[1917]

I see alot of different idea's of how to rule a society, ranging from totaleterianism to liberalism, which system do you all subscibe to?

I personally believe that society should be ruled by a democratically elected council, but that everything should be state owned, these might sound like mutually exclusive idea's, but I disagree.

I have quite strong idea's about my system of goverment, but I don't think I should inflict that on people, just what do you people think?, can any system that take's control of industry and buisness work?, can democracy itself work?.

Michael

[Adrien]

however, we revoke the ideas that there should be a dictatorship.

You can, however since it eventually revokes the idea of a revolution, and consequently of a socialist transition to communism, your desire to be called "communist" won't go very far.

First of all, this is not Socialism, Socialism can apply to a wide variety of governmental and social systems, these include both Nazism (National Socialism) and Communism

You’re probably thinking “how is the NCDP different than Democratic Socialism?”

There's a problem of terms here. Socialism is only reserved for Marxism-Leninism, since it designates the transition from a Capitalist society to a Communist society.

And Democratic Socialism is the application of Marxism through the usual democratic system of elections, chambers, etc. So no, in democratic socialism there shouldn't be any private property.

What you are refering too is Social-Democracy, something quite different, and which in a way caused the "Socialism" part of the name of the NSDAP.

To come back to your theories, i do think that you are here trying to put together things that are really too different to be used in that way.

[1917]

Erm I think you may have posted to the wrong person!.

[Adrien]

There used to be a post above mine, by Radical_leftist i believe... Strange.

[1917]

Hmm, can you delete post's?, maybe he had a change of heart?.

[smashthestate]

I subscribe to ABSOLUTE freedom. You own your life, you are in control of your life. You are free to do ANYTHING you wish, so long as you do not impede the rights of any other person.

Freedom must be absolute both in the society AS WELL AS (pay attention Communists) the economy. No person has the right to take from me that which I have worked for. It is MINE, I OWN it. As selfish as that may sound, that is a fact, and no one has any right to take that from me, even for a good purpose. Everything must be done voluntarily, or else it is oppressive!

[jaakko]

To Smashthestate,
Quote from Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels:

"The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the ground work of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage-labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character."

http://www.marx2mao.org/M&E/CM47.html

[smashthestate]

However Marx and Engels want to spin it, property is property. If I choose to work for a certain employer, and what he desires to pay me is acceptable, then all rewards for my labor (be it money, benefits, property, whatever) are exclusively MINE. Because I have worked for them, I own them, and I have the exclusive right to do with them what I choose.

Capital is NOT a social power, as it is falsely put in your quoted writing. Capital, by its very definition, is wealth in the form or money or property, and what I earn from my employer is MINE, and mine alone. No government or establishment has any right to TOUCH it.

[jaakko]

Smashthestate,

You're dealing with the subject from a completely abstract, idealist point of view instead of concrete-historical understanding.

If one studies the development of society and the history of different modes of production, one can see that capital is indeed a social not personal power.

You seem to be unable to deal with the different types of property, and confuse one type to another. I suggest you to read the quote again, to fully comprehend it.

You say capitalist has the right to own capital because he owns it. This is of course the case in capitalist society, where this 'right' of the ruling class is manifested in the laws of the bourgeois state apparatus.

No government or establishment has any right to TOUCH it.

But they do, irrespective of your wishes. And wherever a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, it will abolish the right to private ownership of means of production. The abolishment of certain rights and their replacement with new ones is nothing extraordinary in the process of history. The bourgeoisie has done this itself, when it oppressed the feudal class and took away its SACRED rights, and abolished serfdom. Wherever the feudal aristocracy didn't agree to compromise its rights, it was suppressed by force.

Rights are not something eternal and sacred, for they change with the development of society, to correspond the mode of production.

[smashthestate]

Let me clear a few things up first. Being a good Libertarian, I can easily admit that the U.S. is totally NOT capitalist. You cannot argue with that, because of taxes, trariffs, programs such as social security, laws such as minimum wage, that makes it NOT truly capitalist. Perhaps you are mistundertanding what capitalism truly is. In true capitalism, there should be virtually no government intervention.

The form of capitalism to which I am referring, the real form of capitalism, is an economy with absolutely NO government controls, except to oversee that no horrendous environmental damage is caused by the industry. The capitalism which I speak of is a totally FREE market. There are no minimum wage laws, there is not worker's compensation, there is no social security, there are undue taxes. EVERYTHING in this economy is based on voluntary exchange and voluntary cooperation. For example, I am free to choose my employer, as I am free to choose an employer whose wages I find acceptable.

Here is where I have a problem with socialism:

Say, for the sake of argument, that I own a farm, and on my farm I grow several types of vegetables and grain. I also own many types of livestock. Here is a question. If I decide that I do not want to share any of my crop with anyone else, then that should be my right, if I decide to sell some of what it produces for money, so that I may buy things I want, can I still do this in a socialist society?

From what I know, I would never be able to do this. Any money I make from this farm would be heavily taxed, and that money would be re-distributed amongst the society, and that goes the same for any food my farm produces. That is what pisses me off. No government has the right to do this. I tend my farm, I worked for anything it produces, and I own it. I should have every right to do with it whatever I want.

It basically comes down to this. I believe that the economy, as well as society, should be totally free. The government should only exist to prevent the people from harming eachother or acting in a way which impedes the rights of others, and to protect the state from any outside aggressors, for our state will NEVER be the aggressor. To me, the smaller the government, the better off the people are.

I have a problem with socialism because it forces the society to let the government use their labor for "the good of the people." In my opinion, socialism is nothing more than equal divisions of unequal earnings, and that, in my opinion, is WRONG.

[CasX]

There used to be a post above mine, by Radical_leftist i believe... Strange.

Hmm, can you delete post's?, maybe he had a change of heart?.

As the moderator, I can delete posts that break the rules etc. Radical Leftist had edited his post and it simply read 'deleted' so I got rid of it.

So smashthestate, in other words your socially liberal but economically conservative? This point was brought up in a magazine article I just read...have you ever really thought of the effects of economic conservatism upon the society you feel so liberal about? In 'Why Socialism?' by Albert Einstein he ends with this:

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

But in my opinion economic 'freedom' as both a utopian ideal and its existance today in limited quantities, leads to what Einstein describes as 'grave evils'. "This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism".

I believe everyone in society has the right to a job, decent healthcare, decent education, decent housing, and extensive social services etc should they require them in any way...regardless of their ability to produce the income that would be required should the government not provide extensive servies for its citizens, ie if this was in private hands.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

If unrestricted capitalism leads to unemployment, homelessness, social ills and social classes then it must be limited or eliminated. As capitalism has increased and 'freed' up with the extensive privatisation in many countries in the later 20th century, we have seen another product of capitalism: increasing inequality. In my opinion, economic equality is not a realisable goal without the use of what would be undue force. But, it is not right to have those who have too much while some have too little. No-one deserves to have a mansion while some people go homeless.

Chris Trotter wrote this stuff about left-wing social democracy:

And so, my answer to the question "What's Left?" must be this. An idea. A memory. A bright vista glimpsed briefly from a high hill. It is liberty extended. It is justice being done. It is seeing someone lying on the road and not passing by on the other side. It is signing a petition, participating in a street march and standing on a picket line. It is joining a progressive political party.

And, in the dangerous months that lie ahead, I believe it means standing up and being counted as one of the millions of people around the world determined to prevent a rebirth on naked Western imperialism. The people of Iraq had already sustained a million casualties through the imposition of UN sanctions. Dear God, have they not suffered enough for the sins of Saddam Hussein?

Ending unnecessary suffering. Ah yes. The Left remains what it has always been - what is always will be: the collective cry of humankind for right to be done and wrong to be vanquished. And the strength of the Left waxes and wanes in accordance with each individual's conviction that such a goal is worthy of their effort.

[smashthestate]

So smashthestate, in other words your socially liberal but economically conservative?

That's not what I'm saying. Being socially liberal means you are in favor of "programs" and things of the sort. To force any person to make contibutions (i.e. taxes) so that they may be used for things with which they disagree is tyrannical and immoral.

I believe everyone in society has the right to a job, decent healthcare, decent education, decent housing

As do I. However I do not believe the government has a right to take money from any person who is not already willing. The government has no right to take my money away from me, and use it--even if its for a good cause--without my consent.

Remember: the government which is able to give a society all it needs, is also able enough to take it all away.

and extensive social services etc should they require them in any way...regardless of their ability to produce the income that would be required should the government not provide extensive servies for its citizens, ie if this was in private hands.

If it was in private hands, there wouldn't be a gigantic tax burden on every person, and they'd be able to afford any privately owned services they need. But even if they couldn't, the government has no right to take from another person the fruits of their labor.

If unrestricted capitalism leads to unemployment, homelessness, social ills and social classes

Maybe you could explain to me how an untaxed and unregulated economy (i.e. free market) causes unemployment, homelessness, social ills, and social classes, because I believe it does not. Only when you introduce regulation and taxation do you have unemployment, homelessness, social ills, and social classes as a result.

"The standard of living of the common man is higher in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs." – Ludwig von Mises

[SpiderMonkey]

Maybe you could explain to me how an untaxed and unregulated economy (i.e. free market) causes unemployment, homelessness, social ills, and social classes, because I believe it does not. Only when you introduce regulation and taxation do you have unemployment, homelessness, social ills, and social classes as a result.

Unemployment - What on earth makes you think a free market would have no unemployment? The burden of proof is on you with that outragous statement.

Homelessness - Companies don't have to pay their workers enough to live, and there is no social security, so people lose their homes.

Social ills - Poor and homeless people tend to suffer social ills. See above and below

Social classes - Some people own capital and some people do not. Many in the middle are given a small amount of the proceeds of some capital but it is not their main source of income so they don't control it. Classes.

"The standard of living of the common man is higher in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs." – Ludwig von Mises

What he fails to mention is that the 'common' man in developed countries is an engineered class. We are given juicier scraps in return for our cooperation and loyalty. The real price that is paid for the standards of living in our nations are deliberately paid beyond our borders, and its called imperialism.

Don't even try to argue the lie that capitalism makes us all better off. It is absolutely false and you know it.

[CCJ]

the reason i deleted my post was because of the fact that i realized that i had posted the incorrect one (it was written 3 or 4 years ago), after going through it quite a few times since it has become significantly shorter, so my party members and I are working to update it a little more. Here is what we have so far (its really informal, sorry 'bout that):

NCDP Manifesto

The Neo-Communist Democratic Party is, in fact, a cross between Communism, Socialism, and Democracy. What we have achieved is a moderate type of communism. The Party is further left than the Green and Democratic parties, but not a far left as the actual Communist Party. Our hope is to achieve control of the government through democratic means, and keeping the government democratic. Rather than spending billions of dollars on the military, we would spend it on helping the proletariat of the world, and not just our own country. Each year the US spends anywhere from $400 Billion to $500 billion on its military. Eradicating world hunger would cost a maximum of $100 billion. This is the type of thing we need to fix.

Also, when in power, the Party would work towards an exellent education system EVERYWHERE in the United States, that way all people have an equal chance of breaking out of their social position, such as the poor. We would work towards free health care for all citizens of the country and equal rights for all, straight people, gay people, green people, orange people, 'black' people, etc. etc. etc.

[Adrien]

Again, allow me to intervene.

From what i read in your presentation of your party, it appears that you would in power make the same mistake Salvador Allende's government did, by thinking that once in power (and it's already very hard to get there) you could achieve very progressive measures.

Your party would end up being an unstable hybrid of Communism and Social-Democracy, having the same kind of ideas that the first, but being as defenseless as the second one, when the very ideas of Communism bring the opposition to strike. Here again it is a bit close to Democratic Socialism.

Maybe just being an enhanced Social-Democracy would suit your party line better.

[1917]

I liked your post Radical Leftist, though I believe it would take more money to solve world hunger.

Mr Smash the State, the system you proposed seem's to me quite dangerous, it sounds to me the same sort of system around during the industrial revolution, for isntance little goverment interference in anything, fair enough there was massive economic growth but at what price?, a vast majority of poor, hungry, ill people that is not the system I want!.

I myself advocate that industries are brought back by the goverment, and that price's of goods, and wage level's are fixed, of course doctor's will get significantly more than workers but I don't believe that one group should get a vast ammounts of money compared with another, for instance why should company managers be allowed vast pay rises?.

Alot of people will claim this would lead to dictatorship, but it seems to me that here, in England, we have a few rich capitalists control virtually everything, what is that if not a dictatorship of a sort?, I believe industry controled by the goverment will be alot fairer in the long-run.

Well that is my view anyway!, Michael.

[CCJ]

but being as defenseless as the second one

Not quite. You see, we would be spending LESS money on the military, not NO money on the military. The US has no need to have a military on which it spends $500 billion a year (which is HALF of the worlds military spending). To me this seems rediculous and just plain stupid. A military should be used and mobilized only for defense, not to scare the shit out of people or to invade other countries.

[smashthestate]

Unemployment - What on earth makes you think a free market would have no unemployment? The burden of proof is on you with that outragous statement.

