[AppleCore]

so if ur a Marxist do u believe in Collectivism???

[ermd]

I presume you are referring to state-imposed collectivism as was present in the farming system of the USSR, in which case, no.

I would advocate collectivism, but based at a local scale, not doled out by a bureacratic central government.

[AppleCore]

but surely if u want a collective state or local community/center/govt... which is not based on bureacratic central govts that would make "every" community in that area a "collective state" in a local "regional" "national" scale.. and when u mean local, anything is local. In edinburgh, West lothian, East Lothian Mid Lothian are all considered local.. but then Scotland is cosidered local to scottish ppl, and Britain is considered Local to the British people. If ur going to be collective, surely u have to be collective everywhere else too??

[ermd]

If ur going to be collective, surely u have to be collective everywhere else too??

Yup. But the land should not be portioned out by central government, people should not be moved when their are shortages etc.

Thats what I mean by "direct democracy" - power actually in the hands of the people. The best example I can think of to demonstrate is Anarcho-Communist Spain in the 30s. In most areas, workers and peasants organised themselves collectively, currency was abolished, and the nation prospered until Franco seized power and the traitorous USSR withdrew support. I know of people who died fighting the Fascists in Spain.

For me, the proof that Socialism can work lies in Cuba. Now, I do not fully consider this a socialist country, but it is as close as we find in terms of social organisation and economic system. Through over 40 years of illegal US sanctions, Cuba has survived. And not just survived. Despite a severe lack of funding, they have what is considered to be the best healthcare system in the Western Hemisphere, because people work for each other and for their revolution. Not for their pocket, not for their ego, but for their people and country.

[AppleCore]

Collectivism - the belief that the state knows better than the market, and can improve on the spontaneous tendencies of civil society, if necessary by suppressing them.

i dont see how a got could ever know whats better for the people? as the people are the market. Not one govt has proved that or has even been able to work that method.

[ermd]

Collectivism - the belief that the state knows better than the market, and can improve on the spontaneous tendencies of civil society, if necessary by suppressing them.

Basically, no. That is a totally wrong definition. But I will have to reply in the morning with a longer post, sorry .

i dont see how a got could ever know whats better for the people? as the people are the market. Not one govt has proved that or has even been able to work that method.

No, I would never say a government knows better than the people. But if I must repeat again I will. I advocate direct democracy where "the people" make decisions for themselves.

The society we live in just now is one where the government tend to act as is they know better than we do.

Anyway, as I say, I will write a longer response on collectivism tomorrow, I think I have double period free .

[AppleCore]

Collectivism - the belief that the state knows better than the market, and can improve on the spontaneous tendencies of civil society, if necessary by suppressing them.

Basically, no. That is a totally wrong definition. But I will have to reply in the morning with a longer post, sorry .

i dont see how a got could ever know whats better for the people? as the people are the market. Not one govt has proved that or has even been able to work that method.

No, I would never say a government knows better than the people. But if I must repeat again I will. I advocate direct democracy where "the people" make decisions for themselves.

The society we live in just now is one where the government tend to act as is they know better than we do.

Anyway, as I say, I will write a longer response on collectivism tomorrow, I think I have double period free .

ill wait for ur reply on the first bit, but on the second bit... Capitalism clearly defines "choice". Its up to u what u want in life, and its up to u on how you get it! yes, i agree that capitalism isnt perfect but its gives "the people" the power. The market is the people, and if the people are allowed to decide on what they want, thats can be considered the "people's market", where the people have the choice. Capitalism clearly defines that its "US" the people that makes the decissions not the govt as we know best. The market is left to "US" as a people and not decided by the govt. Success is brought to those who earn it, failure is brought to those who dont try.

