Robert Taylor and idleidolidyll's political debating thread

[slowpoke]

No. There are two types of "systems".

The first to arrive was capitalisim. It's willing buyer, willing seller, negotiated price, product, and quality.

It will aways have its charlatans, those who actually don't deliver on the deal or misrepresent it.

But thats human nature, not a failing in the system.

The second system to arrive was the control economy. This is a system where those with power (an army or police force) are in control. Feudalisim, communisim and socialisim are examples of these systems.
It also has its charlatans.

The difference ? Violence.

Willing buyer - willing seller, fair price is the only system that requires no violence.

Hmmm, I don't necessarily agree with either of your "system" descritions.

"willing buyer, willing seller, negotiated price, product, and quality." How do things like monopoly's fit into this equation? Big supermarket chains dominate and exterminate smaller competition and eventually the "willing buyer" is left no option but to pay extortionate prices for goods that the supermarkets have purchsed for a pittance 'cos the growers/manufacturers have no-one else to sell too.
Or resource companies who actively destabalise the countries they are raping so they can insert/buy a sympathetic puppet government....
Or globalised companies who demand cheap power, low taxation, high emissions allowance for their factories or they'll take them somewhere else.....
Or drug companies holding people to ransom for horrendously overpriced medication that is produced for next to nothing. Whole African country's are decimated by disease yet still drug companies put shareholder value above millions of human lives.
I could go on and on.......


"...the control economy. This is a system where those with power (an army or police force) are in control. Feudalisim, communisim and socialisim are examples of these systems."

This description could equally apply to any capitalist country, the United States for example. The US Army didn't choose to get involved in Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Honduras, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, they got involved as directed by their capitalist government. As leader of the most capitalist country on earth, George Dubya also happens to have the most powerful Armed Forces on Earth so the power argument has nothing to do with capitalism, communism or any other _ism. As for the communism equals violence argument how do you equate the idea of a commune with that? Picture a commune and violence is the last thing that springs to mind.

Economic violence is still violence and kills just as surely, although in a far more insidious manner.

[98tls]

As for the communism equals violence argument how do you equate the idea of a commune with that? Picture a commune and violence is the last thing that springs to mind.

15 millon Russians may well debate that...........if they could.

[slowpoke]

15 millon Russians may well debate that...........if they could.

Yup, there have been some gross abuses of both systems over the years. I'm not necessarily espousing either system, but it would be interesting to take both systems down to a smaller unit that we could get our heads around, pure examples of each without any of the beauracracy and power games.

How's about comparing a company of 100 people to a commune of 100 people? Both would have inherent advantages and disadvantages.

The company would have a triangular hierarchy with wealth concentrated at the top. Hopefully wealth would filter down with the potential for everyone to benefit from good performance however we know this usually doesn't happen, witness executive salary increases vs employee wage increases in recent years. Company policy, direction and decision making is fast and unequivocal with management having 100% control.

The commune would have a much flatter structure with equal rights for all. There is not always a direct reward for effort for every member who excels or drags the chain, however rewards coming from production would be distributed equally across the members. Commune direction, policies and decision making would be more cumbersome with no single member having ultimate control but the members would have more "buy in" as they are able to exert their own influence.

Ultimately it's like comparing apples and oranges. Who can say what is better...and who set's the comparison criteria?

Maybe it comes down to whether you see yourself as a leader or a follower. There's nothing wrong with either, after all you shouldn't judge someone by what they do just how they do it. If you see yourself as a leader then you'll probably sway towards capitalism and the riches that you hope will flow your way. As a follower you probably favour a more unified team effort approach.

[idleidolidyll]

No. There are two types of "systems".

The first to arrive was capitalisim. It's willing buyer, willing seller, negotiated price, product, and quality.

that's commerce not capitalism; both systems use it.


It will aways have its charlatans, those who actually don't deliver on the deal or misrepresent it.

But thats human nature, not a failing in the system.

The second system to arrive was the control economy. This is a system where those with power (an army or police force) are in control. Feudalisim, communisim and socialisim are examples of these systems.
It also has its charlatans.

that's authoritarianism not socialism and i have identified many times that authoritarianism is the most dangerous ideology.

