Quick (late) reply to Kevin CarsonfareSeptember 5 2007, 05:16:22 UTC
1a. Dismantling state privilege is anarchism, not socialism. You failed to establish any relationship between the two. Whether there is any possible political meaning to a socialist anarchism, you haven't established (please respond to my next post -- and while we're at it, to Bastiat's criticism of Proudhon).
1b. Your statement that the State favors owners of land and capital is wholly unfounded. Both are heavily taxed and regulated. Certainly *some* owners people get state subsidies and monopolies -- but most do not, and are indeed the most oppressed class in society.
2a. From "negative sum games exist" to "zero-sum games explain most that exist", there is a big step that only a very sick mind takes. Actually, the whole experimental evidence of progress through the ages shows that there are positive sum games, and that these games are at work at a formidable rate, particularly so in the countries that have grown most. And these games are not political.
2b. The socialist obsession with the Enclosures is disingenious -- repeating ever the same meaningless non-sequitur as a mantra. The capital riches justly created and accumulated (as opposed to dissipated) by the industrialists of the nineteenth century have no relationship whatsoever with any land grab that may or may not have happened -- and the very notion of land grab presupposes a notion of land property that has been violated. Without land property, there is no land grab to complain about.
3a. You're deeply confused and have no notion of what law means, and repeat nonsense about equality. About equality, start by reading Thomas Sowell's "The Quest for Cosmic Justice", and about the law, read "Freedom and the Law" by Bruno Leoni.
3b. You are a socialist indeed: you consider that the rich are presumed guilty and the poor are presumed innocent. For this reason alone, you are a monster, kept from being a criminal by your sole weakness. Happily for everyone, your particular brand of absurd ideas will keep you weak and in check -- otherwise, you'd have to be quickly dispatched before you kill too many innocents, like the anarcho-statists of Spain.
Re: Quick (late) reply to Kevin Carsonlark1979October 12 2007, 22:26:23 UTC
The reality of any state and society is that of a polyarchy, there are many centres of power, interest and status groups, both "public" and private, competiting with one another, the state itself does indeed subordinate agribusiness or capital, it taxes them like everyone else, hard working individuals, their families and dependents included.
However there is a clear difference in how these various firms, interests, status groups and individuals are treated, in the UK in the last month the government has heavily subsidised private banks to rescue them from the consequences of their bankrolling of very, very unwise loans and borrowing in the US while saying that they can not subsidise "public" enterprises in order to pay their employees decently. I ask you what is that if its not discrimination on the basis of social class or status?
I dont believe that socialists are obsessed with land enclosure, it is a very dated example of the sort of relationship that the state still has today with capital or the equivalent elites in assisting them to exploit a more subordinate social class of individuals, their families and dependents. Of course there was property in land, it was common property, it was appropriated and given to individuals. I'm sure there are naive socialists who say they oppose proprietorship per se but I'm sure properly understood their opposition is to certain sorts of proprietorship, powers of proprietorship or as a consequence of properietorship.
Your very personal tirade of insults adds nothing to your argument and is shameful, properly understood socialism does not involve any presumption of guilt upon either the part of the rich or poor for an economic system of which in the main individuals operate within without being the architects of in the first place.
Socialism's goal is a classless society with neither rich nor poor and I as a socialist would absolutely and wholly disapprove of any valourisation or villification of any individuals and their families purely as a consequence of their social status or wealth. There are no doubt cruel or selfish individuals in all classes, exhibiting those traits in different ways as accorded by their privilege or misfortune (ie the capricious rich or malingering poor) but their behaviour is no wholly a consequence of their social class or the economy and it doesnt make any sense to do so.
In anycase the valour or villainy of individuals combined in a class will not prevent the contradictions in the economy or social order resulting in crisis or collapse, although the actions of states have done much to mitigate these tendencies, however the respective power, preparation or predispositions of social classes are likely to influence their response to any crisis or collapse.
Absurdity of Socialist BlatherfareOctober 14 2007, 23:57:00 UTC
Social class is a bunk concept created by socialists too stupid to understand the complexity of society. It is only out-dumbed by the absurd non-concept of "Classless society". Inasmuch as classes are a subjective creation out of the arbitrary criteria of an arbitrary observer, the only possible "classless society" is one where every thinking being has been exterminated -- indeed what all socialist politics tend toward. Caste societies have existed -- and capitalism is what dismantled them, wherever they have been dismantled.
Yes, socialists keep telling me about english land enclosure as something somehow relevant to the history of "capitalism", absurd as the claim might be. And yes, they keep opposing "private property" of "means of production", whatever that means. Finally, yes, presumption of guilt of the rich is explicit in Carson's answer right above here.
The contradictions are not in "society". Society is not a logical statement. Contradictions abound in socialist "theory", or rather "blather", because it's not really logical either, though it purports to be.
Re: Absurdity of Socialist BlatherfareOctober 15 2007, 00:14:39 UTC
The condescention and pretense to knowledge in your post is astounding, this truly is an example of how the blogosphere is a place were people in love with the drone of their own voice go for self-congratulatory affirmation.
I guarantee you that class is not an out moded or bunk concept, class consciousness abounds, the only people who acknowledge it these days are elites, the wealthy and privileged or their political cousins within conservatism.
That's a link to a book available from Amazon on social class written by an eminent conservative who worked in the Thatcher government no less.
Likewise there are plenty of class struggles, they are very popular, they are not against the privileged, the establishment or wealthy, the one percents of every country who pull the strings nationally and internationally but against the subordinate groups nationally and internationally.
I'm not saying that this is wholly unwarranted, when individuals band together as a group become anti-social, consequently anti-individual if you wish to play semantics, it is only right that a reaction occurs, however attention is disproportionately paid to the subordinate groups.
The things you rant about, what socialists have told you before now, are not representative, they cant be because I'm a socialist and I do not hold those views, there are many socialists who feel likewise, as any unbiased and unembittered review of the literature would reveal, however I'm not expecting that honestly you are interested.
Your view that neither socialism nor society are logical is purely subjective, I suggest that you paint yourself purple and run naked into a playground or commit some equal act of indecency and see whether or not society exists, I would equally challenge you to meet all your needs in splendid isolation if you do not believe that society exists.
Posting as you have done for public attention, even replying to my and other socialists posts demonstrates a deep seated need to correspond with others, share your views and perform as a social actor, you betray through your very own actions and discourse that your own thinking is illogical and tantamount to blather.
Re: Absurdity of Socialist BlatherfareOctober 15 2007, 00:45:34 UTC
My condescention is equalled by yours. Only one (at most) is justified. But unlike you, I am not dishonest enough to make a one-sided argument of a symmetrical opposition.
Society is an emerging phenomenon - that, no one denies. What individualists deny are claims that Society is a personal God that has a will, a "public interest" or a "common good", a "voice" as spoken by "representives" either elected or unelected, that it is incarnate in either "the State" or "the revolution" (or both, when the socialist mass-killers have been let to win).
The existence of society in no way justifies the subjugation of people to the self-proclaimed speakers for "Society". The existence of voluntary communities does not justify violence towards its members by armed goons claiming to act in the name of the community.
1b. Your statement that the State favors owners of land and capital is wholly unfounded. Both are heavily taxed and regulated. Certainly *some* owners people get state subsidies and monopolies -- but most do not, and are indeed the most oppressed class in society.
2a. From "negative sum games exist" to "zero-sum games explain most that exist", there is a big step that only a very sick mind takes. Actually, the whole experimental evidence of progress through the ages shows that there are positive sum games, and that these games are at work at a formidable rate, particularly so in the countries that have grown most. And these games are not political.
2b. The socialist obsession with the Enclosures is disingenious -- repeating ever the same meaningless non-sequitur as a mantra. The capital riches justly created and accumulated (as opposed to dissipated) by the industrialists of the nineteenth century have no relationship whatsoever with any land grab that may or may not have happened -- and the very notion of land grab presupposes a notion of land property that has been violated. Without land property, there is no land grab to complain about.
3a. You're deeply confused and have no notion of what law means, and repeat nonsense about equality. About equality, start by reading Thomas Sowell's "The Quest for Cosmic Justice", and about the law, read "Freedom and the Law" by Bruno Leoni.
3b. You are a socialist indeed: you consider that the rich are presumed guilty and the poor are presumed innocent. For this reason alone, you are a monster, kept from being a criminal by your sole weakness. Happily for everyone, your particular brand of absurd ideas will keep you weak and in check -- otherwise, you'd have to be quickly dispatched before you kill too many innocents, like the anarcho-statists of Spain.
