Is it simply because we are as intolerant 10000 years later as we were at the dawn of civilization? That we are driven by some horrible id that will never be overcome? Well, what are the consequences if this is the case?

That the earth is a vale of tears that will be dried in heaven?

In between we find someone like Chavez, a respecter of human rights and a socialist and-sorry can’t think of a contemporary-but perhaps Olaf Palme, a defender of capitalism in the broad sense and a respecter of human rights.

The debate is about whether a social system as contradictory as capitalism can work even in its own terms vs whether it is possible to go beyond it to a society that can provide for the development of the full human potential of each and every one of its citizens.

You simply do not address this, which is why I have become impatient and even alarmed at you-you argue sloppily and cynically, and I think without much appreciation of the human cost of the things you appear to defend.

At any event you address none of my substantive points, unless your ludicrous defence of the industry of businesspeople is supposed to constitute a defence-I do not believe they are not decent people-what I believe is that a business that is abandoned while the local people starve is a business that has, in truth forfeited itself to the people, and that furthermore a system that continually reproduces these abuses and many others including that of tormenting the good conscience and faith of the Argentinean workers who have been forced to “steal” the factories is a system that is morally bankrupt-its only justification can be that there is no feasible alternative to it, the point we set out to debate at the instigation of Petras’ article.

I’m sorry you guys feel quoting from the internet is humiliating and laughable. If an archive exists as a set of “complete” works, why not use it? Better than getting my allergies all worked up by pulling down all those dusty books. You guys make a lot of negative assumptions about people. Do you guys feel negatively about yourselves, or is there a bit of arrogance?

Sheldon, thanks for the definitions and additional quotes. They make me realize that Marx is really a relic of history. As far as pretentions go, it has been well over 20 years since I have moved on from materialistic philosophies in trying to finding justice and meaning in life. It is sometimes difficult to get the little grey cells working on dismissed ideas of the past. But basically, again, your arguments are unconvincing. You spend a lot of effort in telling me that I’m stupid, which tells me merely that you have no real idea about what you are talking about. You have faith in your ideas, however fuzzy they may be, and I laud you for that. Marx says the State will wither away – when did it ever happen? Never. Why? Oh, the world is so unjust – others attack the poor communists or they get hijacked by Stalin. Yeah, right. And the future will be brighter and better? Truth is that there has always been and will always be some form of government – even in the ideal world of goat herders, fishermen, and critics that Marx dreams of. Humans are hierarchical – someone needs to be on top and some need someone on top. Personally, I’d rather not be bothered with organizing traffic or checking every new drug someone thinks up as being safe. I’d rather have a government take care of all the daily routines, etc. The question really comes down to what kind of government.

Again, my comments are on Petras’ last words:

“Above all socialism is about social equality: Equality in income, schools and hospitals; equality between classes and within classes. Without social equality, all talk of ‘diversity’, ‘dignity’ and ‘respect’ is meaningless. Capitalists also support ‘diversity’, as long as it does not affect their profits and wealth. Socialists support income and property equality which effectively re-distributes wealth and property to all workers, white and black, Indian farmer and urban worker, men and women, and young and old. There is no ‘dignity’ in being poor and exploited; dignity comes with struggle and the achievement of socialist goals of social equality and rising living standards.”

The only thing I agree with is that there is no dignity in being exploited. Everything else is nonsense. Why? Again because I no longer believe that materialistic philosophies hold the answers. Any materialistic philosophy, whether communism or capitalism, will dehumanize and degrade people – because people will always be viewed as commodities of one sort or the other within such a system.

My basic argument and disagreement with Petras is that socialism cannot reach the ends he wants.

Democracy. The definition and concept of democracy is really relative. Sheldon still hasn’t really defined it, but I would gather that he is in favor of Marx’s ideas on the topic. Blowin’, my example of Athenian democracy is that it is considered to be the first form of democracy – well, given its place in history, etc., you may argue that it was not real democracy. Let’s face it – women couldn’t vote and you had to be a land owner in order to participate – you had to have a piece of Athens and have a stake in it in order to vote. This basically defines democracy up until about a hundred years or so. But my point about Athens, if you’ve read the Apology of Socrates, is about how the mob can be manipulated. It’s about how forces in society demand conformity. It’s about how new and innovative ideas can be killed by special interests. Do you really believe that socialism will remove these ills of society? I believe they will become worse.

I would not be the first to argue for an oligarchy – I suppose Plato might be. I believe in the idea that enlightened people should lead. Because I hold these ideas and happen to be a Muslim does not make me “Islamofascist.” I also believe that government reflects its society in this day and age. Stupid people get a stupid government. Enlightened people will get an enlightened government.

It may be hard to comprehend, but people can be very complex and hold a number of ideas that defy a label. I am against the way western capitalism works, but I am not against capitalism. I support workers’ rights and co-operative forms of business, but I don’t support communism or economic “socialism.” Outside of economics, I believe in political “socialism” or humanist “socialism.” My religious beliefs also stress a form of “socialism.” Democracy has some places where it seems to work well – those places being where the public is well informed and care about the issues – but let’s face it, overall it is a manipulative system. America is a good case in point. The average voters could care less to take the extra effort to educate themselves on EVERY issue (even if that is humanly possible).

The example of the street sweeper is about a guy who lives in England actually. Although he does earn a meager living, other people are generous in subsidizing certain things in his life, like travelling for the purpose of his philosophical hobby.

Overall, both your comments are interesting – I have enjoyed them, even though you’ve both turned to personal attacks. However, it is clear now that we are not in the same box. All I can do is urge you to explore outside your own box. Blowin’, if you feel your education has been provincial, then get out and see the world a bit. There is nothing like entering a foreign culture to make you realize how narrowly you see the world. Don’t go as a tourist – go and live somewhere for a year or more – obviously you’ll need to avoid the expat ghetto.

Sheldon, if you ever do get an idea of what a perfect socialist world would look like, do tell. That has been the point here – what is that socialist world. I don’t believe it can happen – it is an idea that has been tried and found wanting, just as we’re now seeing with capitalism. If you have some REAL arguments with support, I’d be interested.

I find that both of you agree that the theft of the factories is justified. You’re logic is that it was their labour that made the business possible. Clearly neither of you two have ever started a business. A business starts long before the workers arrive. The success of the Take is only due to circumstances. The workers had to have some capital to buy supplies, but the factories and shops were there already. I wonder what these guys would be doing if there wasn’t a readymade place for them to go into and work. I wonder what these people would have done if they hadn’t been previously hired into the business and trained. The Take only gives hope to the masses that after capitalism fails, they can continue their slave like existence, even if at better pay.

Since you guys don’t believe in property rights, I will never have to listen to you complain about anything being stolen – well “theft” doesn’t really exist. It’s just wealth redistribution.

You condemn the Athenians for their treatment of Socrates. But the Athenians were not socialists but slave holding republicans. Do you condemn all forms of democracy.

May I take it I am talking to an Islamofascist?

I might as well admit it I am a graduate of a very provincial university in a ver provincial part of the world. Nonetheless, my good professors prescribed for us a book with the laughable title “The Portable Karl Marx” in order no doubt to spare us the humiliation of quoting from the internet. It is by Eugene Kamenka, a Marx scholar, and it is very good. But it does not make any claim to a new interpretation of Karl. It is rather one of the many selections of Marx that make the commonplace point that Marx envisioned the withering away of the state. To quote Kamenka ” In 1843, on becoming more seriously aware of (French) socialism and of Moses Hess’ work on money, Marx proclaimed that such a transformation of society had for its prime targets the two fundamental conditions (and expressions) of human alienation: monet and the state. The struggle against these required not only philosophy but also ‘a material weapon’-the proletariat-the class outside existing society and the existing system of property which was fitted by its very deprivation to overcome the whole apparatus of social and economic coercion and to inaugurate the socirty of freedom”

To claim as you do that Marx envisaged a state over and above “the free association of producers” he thought must come into being completely misrepresents Marx and is to indulge in childish cautionary tales. The question of whether he was right is an open one. But deal with what he said.

But supermen do not starve children, do not deny them access to medicines for fear of losing their profits-supermen do not torture families with insecurity and ghettozation, supermen do not deprive their people of hope making them work harder and more efficiently only to make them poorer and more fearful.

Men who do this, and they are mainly men who do this are Hegel’s stupid, brutal and lonely masters-and they assure us, as you do, that it has always been so, and that no one need dare hope for any better thing than the brutal, stupid world, these supposed men have prescribed for all time.

