4.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- List Price: $15.00 Price: $10.20 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details You Save: $4.80 (32%)
In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.
Want it delivered Monday, March 23? Order it in the next 14 hours and 6 minutes, and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. Details
23 new from $9.71 8 used from $10.70
Also Available in: List Price: Our Price: Other Offers: Kindle Edition (Kindle Book) $9.99
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Apples and oranges. Socialism is an economic ideal that in and of itself has nothing to do with liberty or tyranny
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Well every important ideal in the modern world in European so you are headed in the right direction. Socialism restricts economic freedom so yes, it has everything to do with tyranny.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Whisperer:
Apples and oranges. Socialism is an economic ideal that in and of itself has nothing to do with liberty or tyranny
Humans have always been social animals, and will always be. Now of course, the author of this thread intended it in the context of the socialist bureaucracy of Stalin, which is obviously treated as a dirty word, and also used to obscure the *multifaceted nature* and factionalism of a movement -- out of which Stalin would eventually rise to power -- as much as possible. It is in this context that AP equates socialism with tyranny.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
The Explorer wrote:
quote:Humans have always been social animals, and will always be. Now of course, the author of this thread intended it in the context of the socialist bureaucracy of Stalin, which is obviously treated as a dirty word, and also used to obscure the *multifaceted nature* and factionalism of a movement out of which Stalin would eventually rise to power as much as possible. It is in this context that AP equates socialism with tyranny.
From its inception the Soviet Union was confronted with a Europe that was very hostile to its existence, as well as the factious internal politics that you mentioned, which existed from the outset of Lenin's October revolution - the 2nd revolution that year. This atmosphere naturally was not conducive to democratic politics especially in a country that had known only autocratic rule. Similarly, the socialist revolution in Cuba had a hostile reception from the US: again, putting a damper on the possibilites of democracy. However, there have been democratic socialist governments such as Allende in Chile and the current regime in Venezuela which despite all still adheres to democratic principles. Many of the governments in western Europe can also be characterized as socialist. The equation of socialism with lack of democracy, and capitalism with freedom, is one of the fallacies of the American cold war propaganda machine that will long survive.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
By it's very definition socialism restricts the economic freedom of the individual and thus liberty. It might be a bit niave to think that the soviets or the Cubans would have ever been interested in democracy. We know what they did, we do not know what might have happened.
The european states are, for the most part, mixed economies. The Nixon administration killed Allende because they knoew he was going to move the nation in the direction of Cuba and thus into the Soviet orbit. In terms of the stability of the Western Hemisphere it was a smart move.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Whisperer:
From its inception the Soviet Union was confronted with a Europe that was very hostile to its existence, as well as the factious internal politics that you mentioned, which existed from the outset of Lenin's October revolution - the 2nd revolution that year. This atmosphere naturally was not conducive to democratic politics especially in a country that had known only autocratic rule.
Indeed. It takes learning history in its proper context, which requires expenditure in time or patience and intellectual effort that many find hard to accommodate. So instead, some take information drilled into their mind by big business and corporate sponsored pundits and newscast commentators on an "instantaneous" basis [and repetitively], which requires little effort than if one were to get off their behind and go out and do extensive research at the library and internet tools for themselves, which is seen as "work"; anything deemed to be *work*, tend to discourage many folks. TV has had the effect of making couch potatoes out of many out there. Big business mass media have figured this out, and that for "manufacturing consent" to work, *manufactured* information has to be drilled into the target audience on a *repetitive basis*. In their defense, the technique has worked quite well thus far.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Nonsense Patriot. Almost every government on earth has the concept of imminent domain - which gives to the government the right to ultimately decide how any and all of the nation's resources can be used. Socialism by definition the collective control of the nations resources.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
yes, I agee, it is the collective control and thus diminishes individual liberty. You seem to want to say that liberty is collective. Man does not get his rights from government, he is born with those basic rights. The collective does not own the nation's resources anymore than it owns private property.
imminent domain deals with the most basic needs of the community and is limited. Socialism involveds the 'means of production' in a society and goes far beyond that.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
The Explorer wrote:
quote:Indeed. It takes learning history in its proper context, which requires expenditure in time or patience and intellectual effort that many find hard to accommodate. So instead, some take information drilled into their mind by big business and corporate sponsored pundits and newscast commentators on an "instantaneous" basis [and repetitively], which requires little effort than if one were to get off their behind and go out and do extensive research at the library and internet tools for themselves, which is seen as "work"; anything deemed to be *work*, tend to discourage many folks. TV has had the effect of making couch potatoes out of many out there. Big business mass media have figured this out, and that for "manufacturing consent" to work, *manufactured* information has to be drilled into the target audience on a *repetitive basis*. In their defense, the technique has worked quite well thus far.
That's gospel you're preaching Brother. This is a level of insight that I rarely come across. This is indeed one of the cultural contradictions of capitalism: to succeed captialism requires consumerism. Consumerism encourages a citizenry that craves entertainment. A human being who constantly craves entertainment lacks discipline. A workforce that lacks discipline loses its creative edge. A citizenry that lacks discipline loses its freedom - even under capitalism. We saw clear signs of this under George W. Bush.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Oh I think we say it clearly under Bill Clinton as well. Clinton talked a liberal line but was a strong big business president.
Explorer, Individual liberty predates the rise of capitalism in america and is a product of the 17th and 18th century Enlightenment. In terms of america John Locke and Edmond Burke come to mind first.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Whisperer:
However, there have been democratic socialist governments such as Allende in Chile and the current regime in Venezuela which despite all still adheres to democratic principles. Many of the governments in western Europe can also be characterized as socialist. The equation of socialism with lack of democracy, and capitalism with freedom, is one of the fallacies of the American cold war propaganda machine that will long survive.
The way I see it, many of these regimes still fall victim to plutocracy, which many confuse with "democracy", simply because ordinary people supposedly vote. The *state apparatus* [as we know them, you know, as determined by contemporary restrictive political boundaries] is anachronistic and incompatible with "socialism" as interpreted by its key intelligentia advocates like Karl Marx. Given the current geopolitical and economic apparatus, many of these so-called "socialist" regimes feel compelled to adopt the aforementioned statehood approach, that is "socialism in a single country". Alas, it is a complex issue that is time consuming to learn about and to be analyzed with undivided attentiveness, along with some exertion of intellectual exercise, particularly given the recurring themes of technical socio-economic complex jargon. It could take all day to relate these things to the lay person.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Explorer, Individual liberty predates the rise of capitalism in america and is a product of the 17th and 18th century Enlightenment. In terms of america John Locke and Edmond Burke come to mind first.
Oh, it goes even back further than that. However, capitalism certainly took it to new heights. Note that, I know by "individual liberty", you are putting it in the context of attaining "private profit", and above all else.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Patriot wrote:
quote:yes, I agee, it is the collective control and thus diminishes individual liberty. You seem to want to say that liberty is collective. Man does not get his rights from government, he is born with those basic rights. The collective does not own the nation's resources anymore than it owns private property.
imminent domain deals with the most basic needs of the community and is limited. Socialism involveds the 'means of production' in a society and goes far beyond that.
I don't see how it follows that collective control curtails indivdual rights any more than the concept of private property.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^"individual rights" for A.Patriot as I noted above, has to do with free and unrestrictive accumulation of profit in the hands of a few, at the expense of the many. It is against this backdrop, we hear words like "the free world", "deregulation", "free market" and so on.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
collective control has to have government to implement the rules of 'control.' Those rules interfere with my right as an individual to use the resources I acquire as I wish. I have a right to property which I did not get from government. The measure of liberty we enjoy is in direct relation to the dimunation of government. In other words, government and liberty are mutally exclusive. Everytime government passes a law, by it's very nature, it restricts someone's freedom. Obviously we have to have some government but it is subordinate to basic liberty.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
The Explorer wrote:
quote:The way I see it, many of these regimes still fall victim to plutocracy, which many confuse with "democracy", simply because ordinary people supposedly vote. The *state apparatus* [as we know them, you know, as determined by contemporary restrictive political boundaries] is anachronistic and incompatible with "socialism" as interpreted by its key intelligentia advocates like Karl Marx. Given the current geopolitical and economic apparatus, many of these so-called "socialist" regimes feel compelled to adopt the aforementioned statehood approach, that is "socialism in a single country". Alas, it is a complex issue that is time consuming to learn about and to be analyzed with undivided attentiveness, along with some exertion of intellectual exercise, particularly given the recurring themes of technical socio-economic complex jargon. It could take all day to relate these things to the lay person
Ultimately, the concept of socialism as articulated by Marx and Engels is utopian and as such, human nature being what it is, can never be truly achieved. On the other hand capitalism as articulated by Adams is also highly utopian. The history of "real" capitalism is rife with such disasters as to make one shudder.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Capitalism is a componet of liberty in that it offers individual economic freedom. Most of the disasters you speak of were evolutionary in nature. Keep in mind that the Industrial revolution occured very rapidly, especially in the United States and it took awhile to work out an ethicl system to match the change. Keep in mind that small business is actually the core of the American economy in most respects.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Whisperer:
The Explorer wrote:
quote:Indeed. It takes learning history in its proper context, which requires expenditure in time or patience and intellectual effort that many find hard to accommodate. So instead, some take information drilled into their mind by big business and corporate sponsored pundits and newscast commentators on an "instantaneous" basis [and repetitively], which requires little effort than if one were to get off their behind and go out and do extensive research at the library and internet tools for themselves, which is seen as "work"; anything deemed to be *work*, tend to discourage many folks. TV has had the effect of making couch potatoes out of many out there. Big business mass media have figured this out, and that for "manufacturing consent" to work, *manufactured* information has to be drilled into the target audience on a *repetitive basis*. In their defense, the technique has worked quite well thus far.
