Ableton Forum

I would add that Balmer's use of the word "Socialism" in all it's variations to mean any powerful centralized government of any kind that takes control away from individuals is what's screwing with you two's ability to debate at all. Just like your use of the word "Capitalism" to mean any economic method of wresting power from the masses.

Neither of these things are definitively true in my viewpoint.

Machinesworking wrote:I would add that Balmer's use of the word "Socialism" in all it's variations to mean any powerful centralized government of any kind that takes control away from individuals is what's screwing with you two's ability to debate at all. Just like your use of the word "Capitalism" to mean any economic method of wresting power from the masses.

Neither of these things are definitively true in my viewpoint.

^ True!

The only really sensible thing said in this whole thread. (not that I am at all interested in buying in to this 'argument')

To do that you have to first replace it with the rule of the working class. To do that the workers have to get organised, with democratic structures.

Why is that not a government? Sounds like a government to me.

The working class will never be able to rule. They are too busy working.

At this point, we're going to need to define "government". I like Hoppe's definition: A monopoly of violence.

Questions? Comments?

Funk N. Furter wrote:Capitalism is not just a hypothetical pure free market. It is the rule of the capitalist class.

These two criteria are mutually exclusive. You can have either one, but not both. If you define capitalism in this way, as you might, then I am surely not a proponent of capitalism. No siree!

glenn303 wrote:The working class will never be able to rule. They are too busy working.

No, that's ok, you just need a group of working class who have the specific task of running things. Of course, if they don't do a good job you need a way of replacing them. Maybe give them a few years, then as a country everyone has a say in whether they stay or someone else takes their place.

See, I've solved a major problem. I'm a fucking genius.

Oh, hang on...

andydes wrote:

glenn303 wrote:The working class will never be able to rule. They are too busy working.

No, that's ok, you just need a group of working class who have the specific task of running things. Of course, if they don't do a good job you need a way of replacing them. Maybe give them a few years, then as a country everyone has a say in whether they stay or someone else takes their place.

See, I've solved a major problem. I'm a fucking genius.

Oh, hang on...

I see what you did there.

Funk N. Furter wrote:Capitalism is not just a hypothetical pure free market. It is the rule of the capitalist class.

Dangerous line of thinking imo. The "capitalist class" are no doubt the one"s who must pay for their crimes once removed, no?

But really, the number of truely corrupt people is very small. Everyone else is just doing their job.

At the heart of it all- politicians are owned by big business, but big business is mainly owned by a bunch of account numbers. These numbers are funds that include pensions, savings and even union money, as well as the "capitalist class" stakes. Banks also have these investments to allow them to lend for business loans and mortgages.

Simply put, we're all in on it.

I think some kind of workers rebellion is bound to hurt a lot of regular people just trying to get on with their lives.

That's not to say we can continue as we are, of course, because we're sleepwalking towards our own destruction and something has to change.

Funk N. Furter wrote: I know exactly what libertarian means to most so-called libertarians, Stevie boy included. It is not close to what anarchists believe in at all. Anarchists want the same end result that Marxists do - communism, the exact opposite of what libertarians want.

I don't believe that at all. First of all there are many different kinds of anarchists, just like there are many kinds of socialists and libertarians. The main thing that separates Anarchists from communists is the homogeny aspect of communism. You cannot deny that communism requires collective decisions, Anarchism focuses on the individual.
One thing though, socialists tend to believe that the enemy is the free market capitalist. That, is what sets me apart from you. I don't see a strong centralized government, ( and that's what it would take to get rid of the free market ), as the answer, no matter if it's a stepping point towards a 'workers paradise' or not. We have seen what happens when you take power forcefully from the elite, it requires the kind of bloodshed that leads to mass murderers like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. You lump them all in as Stalinists and try to distance yourself from them, but it's near impossible, it's what has happened, history itself refutes you, people calling themselves socialists have killed millions in the name of the 'workers'.

The reality is most if not all Socialists believe in the rule of the crowd over individual concerns, and this is what separates anarchists and libertarians from Socialists and Fascists, the authoritarian or centralized rule of law VS complete individual freedom. The one thing I think the Libertarians got completely right is the separation of competing ideologies into Authoritarian VS freedom and Left VS Right politics.

You deny that there is an authoritarian aspect to Communism and of course Socialism, but even you talk about the need for force without batting an eye, which neither me nor Balmer have done. That is clearly an authoritarian stance. The common thread is Left, Non-Authoritarian = Anarchist, Authoritarian= Socialist/Communist. Right, Non-Authoritarian=Libertarian, Authoritarian=Fascist. We all live in countries that have been somewhere in the middle.
^^ That's another area I disagree with Balmer on though, Socialism isn't the issue, and Fascism isn't like Socialism in it's left or right leaning but in it's authoritarian dogmatism. Where Socialism and Anarchism are similar is in their desire for some sort of help built in for the disadvantaged etc. The Fascists would just kill them, the Libertarians would do nothing.

Socialism and it's papa Communism are far more authoritarian ideologies by nature than Anarchism or Libertarianism, that is recognized by everyone but Socialists.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:Capitalism is not just a hypothetical pure free market. It is the rule of the capitalist class.

These two criteria are mutually exclusive. You can have either one, but not both. If you define capitalism in this way, as you might, then I am surely not a proponent of capitalism. No siree!

All capitalist societies have the capitalist class as the ruling class. They are not pure capitalism, because the capitalists do not want pure capitalism, and because pure capitalism is unworkable. It only exists in your imagination. In the real world, the free market only ever goes so far.

Capitalist societies can never be pure capitalism because they require the ruling class to be the capitalist class. You cannot have capitalism, or the closest that happens in the real world, without the capitalists being the ruling class.

Before it was a feudal ruling class. The bourgeois took power in revolutions and civil wars. When they had established their rule over the feudal elite, the conditions existed for the development of capitalist nation states and economies. The capitalists created the working class and then asserted their rule over them. This is how the real world has looked for quite a long time now, starting in 1640 in England.

This is one of the strangest things you've wrote. Allow me to have some fun:

All socialist societies have the socialist class as the ruling class. They are not pure socialism, because the socialists do not want pure socialism, and because pure socialism is unworkable. It only exists in your imagination. In the real world, the governmentlessness ( ) only ever goes so far.

Socialist societies can never be pure socialism because they require the ruling class to be the socialist class. You cannot have socialism, or the closest that happens in the real world, without the socialist being the ruling class.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

glenn303 wrote:The working class will never be able to rule. They are too busy working.

We can cut the working week by sharing the work out and eliminating unemployment, so they have time.

This all depends on the efficiency of your production. If people are starving due to underproduction, it'd be a little tricky to justify farmers playing politician.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

andydes wrote:

To do that you have to first replace it with the rule of the working class. To do that the workers have to get organised, with democratic structures.

Why is that not a government? Sounds like a government to me.

Yes it is a government. No government is the long term goal. First you need to replace capitalism (the rule of the capitalist class) with rule of the working class. This is much more than just a workers' government though, it needs the mass organisation of the workers.

Explain how your "no government" world state would work. What would stop new governments from popping up?

Machinesworking wrote:That's another area I disagree with Balmer on though, Socialism isn't the issue, and Fascism isn't like Socialism in it's left or right leaning but in it's authoritarian dogmatism. Where Socialism and Anarchism are similar is in their desire for some sort of help built in for the disadvantaged etc. The Fascists would just kill them, the Libertarians would do nothing.

This is non strictly true. I have only very few libertarians (often Rand fanatics) who argue against charity. That said, I would argue that a lot of organised charity is harmful, so I'd be more in favour of small, decentralized volontary efforts. All libertarians would have to agree that mandatory (hence government) charity is evil.

Funk N. Furter wrote:I think you're clouding things by chucking in this pensions and savings stuff. The state take our pension money and do what they like with it, use it to make more money. We on the other hand are luck to ever actually see it again.

FYP