- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Taking out the trash (corrected)

Posted by: Barry Stoller on March 03, 19100 at 11:54:05:

In Reply to: I'm not the utopian, you are, your the man with the plan, the blueprint socialist. posted by Lark on March 02, 19100 at 15:22:27:

: Now I'm telling you THIS DEBATE IS OVER, I have no interest in your secular religion, critical reason serves me far better.

Stoller: Your error is comparing a poor communism with a rich capitalism.

: I dont believe I've ever done that, I've compared state totalitarianism, intolerance and brutalism with socialism.

But what IS 'socialism'? I'm talking about socialism as it has existed in the U.S.S.R., socialism as it occurred under immature productive development, socialism as it happened under terrible material circumstances---socialism as it occurred under real conditions.

All you have EVER done is talk about a socialism that you invent each time you sit at your computer.

I was demonstrating that the socialism of the U.S.S.R. should be compared to the capitalism of America ONLY if we align their histories contemporaneously, i.e. Soviet Union 1989 = America 1850. This core idea seems to have slipped by you entirely. You STILL attempt to compare Stalinist society with current Western society. That's promiscuous time traveling.

: A society that tolerates the free rein of opinions and disagreement, based on democracy not mob rule and freethinking as opposed to indoctrinated into some secular religion.

An argument against majority rule---how commonly libertarian. What about pollution where one set of freedoms must abrogate another set?

Let us revisit an old dialogue:

Votes to NOT pollute the environment : 51

Votes TO pollute the environment : 49

In majoritarian rule [read: real democracy] pollution is STOPPED;

In market reality [read: capitalist anarchy] pollution CONTINUES.

And that libertarian fanatic Gee, sounding a lot like you, said:

[W]hatever the 49 (or 29, or 89) wanted its tough luck... only statist guns will do. What the state wants goes, nanny knows best. 'What people want' is to be forcibly prohibited (and we all know how successful prohibition is) unless enough of them want it. The appropriate motto: Fuck the 49, and jail em if they say anything.

Pollution, however, cannot be decided individually. If even ONE company gets to pollute, all citizens are affected. One group of people MUST impose their values on another. Majority rule is the only rational solution to ENDING pollution. Calling it 'mob rule' only spins it as a case of sour grapes when you're on the losing side of the vote...

Points from your other posts...

: The idea of forced labour really does bother me, the fact that is doesnt bother you would suggest your some kind of proto-stalin.

What society has EVER allowed people other than the aged and infirm to share in the produce of work without contributing anything? Only welfare (capitalist) states bribing the lower strata with the proceeds from imperialist profits have ever done this. Is that your idea of egalitarian society?

: Socialism isnt voluntary poverty...

But I MOST DEFINITELY do not advocate a socialism of poverty. That’s the task of the reactionary handicraft-production 'socialist' (such as Morris). Because I advocate abundant socialism, I advocate industrial socialism; because I advocate industrial socialism, I also acknowledge the necessity of centralization and socialized labor, which precludes your libertarian panacea of 'liberty in the workplace.' See this post and this post for further details...

Note to anarchist 'socialists': If everyone worked only the job they wanted, then the social division of labor would retain (1) commodity (service) exchange between workers; (2) separation of mental and manual work; and (3) the distinction between country and city---in short, everything socialism wishes to mitigate or abolish.

: I guess you fundamentally cant get your head around the concept of alienation, specifically Marxist...

This is the only interesting thing you hit upon today.

Alienation: the coercion, direct or indirect, that first separates a worker from his personal means of production and then induces him to supply his labor-power to those who separated (and then owned) those means of production.

May I ask you to read chapter 32 of Marx’s Capital (volume one)?

Therein is the observation that, originally, the individual possessed his own means of production (individual labor owned individually---hence unalienated) which gradually evolved into capitalistic private property (socialized labor owned individually---hence alienated).

Capitalism negated private ownership of the means of production through the rationalization, centralization and cooperation of labor. That is what produced the abundance to even consider such egalitarian ideas as socialism.

Marx only posited that from capitalism's individual ownership of socialized labor, society would choose to socially own its socialized labor. Hence the famous 'negation of the negation.'

However: returning to individual labor owned individually (Morris’ craft-production panacea) would only result in the poverty of precapitalist society. All labor is now interconnected---therefore all people are equally interconnected. Therefore: alienation is here to stay.

Recall the Communist Manifesto:

Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.(1)

All Marxist like myself want to do, acknowledging the interconnectedness and aliemation of (social) labor, is to regulate it so everyone gets some of the skilled work and some of the unskilled work and equal access to the produce of that work.

What you want is some form of individual ownership of the means of production (handicraft production) that history has made obsolete.

: More insinuation and insults, Barry I'll see you when your prepared to debate, perhaps once you've made it out of an ideological kindergarden.



1. Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, International 1948, p. 30.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup