originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. The [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] were socialists. (National Socialist Party, can't say the word).
Any system in which property is in the hands of the state will involve some people making arbitrary decisions on who get (or doesn't get) what.
To get a better understanding on this subject I highly suggest reading [i]The Road To Serfdom[/i] by F.A. Hayek.
English
-
[quote]Any system in which property is in the hands of the state will involve some people making arbitrary decisions on who get (or doesn't get) what.[/quote] What about this is socialism? Socialism is a different mode of [i]production[/i], not a different mode of [i]management[/i]. On even the most obvious of levels, it's clear that National Socialism, Bolshevik 'Communism', Juche, Baathism, Fascism, etc. still are fundamentally capitalist in their forms of organization, management, and production. This can be seen in: commodity production, wage labor, the existence of a coordinator class, and even companies in the case of Hitler's Germany and fascist Italy. Now, judging by your recommendation of Austrian School literature, you'll say something along the lines of "that's not real capitalism, it's crony capitalism" or whatever, but that's missing the point entirely. Capitalism isn't markets or free trade or the NAP, it's a mode of production with exploitation as an inherent part of the system.
-
Capitalism can be defined as "a social system based on the explicit recognition of private property and of nonaggressive, contractual exchanges between private property owners." - Hans-Hermann Hoppe It's got nothing to do with production. It's how resources are allocated. Under capitalism, resources are allocated to where they are most valued, as determined by private individuals through the price system. Under socialism resources are allocated to where the state determines they should go. If you feel exploited under the resemblance of capitalims that we live under, feel free to move to Cuba, North Korea, or old Soviet Russia.
-
Can you read or are you trying to be obtuse on purpose? I'm serious, did you even try to read what I wrote? I'm defining capitalism in a sense that reflects really existing social and economic conditions. Capitalism, in both a historical and an economic context, has been a system that wouldn't even fit Hoppe's definition that you supplied. In fact, I'm starting to believe that you're not being serious because you don't even understand that[b] people use different definitions for things.[/b] Do you not realize that not everyone sees capitalism as a system based on property rights and contractual exchanges? [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)]Mutualism[/url] (a socialist philosophy) is a system that favors market economies in which there is no state, but the [i]capitalist mode of production[/i] has ceased to exist. Is that capitalist? Is the Soviet Union really socialist if it still uses wage labor, money, has factories not controlled by workers and produces commodities? It honestly seems to me that you are just using your own definitions yo make your point practically unassailable, because the definition you are using of capitalism means that it has almost never existed. If you are going to disagree with my definition of capitalism and socialism, then fine, but keep in mind that it doesn't mean that your definition is automatically correct [i]just because a scholarly source says so.[/i] Hell, I can do the same [quote]The theory of workers' management analyses capitalism in terms of its management. But is capitalism first of all a mode of management? The revolutionary analysis of capitalism started by Marx does not lay the stress on the question: who manages capital? On the contrary: Marx describes both capitalists and workers as mere functions of capital: "the capitalist as such is only a function of capital, the labourer a function of labour power." The Russian leaders do not "lead" the economy; they are led by it, and the entire development of the Russian economy obeys the objective laws of capitalist accumulation. In other words, the manager is at the service of definite and compelling production relations. Capitalism is not a mode of MANAGEMENT but a mode of PRODUCTION based on given PRODUCTION RELATIONS. Revolution must aim at these relations; we will try to analyse them briefly. The revolutionary analysis of capitalism emphasises the role of capital, whose objective laws are obeyed by the "managers" of the economy, both in Russia and in America.[/quote] -Gilles Dauvé Oh and by the way, I even said that countries like Cuba and the USSR were state capitalist in their methods of organization and production, so try to actually read what I post next time.
-
You wrote all that just to point out the obvious: that you and I have differing opinions? USSR and Cuba weren't capitalist. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union[/url] The resources were directed by the state, not private individuals. This is contrary to any definition of capitalism.
-
Please stop being so obtuse and actually read what I wrote. You are just being childish at this point.
-
I did read it. It's not my fault that much of it is unintelligible.
-
[quote]I did read it. It's not my fault that much of it is unintelligible.[/quote] Seriously? Unintelligible? Grow up.
-
It is clear you are either illogical or trolling me. Thus, I will cease all further communications with you.
-
. . . The Nazis absolutely were not socialists.