Can Chavez get any more mental?

[Trolldor]

Capitalism is, once again, a purely financial one not a social one.
Try again.

[Coito ergo sum]

Capitalism is a guy growing tomatoes and selling them to another guy at an agreed upon price. The economics and the social aspects of that overlap.

[Coito ergo sum]

lol.

Capitalism is not the antithesis of communism, democracy is.

Try again.

Not so really. Capitalism exploits labour and the ownership of means of production ultimately falls into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

The fewer and fewer people aspect is not necessarily true in a capitalist economy that busts monopolies and trusts.

One of the thing that reduces competition and raises barriers to entry (preferring the larger, more established, cash-rich competitors) is governmental regulation, fees, red-tape, and high taxation. These increased barriers to new blood in an industry help solidify the current industry leaders.

Communism, theoretically puts the ownership of the means of production into the hands of all the people.

Which really means that the means of production is in the hands of the State. The only entity that makes decisions on behalf of "all the people" (theoretically) is the State.

Democracy can apply and work in theory in either social model and indeed it does in that in communist countries party members vote for their leaders. This voting system is rigged I hear you say.

The election becomes centrally controlled, allowing more rigging.

Is it any more rigged than it is in our liberal democracies where are choice of who we put in charge is so narrow that it is effectively no choce at all.

Yes, it is more rigged. The results speak for themselves, when in our liberal democracies we see unexpected results, new blood taking over in electoral coups, and changeovers in power from left, right, middle, etc. Bill Clinton is a good example. In the Spring of 1992, he was so far behind George HW Bush that he was given hardly a chance to win. In fact, many Democrats ran for the hills, choosing to wait for a different day, when they wouldn't have to face a victorious, highly popular, "war President," (HWBush had just come off a 90% approval rating because of the smashing success of the Persian Gulf War). That allowed an upstart to move in, and his hungry crew out-worked HWBush and beat his ass. In European Parliamentary systems there are often upstart smaller political parties, with some stars rising and falling, and it happens with far greater frequency than in a Communist or extremely socialist country: to wit - Castro serving 50+ years as the "elected" leader of Cuba; Chavez going on 12 years as "elected" leader of Venezuela; the very controlled changeover of power in old Soviet Russia; Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung being the only "elected" leaders of the DPRK for the last 70 years; etc.

[sandinista]

Capitalism is, once again, a purely financial one not a social one.
Try again.

Not entirely true. Capitalism, as an economic system, dictates the social system.

As for rigging elections or whatever, the 'rigging" isn't the most important issue in a "liberal democratic capitalist" system, it's, like was pointed out, that there is no choice at all.

[Trolldor]

Once again, China is a communist nation with capitalist enterprises.
So no, it does not determine the social structure.

[sandinista]

so then, communism is not dogma? Make up your mind.

[Coito ergo sum]

Capitalism is, once again, a purely financial one not a social one.
Try again.

Not entirely true. Capitalism, as an economic system, dictates the social system.

Capitalism and Communism both inform or influence the social system. Capitalism is based on the liberty of the individual to own property and to control the means of production. Communism is based on the lack of property rights and the control of the means of production by the state. The latter necessarily results in less freedom vis-a-vis the State than capitalism.

As for rigging elections or whatever, the 'rigging" isn't the most important issue in a "liberal democratic capitalist" system, it's, like was pointed out, that there is no choice at all.

That is not born out by the facts. In every western democracy, like the UK, Canada, France, the US, etc., there is choice. If the majority of the people swing Left or swing Right, the candidates will follow.

[sandinista]

Capitalism and Communism both inform or influence the social system. Capitalism is based on the liberty of the individual to own property and to control the means of production. Communism is based on the lack of property rights and the control of the means of production by the state. The latter necessarily results in less freedom vis-a-vis the State than capitalism.

Not true. "The State" IS the people, corporations ARE the wealthy. There is no "necessary loss of "freedom".

As for rigging elections or whatever, the 'rigging" isn't the most important issue in a "liberal democratic capitalist" system, it's, like was pointed out, that there is no choice at all.