The difference ? Violence.

Willing buyer - willing seller, fair price is the only system that requires no violence.

Wrong. That's NOT the definition of capitalism OR socialism; that's just the propaganda.

BOTH systems use an exchange model and the core difference is who controls the exchange or wields the power in the system.

and again we see the problem with the whole debate: the very definitions of the subjects being discussed are distorted by propaganda before ideas are exchanged.

once more from the dictionary:

The New Zealand Oxford Paperback Dictionary ISBN 0 19 5584104:

Capitalism: An economic system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

Capitalist: 1. n One who has much capital invested; derog; a rich person.
2. a person who favours capitalism

Socialism: n A political and economic theory advocating that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, transport, property etc.

there is no specific extra definition for the word socialist.

These are NOT my personal definitions. These are exactly the definitions from the source quoted.

So, what are the implications. The main idea of course is about power and control. It's well understood that people with power become addicted to power and usually use that power for their own good first.
In capitalism, power is to be wielded by a small clique of the elite; the wealthy. We are expected to believe that this small interest group will 'do the right thing' and will act ethically and honourably. However, centuries of examples show that when a small group is given power they almost inevitably manipulate that power for their own ends regardless of the consequences for the rest of their countrymen/women.
In contrast, socialism recognises the potential and reality of abuse by elite minorities and seeks to place power in the hands of the people themselves in order to mitigate abuse. This is usually through democracy or collective organisations.

Both systems have evolved of course and although their base ideals remain the same, the way they go about the business of control is quite different.
It is a LIE to say that socialism is abusive and capitalism is not. In fact it is authoriarianism that is abusive and when EITHER system becomes corrupted by it, abuse is likely.

However, when authoritarianism is introduced into capitalism, it remains capitalism. When authoritarianism is introduced into socialism, it becomes ex socialism because power is taken away from the people and abused by the minority.

The lie that socialism is abusive and capitalism is not is easily exposed merely by pointing out the model of the USA where today a dictator in all but name wields his power to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people for commercial gain. That same nation has always been more than happy to destroy democracy as in Chile when they helped Pinochet oust the democratically elected Allende. Pinochet went on to run one of the worlds most abusive regimes. The example can be seen again and again from Saudi Arabia to Cambodia.

So to sum up: I'm not interested in your OPINION of what socialism and capitalism are, I'm interested in reality. Opinions are far too distorted by propaganda and spin.

[idleidolidyll]

15 millon Russians may well debate that...........if they could.

that's because russia's communism was hijacked by authoritarianism: the greatest danger by far

once it was hijacked, it was no longer communism because power was wielded by a dictator and not by the people

the same has happened in the USA today but when capitalism is hijacked by authoritarianism, it's core definition is not destroyed. Ultimate power is placed in the hands of a rich elite.

[idleidolidyll]

That's a failing answer. I am sorry, pal, but you really have to do better than that. Of course, mind you, I studied the definitions of both from a very partisan source, the textbook called "Introduction to Marxism-Leninism for 5th grade" published by the Ministry of Education of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but I truly hope that for you it qualifies as an unbiased material. So again, layman's terms. One phrase for each, explaining the meaning of "socialism" and "communism". Remember, I ask you for a very simple explanation, geared towards schoolkids. Please, give it your best shot.

THe USSR was corrupted by authoriatrianism and as such it could not be defined as actually socialist. It was a dictatorship and the definition from that abusive dictatorship is merely propaganda. That you rely on propaganda rather than text book definitions or truly authoritative sources like Marx or Adam Smith speaks volumes.

Hitler SAID his party was socialist but in reality it was a dictatorship and worked specifically on behalf of corporations and the catholic church who sanctioned much of their abuse.
However, socialism is NOT what abusers SAY it is. It is a system in which power is placed in the hands of the people NOT a small elite.

If I was to tell you I was the King of the World would you believe me? NO? Then why do you believe fascist dictators who are famous for their use and abuse of propaganda to control the people?

[idleidolidyll]

Finn, dont forget that HIS way is the only way and that if you express a viewpoint sympathetic to filthy capitalism and liberal thinking you will incur a long verbal diatribe of left wing propaganda. It wont be too long before unreformable right thinking people like you and I will be ordered by the State to attend political re-education classes.

I rather think this has become a contest of who shouts loudest and longest. To that end there is a clear winner.

I'm just a counterpoint to the racist bigotted bullshit I saw here from the 'right' when I first arrived.

shooting the messenger is silly

[slowpoke]

Aaaaaaah, things make a bit more sense now. I've been trying to figure out why it all gets fucked up and the "authoritarianism" explains things very nicely. Well said.

[Robert Taylor]

I'm just a counterpoint to the racist bigotted bullshit I saw here from the 'right' when I first arrived.

shooting the messenger is silly

And loudly so! We will have to agree to disagree and I rather think that three labels you have used in your first sentence are applicable to your view of the world.

Im off to the Northern Hemisphere for 2 weeks so you wont have to ''suffer'' my view of the world. Its been entertaining!

[Grahameeboy]

So in brief it seems to me that some here wake up, think deeply about Capitilism and Socialism, have a debate etc, go to work and work for a Capitalist, go home, whilst eating, read and debating some more.

No wonder you guys worry about lack of freedom.

[idleidolidyll]

Aaaaaaah, things make a bit more sense now. I've been trying to figure out why it all gets fucked up and the "authoritarianism" explains things very nicely. Well said.

slowpoke: I posted this website a while ago. http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
Rather than relying on the one dimensional left/right line that divides but does not explain much at all. It categorises political parties and people all over the world using an extra index for the degree of authoritarianism from anarchist to fascist.
I challenged those here to take the test online and post their results but only a couple were brave enough to do so.
I've found in the past that many people are so battered by propaganda that they don't understand what the core definitions actually are. This site also has overlays for the positions of political parties and politicians across the globe and after taking the test, you can see where you would fit in the various political philosophies.
Due to propaganda, many people actually vote against the philosophies they should be supporting.

Again and for the record, here's my result from the website test:
Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95

[idleidolidyll]

So in brief it seems to me that some here wake up, think deeply about Capitilism and Socialism, have a debate etc, go to work and work for a Capitalist, go home, whilst eating, read and debating some more.

No wonder you guys worry about lack of freedom.

no graemeboy, that's exactly what i mean about propaganda.

a business owner or manager is not necessarily capitalist just because they own or run a business. I too have been an employer and a business owner and I am definitely not a capitalist

it's about your belief in who should make the rules and control the lives of the citizens.

in effect, democracy is a socialist idea and not one that capitalists like at all.

[idleidolidyll]

The NZ Political Compass based on the policies and statements of politicians in the 2005 elections:

As you can see, despite the propaganda, Labour is NOT a left wing party. It's the closest thing to centrist that we have. National however is very right wing and quite fascist too.

No wonder I vote for neither of them. To see who I support, look at my index in comparison.

The New Zealand Party Political Compass™


Here are the Yank politicians in 2004:

Here's the POME's in 2006:

and here's Austruckinfalia:

[idleidolidyll]

And loudly so! We will have to agree to disagree and I rather think that three labels you have used in your first sentence are applicable to your view of the world.

Im off to the Northern Hemisphere for 2 weeks so you wont have to ''suffer'' my view of the world. Its been entertaining!

yes, it has been quite entertaining and i'm still on to buy the first beer.

have a great trip

[Grahameeboy]

no graemeboy, that's exactly what i mean about propaganda.

a business owner or manager is not necessarily capitalist just because they own or run a business. I too have been an employer and a business owner and I am definitely not a capitalist

it's about your belief in who should make the rules and control the lives of the citizens.

in effect, democracy is a socialist idea and not one that capitalists like at all.

Dude, it's your choice, however you take life too seriously.

You show a definition of Capitalist and then say that this is not necessarily the case?

We have the ability to control our own lives but think others do.........it's about shuffling the responsibility. When things don't go our way we blame someone else.

I have my faith and yes you can attack me for it, call be delusionable etc, however, I have freedom and don't consider that my life is controlled by Capitalists etc

Life is short and debates are long.

We do have freedom, we just don't realise it sometimes.