The end game doesn't have to be different for the method to be better. One method requires the state enforcing the utopia, the other requires EVERY person choosing the utopia for themselves. There isn't much difference in the final result except that you can call the road to get there something different and perhaps the people in the second part will be happier. In all honestly, socialism wouldn't be any better than capitalism at providing for everyone.
Layoffs coming...
- Thread starter althor
- Start date
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Marx believed the only way to utopia was through a revolution of the proletariat taking over "means of production". He believed in a classless society as the final stage of human evolution. This goes against your statement that he wanted a state forced utopia doesn't it? Unless you meant Liber-Soc wants to use the state as force. I'm not getting that though.
Now, how does this differ from L-S?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Nice, except that I can offer you loads of examples of situations where the CEO's drove their businesses into the dirt - and yet they are still compensated. Show me please repeated non-union examples of the same happening with workers. As I said and you failed to address - this is not a perpetual situation, you cannot show me how a 45 million dollar ceo is only half the value of a 90 million dollar ceo. From your example, a billion dollar a year CEO should be even better right? Now look at it from the point of actual earnings of the company and we might come to an agreement. CEO A and CEO B both get .2 percent of the net profit of the company - in my opinion this would be quite fair - if CEO A earned a billion dollars in a year it would mean that their company has been quite profitable, but this is not how it ordinarily works and except for (in some cases) stock options, CEO's pay is rarely linked to performance - something that you seem to be arguing actually happens.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
So you're....jealous?
Honestly, why are you so obsessed with what other people earn? If you put half as much thought into your own life as you do into others, you'd probably not want any capital gains increases either
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i can offer you loads of examples where government regulation drove a company into the dirt.
does this prove government regulations are overpriced and should be cut back to the level that corresponds to their effectiveness?
regulatory changes are rarely linked to a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis, and are usually just pushed through by bureaucrats who never worked in the related field a day in their lives.
this is true of agricultural regulations, industrial regulations, financial regulations, and of course environmental regulations.
but the apocryphal CEO is the bad guy. who is this CEO youre talking about?
the CEO of General Electric? nah,, he's one of the good guys, since he works "with" obama in their scheme to turn the economy around...
warren buffet? nahh hes a liberal...
bill gates? nahhh he's a liberal too...
that guy from delco moraine who is keeping the "engine that runs on water" under wraps?
broad sweeping generalizations are great but when you start narrowing your argument to specifics, you gotta bring specifics of your own.
it's true that a bad captain can sink a ship, but so can a careless crewman, a heavy storm, a rogue wave, or an iceberg. either way, the captain usually takes the blame anyhow.
who are these captains who sank their ship, dog paddled to their diamond encrusted yachts while the passengers and crew drowned and then just got given another ship to sink?
If the lower classes revolt and take over the means of production then they have established a new state and that state implements a forced socialism. Call it what you like. State Socialism would be state enforced against some peoples will. Libertarian Socialism would have to be created due to a 100% voluntary consensus of everyone to participate in order for it to work. I don't believe it is likely if even possible unless we change dramatically as a species or there is only a few of us left.
In order for such a state to exist it would require a Libertarian government and a populace who voluntarily wanted to be socialists and began being socialist without forcing anyone else to do so. It is like the difference between a slave and a worker. One voluntarily works and the other is forced - both accomplish the same goal and may even work the same job. One is free will and the other is not.
The average tenure of a CEO is 6 years. It is a lot like a football player. There is some gamble involved to draw the best players/ceos to your team/business. Sometimes you make a bad decision and you get the wrong player/ceo for the wrong amount of money. However, those players/ceos ultimately get fired, resign, traded, whatever. Generally, the next team/company doesn't give them as much if they failed this time. It isn't a direct link for pay vs performance. Neither is this the case in hourly workers. You don't get a bonus or a beating for being great or average. You get what you agreed to when you started unless you prove you are worth more. They don't just hire a random person to be a CEO, they find a person that has experience, knowledge, and a proven track record for running a company. Bad CEOs might get taken by a smaller company who needs someone that could potentially be great but goes into it knowing that they are failing.(Brett Farvre style.) Major stock holders get to vote on who gets to be CEO and how much they make. I fail to see how this is terribly unfair. You get to vote based on the percentage of the company you own and how much risk you have in it. If they want to give some assclown 20 million dollars a year then who cares. They have like 100k workers under them.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Communes can be beautiful, harmonious places. As were some of the native tribes. Once you get into triple digit populace, things fall apart unless a hierarchy is maintained and that defeats the purpose of utopia. I agree it would take a zombie apocalypse before we have a safe place for the unicorns again. Perhaps the next age of enlightenment will bring the practice of the Golden Rule. The first step we need and we'll get there eventually. Look how far we've come in just 50,000 or so short years.