That is not born out by the facts. In every western democracy, like the UK, Canada, France, the US, etc., there is choice. If the majority of the people swing Left or swing Right, the candidates will follow.

In canaduh there is no choice. We have had two federal parties in our history, both center right corporate parties. Only the names change. The same with the states. Democrats...republicans, two sides of the same coin...republicrats in reality.

[Coito ergo sum]

Capitalism and Communism both inform or influence the social system. Capitalism is based on the liberty of the individual to own property and to control the means of production. Communism is based on the lack of property rights and the control of the means of production by the state. The latter necessarily results in less freedom vis-a-vis the State than capitalism.

Not true. "The State" IS the people, corporations ARE the wealthy. There is no "necessary loss of "freedom".

The State, in reality, is not "the people." That's a conceptual idea, but in reality there must be a ruling authority. The ruling authority is the State. It's not like a State could function by everyone voting on every single issue that comes up. The reality is, there is a bureaucracy and a government, no matter how you slice it. That's the State. The people are the people.

Something has to enforce the idea that there is no such thing as individual property ownership, for example. So, when someone tries to assert a property right and say "I own this," then "the State" comes along and puts a boot up his ass.

As for rigging elections or whatever, the 'rigging" isn't the most important issue in a "liberal democratic capitalist" system, it's, like was pointed out, that there is no choice at all.

That is not born out by the facts. In every western democracy, like the UK, Canada, France, the US, etc., there is choice. If the majority of the people swing Left or swing Right, the candidates will follow.

In canaduh there is no choice.[/quote]

Sure there is. There is choice. The majority of people don't want what you would choose, but there are choices.

We have had two federal parties in our history, both center right corporate parties. Only the names change. The same with the states. Democrats...republicans, two sides of the same coin...republicrats in reality.

Even assuming that - in a Communists society there is less choice than that, and there are no human rights. The individual is subordinate to the State or the collective, and if it is determined that an individual is doing or saying something not in the State's interest, they can be put down.

To each according to his need, and from each according to his ability to give, sees to that. The State determines the individual's need, and the State determines the individual's ability to give. And, it doesn't matter if the individual even wants to give - if he has ability, he must give. So, you may want to be a writer, but the State says "we have no need for another writer, you will be an HVAC repair man." Then that's what you are.

I'd much rather have the dearth of choice you claim we have in the West, than the alternative.

[sandinista]

Coito ergo sum

The State, in reality, is not "the people."

Not currently. That's the goal.

Sure there is. There is choice. The majority of people don't want what you would choose, but there are choices.

no there isn't. 40-50 percent of the population don't vote because they KNOW there is no choice.

Even assuming that - in a Communists society there is less choice than that, and there are no human rights. The individual is subordinate to the State or the collective, and if it is determined that an individual is doing or saying something not in the State's interest, they can be put down.

No human rights? Really? So, the individual is NOT subordinate to the state under capitalism? Never knew that. Hell man, there are so many laws in this country its ludicrous. Virtually every action is controlled, from what substances one can put in their body to how they choose to protect themselves. If you go against the state, even in canaduh you end up in prison as well. Not even sure what your getting at now.

So, you may want to be a writer, but the State says "we have no need for another writer, you will be an HVAC repair man." Then that's what you are.

As opposed to what? Capitalism? where if you're born poor you stay poor and if you're born rich you'll most likely stay rich. Besides that, that anylsis of communism is rather narrow.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum

The State, in reality, is not "the people."

Not currently. That's the goal.

I've never heard anyone rationally explain how "the people" can ever actually be "the state." How would that look?

Who would make laws? Who would enforce them? Me? The individual person? I get to decide? Who decides? Are representatives elected by the people? What?

Sure there is. There is choice. The majority of people don't want what you would choose, but there are choices.

no there isn't. 40-50 percent of the population don't vote because they KNOW there is no choice.

Doubtful. It's more likely that they don't vote because they are apathetic, spoiled and lazy, and/or stupid.

Even assuming that - in a Communists society there is less choice than that, and there are no human rights. The individual is subordinate to the State or the collective, and if it is determined that an individual is doing or saying something not in the State's interest, they can be put down.

No human rights? Really? So, the individual is NOT subordinate to the state under capitalism?

There are areas of fundamental liberty where the individual is not subordinate to the state in a Constitutionally limited republic, yes. That's, like, how the State can't tell you what you can think, believe, say, write and publish.

Never knew that. Hell man, there are so many laws in this country its ludicrous. Virtually every action is controlled, from what substances one can put in their body to how they choose to protect themselves. If you go against the state, even in canaduh you end up in prison as well. Not even sure what your getting at now.

So, you may want to be a writer, but the State says "we have no need for another writer, you will be an HVAC repair man." Then that's what you are.

As opposed to what?

A free society, where one gets to choose what one wants to do (if anything).

Capitalism?

Yes, for example. In capitalism, you can open up a lemonade stand if you want to.

where if you're born poor you stay poor and if you're born rich you'll most likely stay rich. Besides that, that anylsis of communism is rather narrow.

In capitalism, clearly, the individual has more upward mobility potential than in communism. Just compare the communist states with the predominently capitalist states.

I may well have a narrow view of Communism. By anyone's explanation I've ever heard, it sounds to me like an awful system. Maybe what you're referring to will sound better. Explain to me what you mean by communism, then. You know what? I'll start a thread on it. Then you can set me straight. EDIT: here: please explain to me what the workers' paradise will look and work: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 22&t=15112

[sandinista]

Doubtful. It's more likely that they don't vote because they are apathetic, spoiled and lazy, and/or stupid.

Not more likely, thats simply what those in power wish you to believe. To label the public as lazy, or stupid or what have you. In reality, it's because people know that their vote means nothing.

please explain to me what the workers' paradise will look and work

There is no such thing as a "workers paradise", that's simply a phrase used to undermine social change. To make it look like revolutionaries have some kind of "utopian" idea that's unreachable. No one believes any society will be a "paradise."

[Coito ergo sum]

Doubtful. It's more likely that they don't vote because they are apathetic, spoiled and lazy, and/or stupid.

Not more likely, thats simply what those in power wish you to believe. To label the public as lazy, or stupid or what have you. In reality, it's because people know that their vote means nothing.

An individual vote can never mean anything much. It's just 1 out of however many millions vote. It's impossible for a society to let everyone's vote be the deciding factor.

A lot of people don't even now HOW to vote. They just don't do it. They also forget, and are not concerned.

please explain to me what the workers' paradise will look and work

There is no such thing as a "workers paradise", that's simply a phrase used to undermine social change. To make it look like revolutionaries have some kind of "utopian" idea that's unreachable. No one believes any society will be a "paradise."

Well then stop dodging and explain what the society and political system that YOU advocate will look like. I don't care if it's not a paradise. What will it be like? Will there be a government? Will we vote for elected officials? Will there be individual rights? How will laws be made? Can I own property? Can I sell my tomatoes? Can I rent the cottage in the back out for a couple hundred a month?

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, he can get more mental, apparently:

President Hugo Chavez on Sunday vowed to move forward on the nationalization of land owned by a subsidiary of British meat products company Vestey, as he called for "acceleration of the agrarian revolution."

Agrarian revolution, lol. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez vowed to "radicalize" his socialist revolution even further after legislative elections that gave the opposition one of its strongest showings during his more than 11 years in power.
He started on Sunday by announcing the expropriation of land owned by the Venezuelan agricultural company Agroislena and vowing to hasten the nationalization of land held by the British meat products company Vestey Foods Group.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101003/ts_ ... ela_chavez

"We are going to continue forward, democratically radicalizing the socialist revolution because it is necessary," Chavez said late on Saturday to a television audience.
He dismissed the opposition celebration of a moral victory as "15 minutes of drunkenness."

Chavez rejected the idea of seeking to mend relations with private enterprise, announcing the nationalization of 250,000 hectares (618,000 acres) this month and saying, "There will be no deal with the bourgeoisie."

[Coito ergo sum]

Chavez to Iran, again! http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Such a great guy....man of the people...just wants the best for the people, against the U.S., which is the Devil.