. . Subject: Re: Libertarian Socialists Form in Denmark . . . . . . . > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Say who ? http://www.socialism.nl I think that site is called "socialism," and I even think it is my own site, how's that. So, does it conform to "means of production are owned by 'everyone.'" ? Well ... you take my word for it ? What is on my own site ? The soil (natural resources) are to be distributed. Everyone is going to get an equal share. You own that land in the sense that you can use it within the limits the Gov sets for it, you can make it productive or leave it barren. The Gov would limit that you turn it into a toxic waste dump for example. If a large sector of land is designated "wild area, but you can hunt here," then persons could own licenses to hunt there, such and so many animals. Because that represents an economic value it falls under the distribution mechanism. Now how exactly that is all being done and administered and computed, that's the task of "everyone," which means: the government duly elected and forced to do the public will. And no that's not handwaving: that's what about half of the 239 laws presented for a socialist Constitution are for. Then we have personal belongings, what does my site, called 'socialism' I guess, say ? You can own up to a maximum. You can own up to 30 times the average of wealth a person owns in a nation. That is, basically: you can own about 10 homes worth, complete with interior and cars and whatever comes with it, assuming that most people live with 3 in a home. Obviously you can adjust that maximum up or down by a mass decision; you can make it 1000 or 5. But the principle is: you can own a level of luxury 30 times above average. That private ownership is there, too. Then the corporations themselves ? They are owned by who started them, and they operate in a free market where obviously soil-ownership (natural resource ownership) is not a part of like it used to, and neither is investment capital or the selling/buying of whole companies. For the rest it is a normal free market, and free enterprise. Corporations are either owned by the starter, or the employees, unless they are tiny as in fewer then 10 full time employees. That is then neither "everyone" because it is a group thing. What would "everyone" own then: the government, and what it administers like infrastructure, police & justice, etc. If you want to look really careful at what the 'means of production' are, then it is nature itself. That's the means. It is distributed in this model. BTW, I'd agree with you that if 'the mass' owns 'everything,' then you're probably in for a lot of problems. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Agreed, so that's why we need corporations, that specialization. And in the context of a free market too. But we don't need a Pinochet to run a capitalist monster state. How all that works is pretty subtle and convulated, ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Because they use the name socialist doesn't mean they are social(ist). Why do you think the USA claims to be democratic or socialist ? The dictatorship found it useful to establish their rule. What did feudal lords call themselves in the middle ages ? They called themselves christian. Doesn't the USA call itself the indespensible nation, beaken of hope and freedom ? Yet they foment capitalist dictatorship around the world ? > ... > ... > ... > ... Sounds like a social plan, but you didn't describe capitalism you described free trade. But you did it in an uninformed naieve way and you will therefore probably allow a free market in money, investment and soil also, and that could be called capitalism, which will destroy your system in the end. Because people in fact do combine in dictatorships in companies, which is most profitable for capital investment. Then in the end you end with the horrors of laissez faire capitalism, and eventualy the corrupt elites know they've gone too far because the people cry revolution, and then they start a world war to beat that back. That's what has happened. Because of the economic ignorance of the people, on all sides. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Straight from the bureau of capitalist disinformation ? What you described was very anti-social, so it be 'anti-socialism.' But you are right that many communist/socialist parties turned a blind eye to these issues and still do. How about this impossibility: the Dutch communist party who is vehemently anti-capitalist when it concerns the west, they applaud the Chinese capitalism and its growth rates, not a word about the abuses happening there and when CHina is in fact a capitalist dictatorship now ! The Chinese government sent chinese people here to learn capitalist banking from the Dutch ! Not a word is said, no: they have 'communist' in their name and a red flag "therefore they are good." Actually I quit that party precisely because they supported capitalism. I joined them, by the way, to defend them against the encrougment on democratic freedoms by the EU. I thought: I'll join them, then they'll have to put in jail the person who wrote the world's best internet democracy program *) on the charge of being against democracy. Let's see how that'll go, hah. *) FWIK (see my site.) > ... > ... > ... > ... Very astute. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Exactly, I also always tell that to the plan-economists and marxists, but forget it, they'll never understand it. They think they can run an entire country as if it was merely a club of 30 people around a camp fire. They are completely blind to the reality of it. Why ? Because they have this inate distrust of free markets. Why ? Because 'free market ideology' has committed untold attrocities on all people, not in the least in Europe. Why ? Becuase the free maker ideology was a superficial theory, that did not take into account that natural resources need distribution rather then markets, and that money must be invested socially and not for profit. If you want to know the why on these things, go to my site. It seems to be a difficult subject for people to understand, though. > ... > ... > ... > ... The word you are looking for is: 'Under a plan-economy ...'. My form of socialism has free trade, in fact better then under the present suposedly free-trade model, by removing income taxation and profit taxation (changing taxation to a head-tax, and if you can't pay you can either leave the nation, or work it off in Government public service). I don't believe in a non-taxation nation, but if you see a way you can of course try. > ... > ... > ... In a plan economy: agreed. That's what the communists want: they want to control it all and then be 'good Monarchs.' The entire marxist goal is basically a monarchist idea: a feudal system run by 'the best communist(s).' Amuzingly but very sadly, who did the Germans thought was the best communist ? Hitler. What happened under his command & control economy ? The marxists where killed. You could say, they where killed by their own engine, by an example of their own 'system.' Maybe that is a brutal way to say it, but technically look into it. Wasn't Hitler elected ? Didn't the German expect everything from Hitler ? Didn't he establish a command & control economy ? Of course it was everything that the communists didn't want, but at the heart the system was similar. What went wrong then in terms of marxism ? The people elected 'the wrong best communists.' So, why didn't they elect another then ? You could say: because the marxists never bothered to write the laws for how their vision was actually going to work. The marxists, they don't like laws. And Hitler ? He liked them neither, so he could do what he 'felt was right.' Have the marxists learned anything from these disasters ? Have they learned that laws are useful ? Have they learned from all the disasters with a plan-economy that have all turned out to be controlled by the very enemies that labor fights against ? No. Learned nothing. Learning something is just not in their repertoir, at least not yet. Because, I guess, it involves admitting they have been wrong. Can't do it. Can the capitalists ? So far: neither. > ... In free trade he has the power. Capitalism is an infestation by rent seeking money into the proper free trade mechanism. But it is true that in capitalism if every single person wanted it, then the detrimental power of capital could be reversed. It is this way also in feudalism and plan-economics: if every person wanted it to go right, there is a bigger chance it would. Reality unfortunately isn't so easy. Capitalism is a utopian system, it can only work with holy angels, just as marxism can only work with holy angels, and feudalism too. Capitalism, Feudalism and plan-economy, they all make different mistakes about the economy (and all end up fomenting state tirany). Capitalism is the mistake about money wrt trade. Feudalism is the mistake about land wrt trade. Plan-economy is the mistake about state power wrt trade. > ... > ... Myopic. It's not that simple. The buiness man gets funding to abuse labor, to lord over labor and to abuse labor. That makes capital rich, and so that cycle continues until it destroys the world. The business men end with all power. That's the mistake of money, you can't have it in a free market. High capital is not a product of effort anymore, it is a grandiose power that rules the entire nation. Where does such power belong ? > ... > ... > ... True, that's trade. > ... > ... I have no small priviliged elite in my model, sorry. THe word you're looking for is 'plan-economy,' or 'command & control economy.' But you will never learn this. You will forget it and go on with nonsense. Right ? Where have I seen that before ? Everywhere. You will all get yourselves killed by being so superficial, monarchists, capitalists and communists. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... It does bother me a lot, does it bother you how labor is abused in capitalist dictatorships ? You've not spend a word on it, so I assume not only does it not bother you, you don't even see it. -- http://www.socialism.nl