I respect your optimism and agree it would be super awesome to live in the world you envision. Maybe the Mayans have something planned.
skunky33
Active Member
We have the most expensive health care system of all 1st world countries, and people defend this as "the best" It's an absolute piece of shit. The entire medical field is a complete and utter fucking scam. My friends wife is a physicians assistant and she makes 500 dollars a fucking day with a 4 year degree and only works 2-3 days a week and lives like a god damn queen with benefits and 1 1/2 months of vacation, she has a maid that comes twice a week! My ex mother-in-law was a head nurse and was paid 125,000 a year she owned a new Porsche and a Hummer. What a piece of shit scam! a catscan costs 5000 dollars for 30 damn seconds. Either people are stupid, or they love being ripped off, I don't know. They have job security, and are a damn monopoly, they price fix too.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your question. I'm reluctant to speak up because I know someone will "chime" in with rude words and falsely attribute views to me, but I'll oblige anyway.
First, we are headed toward something. I'm not sure what it is, but it certainly has an end game too and while you question me about mine, and compare it to a Marxist end game, I just want to throw that out there, think of the end game in this current path. As for Marxism, it was supposed to be worker's socialism, but Stalin went for a power grab and the state grew. Many have argued that it was successful in many ways, it did go from 3rd world to 2nd and competed with the US in tech development and space exploration, but ultimately did fail. Many factors contributed, but I think we can agree, corruption kept it from truly working the way it was envisioned as a revolution. However you feel about it due to nationalist sentiments, that is a simple explanation I think a lot of people can sort of agree with, at least to an extent, with out adding volumes.
Now, examining the underpinning sentiments of any revolution in history, I can say with certainty, despite that many will disagree, that we are headed for another one. Pick from dozens of reasons why you think this will, or will not happen, but I have now revealed a supporting premise of my philosophy. I believe we are headed that way and that every move by the state is to either delay it or placate the masses with out losing power for itself or for the financial element that controls it. Capitalism and competition has brought us as far as it can and people are beginning to see it.
Therefore, I am offering (yes offering) a way for a proletarian revolution to NOT be a violent one. Take from that what you will. Ridicule it if you want. I want my species to progress through time and evolve to higher aspirations.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I do too, but we cannot evolve by an act of will; that would be crypto-Lamarckian.
(Until we learn the trick of rearranging our own makeup. In geological terms we are seconds away from that.) cn
(Until we learn the trick of rearranging our own makeup. In geological terms we are seconds away from that.) cn
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
So where is the answer to his question?
Because I sure cant see it and I read it 3 times.
Because I sure cant see it and I read it 3 times.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Anarchosyndicalism.
However the point I made is that the question is incomplete. it assumes that there exists an example in history of any nation achieving communism through Marxist socialism and there is no such example. Furthermore, I pointed out that no such end game has been achieved in western capitalism.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
thats why I'm an Anarchist too.
i just converted. it's great, you dont have to explain why you believe something, why you endorse something, or why you think something is bad.
"Anarchist" is a groovy little label you can slap on your buttocks, and it will mean everything, and nothing to everyone, and no-one. every "Anarchist" gets to draw up his own personal meaning and swing it around like it's some grand philosophical movement, when it is a Social Construct of One.
I'm an Anarcho-Objectivist-Libertarian-Capitalist-Agriculturalist-Constitutionalist-Representative-Republicanist-Aristotalian-Randist-Nietzcshian.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Deciphering...
thats why I'm an Anarchist too.
i just converted. it's great, you dont have to explain why you believe something, why you endorse something, or why you think something is bad.
"Anarchist" is a groovy little label you can slap on your buttocks, and it will mean everything, and nothing to everyone, and no-one. every "Anarchist" gets to draw up his own personal meaning and swing it around like it's some grand philosophical movement, when it is a Social Construct of One.
I'm an Anarcho-Objectivist-Libertarian-Capitalist-Agriculturalist-Constitutionalist-Representative-Republicanist-Aristotalian-Randist-Nietzcshian.
"I'm too lazy to do any research so I'll be an ass hole and treat this guy like he owes me a description of Libertarian Socialism. Then I'll say it is something it isn't and troll him for 20 pages of a thread or 3 and generally foam at the mouth because the word socialism is unpopular."
Libertarian Socialism is not something new, it has been around longer than the oxymoron known as anarchocapitalism. Do your own fucking research. You don't see me asking anyone to define what any well established political philosophies are, much less demanding it and saying they are something they aren't.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i've found a source EXACTLY as authoritative and valuable as your own citation
http://www.conservapedia.com/
I am just talking theories.
I am not socialist in any way or form. It doesn't keep me from putting myself into the shoes of theoretical people in certain situations to understand why they act the way they do.Why is the medical field a scam - government regulations. Having to go to the doctor get antibiotics is a result of the government. I am sure your friends wifes neighbors friend who knew a woman who made 1250 a week working 12-14 hour shifts as a physicians assistant is confused about math. Go to school to be one if it is so easy and overpaid.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
So are you saying you can't describe the differences in the end game? With all the talk you are doing about your viiews, how can you not describe the differences between their end games?
If you can, do so without the anarcho_____ism. Put it in laymen's terms.
As an unbiased reader, I still can't figure it out.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Your question is, what is the difference between anarchosyndicalism and Marxist Communism. I mean now you're just asking me to educate you. What are you even doing in the politics forum?
