Some Kudos to Socialism

Allright so the unholy blasphemous death thrashing master of nuclear desecration and infernal evil is back to write a new page in the Baphometic grimoire of sacrilege! Ha ha ha ha!

Ok guys so Ive been doing a bit of thinking about Socialism and I think there's more use to it than I thought. See I think one of the basic ideas of Socialism ( common or social ownership ) can be put to very good use. The thing is this use is a lot simpler than what many Socialists aim for. Let me explain: Instead of straight off the bat socializing the means of production why not socialize something a bit simpler to start off? Like for example a snack vending machine. A town could decide to make a snack vending machine the property of everyone living in the town. Everyone could take from it without paying and at the same time everyone would be responsible for its upkeep. I think something like this could work out very well, I mean people would love to eat free food and in order to keep being able to do so they would have to restock it every now and then. A town bar could be a very good example as well. I mean tons of people would love to be able to have free drinks from a bar and having to simply restock it would be a little price to pay. You could apply this to many other things as well.

Anyways my point is Socialism looks like a very cool idea when its put to simple use. So as of now I support Socialism for simple things ( like socializing snack machines). I cant say Im a Socialist but the idea looks cooler to me now that Ive thought a bit about it than before.

I don't really think socialising snacks and alcohol counts as socialism. That's more like a party.

I never said it was Socialism, it would just be an example of Socialism put to very simple use. I mean the basis of your ideas is to make things into common property right?

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I never said it was Socialism, it would just be an example of Socialism put to very simple use.

If it is not socialism, then it cannot be an example of socialism.

I mean the basis of your ideas is to make things into common property right?

What would prevent some individuals from taking advantage of the goodwill of other individuals in your silly arrangement?

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I never said it was Socialism, it would just be an example of Socialism put to very simple use. I mean the basis of your ideas is to make things into common property right?

We want to make the means of production common property, not cider and biscuits.

Looking more closely at the issue, Kropotkin does make a decent point on the subject of food in relation to production:

The so−called economists, who make the just−mentioned distinction, would hardly deny that the coal burnt in a machine is as necessary to production as the raw material itself. How then can food, without which the human machine could do no work, be excluded from the list of things indispensable to the producer? Can this be a relic of religious metaphysics? The rich man's feast is indeed a matter of luxury, but the food of the worker is just as much a part of production as the fuel burnt by the steam−engine.

(Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread - Chapter IV: Expropriation)

However, I'll assume you lack the capacity to have analysed the matter in such depth, and simply want free cider and biscuits. After all, it is 2013 and barbarian rebellion definitely won't put food on the table.

Ah Ok yes it wouldnt be an example of Socialism but it would be an example of taking influence from a Socialist idea and putting it to simple use. As for your question it would be trust and belief in the goal. I mean if you socialized a means of production then its success would depend on all co owners trusting each other and believing in the goal, just like this would. And of course enforcing any rules they passed regarding stealing and so forth ( but that comes with belief in the goal).

DSN very funny, believe it or not I work at the local paper plant as a paper press operator so no I didnt create this thread because I cant put food on the table.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Ah Ok yes it wouldnt be an example of Socialism but it would be an example of taking influence from a Socialist idea and putting it to simple use. As for your question it would be trust and belief in the goal. I mean if you socialized a means of production then its success would depend on all co owners trusting each other and believing in the goal, just like this would. And of course enforcing any rules they passed regarding stealing and so forth ( but that comes with belief in the goal).

Equating a socialised vending machine with socialised means of production is silly. I don't even know how to explain why if it isn't obvious already.

DSN very funny, believe it or not I work at the local paper plant as a paper press operator so no I didnt create this thread because I cant put food on the table.

I'm not saying you did, broski.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:As for your question it would be trust and belief in the goal. I mean if you socialized a means of production then its success would depend on all co owners trusting each other and believing in the goal, just like this would. And of course enforcing any rules they passed regarding stealing and so forth ( but that comes with belief in the goal).

What I have gathered from your original post is that you expect a relatively large group of people to provide the resources for the establishment and maintenance of a vending machine, bar, or some such nonsense. Presumably, this would be accomplished on a voluntary basis, in which case your scenario would run the risk of being accused of suffering from the tragedy of the commons by bourgeois reactionaries, unless the good or service were collectively managed, which would necessarily require regulation to avoid abuses and effectively control costs. If not, some individuals would simply enjoy benefits at the expense of others, which, unless truly generous souls sacrificed of their own volition to provide these products, would be unsustainable.

This being the case, I fail to understand in what manner your frivolous concept differs from public goods and services being bestowed by the capitalist state.

RevScare wrote:What I have gathered from your original post is that you expect a relatively large group of people to provide the resources for the establishment and maintenance of a vending machine, bar, or some such nonsense. Presumably, this would be accomplished on a voluntary basis, in which case your scenario would run the risk of being accused of suffering from the tragedy of the commons by bourgeois reactionaries, unless the good or service were collectively managed, which would necessarily require regulation to avoid abuses and effectively control costs. If not, some individuals would simply enjoy benefits at the expense of others, which, unless truly generous souls sacrificed of their own volition to provide these products, would be unsustainable.

I dont think the tragedy of the commons is completely true , I mean in the past there were examples of say people in a village letting all their sheep graze in a common pasture without any big problems happening. Of course Im not exactly sure how that argument goes but Im pretty sure its something like " Oh common property is a bad idea in itself because it reduces individual initiative" but that is false I think because there's the example of villagers letting all their sheep graze in common pastures without any major problems. Then again my scenarios are different so Id say yes the goods and services would be managed collectively.

This being the case, I fail to understand in what manner your frivolous concept differs from public goods and services being bestowed by the capitalist state.

It wouldnt be really different at all , Im not trying to write that this would be a new type of economy or whatever ( as you probably know ). It would be like a little island in a sea of capitalism. This brings me to another thing : People seem to think of economies in absolute scale. That is one certain type of economy should be it , the answer. A big monolith in which all people take part in and are surrounded by. I know the arguments in favor ( that two different economies cant exist side by side in a given territory) and they are probably right ( in the case of capitalism vs socialism or communism especially) but why not put it before the people to create even more microcosms in place of a big absolute economic system with no variety in it whatsoever ? There are already a bunch of co ops in a big sea of capitalism so this idea would just add more spice to the deal. One of your last sentences also brings up the question of a gift economy which is a pretty cool idea as well.

DSN wrote:Equating a socialised vending machine with socialised means of production is silly. I don't even know how to explain why if it isn't obvious already.

They are both socialized which means they spring from the same basic idea which means they are related ( even if not the same).

I'm not saying you did, broski.

Broski?

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:They are both socialized which means they spring from the same basic idea which means they are related ( even if not the same).

The air we breathe is shared between everyone, but that doesn't make it relevant to socialism.

Broski?

In Soviet Russia, question asks you!

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I dont think the tragedy of the commons is completely true , I mean in the past there were examples of say people in a village letting all their sheep graze in a common pasture without any big problems happening. Of course Im not exactly sure how that argument goes but Im pretty sure its something like " Oh common property is a bad idea in itself because it reduces individual initiative" but that is false I think because there's the example of villagers letting all their sheep graze in common pastures without any major problems. Then again my scenarios are different so Id say yes the goods and services would be managed collectively.

The communal farming practices you are referring to were not subject to the tragedy of the commons, because although they were commonly held, they were collectively managed. I ask once more what differentiates your stupid idea, in theory, from what the state already provides in the form of public goods?

It wouldnt be really different at all , Im not trying to write that this would be a new type of economy or whatever ( as you probably know ). It would be like a little island in a sea of capitalism. This brings me to another thing : People seem to think of economies in absolute scale. That is one certain type of economy should be it , the answer. A big monolith in which all people take part in and are surrounded by. I know the arguments in favor ( that two different economies cant exist side by side in a given territory) and they are probably right ( in the case of capitalism vs socialism or communism especially) but why not put it before the people to create even more microcosms in place of a big absolute economic system with no variety in it whatsoever ? There are already a bunch of co ops in a big sea of capitalism so this idea would just add more spice to the deal. One of your last sentences also brings up the question of a gift economy which is a pretty cool idea as well.

Our interest as revolutionaries is not to construct little pockets of socialism within the context of capitalism but to end a global system of exploitation. Furthermore, the variants of socialism available to us are not equal and are subject to critique. It is not as though all economic systems are reconcilable and hybrid models desirable per se. Why should we allow for the preservation of exploitation? And a gift economy cannot coexist with capitalism. They entail fundamentally different social relations, including the absence of those mediated through exchange (a market) in the former.

To address gift economies more directly, I would contend that they are viable insofar as small and relatively primitive communities (such as hunter-gatherer societies) are concerned but infeasible as the basis for a complex modern economy. To avoid the pitfalls of an economy that remunerates solely according to need while remaining true to the the spirit of the maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," we (that is, the RSF) has argued in favor of a participatory planned economy, which I recall you disputed on the grounds that you found its remunerative principle objectionable.

In short, Rebel Warrior, fuck you.

Rev Scare wrote:The communal farming practices you are referring to were not subject to the tragedy of the commons, because although they were commonly held, they were collectively managed. I ask once more what differentiates your stupid idea, in theory, from what the state already provides in the form of public goods?

It wouldnt be different at all in theory , it would just have a new twist to it. How is my idea stupid? Is it really such a sin to think of simple goals for a change instead of big revolutionary ones?

Our interest as revolutionaries is not to construct little pockets of socialism within the context of capitalism but to end a global system of exploitation. Furthermore, the variants of socialism available to us are not equal and are subject to critique. It is not as though all economic systems are reconcilable and hybrid models desirable per se. Why should we allow for the preservation of exploitation? And a gift economy cannot coexist with capitalism. They entail fundamentally different social relations, including the absence of those mediated through exchange (a market) in the former.

To address gift economies more directly, I would contend that they are viable insofar as small and relatively primitive communities (such as hunter-gatherer societies) are concerned but infeasible as the basis for a complex modern economy. To avoid the pitfalls of an economy that remunerates solely according to need while remaining true to the the spirit of the maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," we (that is, the RSF) has argued in favor of a participatory planned economy, which I recall you disputed on the grounds that you found its remunerative principle objectionable.

Yes I know but thats exactly why you see the forest for the trees. I think the National Anarchists are totally right about their autonomous zone idea. There's so many different ideas, opinions, etc in this world that this big mammoth " My way is the highway for a whole country or even better the world " view. Everyone from libertarians to gays to street punks high on meth should have their own piece of the pie if they can take it. Yeah sure that wouldnt be " the " solution but this isnt the solution either. In your case if people want to live under what you call exploitation then I dont see why you should try and stop them ( once you got , if ever , the power of course). If each community had the right to buzz around on their own piece of ground then that would be egalitarianism from the bottom up.

In short, Rebel Warrior, fuck you.

Oh I am so offended that Rev Scare cussed me out , I think I will call for my virtual blanky !

DSN wrote:The air we breathe is shared between everyone, but that doesn't make it relevant to socialism.

That's a false dichotomy. Air cant be made into common property. Vending machines and bars can which is the point.

In Soviet Russia, question asks you!

Since you like telling jokes so much Ill share one of mine: What do you call a Trojan skinhead necromancer? An Oimancer

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:The air we breathe is shared between everyone, but that doesn't make it relevant to socialism.

Alright, let me put it this way. Vegetarianism isn't vegetarianism if you abstain from eating humans instead of animals.

There, now go slay the dragon and save the princess.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:It wouldnt be different at all in theory , it would just have a new twist to it.

Then it is irrelevant to me as a revolutionary socialist.

How is my idea stupid? Is it really such a sin to think of simple goals for a change instead of big revolutionary ones

Because it is pointless. Had you at least proposed something along the lines of establishing worker cooperatives in place of traditional capitalist firms, I would have recognized its reasoning but deemed it flawed, but you merely want to "socialize" a single vending machine. What end would that serve? How does it contribute to the overthrow of capitalist social relations? How does it contribute to anything productive? It doesn't. You are simply spamming the forum with more obtuse posts.

Yes I know but thats exactly why you see the forest for the trees. I think the National Anarchists are totally right about their autonomous zone idea.

The National-Anarchists espouse an incoherent medley of incompatible philosophies and will forever remain a marginal internet cult of dipshits—like you. Their national autonomous zone concept is inane primitivist nonsense. Without lending them any credit, however, you are misrepresenting their notion of a national autonomous zone below.

There's so many different ideas, opinions, etc in this world that this big mammoth " My way is the highway for a whole country or even better the world " view. Everyone from libertarians to gays to street punks high on meth should have their own piece of the pie if they can take it.

Since when do gays and street punks constitute communities entirely detached from the national framework? Why would politically isolated communities revolving around music or sexual orientation ever warrant serious discussion? Would any demographic truly found an entire social structure based upon such superficial divisions?

Yeah sure that wouldnt be " the " solution

It is a non-solution. We inhabit the same planet and live in an interconnected global economy, and so we should coordinate amongst each other rather than resort to primitive isolationism.

but this isnt the solution either.

According to whom? To you? You have no understanding of what you are arguing. You enjoy offering incoherent arguments about whatever twaddle floats about your hollow cranium.

In your case if people want to live under what you call exploitation then I dont see why you should try and stop them ( once you got , if ever , the power of course). If each community had the right to buzz around on their own piece of ground then that would be egalitarianism from the bottom up.

Unlike you, I do not view society to be so hopelessly divided along arbitrary lines such as preference for barbarism, death metal, and being a worthless individual. As you know, I do advocate on behalf of national self-determination, but I highly doubt any national communities would self-identify according to the foolish criteria you mentioned above or anything of the sort. The reason I believe capitalist exploitation should be eliminated in toto is due to the fact that I find it immoral, and society should prohibit it in the same vein as it proscribes chattel slavery. I also disagree with the notion that individuals or groups are justified in unilaterally demarcating territory.

Rev Scare wrote:Then it is irrelevant to me as a revolutionary socialist.

Ok well you asked so I answered

Because it is pointless. Had you at least proposed something along the lines of establishing worker cooperatives in place of traditional capitalist firms, I would have recognized its reasoning but deemed it flawed, but you merely want to "socialize" a single vending machine. What end would that serve? How does it contribute to the overthrow of capitalist social relations? How does it contribute to anything productive? It doesn't. You are simply spamming the forum with more obtuse posts.

A lot of people would like to be able to eat free food without paying for it so a thing like this would make them happy. That would be its point: another way to make people happy. I mean shouldnt a major goal of the human race be to make itself happy as possible? And no Im not spamming , I just happen to be the most active restricted OV member.

The National-Anarchists espouse an incoherent medley of incompatible philosophies and will forever remain a marginal internet cult of dipshits—like you. Their national autonomous zone concept is inane primitivist nonsense. Without lending them any credit, however, you are misrepresenting their notion of a national autonomous zone below.

I thought their autonomous zone plan was basically letting all groups mark out their own territory , but maybe Im wrong. Im not a dipshit or a member of any internet cult by the way.

Since when do gays and street punks constitute communities entirely detached from the national framework? Why would politically isolated communities revolving around music and sexual orientation ever warrant serious discussion? Would any demographic truly found an entire social structure based upon such superficial divisions?

Well the gays do have their own district ( the Castro I think) in San Francisco. If they want too I dont see why they shouldnt establish their own autonomous zone or whatever, cause lets face it their never going to be well liked by anyone. I did meet a few people one time who wanted to make a crust punk republic and I cant even count how many times Ive met metalheads who wanted to form a heavy metal kingdom. The point is there are people out there who would love to form a community that would revolve music or sexual orientation so why not let them? I mean they obviously dont get along with the mainstream so why force them to live in it?

It is a non-solution. We inhabit the same planet and live in an interconnected global economy, and so we should coordinate amongst each other rather than resort to primitive isolationism.

Some of us cant get along so why should we be made to? If all the tolerant people can get along then fine they can live together but that path isnt for everyone. Groups who hate each other should be allowed to live separately. Conflicts always going to be around but separating could keep it down.

According to whom? To you? You have no understanding of what you are arguing. You enjoy offering incoherent arguments about whatever twaddle floats about your hollow cranium.

What's with all the insults Rev? Dont like white trash? In that case you should give up on Socialism cause the working class has a lot of white trash people in it and most of them are far worse than me.

Unlike you, I do not view society to be so hopelessly divided along arbitrary lines such as preference for barbarism, death metal, and being a worthless individual. As you know, I do advocate on behalf of national self-determination, but I highly doubt any national communities would self-identify according to the foolish criteria you mentioned above or anything of the sort. The reason I believe capitalist exploitation should be eliminated in toto is due to the fact that I find it immoral, and society should prohibit it in the same vein as it proscribes chattel slavery. I also disagree with the notion that individuals or groups are justified in unilaterally demarcating territory.

Its not hopelessly divided but some people clearly cant get along. I say they should be allowed to go their own way if they want. That's all.

lulz, why do we even bother with this guy?

Hmm, methinks RW would be happier in some kind of Dungeons and Dragons universe

My idea has nothing to do with crappy board games. Its very down to earth.

Just think if people had control over vending machines and bars you could get anything from wild boar to Greek salad to Bavarian brew and absinthe. That would be totally amazing right? It would make people's lives happier and that would raise the standard of living which is what y'all want right? Whats more this idea would be a lot easier to achieve than a full blown revolution.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:My idea has nothing to do with crappy board games. Its very down to earth.

Look out, there's a dragon behind you!

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:
Just think if people had control over vending machines and bars you could get anything from wild boar to Greek salad to Bavarian brew and absinthe. That would be totally amazing right? It would make people's lives happier and that would raise the standard of living which is what y'all want right? Whats more this idea would be a lot easier to achieve than a full blown revolution.

Oh dear is he getting worse or what? Can you imagine a vending machine that supplies, "wild boar to Greek salad"? Keep your head down RW and the 'men in white coats' will never find you.

Like I said, barbarian rebellion doesn't really put food on the table. He must be trialling the latest anti-psychotics for a few extra quid to buy that new war hammer he wants.

It seems you two must burn before you learn. Ill let Mr.Brown fill you in: