[Observer]

Let’s get back to basics, and so we are on the same page

You are saying its impossible for a socialist entity to exist in capitalistic Environment

We might argue the semantics, but what am advocating is for and entity with Socialistic features: –

• Collective Ownership:
• Economic, Social and Political Equality
• No Competition (within itself) but strong enough to Compete with other Entities

If the end product is the welfare of the people, we need something which can work and compete in any environment so as to provide such welfare to people (and not provide but give opportunity to each and everyone to ensure they have ability to achieve their welfare. That is a system which is needed

To be owned in common and controled democraticaly in a production for use, free access, society is the complete anti-thesis to production for a market.

What is a market ? Does ensuring needs and wants are provided not a market ?, If an entity working from community level, has ability to produce x amount of product y to be used in different communities should they not produce it and ensure every other community gain such product ?

Free access, yes there is free access and before that access can be available we need the product to be available, and such product will be available if needs and wants are known beforehand thus can be produced accordingly (not produce to waste, put produce to be used)

Capitalism comes with poverty relative or absolute and war by deed or proxy regardless of how it is dressed up , the same foul stench wil emanate from your anarcho-capitalist wet dream.

Might be a dream, but a dream nevertheless towards brainstorming the betterment of the future, Instead of saying Capitalism brings this or that, the more efficient way is to have an alternative which can go toe to toe with Capitalism and come up trumps, not wishing it to go away, and as to wars and what not, those can only be minimized by people being well-off and not having people in extreme poverty with nothing to lose who can easily be brainwashed. To remove Us and Them, can only be removed by the majority having the means of being well-off without waiting for any goodwill from anyone. Therefore in order to come up with a solution whose life wont be consigned in the realms of theory and books, a practical solution is needed which can work on ground/in the field

No, we need a system in which social equality to the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth prevails.

Indeed, we need such system, but how to we get such system, by talking and arguing until we get tired just to wait and still arguing again or by going toe to toe with what is current available? (and what is better way of going toe to toe non violently than making sure the people themselves are able to produce for themselves for their own benefit) and those who still are unconvinced might automatically join the system by seeing that it works.

We are not wishing to compete with capitalism, this can only happen by driving down wage costs and increasing the rate of exploitation.

It’s people whom are producers and its people whom are consumers, and as I said before people should not work so as to earn, rather than they should work to produce what is needed and the wages should ensure they have buying power to afford their needs, wants, healthcare, retirement and what not, People should not work as a hobby but as necessary way to achieve their needs and wants, and with automation people should work as minimum as possible. Now instead of arguing that products from capitalists are exploiting people (which is true) the people (they are majority anyway) they should produce their own products.

We are not hoping capitalism dies, we are advocating its extinction and the capture of its technological and informational infrastructures by the immense majority to apply a free access, production for use society.

We whom will make capitalism extinct so we might take their infrastructure, might end up the minority controlling and doing the same thing which the ones we have made extinct were doing in the first place.

The better way since we know what can be done to achieve the betterment for all is to do what is needed and not wishful thinking of getting rid of something which is very hard to do, let alone convince people that is the right thing to do.

Your productive and efficient system arises from exploiting and self-exploiting the wealth producing working class, the source of all wealth is labour.

When what’s needed is known, and how to do it and by how much labor force such work can be available for whomever needs to do it so as to sustain their life within a community.

So long as such work which is done pays enough for such people to sustain their life that’s all that is needed. And to avoid exploitation such entity needs to be owned by the majority.

This is totally unnecessary to have a means of exchange when all is owned in common.

Even before currency there was batter trade, its easier for currency to be used in exchange rather than a butcher exchanging his meat for a hair cut from a barber. But if a barber, butcher, cleaner they have all got buying power to have their meat, their hair cut and their environment cleaned everyone within a community will live a life worth living.

All can be owned in common but if there is only a few meat, and few fish with plenty of beans to ensure everyone gets their desire its easier better if everyone have credit and they can decide what to have and when unless otherwise everyone will be fighting for meat.

It is a happy clappy utopia which ignores the costs of war, arising out of competition between rival capitalists in nation states, trading blocs, over markets, trade routes, raw materials and spheres of geopolitical advantage and poverty, which arises out of reproducing exploitation at the point of production to create surplus value.

To say wars started during capitalism that is stretching it too far…, even the times of small community villages the few with resources (farms etc) they were getting invaded and some were taken as slaves to be used for labor, the key word here is scarcity, and some having nothing while others have something.

And remember the competition am talking about is for this Socialistic entity being able to compete with capitalist entities am not saying we need competition between the entities am advocating, after all unity is strength and the only way the poorest can overcome their poverty is through their strength in numbers and they need an entity which can mobilize them.

[Observer]

Sorry Mr. Matthew if my  post seem to be Spam, for the case of being Hogwash that might be true, but it was just my two cents of the practicability of having a form of Socialism which can survive in capitalistic environment…, and the definition of Socialism which I took (maybe a bit too loosely) is the one which means of production as well as the fruits of that production to be owned/benefit the community as a whole…

They say a Rose by any other name, smells just as sweet…, the point am trying to make we need a system by any name which is better and look after majority not minorities, and that system needs to compete with capitalism not hoping capitalism dies for it to exist.

In my humble opinion such a system can exist, because if it will benefit majority, then the masses themselves will/can make it work. We need a system which is productive and efficient.

As for money / wages you might call it credits to get something… money makes efficient the exchange of needs and wants…, the system am advocating is the one which:-

People don’t Work to Earn, rather they Work to Produce; and They Earn to Consume

A system which guarantees people have skills to produce and ability to earn so they can consume, for the betterment of themselves and community.

 

 

 

• This reply was modified 4 years ago by Observer.

[Author]

Posts