That's gospel you're preaching Brother. This is a level of insight that I rarely come across. This is indeed one of the cultural contradictions of capitalism: to succeed captialism requires consumerism. Consumerism encourages a citizenry that craves entertainment. A human being who constantly craves entertainment lacks discipline. A workforce that lacks discipline loses its creative edge. A citizenry that lacks discipline loses its freedom - even under capitalism. We saw clear signs of this under George W. Bush.
Indeed. Not to mention that moments of relative economic stability, that have followed the likes of big socio-economic tragedies and adversities like the World Wars [no doubt Capitalism had much to do with them] or the "Great Depression", tend to also have a "docile-effect" on the ordinary masses. The lessons missed, however, come back to bite, as in the situation we find ourselves in today. I know, some simply shrug it of as "economic cycles" [like Mr. Patriot]...but these so-called cycles are brought about by the actions of persons, each with circumstances that can be specifically analyzed, and are avoidable. For instance, we know the "deregulation" that played a notable role in the current situation was not a natural phenomenon, beyond the control of people; we know certain influential persons saw to its active enforcement.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Patriot wrote:
quote:collective control has to have government to implement the rules of 'control.' Those rules interfere with my right as an individual to use the resources I acquire as I wish. I have a right to property which I did not get from government. The measure of liberty we enjoy is in direct relation to the dimunation of government. In other words, government and liberty are mutally exclusive. Everytime government passes a law, by it's very nature, it restricts someone's freedom. Obviously we have to have some government but it is subordinate to basic liberty.
If you buy property on lake Tahoe and fence it off that action restricts my right to use that portion of the lake. Benthamite utilitarianism stipulates that allowing that lake to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people brings the greatest good. Therefore socialize access to lake rather than privatizing.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
If the cycles are avoidable Explorer you would , with a command economy, control them at the expense of liberty. They did not work for the Soviets or even the Brits in the 70's. Cycles in a capitalist system are corrective measures. they wash all of the mistakes out of the economy. Sometimes the corrections are more difficult that other times but it has always worked out in the end.
If there is public demand to visit and enjoy Lake tahoe then I will not fence my property but rather will open it up for public use for a fee. The public will get to visit the lake, I will make money and government will stay in it's proper place, out of our lives to the greatest extent possible.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Whisperer:
Ultimately, the concept of socialism as articulated by Marx and Engels is utopian and as such, human nature being what it is, can never be truly achieved.
I beg to differ here. I've seen that many times those who come to this rationalization, do so, because they don't adequately understand that which was specifically articulated, which are based on empirical observations of what goes on societies. No doubt, it is this attitude that led Stalin to go ahead with attaining what is said to be "socialism in a single country"; it is a futile undertaking, and with disastrous consequences, as evidenced by, well, Stalin's own socialist bureaucracy.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Patriot wrote:
quote:Keep in mind that the Industrial revolution occured very rapidly, especially in the United States and it took awhile to work out an ethicl system to match the change. Keep in mind that small business is actually the core of the American economy in most respects.
Surely you gest in the light of the current economic crisis that Explorer refered to above. Capitalism actually corrupts government therefore undermining democracy: that's what lobbyists do! There is no ethical code intrinsic to the practice of capitalism.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Sure there is. we no longer work 9 year olds in sweat shops and we have work place rules to keep workers safe. You no longer work 18 hours a day. The problem we have today is too much government.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
If the cycles are avoidable Explorer you would , with a command economy, control them at the expense of liberty.
These so-called "cycles" are actually accumulation of activities undertaken within the economic apparatus by a few layers of influential individuals, members of whom generally have a better understanding, if not actively authoring them, what is going on in the system, with unwitting assistance by those who simply are led [mainly ordinary workers]; these activities have specific underlying forces, that are not "climatic in nature" or without direction, they are the actions of certain people. These actions, with investigation, can be identified and related back to the responsible parties. It is not like the earth atmosphere, wherein certain natural forces are beyond human control. These are human activities we are talking about; so it would be ludicrous to say that they cannot be reversed or brought under control. How can the actions of a layer of leaders, presumably human as yourself, not be avoidable?