[ermd]

ill wait for ur reply on the first bit, but on the second bit... Capitalism clearly defines "choice". Its up to u what u want in life, and its up to u on how you get it! yes, i agree that capitalism isnt perfect but its gives "the people" the power. The market is the people, and if the people are allowed to decide on what they want, thats can be considered the "people's market", where the people have the choice. Capitalism clearly defines that its "US" the people that makes the decissions not the govt as we know best. The market is left to "US" as a people and not decided by the govt. Success is brought to those who earn it, failure is brought to those who dont try.

Capitalism definitely does not give "the people" the power, unless you refer to those few at the top if the system as "the people"? I mean, did "the people" have the power in the 2000 US elections? No. Did "the people" have the power during General Pinochet's reign? No.

Pure Capitalism will not and can not exist. Individuals in power cannot be expected to regulate themselves and strive for a better society, only to better their own position. Why should economic and political power be held in the hands of the few?

Right, onto collectivism. Your definition was a very biased description, fro the eyes of far-right liberalist. Here is an objective definition from wikipedia.com:

Since collectivism is a very broad category, it is very difficult to define what exactly constitutes a "collectivist" position on a certain issue. However, generally speaking, collectivism in the field of economics holds that capital and land should be owned by the group (and presumably used for the benefit of all) rather than being owned by individuals. Central to this view is the concept of the commons, as opposed to private property. Often, collectivists argue that many (perhaps all) valued commodities are public goods, and are difficult to, or should not be privatized, such as environmental goods, national defense, law enforcement and information goods.

Relying on individual choice for the provision of public goods is seen to lead to market failure and the free rider problem. Collective action, enforced by authorities, social pressure or coercion, is thus seen to be the only reliable means of ensuring a supply of a public good.

Now, using this definition, you see where I back my point up from. When land and capital is in the hands of the bourgeoisie owners, they are only doing so to produce profit for themselves. Hence it follows that for "the masses" to truly be "free" they must take control of the means of production. As a Marxist, I see the state as a tool used by the capitalists in the class war, and so, the state must be taken control of by the revolutionaries (to create "The Dictatorship of The Proletariat"). And, when the class battle is ended, the state is hence no longer required and will "wither away".

I don't know if you have read "Das Kapital" yet, but please do so . It is a basically a very detailed critique of many classic liberalist's theories (Smith, Locke etc).

P.S Also read "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx. This has more sociology in it than economics, and is pretty interesting.

[AppleCore]

"I mean, did "the people" have the power in the 2000 US elections? No. Did "the people" have the power during General Pinochet's reign? No."
the people voted, did they not?? Pinochet, unsure about him, but he sounds like a military guy? i dont see how thats a issue with centralised power caused by capitalism??

Relying on individual choice for the provision of public goods is seen to lead to market failure and the free rider problem
yeah! there are things, if left to the market will fail in their production. Smith clearly defines this and says that govt intervention is needed, but not to the extent that everything is controled by them. If the people have no choice, ull get a bunch of zombies all doing the same thing. Dosnt matter if they are gd or bad at it, they will all be doing the same thing.

Marxist theory as the use of state power by the working class against the overthrown ruling class and others of its enemies during the passage from capitalism to communism. It involves creation of a new post-revolutionary state apparatus and confiscation of the means of production. The original meaning is a workers' democracy where the working class would be in power, rather than the capitalist class.

so... ull only get a country with a working class? is that what ur trying to say?? are u suggesting that a country will only prosper if everyone is seen as exactly equal, no matter what (excluding, sex, race, culture, religion etc?)

[sparky]

that dosnt work because its partly govt funded. Private firms know that if they get into a contract with the govt, they dont exactly have to perform to get their earnings. its like an easy ride. no matter how bad the service, u know that the govt will fund it.. eg: "City Academy" schools, "PPP's", "Reliance" Prison services and the list goes on. if left to the market, what makes for the customer happy and satisfied survives, what dosnt dies. So success is only earn't  by those work for it.

Interestingly enough in Scotland, the police released more prisoners in error than Reliance did. Albeit I think the difference was only 1 prisoner!

[ermd]

Interestingly enough in Scotland, the police released more prisoners in error than Reliance did. Albeit I think the difference was only 1 prisoner! 

But the precentage of total prisoners handled is relativley low for reliance, which is why the big deal was made - they released more as a percentage of those handled.

And itsmereally, sorry, you're going to have to wait till tomorrow for a reply . I'm just back from seeing Weezer at the Carling Academy, and I'm rather tired .

[Discogirl17]

"I mean, did "the people" have the power in the 2000 US elections? No. Did "the people" have the power during General Pinochet's reign? No."
the people voted, did they not?? Pinochet, unsure about him, but he sounds like a military guy? i dont see how thats a issue with centralised power caused by capitalism??

Relying on individual choice for the provision of public goods is seen to lead to market failure and the free rider problem
yeah! there are things, if left to the market will fail in their production. Smith clearly defines this and says that govt intervention is needed, but not to the extent that everything is controled by them. If the people have no choice, ull get a bunch of zombies all doing the same thing. Dosnt matter if they are gd or bad at it, they will all be doing the same thing.

Marxist theory as the use of state power by the working class against the overthrown ruling class and others of its enemies during the passage from capitalism to communism. It involves creation of a new post-revolutionary state apparatus and confiscation of the means of production. The original meaning is a workers' democracy where the working class would be in power, rather than the capitalist class.

so... ull only get a country with a working class? is that what ur trying to say?? are u suggesting that a country will only prosper if everyone is seen as exactly equal, no matter what (excluding, sex, race, culture, religion etc?)

I dont think anyone is suggesting we should all be working class clones just that fat cats shouldnt benefit too much from the hard work of their labour force without giving the labour force some sort of reward. Without a working class their would be no production in the first place. The working class should be the controlling class in that they make up the largest percentage of the population and are the most important. No one is suggesting the abolishment of the upper classes because then there would be no business or jobs in the first place rather that they treat the working class fairly and do not demean them.

[ermd]

No one is suggesting the abolishment of the upper classes because then there would be no business or jobs in the first place rather that they treat the working class fairly and do not demean them.

I was totally suggesting that. Why should workers be forced to work for the improvement of the capitalist's position? Jobs are created within a capitalist economy by the capitalists who use their position to exploit labour capital (the only "true" capital value).

The class struggle is between the bourgoisie (owners/capitalists) and the proletarian (workers/labourers). Don't try to think of it as working/middle/upper.

[Discogirl17]

Yes but if you got rid of the upper classes ie owners and stuff there would be very few jobs. No butlers, housekeepers, nannies. There would be few big business to employ people as no one would have the money to invest. If the working class then started their own business then these would have little competition and the orginally working class owner would be elevated at least to the burgoisie and would basically become the capitalist idiot he had protested against in the first place.

Ah ah, got ya there.

[ermd]

Not really . I advocate that workers should seize the means of production and the state. The means of production should be communally owned and controlled by the workers, not by the capitalist.

A socialist economy is not based on competition. Co-operation is the key to the success of socialism - read about Anarcho-Communist Spain in the 30s.

[Discogirl17]

Co-operation is not the first nature instinct of a human. Competition and greed are far stronger. Workers would argue "I've worked here for more years", " I've produced more units" people would not just settle for an equal share. You are living in a world of idealism which will never become realistic.

[ermd]

Co-operation is not the first nature instinct of a human. Competition and greed are far stronger. Workers would argue "I've worked here for more years", " I've produced more units" people would not just settle for an equal share. You are living in a world of idealism which will never become realistic.

If you were to ask any sociologist or anthropologist they would tell you that you were wrong. There is nothing in human nature which makes us inherrently greedy or competitive. That is a product of the present economic system. The phrase most commonly used it "who a person is, is determined by where and when he is".

For example, saying we are naturally greedy based on present conditions would be like saying anyone born in Mexico will try to carry out sacrifices (based on Aztec culture).

There is actually very little anyone can say about human nature, because we are (as far as we know) an entirely unique species. Our physical evolution stopped a long time ago, but we are the only species which has then progressed, ie. evolved culturally.

[AppleCore]

Co-operation is not the first nature instinct of a human. Competition and greed are far stronger. Workers would argue "I've worked here for more years", " I've produced more units" people would not just settle for an equal share. You are living in a world of idealism which will never become realistic.

If you were to ask any sociologist or anthropologist they would tell you that you were wrong. There is nothing in human nature which makes us inherrently greedy or competitive. That is a product of the present economic system. The phrase most commonly used it "who a person is, is determined by where and when he is".

For example, saying we are naturally greedy based on present conditions would be like saying anyone born in Mexico will try to carry out sacrifices (based on Aztec culture).

There is actually very little anyone can say about human nature, because we are (as far as we know) an entirely unique species. Our physical evolution stopped a long time ago, but we are the only species which has then progressed, ie. evolved culturally.

Bold "From the cradle to the grave, man will always seek to improve his situation" everyone wants the best for themselves, its instincts.

How does sacrifices match greed?? Aztec's sacrificed to the Gods, the Gods were greedy? the gods didnt exist??.
sacrifice = the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform etc. not greed.

and with evolution?? our physical evolution stopped?? since when?? look at ur hands, the smallest finger wasnt that size a few million years ago. we havnt stopped evolving as far as i know??

if the working class take over.. who's going to make the big investments, the big risks? the govt? but i thought u didnt want a central govt.. The people as a community? everyone pitches in a penny or a pound?? how will it work??

[sparky]

But the precentage of total prisoners handled is relativley low for reliance, which is why the big deal was made - they released more as a percentage of those handled.

Is that the case? As far as I was aware Reliance now dealt with all prisoner escort duties across the whole of Scotland. So would the total prisoners handled not be high?

[ermd]

Bold "From the cradle to the grave, man will always seek to improve his situation" everyone wants the best for themselves, its instincts.

Yes, and what I am saying is that through a society which is based on collectivism, then what is best for "the group" is also best for the individual (being part of the group).

How does sacrifices match greed?? Aztec's sacrificed to the Gods, the Gods were greedy? the gods didnt exist??.

First of all, just because you are not of the Aztec religion, you shouldn't say the gods *didn't* exist - you don't know that.

Secondly, at no point did I say sacrifices = greed. I said that presuming "greed" was inherrent in human nature would be the same as presuming sacrifice was inherrent in Mexicans. Greed exists in society due to capitalism, as sacrifices existed due to Aztec religion. For example, if I could travel back in time and bring an bring an Aztec child back with me, they would fully function as a member of our society.

and with evolution?? our physical evolution stopped?? since when?? look at ur hands, the smallest finger wasnt that size a few million years ago. we havnt stopped evolving as far as i know?? 

I would've thought you would deny evolution is happening, did happen or ever will happen, as a christian . Anyway, we have not evolved significantly for many thousands of years - a child taken from the early iron age has all the same capacity to survive as we do. If anything, we have created a process of unatural selection through our social evolution.

if the working class take over.. who's going to make the big investments, the big risks? the govt? but i thought u didnt want a central govt.. The people as a community? everyone pitches in a penny or a pound?? how will it work??

I wouldn't use the phrase "taking over", that makes it sound like they are going to run society only for their own benefit. It is about destroying ALL classes. And how many times do I need to tell you ? Read "Das Kapital" if you want all the economics .

No one would be taking a "big risk" in a socialist economy. If all goods are traded on the basis of need and ability to produce, then there are NO risks. There are only risks where market failures can happen - capitalist economies.

Now, please read "Das Kapital" or at least "The Communist Manifesto", 'cause I'm not gonna be on here much for the next week or so - but after that I would then happily rejoin the debate .