Socialist thought

**mattabesta** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:33 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

The rich man who has 1.000.000.000 already boosts the economy, why you think he got that many money? He did something the people bought much.

Correction: he put hundreads maybe thousands of people to produce something that many bought.

And regardless of how taxed that man was, it wouldn't ever reach equality: he's still the owner of the means of production and he determines the rules of production and still gets a massive income from exploitation.

If the state regulates him too much then he'll have no incentive to develop his company and said company will stop existing unless it is seized by the state in which case the state merely will act in the same way as the previous owner but with more social investments. The condition won't change, just the owner and the profit management.

well the state isn´t allowed to start investing in foring markets or making theire facilityes larger, the money will just go into raising wages wich is useless.

_________________
stos wrote:
I'm with the left commies on this one.

I'm not back I'm just bored to death.

''Any society that would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both.'' - Benjamin Franklin

**Kenzu** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:56 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

The rich man who has 1.000.000.000 already boosts the economy, why you think he got that many money? He did something the people bought much.

Correction: he put hundreads maybe thousands of people to produce something that many bought.

And regardless of how taxed that man was, it wouldn't ever reach equality: he's still the owner of the means of production and he determines the rules of production and still gets a massive income from exploitation.

If the state regulates him too much then he'll have no incentive to develop his company and said company will stop existing unless it is seized by the state in which case the state merely will act in the same way as the previous owner but with more social investments. The condition won't change, just the owner and the profit management.

I think the government should nationalis successful businesses.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:07 pm

Kenzu wrote:

I think the government should nationalis successful businesses.

To what ends? Plus you have dodged nearly 70-80% of our previous discussion.

_________________

**Kenzu** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:10 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

I think the government should nationalis successful businesses.

To what ends? Plus you have dodged nearly 70-80% of our previous discussion.

Sorry I got an exam on tuesday.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:12 pm

Kenzu wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

I think the government should nationalis successful businesses.

To what ends? Plus you have dodged nearly 70-80% of our previous discussion.

Sorry I got an exam on tuesday.

You learn 4-5 days before a exam?
You probably have alot to learn for the exam.
That's sucky.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Kenzu** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:57 pm

CoolKidX wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

I think the government should nationalis successful businesses.

To what ends? Plus you have dodged nearly 70-80% of our previous discussion.

Sorry I got an exam on tuesday.

You learn 4-5 days before a exam?
You probably have alot to learn for the exam.
That's sucky.

I learn every day, and one week before the exam I study 6-12 hours a day.

Every time I have an exam I have to learn a whole book which is anywhere between 100-500 pages long, but usually 300. Roughly 55% fail each exam in this university. But they can repeat in the exam.

The standards are very high, but it is the best economics university in the country, everyone is admitted to study here and the university education is free.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:01 am

Kenzu wrote:

I learn every day, and one week before the exam I study 6-12 hours a day.

Every time I have an exam I have to learn a whole book which is anywhere between 100-500 pages long, but usually 300. Roughly 55% fail each exam in this university. But they can repeat in the exam.

The standards are very high, but it is the best economics university in the country, everyone is admitted to study here and the university education is free.

Holy sh!t that is sure something!

6 to 12 hours!?
Wow...

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

Lensky1917 · Young Pioneer Posts: 15 Join date: 2009-03-14

kenzu i want to give you some exeling eadvice

if they are teaching you bourgoies economics do not believe it

they must teach you marxian economics that says capitalism will ineviabtly olapes

if they dont do that im afraid your educsation is worthless but too ba

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:32 am

Lensky1917 wrote:

kenzu i want to give you some exeling eadvice

if they are teaching you bourgoies economics do not believe it

they must teach you marxian economics that says capitalism will ineviabtly olapes

if they dont do that im afraid your educsation is worthless but too ba

This is right. Sadly, it is spam.

_________________

**Kenzu** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:14 pm

Lensky1917 wrote:

kenzu i want to give you some exeling eadvice

if they are teaching you bourgoies economics do not believe it

they must teach you marxian economics that says capitalism will ineviabtly olapes

if they dont do that im afraid your educsation is worthless but too ba

Our professor was explaining on our last lecture that if we read Marx, we would all know that profit is the money that you dont let others have.

"To make more profit I can either force my slaves to work harder for me, or force the consumers to pay more for my products, or both."

_________________
World Republic will prevail!

**WeiWuWei** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:32 pm

Lensky1917 wrote:

kenzu i want to give you some exeling eadvice

if they are teaching you bourgoies economics do not believe it

they must teach you marxian economics that says capitalism will ineviabtly olapes

if they dont do that im afraid your educsation is worthless but too ba

Actually, they should teach you EVERYTHING. Y'know, let people think for themselves.

It's just as bad to propagate the message of Marxism as it is to propagate the message of Capitalism.

_________________

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:42 pm

WeiWuWei wrote:

Actually, they should teach you EVERYTHING. Y'know, let people think for themselves.

It's just as bad to propagate the message of Marxism as it is to propagate the message of Capitalism.

The thing is that with Marxism you understand capitalism. It's a scientific deconstruction of capitalism.

Anyway, why replying to this guy if he's Melon?

_________________

**Kenzu** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:07 pm

WeiWuWei wrote:

Lensky1917 wrote:

kenzu i want to give you some exeling eadvice

if they are teaching you bourgoies economics do not believe it

they must teach you marxian economics that says capitalism will ineviabtly olapes

if they dont do that im afraid your educsation is worthless but too ba

Actually, they should teach you EVERYTHING. Y'know, let people think for themselves.

It's just as bad to propagate the message of Marxism as it is to propagate the message of Capitalism.

He is very critical of capitalism, but no one likes capitalism in our university anyway.

"Privatisation" sounds like "robbery" in our students ears.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:30 pm

Kenzu wrote:

"Privatisation" sounds like "robbery" in our students ears.

Even when privatisation is carried out by the state in the form of "nationalization"?

_________________

**Kenzu** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:18 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

"Privatisation" sounds like "robbery" in our students ears.

Even when privatisation is carried out by the state in the form of "nationalization"?

That's impossible, since nationalisation is the opposite of privatisation.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:47 pm

Kenzu wrote:

That's impossible, since nationalisation is the opposite of privatisation.

Wrong. If privatisation is understood as the process in which a moral or physical person acquires a certain property for its management or as the setting of the conditions that allow this to happen and the "State" or "nation" is understood as a moral person, and nationalisaton is understood as the process in which the "nation" acquires a certain property though the moral entity called "State" then nationalisation is another kind of privatisation. Why? How?

Simple. The state, which is "who" acquires properties through nationalisation, becomes the one to manage the acquired property in all the levels of operation. It is argued that the state represents all the persons within a nation thus the people "own" that property through the State, yet, this is just oficially as opposed to de facto.

The state, composed by "people's representatives" becomes the owner and manager of this property. When this property creates some economic revenue this revenue is administered in the ways determined by these "people's representatives" without the people being who determines these policies. The revenue is then used, forcibly, in the following ways:
1. To economically sustain the individuals that compose the state.
2. To economically sustain the activity of that property (payrolls and investment in resources mainly).
3. To economically sustain the activities of the state which, depending on the kind of state may be:
a) Social Welfare.
b) Military.
c) Infrastructure.
d) Trade

Among others.

Noteworthy it is that the people are who will work in this property being thus exploited by the owner of this property (the State) as the produce of this property, when means of production, will be sold back to the people for profit without which said property's activity and the owner (State) wouldn't be able to be sustained. That revenue, essential in capitalist economy, comes from surplus value added to the product arbitrarily by the owners of the means of production.

The state in this case is just another entity which by changes in laws legitimizes its property over the means of production. The state operates in the same way as private enterprises with the exception that, forcibly at least in appearance, it will invest in social welfare. When "private" enterprises do so it is called "charity" or "social responsability" in bourgeoisespeak.

Also, even within the context of institutional officiality, when the state was "elected" by X% of the population, even if it was acknowledged that the state does represent that X% of the population, all that isolated part of the population and its representatives would become the "moral person" that owns said property in the same way an enterprise with 1,000 shareholders is privately owned by the moral person constituted by said 1,000 shareholders. (And let me emphazise that this "state representation of people" is just officially, not de facto, thus not in reality).

The only way in which property like land and means of production could be de facto (and obviously "officially") collectively owned would be if everyone affected by and in need of these properties had an equal say and collectively agreed on the way these properties are to be used by all and the fruits of this use shared.

Otherwise, it is de facto privatised.

_________________

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:06 am

I didnt get that text very well so excuse me but I think it is called Privatization when the ownership of a business(or other) from the public sector(government)goes to the private sector(business). You say(atleast I think) that they are both the same, in which Privatization and Nationalization go to the same to the same in place of public sector to private sector.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Liche** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:40 am

Zealot they are different.... why not make things simple by saying "both are just as bad in my views"

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:15 am

CoolKidX wrote:

I didnt get that text very well so excuse me but I think it is called Privatization when the ownership of a business(or other) from the public sector(government)goes to the private sector(business). You say(atleast I think) that they are both the same, in which Privatization and Nationalization go to the same to the same in place of public sector to private sector.

That's too simple a way to see it, my friend.

Anyone can call themselves as they wish, we've seen people call themselves what they are not and pretend to be that: Castro calling himself communist, Bush calling himself defender of democracy, men calling themselves women... but there can be an enormous gap between "being" and saying that you are.

So well, what makes the "public" sector actually "public"? The state is an entity isolated from the people that acts according to its own rules. The individuals that constituted are "elected" by the people, yet, the people are not the ones comming with the initiatives nor are decisions made, revised and applied by the people: everything is done by the statesmen.

When the state owns a company, what interests does it serve? Those of the state, two of which are necesarily income for the statesmen and finance the activities of the state whichever they might be. The objective of that company, as with any company, must be revenue (profit).

The state and its companies work pretty much like the CEO and managing comitee of a company would, actually, given the economic framework they act in the same way.

Therefore, I'm contending that "public" is nothing but a facade to legitimize yet another exploitative relationship and that "nationalisation" is just another manifestation of privatization.

Liche wrote:

Zealot they are different.... why not make things simple by saying "both are just as bad in my views"

Dear Liche, the statement "they're different" won't do, you have to explain why if you want to make a valid point. I explained why they are not different and the idea that "they're equally bad" was completely not what I meant, I never engaged in subjectivity I just objectively explained why I consider them to be a manifestation of the same phenomenon.

If you want to reply to my point or want to refute it I suggest you read what I wrote and adress it or at least post an arguement as to why, in your view, they're different things, perhaps even opposite. Otherwise, I'd suggest that you make no assertion and much less adress my post.

_________________

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:15 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So well, what makes the "public" sector actually "public"? The state is an entity isolated from the people that acts according to its own rules. The individuals that constituted are "elected" by the people, yet, the people are not the ones comming with the initiatives nor are decisions made, revised and applied by the people: everything is done by the statesmen.

I dont make the rules for words or anything, you can see it has hypocrite in your view if you like.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

When the state owns a company, what interests does it serve? Those of the state, two of which are necesarily income for the statesmen and finance the activities of the state whichever they might be. The objective of that company, as with any company, must be revenue (profit).

Well not really, the intrest is to help the people, example: The state builds a house for the homeless where they can sleep and eat, ofcourse for a price but a very low one, the intrest is to help these people, not to make profit, because they get money from the state, but if they want to do some new things for the homeless they always have the money they gain from the food and such. They can do a little extra for the homeless with that money, and if it was free, anyone onh the street could just grab some food though he/she isn't homeless. If this homeless care house was privatised the first intrest is profit.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Therefore, I'm contending that "public" is nothing but a facade to legitimize yet another exploitative relationship and that "nationalisation" is just another manifestation of privatization.

The people who get a business because of the state privatised it want money, its first on the agenda. However, if the state has it, they don't really care about the profit, maybe a little, but to help people is more important, for privatised businesses this may be important to but not as important as profit as the profit is there money to feed their families.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn