Right, everybody who thinks markets are necessary or inevitable hates the working class and loves rich people. Sorry I don't pass the Charles Brown ideological purity test.
> ^^^^^
>
> First, don't talk to me about 6 billion people.
>
> ^^^
> CB: Of course, we are going to talk to you about 6 billion people. What are
> you talking about ?
Socialists use the idea of world government as a dodge.
> ^^^^^
>
> 1. Forming a one-world government is just not a priority for anybody.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: This is a ridiculous statement by you. The transnational bourgeoisie are
> building one-world government at a rapid pace. What do you call the IMF,
> WTO, U.S. Treasury, US Armed Forces in 100 countries, U.S. Fed, New GATT,
> NAFTA, UN, "Globalization", Neo-Liberalism, et al. ?
>
And on what basis? Finance. Which leads me to think that socialists may hav ethe cart before the horse. Possibly capitalists are showing us that the thing to do is to revolutionize international finance *then* develop an international political consensus.
> ^^^^^
>
> 2. If you want to redistribute your income, you can do so whenever you feel
> like it. And before you think "well, I just have a modest income, surely the
> oness is not on *me* to redistribute" then consider the fact that world GDP
> per capita is about $7000 dollars a year. So start writing some checks,
> fatcats.
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: This is a red herring. The American working masses don't have to
> empoverish themselves in order to develop prosperity in the poorer countries
> of the world. This is a nasty , little divisive thought on behalf of the
> bourgeoisie
So they don't have to give up their pickup trucks? Somehow I doubt you are going to maintain this rejection of socialism as radical world redistribution.
> ^^^^
>
> 3. A revolution is not anything like an election where a really
> unlikely candidate wins. Forget this vanguardism. Socialists can
> either develop a progam that a solid 30% of the population can latch
> onto *before* the revolution or you can forget the whole thing.
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB:If it isn't on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the population , it
> is not a revolution, whether election, coup, or a combination of election
> and coup.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> 4. Having a larger percentage of property owned by the state does not make a
> good society. A lot of very bad societies have and have had significant
> state ownership. In fact, the most terrible things
> societies have ever done were done on and with state property. In and of
> itself state ownership of property gives elites more, not less power.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: The most terrrible things people have ever done were done by states on
> behalf of private property. The purpose of the state in history is to
> promote and defend private property.
>
> Only in the last 90 years have there come about states which are part of a
> process of abolishing private property.
Why did Stalin kill all those people? Or the Khmer Rouge? For private property? Please.
> ^^^^^
>
> 5. Law. You have to have a legal system. One of the biggest problems
> socialists have is a disrespect for law. Because some parts of the law are
> made to protect property rights does not mean that law as a
> concept should be thrown out the window. That is just silly. Concepts like
> burden of proof are universal to human societies and there is no reason to
> re-invent the wheel.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB; Socialist systems have been as lawful or more so than bourgeois systems.
> What are you talking about ? The capitalists do not respect the law. That's
> absurd. Clearly the capitalists act above the law constantly and
> continually. What planet are you talking about ?
This is nonsense. Courts in socialist countries have been and are a joke. I know you don't think that courts in capitalist countries are real but that's because you don't understand the law. The capitalist revolution is responsible for almost all the important ideas of law we have for very good reason. Law allows capitalists to maintain peace among themselves.
> ^^^^^^
>
> Boddi: Finally, on this discussion, stop making the same mistake over and
> over. Clearly there are reasons that centrally-planned economies have become
> corrupt time and time again. There is no rational argument that
> all the experiments in centrally-planned economies can be somehow
> exceptional. "But we'll do it right this time" is not a compelling
> argument. You have to change the model in a significant way.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: Stop calling what is not a mistake , a mistake.
>
> Surely centrally-plannned economies have become successful time and time
> again. Surely market economies have become corupt time and time again. No
> way you have demonstrated that centrally planned economies have become
> corrupt at a higher rate than market economies in actual history ! You seem
> pretty blind to the enormous corruption , waste, stealing and straight
> enrichment of a tiny minority of the population by market economies. How
> could anybody want to stick with market economies given their horrendous
> history of corruption, far surpassing that of centrally planned economies ?
Well, because of the enormously high standard of living they generate? I don't know, ask the Chinese Communist Party why market economies are superior.
> ^^^^
> Boddi:
> Charles Brown argues that you "keep accounts". This is not a new idea. How
> do you keep accounts, how do you know your accounting is correct and how do
> you make sure that correct accounting influences
> decision-making. You have to build this in to the system. You have to figure
> out a system that tends to keep money/resources out of bad
> projects and puts money/resources into good projects.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: And a system that defines good projects as those by which a private
> financing institution can make a profit and bad projects as those by which
> it can't has proven , after much experience, to have certain flaws which we
> are going to sublate - overcome and preserve- with a new system. The part we
> will preserve is accurate and thorough accounting of costs and benefits,
> i.e. use-values.
>
Right and you propose no mechanism at all for judging whether your accounting is correct. The flaws in capitalism are well-understood and there is no reason to go over them again. The object is to improve upon capitalism, not just in intent but technically as well.
> ^^^^
>
> Boddi: Although capitalists don't always follow this simple theory, it is
> pretty compelling. When judging an economic project they simply look
> for one where the inputs are judged in the marketplace to be
> significantly less valuable than the output will likely be. Therefore the
> project probably adds significant value. Therefore it is a good use of
> resources.
>
> Under socialism, how do you make sure an economic project adds value?
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB:
> With socialism the aim becomes production for use,not exchange, and exchange
> value. With socialism , the focus will be on the goal of production to
> "add" use-value, not exchange-value. Without enrichment of a tiny minority
> with exchange-value as the guiding principle of production, socialism will
> be more efficient in making investments of resources redound to enrichment
> of the quality and quantity of life of everybody,not the tiny minority of
> already rich.
Yeah, blah blah blah your heart is filled with pure outrage at the provilege of the bourgeoisie - spare me. The point is that you propose no mechanism to judge whether or not something adds use-value. You say socialism will do this but good intentions are not enough. The question is how.
> You ain't no comrade, Boddi
I know it's difficult to understand that what I'm saying is not an argument against socialism but an argument that the model has to be improved. I just see a lot more need for critical thought than cheerleading.
But if you're talking about Leninism, no I don't support it. I think it has outlived its usefulness. But Leninism is hardly the last word on socialism.
boddi