There is nothing in this process that has anything to do with "mutual benefit," it is a straight power relation--each side is trying to get as much as it can.
The better question is why should the product of your labour be appropriated by the owning class? Think about how a capitalist produces a profit. What does he do? Well, he hires laborers to work in a factory producing items to be sold on the market. He attempts to pay the workers as little as possible and sell the items for as much as possible. The difference between what he pays the workers and what he sells the products for (minus operating costs) is where profit comes from. This is an expropriation of the labour power of the workers for the benefit of the capitalist.

Now, wouldn't it be more just if, instead of capitalists owning everything, the workers organized themselves to produce items society needs or desires, and takes the gain from work to benefit those who created the products, i.e. the workers?
That is the cartoon version of socialism. In reality, socialism is an attempt to get rid of classes, and eventually the state.
Imperialism is not something that can be separated from capitalism. Imperialism is a stage in the development of capitalism, it's highest stage. It is marked by a monopoly over the means of production, and the extension of the capitalist system to the entire globe. This is the system we have today. Imperialism leads to string of wars, as competing imperialist powers fight over markets and access to resources. In fact, the upcoming butchery in Iraq is a manifestation of imperialism.

moon

The same thing can be said about capitalist countries. In fact, by far the worst human rights abuses take place in capitalist countries like El Salvador, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and so on. Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the population of the world lives in abject misery.

Furthermore, most socialist revolutions, while never able to achieve socialism due mostly to external pressures, have created societies that have been a vast improvement over what existed formerly.