 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Josef, I really do admire your intellect. Take a look at this:
serenesam,
As I admire yours. I think there is a spark in each of us, something that drives us to "do the right thing", if only we knew what the right thing is, if we were all graced with a continuous steady flow of perfect information, what could possibly go wrong - ever?
Absent that steady flow of perfect information, or absent that spark that drives some of us to "do the right thing", the thing called life is imperfect, and often things go awry; but from whose viewpoint?
Who does the measure of perfection, right, wrong, good, bad, better, worse, true, false?
Who decides to move our meeting of the minds, where we are afforded the opportunity to compared notes, to the punishment bin?
I thought our exchange was exceptionally beneficial to anyone having similar contentious viewpoints as ours, as we aired our dirty laundry in public, and as we allowed the chips to fall as they may, and what is our reward for being honest, open, diligent, resourceful, meticulous, and persistent?
We are moved from the good topic to the bad one?
I do not agree with most everyone else's measure of good, with few exceptions, and the exceptions remain consistently the same exceptions.
Do no harm.
If you do harm, accidentally, don't repeat the error, or it isn't an error, is it?
If you are attacked, and in defense the attacker is harmed, who claims that it is the defender that has done harm, on purpose, for profit?
Beware of things that sound to good to be true, and if possible go back to the source of the claim, and find out the motive behind the claim, and as likely as not the claim will be false on purpose, for profit.
There are basic things that can be known, and from those basic things many other things can be measured, compared to the basic things, for reference, for accurate measure, and when confusion arises, when things don't add up, it may be a good idea to go back, and rethink, re-evaluate, the basic things.
I have been working on this since at least high school in 1975, what I call by a few basic names:
1. The Problem
2. Legal Crime
3. The Power Struggle
My intellect is a combination of many things, persistence is probably the most valuable thing, as I keep chipping away at the remaining confusing items, improving the basic things, and retesting all contending perspectives, and that is where the value of your persistence can be measured.
Without contending perspectives there would be only one perspective. How can life exist if only one perspective existed? There is great value in competitive perspectives, or absent that, the one perspective had better be the best one.
Does that make sense?
I will read the rest of your reply now. I work forum conversations in this way, as if simulating a conversation, by reading from the beginning of a post, and stopping when I see an opportunity to comment on the words I read, and then I go on to read, until I see an opportunity to comment, instead of reading the whole response first - and that works for me. That is how I work forums, as I try to measure other perspectives, as I try to test my own perspective, so as to improve my own perspective, so as to get rid of the false viewpoints, and so as to know, better, life.
* Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organisation which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
I am going to comment on your method of responding before I comment on the words you quote.
When someone offers a viewpoint to someone the person offering the viewpoint will have to choose words to accomplish the goal. Why choose the word "socialism"? Socialism is a word that has two opposite meanings in English. Why choose the word "capitalism", for the same ambiguous reason?
When Albert Einstein offers his measure of Relativity, do you understand the full measure of that unique perspective? When Albert Einstein offered the world his viewpoint on atomic science, did someone turn that viewpoint around, from something good, to something bad?
What is socialism, according to Albert Einstein, or Stephen Pearl Andrews, Eric Fromm, or Noam Chomsky? What is socialism, according to Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, George Washington, or Ludwig Von Misses?
I can measure each divergent definition of socialism by reading the words written by each of those viewpoints on that list above, but I can't ask them, and get an answer from them questions I have about their version of socialism.
I can ask you. Will you answer my questions? If you don't, then, what is the point of quoting those versions of socialism to me?
Is socialism, according to your version of socialism, a voluntary, welcome, agreeable, and mutually beneficial association among liberated people?
Please consider answering that one question.
As to the specific quote:
* Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organisation which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
Please consider reading Eric Fromm's work:
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Anatomy_of_Human_Destructiveness.html?id=YjR5Ve-zTcYC
Eric Fromm offers references to specific studies of anthropology relating to the various forms of human associations, including references to modern day (his day) examples of societies that are, or were, much less "civilized" due to their remote locations, disconnected from "civilized" societies.
I can quote specific words from Eric Fromm, on that point.
Our connections to each other can be improved in specific ways. We can work toward improving our equitable connections, and we can work toward avoiding criminal, or inequitable, or unwelcome, or dictatorial, or false, connections, and who on Earth wants to improve inequitable, unwelcome, dictatorial, false, inaccurate, fraudulent, injurious (to the innocent), criminal, master/slave, connections? Let them raise their hands, confess, and offer reasons as to why they want, work toward, and make those criminal connections "better".
Who would make roads and then place signs at each intersection saying: "you have the right of way" on all four corners?
No one; because no one is stupid enough to fall for that fraud twice.
The lies have to be covered up with half truths, or the victims have to be stupefied to a much greater level, before someone could get away with such an obvious crime as to build roads and then place signs at each intersection saying: "you have the right of way" on all four corners?
Who ordered the signs placed on all four corners of each intersection? Why are the signs still there; as the bodies pile up?
Who is still claiming that the signs are there to help spread democracy?
Why are people still using dollars, are they really that stupid; or is there some other power involved, other than abject stupidity?
I will read the next quote you offer:
* The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is free what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
That is dogma, from the first sentence, and I do not have to read the whole thing. I will respond only to the first sentence, and then you can respond accordingly.
The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker.
By what measure, by what accurate method, is one person known to be a worker, and another person not a worker, or one person an employer, and another person an employee, or one person a seller, and another person a buyer, and when we can nail down the best answer to this question, we can move on to the rest of that quote, if you are up to the challenge?
If not, then not.
I will move to the next quote:
* I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration.
I've been alive for over 50 years now and that sentence above is, to me, patently false. By my measure, again as a result of more than 50 years of life on Earth, there are many honest productive people who are gaining capacity for improved life, not deteriorating, despite the enormous power wielded by legal criminals who use stolen power to cause deterioration.
A.
All human beings are deteriorating.
B.
A majority of human beings are honest productive people who continue to improve despite the enormous measure of power designed to injure those innocent people - cause deterioration.
You, and whoever wrote those words, may choose to place more weight in the first perspective (A); while my perspective is the later, and I can offer many specific examples that support my viewpoint, if you care to know.
Next:
* The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor — not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules.
You may to very well by reading Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, so as to identify a specific method of pricing that is chosen by many people, and that choice, as far as I know, is the essence of capitalism, it is capitalism. Capitalism is, as far as I have determined so far, a method of pricing - a choice.
A person can choose to price something equitably.
A person can choose to price something at a price that maximizes the flow of power in a favorable direction, or inequitably, and that is a choice, and so long as there is no other power involved, so long as the inequitable transfer is strictly voluntary, in every sense of the word voluntary, then, by that measure, both people involved, and all people involved, measure the transfer as an equitable transfer, despite the fact that the price was set by the seller so as to maximize the flow of power in a favorable direction - inequitably.
That may be a difficult paragraph to understand; and I can get past the specifics and get right to the general facts - the principles.
Associations will either be voluntary or involuntary, and any other character is relatively superfluous when compared to that specific, principled, character of human associations.
In other words, the root, can be expanded into subdivisions from the root as such:
A. Voluntary associations
B. Involuntary associations
A.
1. Voluntary capitalism
2. Voluntary socialism
B.
1. Involuntary capitalism
2. Involuntary socialism
Capitalism can be compared to socialism, and the differences, and the similarities of each association can be known, as this, and that, but those difference and similarities will be minor differences, and minor similarities compared to the differences between Involuntary capitalism and Voluntary capitalism, or the differences between Involuntary socialism, and Voluntary socialism.
Involuntary capitalism and Involuntary Socialism will be almost identical, as if both were the same thing, compared to the differences between Involuntary capitalism and Voluntary capitalism, which is like the difference between night and day, or right and wrong, or good and evil, and the same wide span of difference exists between Involuntary socialism, and Voluntary socialism.
Master and Slave associations are, in my view, criminal associations; whereby criminals plan on and then execute their plans to injure innocent victims, as criminals invent, produce, and maintain those connections that make up those associations, while the innocent victims suffer, having no power to avoid such injurious associations. It matters not what label is used by the criminals to get away with their crimes, since criminals lie, they false advertize, they commit fraud, they target their victims, and they misinform their victims, and they mislead their victims, and they hide behind false fronts, and they use false flags, and they deceive, and they threaten violence, and they use violence, and all that is all part of Involuntary associations.
Where there are voluntary associations the capitalists and socialists appear almost the same, with only minor, practically irrelevant differences. The measure of the divide, the measure of the conflict, the measure of the hatred, lies in the lies, the lies that are part and parcel to the Involuntary, criminal, associations - with or without badges, licenses, franchises, titles, and pieces of authorized papers.
Calling "capitalism" evil, when there are plenty of honest productive voluntary capitalists supplied in abundance, is, a measure of falsehood, misdirection, fraud, prejudice, and collective punishment, so as to cover up the true measure of evil, owned by those who produce evil, even if they say otherwise.
What do they do?
If they plan on injuring innocent people, and then they execute those plans, and innocent people are injured, does it help the victims in avoiding further injury by using the name capitalist to call attention and accountability to the criminals? What happens to all the honest productive voluntary capitalists when you collectively plan on punishing all the capitalists for the crimes committed by only the criminals who hide behind the false label of capitalist?
What does that make you, as you intend to target capitalism, for crimes committed by criminals, and all those innocent bystanders pay the price of your punishment - how do you explain away all that collateral damage? What word do you use to hide the fact that your plan includes the injury of innocent victims, and you go ahead and execute that plan knowing that innocent victims will pile up in mass graves as they scream bloody murder on their long march to a torturous death?
What is done? Not what is said. How many screams occur, listen to the victims as they scream, heed that warning. How many bodies pile up? What is your solution to the "capitalism" problem? Is it the same old final solution with a new font?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Words lead to deeds. You will have a very hard time selling voluntary socialism. Planning on and implementing socialism onto a targeted number of victims will be as difficult. How do you manage the voluntary sales job? How do you managed the involuntary method?
I can offer two definitions of socialism that are in the historical record, and these definitions are original versions of the idea, and then I'll offer a glimpse of the historical record whereby the word socialism began to mean the opposite of the original meaning. I do this not in the hope of selling socialism, or capitalism, rather the idea is to do the right thing, to avoid being a victim, and to avoid being a criminal, more that once, and to avoid perpetuating victimization of the innocent by the criminals.
Socialism as defined by one of Socialism's original activists, proponents, and historians (He wrote a book titled The History of Socialism, or so I've heard, but I have not found that copy yet, and I originally found my copy of the book where the quote was found in a Library in Australia, and I paid for photo copies of the text mailed to me from that source, and since than I have helped publish this book on-line, by converting the photocopy text into digital files):
http://anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm
What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all.
If you get to the root of voluntary capitalism what will you find, and will it be any different from that definition above, and if different, will the differences be a matter of principle or interest?
Next is a quote of Karl Marx by Eric Fromm in the before mentioned book titled "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness":
For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968)
Whose version of capitalism is joined voluntarily? Whose version of capitalism is enforced by deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence?
Now onto the Communist Manifesto so as to help know how the criminals redefined the original meaning of socialism.
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
Presuming that the historical record is accurate, the text clearly records a division between the voluntary socialists (such as "The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France" who were referred to by Stephen Pearl Andrews) and the involuntary "communists".
Karl Marx, apparently, became corrupted, from a scientifically based, self-improving, perspective, to a criminally based, dictatorial, perspective, and we in America have similar turn-coats; George Washington in particular.
A similar division occurs within the capitalist set of people - in their numbers.
Example:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north512.html
One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
There is much more to the obvious divisions among the capitalists, in particular the writings of Karl Menger - offering a measure of the division that I won't elaborate on right now.
I have to move on, it is getting late, and I have yet to produce something of value, or work, as I define it.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralisation of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
That is extremely dogmatic; making references to things as if things, or even ideas, or even legal fictions, or groups, are capable of responsibility, and therefore capable of accountability, which is a variation on the criminal tactic of yelling "thief" while committing a crime, so as to inspire the victims to be misdirected, and render them powerless. There may be more meaning in the context of the words quoted, but why tangle things up is such a confusing web of falsehood, what is the point?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
Excellent final quote, I agree with those words, that perspective is well supported by many examples.
Thanks
I can deal with the move from the main page to this punishment bin, this execution of punishment, without trial, as those who executed this punishment rationalize their acts, by some measure, because this is what is, even if I don't agree with the transfer; I can deal with it.
At least this thread was not deleted, at least this thread is still competitive by its actual measure, despite the move to discredit it.
No time to edit
Please understand that I welcome your perspective, even if I do not agree with it, and if you can expose my error, as I try to expose yours, I will be better for your effort, you will help me, which amounts to a measure of generosity on your part - as far as I can see - at this point.