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
The Explorer wrote:
quote: beg to differ here. I've seen that many times those who come to this rationalization, do so, because they don't adequately understand that which was specifically articulated, which are based on empirical observations of what goes on societies. No doubt, it is this attitude that led Stalin to go ahead with attaining what is said to be "socialism in a single country"; it is a futile undertaking, and with disastrous consequences, as evidenced by, well, Stalin's own socialist bureaucracy
It is without a doubt utopian because recall that it postulates a government that prepares the way for communism in which there is no government!
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
quote:Sure there is. we no longer work 9 year olds in sweat shops and we have work place rules to keep workers safe. You no longer work 18 hours a day. The problem we have today is too much government.
Those rules were wrung from the capitalists through agitation by workers.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Whisperer:
it postulates a government that prepares the way for communism in which there is no government!
Where does it say this, in what work, and by whom?
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Explorer, Who is going to bring them under control? Government cannot do that, only the market can make the corrections. In addition, government does not give us rights, we give government a very limited role in our life. Keep in mind that in America government is only 20% of our economy.
Whisperer, Yes but society agreed to give the workers those rights, it did not have to do so. It became a set of values in society.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
The Explorer wrote:
quote:Where does it say this, in what work, and by whom?
It may take some time to go back and research. If I'm wrong I'll admit I'm wrong. If I'm right I'll point out to you where its written.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Explorer, Who is going to bring them under control? Government cannot do that, only the market can make the corrections.
Who author trade specificities between countries; who author regulatory aspects of the business ethics of business, in relation to employees and trade policies; who precide over taxes that people pay, and so on? Are these undertaken by some mysterious supernatural force, we don't see?
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You are right Whisperer, the ultimate goal of Communism is no government at all and thus is utopian.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Patriot wrote:
quote:You are right Whisperer, the ultimate goal of Communism is no government at all and thus is utopian.
You neglected the second part of that statement: Capitalism as articulated by Adam Smith is also utopian.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
well yes, in it's purest form. We have to have some government but he was correct that the invisible hand of the markets will work in the end.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Whisperer:
It may take some time to go back and research. If I'm wrong I'll admit I'm wrong. If I'm right I'll point out to you where its written.
I'm telling you, intellegentia like Marx or Engel are not mere abstractionists. Many of what they relate, as to for example, what is bound to happen under capitalism [contradictions in and between capitalist principles and what it promises on a macro-social level] and relations within the capitalist apparatus have come to pass. This is because these figures actually did their analysis out of empirical observations of the underlying social nature of the burgeoning economic apparatus [capitalist economic framework and the modern industrial complex] and its components, and explained wherein the contradictions lay, while proposing what would rectify them. I've *not* come across a "governmental-less" framework of socialism, but I've heard that statehood, as bounded by restricted political boundaries that we see to this day, is anachronistic and contradictory to the principle of a successful socialist framework. Don't know if that is what you were alluding to?
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Marx and Engles were writing in the middle of the 19th century. They were viewing the Industrial revolution before it matured. By the end of the Gilded Age the worst aspects of capitalism became subject to reform. By 1945 a form of capitalism evolved that solved the problems Marx refered to.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Marx and Engles were writing in the middle of the 19th century. They were viewing the Industrial revolution before it matured.
Ah; I see that you've read either author. Which of their work can you share with us?
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
@ Explorer: How can I put this? Well, I was wrong you were right! I just looked at the Manifesto (online - the wife has many of my books packed away - heaven knows in which box - in the basement) and indeed Engels did a scathing critique of Utopian Socialism as articulated by Fourier and others. Looks like I need to do some re-reading this summer.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Well, Troll Whisperer, the relevant thing here, is that you acknowledge there's more about these authors' works you could learn. I'm in the same boat. There's much more I have ahead of me, in learning about the details of these authors. I just wish more people will see the need to actually read these figures, if access is there, rather than preconceive what they are saying via third party sources, which I suspect, that's how Mr. Patriot goes about learning anything about said figures.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Patriot wrote:
quote:Marx and Engles were writing in the middle of the 19th century. They were viewing the Industrial revolution before it matured. By the end of the Gilded Age the worst aspects of capitalism became subject to reform. By 1945 a form of capitalism evolved that solved the problems Marx refered to.
I hope you're not talking about Keynesian economics. If you are it does not lend support to your thesis about goverment policy and freedom because it introduces the idea of governmental action through monetary and fiscal policy to smoothen the extreme high and lows of laissez-faire capitalism.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Explorer wrote:
quote:Well, Troll Whisperer, the relevant thing here, is that you acknowledge there's more about these authors' works you could learn. I'm in the same boat. There's much more I have ahead of me, in learning about the details of these authors. I just wish more people will see the need to actually read these figures, if access is there, rather than preconceive what they are saying via third party sources, which I suspect, that's how Mr. Patriot goes about learning anything about said figures.
Agreed. I read both Manifesto and Capital in college and haven't re-read them completely since then. There is big difference between cramming for a grade and reading for pleasure and knowledge. Capital is formidable though! Don't know if I can ever tackle it again.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Whisperer:
Capital is formidable though! Don't know if can ever tackle it again.
I know that I for one, find myself rereading through Marx's pieces, to get a better idea than on the first instance, because they are often so technical.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Explorer wrote:
quote:I know that I for one, find myself rereading through Marx's pieces, to get a better idea than on the first instance, because they are often so technical.
That's really admirable Explorer. And a good example to follow. I read it because my degree is in Economics. Its one of the toughest book I ever read. Perhaps these discussions will lead me to dust it off and give it the old school boy try. Its very interesting times we live in and I agree that a masterpiece such as this is indispensible to a thorough understanding of what we're up against.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Whisperer:
I read it because my degree is in Economics.
Did not know that. But, I think it is in the best interest of any worker, to get some consciousness of the economic framework they are working in via intelligentsia like Marx or Engel, economic degree or not. "Western" mass media has conditioned some to shy away from acquainting themselves, out of fear of being labeled as "communists" or "commie", another "dirty word" apparently, amongst peers et al. I've had that word tossed at me myself by some clown, simply for espousing noticeable familiarity with the basic principles of the socialist socio-economic framework. Ironically, I don't get the same treatment for espousing the same for capitalism. I guess some self-proclaimed "anti-white" folks are conditioned and programmed to be subconscious lapdogs of "western capitalism" mastas, whom they openly act like they despise. Labels mean nothing to me, nor do they box me ideologically.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Liberty is the natural state of mankind from birth and has nothing to do with government. However, it has everything to do with how humans think and organize themselves for their survival. Government is simply a development of more complex human social groupings, which have developed over thousands of years due to necessity. The theory of Government from a philosophical perspective, inherently takes away liberty. The idea being that each individual "theoretically" gives up some of their personal liberty to a third party, "the government", which is allowed the right to regulate and manage things for the benefit of the collective. But in practice government has always been about a few taking power and wealth to benefit themselves primarily and using powerful propaganda in terms of religion or culture to maintain it.
Capitalism has never ever meant freedom in any sense of the word. Britain is the home of capitalism and it is defined explicitly by the idea that institutions should be developed and defined by the British Crown to go out into the world and collect capital from the land, labor and resources of other people. Of course this land, labor and resources were not "freely" given to the British, hence the need for the military to defend such practices. America certainly did not see British capitalists as defining freedom in any sense of the word. And the freedoms of Early America were explicitly subservient to the wishes of the male landowning capitalist elite, which meant that blacks, native Americans, women and non land owners were not included as key members of the "state". They could not vote, could not get insurance and could not partake in the "liberties" of the country. America was built by and for the white male landowning capitalist industrialist elite and not for "freedom". Freedoms for all only came as a result of struggle by those who were not full members of this system against the ruling elite.
Another example of how capitalism has nothing to do with freedom or liberty is China. China is the largest capitalist country on earth, but nobody in their right minds would call that government or society free or liberal. In fact, it is the Chinese model that most capitalists would love to emulate world wide, where the authoritarian rule of law is explicitly used to reinforce and maximize profit.
Capital means acquiring wealth by any means necessary, and if that means taking it from others by force, then so be it. The only "freedom" that comes into play is how the land, labor and resources of others is "freely" redistributed to the elite and then the foot soldiers who help the capitalists expand their empire.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Explorer wrote:
quote:Did not know that. But, I think it is in the best interest of any worker, to get some consciousness of the economic framework they are working in via intelligentsia like Marx or Engel, economic degree or not. "Western" mass media has conditioned some to shy away from acquainting themselves, out of fear of being labeled as "communists" or "commie", another "dirty word" apparently, amongst peers et al. I've had that word tossed at me myself by some clown, simply for espousing noticeable familiarity with the basic principles of the socialist socio-economic framework. Ironically, I don't get the same treatment for espousing the same for capitalism. I guess some self-proclaimed "anti-white" folks are conditioned and programmed to be subconscious lapdogs of "western capitalism" mastas, whom they openly act like they despise. Labels mean nothing to me, nor do they box me ideologically.
Correct. The lack of any consciousness of their own "class interests" is what led American workes to cheer on Reagan's dismantling of the Air Traffic Controlers union back in the 1980's. This marked the acceleration of a war on the working class that was facilitated by a passive proletariat conditioned to view the assertion of their rights as "class war". The incredible transfer of wealth, to the already super rich, that took place in the US, over the past 20, occured without any protest from the masses because workers no longer had a framework with which to analyse the forces arrayed against them.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Doug M wrote:
quote:Liberty is the natural state of mankind from birth and has nothing to do with government. However, it has everything to do with how humans think and organize themselves for their survival. Government is simply a development of more complex human social groupings, which have developed over thousands of years due to necessity. The theory of Government from a philosophical perspective, inherently takes away liberty. The idea being that each individual "theoretically" gives up some of their personal liberty to a third party, "the government", which is allowed the right to regulate and manage things for the benefit of the collective. But in practice government has always been about a few taking power and wealth to benefit themselves primarily and using powerful propaganda in terms of religion or culture to maintain it.
Capitalism has never ever meant freedom in any sense of the word. Britain is the home of capitalism and it is defined explicitly by the idea that institutions should be developed and defined by the British Crown to go out into the world and collect capital from the land, labor and resources of other people. Of course this land, labor and resources were not "freely" given to the British, hence the need for the military to defend such practices. America certainly did not see British capitalists as defining freedom in any sense of the word. And the freedoms of Early America were explicitly subservient to the wishes of the male landowning capitalist elite, which meant that blacks, native Americans, women and non land owners were not included as key members of the "state". They could not vote, could not get insurance and could not partake in the "liberties" of the country. America was built by and for the white male landowning capitalist industrialist elite and not for "freedom". Freedoms for all only came as a result of struggle by those who were not full members of this system against the ruling elite.
Another example of how capitalism has nothing to do with freedom or liberty is China. China is the largest capitalist country on earth, but nobody in their right minds would call that government or society free or liberal. In fact, it is the Chinese model that most capitalists would love to emulate world wide, where the authoritarian rule of law is explicitly used to reinforce and maximize profit.
Capital means acquiring wealth by any means necessary, and if that means taking it from others by force, then so be it. The only "freedom" that comes into play is how the land, labor and resources of others is "freely" redistributed to the elite and then the foot soldiers who help the capitalists expand their empire.
In fact there is a great book by Dr. Eric Williams called "Capitalism and Slavery" that documents how Europe accumulated capital from the blood and sweat of enslaved Africans. The need for investment outlets for this capital is what largely stimulated the growth of western European economies eventually leading to the industrial revolution.
The equation of capitalism with freedom is again patently false. One just has to consider the various juntas that ruled Latin America for most of the 20th century. Most operated under the capitalist umbrella while brutally opressing their own people.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Any book by Walter Williams should come with a "caveat emptor" sticker. The man is complete hack, a toatl ignoramus when it comes to economics. Like Tom Sowell he is one of those U.S. negroes with strong self-defeating right wing ideas that are praised to high heavens by Euro-Americans.
The thing about capitalism is that it is very, very defective system system as many of the more intelligent Euro economists pointed out: Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter, et al.
Marx argued logically that the very destructive busts that you get with capitalism are just unacceptable and the system must be scrapped. Keynes more or less aggreed with Marx's argument but argued that the destructiveness of capitalism could be calmed by measured government intervention. Schumpeter argued too that capitalism was doomed to crisis after crisis.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Well yes lamin, Marx wanted to scrap the system at the expense of any level of liberty. The man was proven wrong by the reforms of capitalism that took place in the hundered years after his death. You guys just cannot stand it when a black man decides not to be a lowly victim. Walter Williams knows that freedom and liberty have nothing to do with race. An government based on tyranny dos not care what color your skin is nor does it care.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
AP, You are wrong on Marx. Rightly or wrongly, Marx believed that the worker was enslaved and alienated under capitalism and that he would gain his full freedom when the shackles of capitalism would be cast off after the worker would have expropriated the capitalist and the means of production that he used to exploit the worker.
It is for this reason that Marx argued that mankind would be fully emancipated after capitalism was surpassed and the oppressive "bourgeois" state withered away thereby.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Marx was full of utopian nonsense lamin. In the United States small business drives the economy. The number of rags to riches stories in this nation is staggering. What does a worker have when he does not have freedom? People need to get off their butts and acomplish something. As a black man you were not born a victim, you were born with liberty and to the extent that you do not have it you use your wits to get it and keep it. Walter Williams has figured all of that out.