The perfect example for this is the United States' economy as it is today. There are millions of people in the U.S. who are willing and able to work, yet they are unemployed. Both of the main parties try to fix this problem, but they fail to realize that their policies are simply making things worse. They fail to see that when they try to have a planned economy, when they inflate how much money there really is, when they give special privilages to banks, or when they subsidize businesses, they cause a dangerous cycle. That cycle is one which consists purely of economic high points and economic low points. This cycle destroys healthy companies, misleads investors, and causes massive unemployment. Here are some of the main causes for unemployment:

- taking money that consumers would use to pruchase more goods and services

- taking money that companies and consumers would use to make investments

- subsidizing foreign industry, foreign governments, and the people of those foreign countries

- trying to fix their bugdet deficits with loan money, that could be used to expand businesses and create new jobs

- hampering free commerce and free trade

The reason there is such heavy unemployment in the United States is due to these very factors. For one, the government takes taxpayer money and squanders it to subsidize FOREIGN governments, companies, and the people of those countries. This does nothing more than put our own companies at a competative disadvantage. Now foreign goods will be imported at lower prices because our government helped the companies produce those goods. This has to stop immediately. All foreign aid should be 100% voluntary and privatized.

Overburdening taxes is the number one reason for poverty. All taxes do is discourage the flow of capital into the country. It hampers the expansion of new companies, industry, and business, which in turn hampers the creation of new job markets. When a company pays lower tax rates, they are able to use that extra money to create more capital, which in turn allows them to produce more goods and services at a lower cost to the consumer. However, when a company is over-taxed, their extra burden they have does not end there, it gets passed on to the consumer. This creates two problems: firstly, your countries goods can no longer compete in the foreign markets because your financial burden is so high, that you have to overprice your goods and services; secondly, it unneccessarily raises prices to the domestic consumer.

The biggest cause of unemployment is all of the superfluous regulations and government mandates. When programs like these are in place, companies are now forced to devote a large portion of their company resources to obey the new mandates instead of using that money to expand and create more jobs. These mandates are the worst for small businesses, who collectively account for the largest employment rate, and who often simply can't afford to obey the mandates. Then they are forced to go out of business, which in turn causes a loss of yet more jobs.

Companies don't have to pay their workers enough to live, and there is no social security, so people lose their homes.

You're right about one thing. Companies don't have to pay their workers enough to live, but if they don't, I guarantee that in a free market economy, that company would have no employees. If you can't earn enough to live, why bother to work? The company could not sustain a healthy employee base, and it would fail immediately.

Some people own capital and some people do not. Many in the middle are given a small amount of the proceeds of some capital but it is not their main source of income so they don't control it. Classes.

If there's one thing history should have taught us about Man, it's that he's always going to form cliques, and separate himself into groups. Those groups often discriminate against other groups, but in a free market economy, if they don't work together, the whole thing falls apart.

What he fails to mention is that the 'common' man in developed countries is an engineered class

Actually when he speaks of the common man, he is referring simply to that class of people which has the biggest population.

The real price that is paid for the standards of living in our nations are deliberately paid beyond our borders, and its called imperialism.

In the United States today, this is absolutely true, I must agree. However, the Libertarians absolutely do not favor foreign intervention unless it is absolutely necessary. In fact, we make it a point to be as non-interventionist as is possible, both economically and socially. We would never enact tariffs on any foreign imported goods, as well as we would never initiate any kind of agression that wasn't directly impeding our life, liberty, or property. For example, the current war in Iraq, although we may disagree on the movites of the government, we do agree that it is wrong is damaging the international community, as well as our own country. Such an act would never take place in a Libertarian government.

Don't even try to argue the lie that capitalism makes us all better off. It is absolutely false and you know it.

I think you have been misled to believe that what you see in the United States today is what capitalism ought to be. I assure you, it is the exact opposite. The United States today is absolutely NOT capitalist. As much as you will disagree with this statement, the U.S. is actually quasi-socialist with a lot of imperialism mixed in. I say quasi-socialist because major redistrubution of the wealth is already taking place in every sector of our social and economic lives.

[Adrien]

Not quite. You see, we would be spending LESS money on the military, not NO money on the military. The US has no need to have a military on which it spends $500 billion a year (which is HALF of the worlds military spending). To me this seems rediculous and just plain stupid. A military should be used and mobilized only for defence, not to scare the shit out of people or to invade other countries.

You missed my point about the episode of Chile in 1973; your movement wouldn't be theorically defenseless against foreign attacks, but it will be defenseless against the bourgeois opposition, which would like to take its power back, if needed with foreign supports.

To apply socialist principles, the socialist movement must replace completely the "classic" state apparatus; so if your movement, which comes through democratic means, was to start applying socialist principles, he would eventually be overthrown by a bourgeoisie, since it would have only replaced the very top of the pyramid.

[CCJ]

yes, you have a very good point there Adrien, however, by helping the proletarat, we would gain their support, and if there were to be a coup they would probably reinstate the Party, or if you are refferring to elections, the overwhelming majority would vote for us.