Reply
However there is a clear difference in how these various firms, interests, status groups and individuals are treated, in the UK in the last month the government has heavily subsidised private banks to rescue them from the consequences of their bankrolling of very, very unwise loans and borrowing in the US while saying that they can not subsidise "public" enterprises in order to pay their employees decently. I ask you what is that if its not discrimination on the basis of social class or status?
I dont believe that socialists are obsessed with land enclosure, it is a very dated example of the sort of relationship that the state still has today with capital or the equivalent elites in assisting them to exploit a more subordinate social class of individuals, their families and dependents. Of course there was property in land, it was common property, it was appropriated and given to individuals. I'm sure there are naive socialists who say they oppose proprietorship per se but I'm sure properly understood their opposition is to certain sorts of proprietorship, powers of proprietorship or as a consequence of properietorship.
Your very personal tirade of insults adds nothing to your argument and is shameful, properly understood socialism does not involve any presumption of guilt upon either the part of the rich or poor for an economic system of which in the main individuals operate within without being the architects of in the first place.
Socialism's goal is a classless society with neither rich nor poor and I as a socialist would absolutely and wholly disapprove of any valourisation or villification of any individuals and their families purely as a consequence of their social status or wealth. There are no doubt cruel or selfish individuals in all classes, exhibiting those traits in different ways as accorded by their privilege or misfortune (ie the capricious rich or malingering poor) but their behaviour is no wholly a consequence of their social class or the economy and it doesnt make any sense to do so.
In anycase the valour or villainy of individuals combined in a class will not prevent the contradictions in the economy or social order resulting in crisis or collapse, although the actions of states have done much to mitigate these tendencies, however the respective power, preparation or predispositions of social classes are likely to influence their response to any crisis or collapse.
Reply
Yes, socialists keep telling me about english land enclosure as something somehow relevant to the history of "capitalism", absurd as the claim might be. And yes, they keep opposing "private property" of "means of production", whatever that means. Finally, yes, presumption of guilt of the rich is explicit in Carson's answer right above here.
The contradictions are not in "society". Society is not a logical statement. Contradictions abound in socialist "theory", or rather "blather", because it's not really logical either, though it purports to be.
Reply
I guarantee you that class is not an out moded or bunk concept, class consciousness abounds, the only people who acknowledge it these days are elites, the wealthy and privileged or their political cousins within conservatism.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Gap-Class-Divide-Britain/dp/1904977324/ref=sr_1_1/203-5823069-4500704?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192406536&sr=1-1
That's a link to a book available from Amazon on social class written by an eminent conservative who worked in the Thatcher government no less.
Likewise there are plenty of class struggles, they are very popular, they are not against the privileged, the establishment or wealthy, the one percents of every country who pull the strings nationally and internationally but against the subordinate groups nationally and internationally.
I'm not saying that this is wholly unwarranted, when individuals band together as a group become anti-social, consequently anti-individual if you wish to play semantics, it is only right that a reaction occurs, however attention is disproportionately paid to the subordinate groups.
The things you rant about, what socialists have told you before now, are not representative, they cant be because I'm a socialist and I do not hold those views, there are many socialists who feel likewise, as any unbiased and unembittered review of the literature would reveal, however I'm not expecting that honestly you are interested.
Your view that neither socialism nor society are logical is purely subjective, I suggest that you paint yourself purple and run naked into a playground or commit some equal act of indecency and see whether or not society exists, I would equally challenge you to meet all your needs in splendid isolation if you do not believe that society exists.
Posting as you have done for public attention, even replying to my and other socialists posts demonstrates a deep seated need to correspond with others, share your views and perform as a social actor, you betray through your very own actions and discourse that your own thinking is illogical and tantamount to blather.
Good day from the Gentleman Socialist.
Reply
Society is an emerging phenomenon - that, no one denies. What individualists deny are claims that Society is a personal God that has a will, a "public interest" or a "common good", a "voice" as spoken by "representives" either elected or unelected, that it is incarnate in either "the State" or "the revolution" (or both, when the socialist mass-killers have been let to win).
The existence of society in no way justifies the subjugation of people to the self-proclaimed speakers for "Society". The existence of voluntary communities does not justify violence towards its members by armed goons claiming to act in the name of the community.
The only gentle socialists are dead socialists.
Reply
Leave a comment