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
Delete
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.
Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest.
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.
We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the _present time_, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.
In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.
The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish way.
"The Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German state, decides the fate of Europe. While corporations and guilds refuse to admit Jews, or have not yet adopted a favorable attitude towards them, the audacity of industry mocks at the obstinacy of the material institutions." (Bruno Bauer, _The Jewish Question_, p.114)
This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, _money_ has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews."
Karl Marx On The Jewish Question
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Whisperer:
Explorer wrote:
quote:Did not know that. But, I think it is in the best interest of any worker, to get some consciousness of the economic framework they are working in via intelligentsia like Marx or Engel, economic degree or not. "Western" mass media has conditioned some to shy away from acquainting themselves, out of fear of being labeled as "communists" or "commie", another "dirty word" apparently, amongst peers et al. I've had that word tossed at me myself by some clown, simply for espousing noticeable familiarity with the basic principles of the socialist socio-economic framework. Ironically, I don't get the same treatment for espousing the same for capitalism. I guess some self-proclaimed "anti-white" folks are conditioned and programmed to be subconscious lapdogs of "western capitalism" mastas, whom they openly act like they despise. Labels mean nothing to me, nor do they box me ideologically.
Correct. The lack of any consciousness of their own "class interests" is what led American workes to cheer on Reagan's dismantling of the Air Traffic Controlers union back in the 1980's. This marked the acceleration of a war on the working class that was facilitated by a passive proletariat conditioned to view the assertion of their rights as "class war". The incredible transfer of wealth, to the already super rich, that took place in the US, over the past 20, occured without any protest from the masses because workers no longer had a framework with which to analyse the forces arrayed against them.
You are quite right about the Reagan administration's anti-working class strategies in the 80s, including that familiar one concerning the Air Traffic Controllers. What I've noticed about US big business mass media and political establishment, is the utter caution with which they use to avoid overtly using "class" [as in social class] in their lexicon. It's almost like a taboo with these folks; it is obviously part of a broad effort to obscure the actual class nature of the US society at any length possible, and hence, all the implications that go along with it.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
The man was proven wrong by the reforms of capitalism that took place in the hundered years after his death.
Thought you were on task to share with us what specific work of "the man" you've read in its entirety, and henceforth, to point out what specificities lie therein that have been proven wrong, and how so. What's holding you back?
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.
Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest.
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.
We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the _present time_, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.
In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.
The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish way.
"The Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German state, decides the fate of Europe. While corporations and guilds refuse to admit Jews, or have not yet adopted a favorable attitude towards them, the audacity of industry mocks at the obstinacy of the material institutions." (Bruno Bauer, _The Jewish Question_, p.114)
This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, _money_ has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews."
Karl Marx On The Jewish Question
In the broad context, what is Marx telling us here?
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ that...
LOL
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Jackass, I take it that this cop-out and cowardly childish gay-like spam is your way of saying that you cite things you don't really comprehend?
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ its my way saying **** you.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Akoben says: ''it's my way saying [love] you.'' Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by AssOpen:
its my way saying **** you.
Nope, it's your pussy way of saying you post things you don't least understand.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
You mean like the "primary sourced backed" Dawidowicz sources and your "Jews as victims" of European capitalism thesis? lol
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
For any party capable of basic reading, here is a more complete rendition of the piece already posted above, although by the intellectually-dud one who was/is completely ignorant of its purpose:
Karl Marx ON HE JEWISH QUESTION
written Autumn 1843,published February, 1844
The Jewish question acquires a different form depending on the state in which the Jew lives. In Germany, where there is no political state, no state as such, the Jewish question is a purely _theological_ one. The Jew finds himself in _religious_ opposition to the state, which recognizes Christianity as its basis. This state is a theologian ex professo. Criticism here is criticism of theology, a double-edged criticism -- criticism of Christian theology and of Jewish theology. Hence, we continue to operate in the sphere of theology, however much we may operate critically within it.
In France, a constitutional state, the Jewish question is a question of constitutionalism, the question of the incompleteness of political emancipation. Since the semblance of a state religion is retained here, although in a meaningless and self-contradictory formula, that of a religion of the majority, the relation of the Jew to the state retains the semblance of a religious, theological opposition.
Only in the North American states -- at least, in some of them -- does the Jewish question lose its theological significance and become a really _secular_ question. Only where the political state exists in its completely developed form can the relation of the Jew, and of the religious man in general, to the political state, and therefore the relation of religion to the state, show itself in its specific character, in its purity. The criticism of this relation ceases to be theological criticism as soon as the state ceases to adopt a theological attitude toward religion, as soon as it behaves towards religion as a state -- i.e., politically.
.. Man emancipates himself politically from religion by banishing it from the sphere of public law to that of private law. Religion is o longer the spirit of the state, in which man behaves -- although in a limited way, in a particular form, and in a particular sphere -- as a species-being, in community with other men. Religion has become the spirit of civil society, of the sphere of egoism, of bellum omnium contra omnes. It is no longer the essence of community, but the essence of difference. It has become the expression of man's separation from his community, from himself and from other men -- as it was originally.
It is only the abstract avowal of specific perversity, private whimsy, and arbitrariness. The endless fragmentation of religion in North America, for example, gives it even externally the form of a purely individual affair. It has been thrust among the multitude of private interests and ejected from the community as such. But one should be under no illusion about the limits of political emancipation. The division of the human being into a _public_ man and a _private_ man, the displacement of religion from the state into civil society, this is not a stage of political emancipation but its completion; this emancipation, therefore, neither abolished the real religiousness of man, nor strives to do so.
We have, thus, shown that political emancipation from religion leaves religion in existence, although not a privileged religion. The contradiction in which the adherent of a particular religion finds himself involved in relation to his citizenship is only _one aspect_ of the universal secular contradiction between the political state and civil society. The consummation of the Christian state is the state which acknowledges itself as a state and disregards the religion of its members. The emancipation of the state from religion is not the emancipation of the real man from religion. Therefore, we do not say to the Jews, as Bauer does: You cannot be emancipated politically without emancipating yourselves radically from Judaism. On the contrary, we tell them: Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not _human_ emancipation
The droits de l'homme, the rights of man, are, as such, distinct from the droits du citoyen, the rights of the citizen. Who is homme as distinct from citoyen? None other than the member of civil society. Why is the member of civil society called "man", simply man; why are his rights called the rights of man? How is this fact to be explained? From the relationship between the political state and civil society, from the nature of political emancipation..
Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man, the droits de l'homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society -- i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community. Let us hear what the most radical Constitution, the Constitution of 1793, has to say:
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
Article 2. "These rights, etc., (the natural and imprescriptible rights) are: equality, liberty, security, property."
What constitutes liberty?
Article 6. "Liberty is the power which man has to do everything that does not harm the rights of others",
or, according to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1791:
"Liberty consists in being able to do everything which does not harm others."
Liberty, therefore, is the right to do everything that harms no one else. The limits within which anyone can act _without harming_ someone else are defined by law, just as the boundary between two fields is determined by a boundary post. It is a question of the liberty of man as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself.
None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society -- that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-like itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as a restriction of their original independence. The sole bound holding them together it natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and their egoistic selves.
.. Hence, man was not freed from religion, he received religious freedom. He was not fred from property, he received freedom to own property. He was not freed from the egoism of business, he received freedom to engage in business.
Therefore, Rousseau (in the Social Contract) correctly described the abstract idea of political man as follows:
"Whoever dares undertake to establish a people's institutions must feel himself capable of changing, as it were, human nature, of transforming each individual, who by himself is a complete and solitary whole, into a part of a larger whole, from which, in a sense, the individual receives his life and his being, of substituting a limited and mental existence for the physical and independent existence. He has to take from man his own powers, and give him in exchange alien powers which he cannot employ without the help of other men."
_All_ emancipation is a _reduction_ of the human world and relationships to _man himself_.
Political emancipation is the reduction of man, on the one hand, to a member of civil society, to an egoistic, independent individual, and, on the other hand, to a citizen, a juridical person.
Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his "own powers" as -social_ powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of _political_ power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.
Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.
Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest.
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.
An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this _practical_ nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for _human emancipation_ as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement.
We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the _present time_, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.
In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.
The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish way.
"The Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German state, decides the fate of Europe. While corporations and guilds refuse to admit Jews, or have not yet adopted a favorable attitude towards them, the audacity of industry mocks at the obstinacy of the material institutions." (Bruno Bauer, _The Jewish Question_, p.114)
This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, _money_ has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.
Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals.
What, in itself, was the basis of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism.
The monotheism of the Jew, therefore, is in reality the polytheism of the many needs, a polytheism which makes even the lavatory an object of divine law. Practical need, egoism, is the principle of civil society, and as such appears in pure form as soon as civil society has fully given birth to the political state. The god of practical need and self-interest is money.
Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man -- and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established _value_ of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world -- both the world of men and nature -- of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man's work and man's existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it.
The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion, is the real, conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The species-relation itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of trade! The woman is bought and sold.
The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism -- huckstering and its preconditions -- the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, nd because the conflict between man's individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.
The _social_ emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)