We're already socialistic. We pay taxes and the monies are distributed through many channels.

No reason to scare people by mentioning advanced kinds of socialism...

Simply tell me: In your Libertarian Socialism, will I be free to ignore the socialism, and live a capitalist life?

I'm not trying to scare anyone with anything. Capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation, if thats what you prefer it's your choice. If I'm considered a socialist fine. voluntary socialism = anarchism. I like the sound of that actually. I believe in freedom of action and thought and I like the idea of people working together so everyone can prosper.

I'm, with you, madisonman. I would like to add that Bush "stole" the vote, in 2000, due to the debacle of Florida's screwed up system. Who was the Govenor of Fla? Why Jeb Bush, of course!! In mho Bush was never elected by "the people" as President of the United States. He lost the vote by half a million popular votes!! The US Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Florida Supreme Court to allow manual recounts of ballots in some Florida counties.
He is a war criminal. He ignored Congress and made his own rules as he went along. The Iraq war I in 1990 happened because the Bush's owned oil wells in Kuwait. No other reason. George Herbert Walker Bush had to save the family's oil wells!! I moved home from Germany in 1990 after living there for 3 years. There were Marines with machine guns on the roofs of the PX's and Commisaries and American Shopping Center because of prewar "Operation Desert Shield" and threats of terrorism to Americans world wide.
I believe the current administration will put George W. Bush and other staff on trial for war crimes, and reckless endangerment of the American people, with no regard for the outcome.
I did not vote for Obama, due to his lack of political experience. I did not vote for McCain because he just didn't make any sense and seemed too old and confused to run this country in the state George W. was leaving it. I voted for Ralph Nader-my go to guy when I cannot confidently vote for the party nominated candidates. I do have confidence, after the Inaugural Address by Barack Obama, which totally (should have humiliated Georgy boy)put the blame where it belonged. Obama has already frozen the White House Staff's salaries and ordered Gitmo closed within 1 yr and no further trials, no more interrogating or torture for the prisoners.
Its going to be a rough few years to start to straighten out this economy, but, I believe it will be accomplished. More importantly to me, I can, for the first time since 9/11, feel confident in telling my daughter and grandchildren that "everything will be okay, after all." God bless America. Get involved people. Do community service and let's get our country back!!

And... the answer to my question is.................?

Would you explain that?

Would you explain that?



Under capitalism workers are paid wages, the capitalist owners make profits from the products created by those who work. Exploitation is increased by by reducing wages, increasing hours, or getting rid of some workers while making the remaining workers work much harder. Workers are often made to feel that they cannot think and they are unintelligent. They are made to feel their only value is the job they do. Gay people do not have the same rights as straight people. They're even told to keep quiet about their orientation when they join the military. Racism in institutions provides billions of dollars in profits for capitalists every year due to the unequal pay people receive for work of comparable value. Everywhere you turn people are denied opportunities and treated unequal based on race, orientation, disability, sex, age, religion, non religion, national origin, political affiliation, marital status, and wealth status.

AGREED...the irrational hate is astounding.

I do not feel forced. Please, do not hesitate, as I am really interested.

If socialism is a good idea, you surely must be able to explain the terms, the meaning of which you do understand.

It is really a simple question. In your socialism, will you let me to freely practice the capitalism? Or in other words, will you take my freedom away?


On the other hand, if you not able to answer this tiny question, then this is O.K. I understand.

We must be living in different countries.

I work for a corporation, and do not feel exploited. My wage is constantly raised, in fact, it has been increased several times, and now stands about 8 times higher than what I have began with.

Um, I do feel that my only value is what I am able to do. In other words, I only worth as I can produce. I have no problem with that. Is you experience different? Are you producing less than you could? Why?

An oppresion based on sexual orientation is a hallmark of socialism. Just so that you be aware of it, in Soviet Union, the mere accusation of being gay would landed you in prison for years. Honestly, I do not see this happenning in capitalist countries.

You write: "Everywhere you turn people are denied opportunities and treated unequal based on race, orientation, disability, sex, age, religion, non religion, national origin, political affiliation, marital status, and wealth status."

Really? I must have been living in Saudi Arabia then....

Yawn and "Oh Please." Well, this will be interesting because not only will NOTHING come of this but in that nothing will come from this one will then have to conclude that President Obama recognizes that nothing can come of this. If I had the petition, I'd use it as bird-cage liner, and even that is probably giving it too high a place in grand scheme of things.

-Drew

I was talking about libertarian socialism. If you look at what it is then your question is....irrelevant. Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aspire to anarchist forms of socialism, in that they wish to create a society "without" political, economic, or social hierarchies. It is voluntary socialism, so nothing would be imposed on anyone. It would be practiced only by those who believe in it and choose to practice it. If you wanted to keep practicing capitalism you would be free to. Of course you would face stiff competition because self managed workplaces would offer workers more.

The fact is your employer is profiting off the work you perform, which means you are being exploited. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean it's not happening. Look up the meaning of the word...

It is a hallmark of what you consider socialism.

Maybe you just choose not to see it like many others....

I don't particularly care for Rush's I'm rich cut taxes, beat up the working class attitude...but we shouldn't be giving free passes to OBAMA if he also involved in corruption.... Asking DEMS (who voted WITH Bush) to investigate BUSH is like putting the inmates in charge of the assylum.

With money shortages I think congress should not be wasting time on partisan politics... cut the frivolous spending & concentrate on getting the economy moving again. That's what they should be doing...anything less & they will be voted out next.

Don't think people are going to tolerate the partisan bickering & wasteful spending. DEMS are in control they better have VIABLE solutions to our problems.

TWO YEARS!

Since you have decided to quote Wikipedia, of all sources, allow me to point you back to the paragraph directly below the one you have quoted:

"This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property, in order that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole."

and,from an Overview:

"As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.""

in that same article, below, in Criticism:

"Other libertarian philosophers (often referred to as liberals, in the classical sense) such as Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, stress that liberty is a state of affairs in which one is free from the unjustified aggression of others, and that any understanding of liberty must be grounded in natural rights – and especially property rights. Thus, they argue that absolute freedom for all is not a contradiction, and that the abolition of natural rights (including property rights) would, by definition, also be the abolition of liberty. As Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, put it, "The continued existence of society depends upon private property.""


Now, you see, that the Libertarian Socialism can not allow me to have private property, or as they put it a "property not in possession". What this means is that Libertarian Socialists, not different than any other socialists, must use physical force to take such property away.

How else are you going to take and use my property, which, to illustrate the conflict, is the means of production? I am not giving it up.

Right there, just as Rothbard and Mises pointed out, lies the dirty truth that such a system affords no liberty.

Further, if workers are the ones that are going to own the means of production, then who is going to take economic risk organizing the enterprise? If you think that workers themselves would, then you are sadly mistaken. For this is the whole reason that entrepreneurs own the means of production, since they are the ones creating them in the first place.


There was a reason I have asked you the question I knew you won't be able to answer. There is no way to use the force without using it. Similarly, there is no way to insure that nobody owns means of production "unfairly", without an ability to take them away.

Such a system, if ever created, will stagnate into shortages first, then erupt in violent redistributions, then allow itself to be converted to state Socialism.

If you are looking for a system that is better than a state capitalism, then you should look for "individualist anarchism" for example (Rothbard), where there is a guaranty of freedom from state coercion.

And what is the meaning of the word? I suppose I shall look for a Marxist interpretation? But, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Why don't you show me the meaning of the word, O.K.?

The rest of your response, I think you will agree, has meaning only if the meaning of the word "exploitation" agrees with your point.

Oh please we tolerated partisan bickering & wasteful spending for 8 years with the republicans too, where were 'you'? Were was the Right and their viable solutions. Oh wait, we've been experiencing their solutions...

Without necessarily implying anything about Obama administration, I think the unfolding crisis will definitely shorten the tolerance of the people.

This might be unfair, but it is not the same, to tolerate bad politics while your equity grows and trying to do the same while it shrinks.

History shows that in periods like this, the tolerance may shorten to complete disappearance, resulting in revolts.

http://s275.photobucket.com/albums/jj318/iammyownrushmore/?action=view&current=2mw7ct2.jpg

Hi, Newbie.