But surely that is the question Petras is trying to address. Was it a fault in Marx’s descripton of reality or a series of strategic errors that occured in an ongoing revolution. After all if the revolution was defeated we cannot authomatically assume that this was because its aims were deficient. In any case since the present is no better than a future that never hapened are you proposing that we live without a future altogether? Or do you believe hunger, insecurity, injustice, humiliation, and possibly catastrophic war, not to mention inevitable ecological disaster constitute a future we can believe in?

As to the question about Marxists and Capitalists using the same means of production, do you seriously propose that production must take place by means unknown to either?

The question about marital disputes is not worthy of you.

The quotations from Marx from the net!?! What the hell are you playing at?

Finally, why are the property occupations theft-is it not enough that the worker’s built them in the first place only to be forced to strave while they stand idle lest they be called thieves? Really AJ, I am beginning to wonder at you.

And will the workers sell the product?-Well! What filthy swine they must be-Won’t the filthy swine wait for the impossible socialist future?

You admit this when you say in an offhand way ( the way one might dismiss the inevitable existence of base instincts in the best of men, that I must say I truly admire) if I might paraphrase you that business is a zero sum game. Unfortunately this has more than moral implications, and cannot simply be politely dismissed-though, as I say, my sympathy for the man or woman whose honour forces them not to see this is boundless. Nonetheless, it must be faced.

If business is a zero sum game it is contradictory-there must be a winner who wins by eliminating the competition and hence the motive for business, ie competition-if that is the motive-ceases. However in capitalism all motives are deeply obscure because capitalism is deeply contradictory. To take just one: Competition is supposed to lead to the production of an abundance of goods at the lowest possible cost and hence the lowest possible price but instead leads to monopoly-disinvestment in production and the production of fewer goods at the highest possible price-a price borne at both the production and consumption end by the worker.

Pre-capitalist societies could contain this contradiction and many others by means of laws made by eccesiatical authorities and enforced by the state, and these laws had the dual effect of restricting production and ensuring social stabilty, a stability that lasted almost 1000 years.

However once the capitalist path was taken everything had to fall before it, including time-honoured custom and even elementary justice.

THe worker under capitalism is reduced not to a philosophy studying craftsman or even streetsweeper but the appendage to a machine, a creature who has no liesure to study anything, who is forced by an economic position tantamount to slavery to do whatever he is told whether it is just or not, honourable or not, moral or not or be thrown into an industrial wilderness to die wilderness-how often do we see this-whole countries behind barbed wire, men begging for an oportunity to sweep the streets from dawn to dusk at incomprehensible borders. If this is not the case anywhere at for even the shortest period of time it is because workers have joined in solidarity AS workers across all thse stupid borders and forced an industrial truce. Whether they can even put an end to this system entirely is an open question. But that is what Petras is trying to debate.

As to the division of labour question. I believe I have answered it-if a man has the leisure ans security to study philosophy or to do anything else while contributing to the strictly material neds of his community then that is a just society. But, tell me AJ, where in the world is that the case, where in the world has it ever been the case in the last 300 years.

The socialist ideal is a world in which, yes, I suppose we do cure our own diseases, just as any truly human enterprise is a cooperative effort among equals-it is not an enterprise in which some people do things to others even for their own good, but where people do things with others for the common good, their own primarily included. The only question is: How do we get there, and what are the consequences if we do not try.

“Removing garbage should not be anyone’s profession. It is a simple task that can be performed by anyone and eveyone should have a turn at it.”

Right on man! What I always like to say is: In a just world, everybody would have to clean their own fucking toilet!

Hey modetators, how we can cuss a little here :)

Lets back up a little here. Originally, I called you out for simply ignoring what Petras wrote. Remember? Both explicitly and explicitly Petras criticizes the socialist experiments of the past. He acknowledges their failure, as do I. He does this to raise the question of what a viable, just and humane socialism should look like. A different socialism that steers a different path away from the very unpleasant experience of the authoritarian socialisms of the eastern block etc..
(I agreed with most of what Petras wrote, but I have some points of departure).
Immediately your comments proceeded to a point that completly ignored Petras’ article. You just insist on arguing about the socialist failures of the past. You assume that it is inevitable that all socialism must lead to the failures such as occurred in the Soviet Union. And throughout our discussion you continually throw up the same old tired platitudes.

I beg to differ. Could have history taken different paths?

The Soviet Union, came to be the society it was due to a variety of historical circumstances. It started out relatively under-developed, it was attacked from foreign imperialist powers, and then the revolutionary government was highjacked by Stalin. Here is an article that goes into greater detail.
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/socfrombel/sfb_6.htm

And we might also remember that even when a socialist government comes into power through democratic elections, such as Allende’s Chile, it is attacked and never allowed to develop peacefully.

Now I think there are some very good questions to explore about the possibilities, or not, of a viable socialist project. However, you insist on starting out with your assumptions, then we really have nothing to discuss, because you have already arrived at “the truth”.

Congratulations, you went to the Marxist internet archive and pulled some quotes. This does not impress me. Its kind of like the creationist who quote mine. You said this two posts into the past:
“Is your take on “socialism” really communism? ”

Now obviously there are different ways to use the same word. In popular parlance, the word “communism” refers to the authoritarian socialist states of the old Soviet Union etc.. And then there is the use of the word as is used in Marxist theory, which I attempted to explain.

“Now I honestly pulled this off the internet rather than dust off my books – but try as I might, I cannot recall where Marx said the State should disappear.”

Of course, because you never really bothered to have an open mind and learn about it, you already “know”. Regardless, the following page has quotes and links to the entire works where the hypothetical stage of communism is discussed and where “the state withers away”.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism

Like I have accused you before, and you are caught here PRETENDING to know something about those dusty old books. You could have done better research to be a convincing poseur.
I might add that I am dubious of the real possibility of “the state withering away”. But I have already stated the reason I brought it up.

“What about the institution of marriage? Do you want a committee voting to resolve your marital spats?”

Well of course not. See, now you are just being silly. You would rather shoot scatter shot strawmen arguments than have an honest discussion.

So I will address only one more point.

“But what is the difference between this business and a “capitalist” business? In the end both are out for profit, both create mass produced goods which will have to be sold, and both will be bad for the environment beacause the actual means of production hasn’t changed. Do you believe that the theft of the factories is justified?”

I cited the film “The Take” to illustrate a simple point. That working people have the potential to operate industries without bosses and owners. See the film, and tell me that this was dehumanizing to these workers. Them collectively taking a hopeless situation and becoming empowered.

You finally raise some good questions there. These worker’s cooperatives would be just one single but important building block in a much larger socialist project. What is produced, how much, how it is distributed, would very much need to be changed to create an eco-socialist society. Production for sustainable human needs, and not for consumption and profit as the ultimate ends in themselves would be another important transformation. And no I don’t have a complete idea of how and what that would look like.

“Do you believe that the theft of the factories is justified?”

Yes, absolutely. It is worker’s labor that made everything in that factory. Capitalists owners may risk capital, created from exploited labor, but workers create that wealth and they risk life, limb, and health.

First off, I will drop the discussion about the creation of capitalism because we obviously have come to an impasse. As far as Marxist and socialist terminology goes, I am more at trying to understand what Petras, and you in the mix, mean by socialism. You communicate to me that you are a Marxist and it would be easier for our discussions if you would be more direct.

“As in private life one distinguishes between what a man thinks and says of himself and what he really is and does, still more in historical struggles must one distinguish the phrases and fancies of the parties from their real organism and their real interests, their conception of themselves from their reality.” – Karl Marx

Trying to understand from you people what are the “phrases and fancies” from reality is something I find frustrating. There is no more straight talk these days and you would have me unshelve and dust off my old collection of books to have a conversation with you.

You mistake my “ignorance” of not understanding that the state should disappear in Marxist philosophy as exposing my pretentions.

“We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.” – Karl Marx

Now I honestly pulled this off the internet rather than dust off my books – but try as I might, I cannot recall where Marx said the State should disappear. Rather, all I can recall is as quoted above – that the workers merely take over the State. And this seemed to be the focus of a lot of political meetings too. Now, I can’t say that I have read absolutely everything Karl and Fred wrote – you are obviously more learned in this area. Do enlighten.

I don’t believe that the ultimate goal of socialist or Marxist is to eliminate the State – haven’t seen it in history, haven’t seen it in any of the literature – what have I missed Sheldon? Has there been some radical change since I shelved my books and gave up on the idea?

As far as democracy goes – you are starting to frighten me. You say “Well the goal should be a deepening of democracy that extends into direct control of economic institutions.” And then “And perhaps I shouldn’t just leave it at economic institutions, but all institutions.” Well, you still haven’t really defined your take on “democracy,” only now it seems more like Athenian democracy that got Socrates killed. You actually want everyone to monitor and vote on everything? We’d have no Socrates, no Einstein – I’m sure he’d have been voted out for his “loony” ideas much like some are losing their jobs these days because of their political beliefs. Intelligence cannot exist under the pressure of conformity. What about the institution of marriage? Do you want a committee voting to resolve your marital spats? This is rather typical of materialistic thinking – everything is defined by economics so everything needs to be controlled by some economic philosophy.

I had a look at the Argentinean neo-Marxist stuff. As it is, it looks great. If this becomes truly the norm, then I imagine the National Movement for Recovered Factories will become the new politburo – don’t you think so? But what is the difference between this business and a “capitalist” business? In the end both are out for profit, both create mass produced goods which will have to be sold, and both will be bad for the environment beacause the actual means of production hasn’t changed. Do you believe that the theft of the factories is justified?

There’s nothing wrong with someone being a garbage collector. It seems you have underlying assumptions about what is dignified and not – and again, because of your materialistic mindset, you have deemed garbage collecting as a way to even the class system. Why can’t society turn out billions of scientists, teachers, artist, doctors, AND garbage collectors. Is life drudgery because of work? Why do you need to be defined by your work? I know a street sweeper who has a fulfilled life – not because he’s a street sweeper, but because he is involved in philosophical studies as a student and teacher (nice hobby, no?). Street sweeping is how the guy makes the money he needs for living, but it doesn’t define him. One of Islam’s greatest religious philosophers, Imam Ghazali, cleaned public toilets as his job – still he is remembered for writing one of Islam’s greatest philosophical works which is still read and used 900 years later.

I do agree that western, credit-based capitalism is bad, among other reasons, because it produces mass produced goods – this in itself is dehumanizing and degrading. Just because the workers of the world own the factory that mass produce goods will not change anything in my opinion. The Luddites wanted to save craftsmanship because it is key to a person’s humanity. Consider the difference, for example, of going to get a tailor-made shirt versus buying a mass produced size medium. Which mode of production considers the person and which considers the person as a thing? In a mass produced world people always make compromises in order to live. If you actually had to get everything made for you, would you really need so much? A mass produced world always needs to produce need – even of the useless.

Petras’ article is not on the positive accomplishments of socialism – and I’m still looking. How will collective ownership be much different than individual ownership? A business is a business – either one guy is after profits or everyone is after profits. What changes in the end? Maybe you would suggest that we collect or own garbage, teach ourselves, cure our own diseases, paint our own pictures – or take turns at doing all these things for other people? Honestly, I have heard these pipedreams thousands of times. No one here has said anything new. The idea may look good in theory, yet I don’t see any success in reality. My belief is this is because people are looking at the wrong thing. Materialistic philosophies are concerned with materialism – not humanity. The end result of capitalism or socialism/communism or whatnot is the same.

Sumer and Akkadia, if you really look at them, are not much different in form from any modern society. True, their level of technology was far less than what we have – but that’s not my point. The basic attitudes and assumptions that people had have not changed for thousands of years. Take a look at American society – people work all week then they go out and have fun on the weekend. That’s their life – and so much like that of the Sumerian. Sumerians, like us, grappled with all the issues of life. The Epic of Gilgamesh, a story about the meaning of life and death, is Sumerian and is as current as any discussion on the subject today. The war between Ur and Uruk was about resources and who would be the slave of whom – quite a bit like Iraq today, no? You’re afraid of slipping back? My friend, we never went forward. Look at Sumerian, Roman, American society and politics – it’s all the same in the end, just the stage setting and costumes change. If anything has changed for the better, it is that we have managed to be more inclusive of others and have a better recognition of humanity. However, looking at the world today, you can still see lots of exclusions.

Feudalism was not a totally barbarous system. And feudal societies and semi-feudal societies existed alongside the great slave empires. It is possible to be romantic about feudalism. India undr the moguls was feudal and I would not, while deploring the servitude and ignorance, decry the beauty and grace of that world. Even the great slave empires were not without their redeeming features. The Roman republic was brutal but it was a republic and Greece was a slave society in which the welfare of slaves was preserved-up to a point-as a matter of law. Even the British empire while it was inventing its version of democracy countenanced slavery and then abolished it while remaining an empire and without having extended the franchise to its subjects at home or abroad. But this simply proves the point, that human beings reach for better things even when the general circumstances are vile-but that only real freedom can lead to real well-being and the end of absurd suffering.

Your question about labour time is quite central. Labour time in capitalism is not the measure of value but rather surplus labour time. Profit is the difference between what it costs the capitalist to sustain the labourer and what he can sell the product of the labourers labour for; in other words the labour time the worker does not get paid for. Because the surplus can never be consumed but must always be used to extract a greater surplus, no matter how much the society produces, the people are always poor. Moreover periodically such massive surpluses accumulate that they cannot be disposed of profitably and crisis-unemployment, hunger and war-breaks out. Hence, the only real question is how do we get out of this? Or: THe only question is: How do we profit from it? So. AJ. Where do you really stand? With the problem or with the solution?

Secondly, my argument about the time it takes to become a doctor is not directly linked to the cost in dollars or peso or whatnot. Sheldon is intelligent and I’m assuming there’s a shared understanding that time is a consideration in the production of anything, therefore there is a cost to consider. My point is that whether you study medicine in the US or Cuba, it takes a number of years past the basic education. This is opposed to garbage collecting which, let’s be honest, doesn’t even need a formal education to perform. My question, in the end, is whether it is fair to compensate everyone equally regardless of the job or the skills and education needed for the job. In the extreme, you’d have a society of doctors or garbage collectors – and that’s a society that cannot function.

Thirdly, you ought not make assumptions about people’s class. In the US, as with many western countries, class is linked to money and money is linked to education. However, it would be wrong to assume that poverty equals stupidity and wealth equals intelligence. You clearly don’t understand my point about Sumer. How is Sumer an “impenetrable darkness of the human soul?” Perhaps you should educate yourself on the matter.

As for my spirituality, it is not based on Nehru or Ghandi. It is more based on doing something positive despite the situation rather than crying about the situation and anyone’s miserable or exalted place in it. I am not against helping people as you assume. Here I am merely questioning whether Petras’ idea of socialism, shared by Sheldon and others, is really the answer – or will it bring more problems.

Lastly, my point in the end is that materialism is vile. It degrades and dehumanizes people. Whether you prefer socialism as a better sort of vile over capitalism doesn’t make much difference to me. I don’t share your opinion. I feel that capitalism works best – and works when working within another philosophy of social conscience which counters the degrading influences of materialism. Your mistake, I feel, is that you’ve put all your hopes into an economic philosophy that is, by its nature, not designed to really care about the human condition.

First, you can call the mecantilism of the ancient world as a form of capitalism if you want. Few anthropological theorists would agree. Regardless, even if I were to concede that point, there is still the point that the capitalism of today, conforming to the definition I offered, is a system that has a distinct line of historical development that has taken place within the last 500 years or so.

I can’t help but notice though that you are full of contradictions on these questions. Within the same paragraph you argue that things are very different from the 1800s (which is obviously true) , but then capitalism is this timeless system dating back to ancient Mesopotamia.

“Is your take on “socialism” really communism? Communism is now a loaded term. If this is your idea, I can understand why you are avoiding the term.”

First, it is immediately transparent that you have pretended to know something about basic Marxist/socialist ideas, when you don’t. If you did you would know precisely how the terms socialism and communism are used within the Marxist intellectual tradition. That is, the latter meaning the hypothetical advanced stage of socialism where class distinctions have ceased to exist and the state withers away.

And please note, once you have grasped this basic fact that the goal of socialism is not the strengthening of the state over people, but instead its subservience to working peoples’ will, and ultimately to its disolution, then your ideological caricatures seem meaningless.

“I disagree with your assumption that the capitalist system requires people to be unemployed and desperate to work. Is this not more a problem of demographics or population?”

Really, this is just basic empirical fact that both radical and conservative economists would agree on. If there is full employment, then this tips the balance of power to the hand of labor, thus threatening profits. To continually expand, and to increase profits, capital demands a reserve army of labor. This is what the phenomoena of globalization as well as the alleged problem of illegal immigration is all about. Capital moving production to places where labor is cheap and human beings are desperate for any kind of livelihood.

“You seem to sidestep my question by what you mean by democracy. You want democracy that controls economics – would that be the DDR democracy choice then? Why not just come out and say you want another chance at communist government – a kinder, gentler Soviet system?”

I did not sidestep the question at all. I said this: Well the goal should be a deepening of democracy that extends into direct control of economic institutions. A more direct form of partipatory democracy than our phony “representative democracy” controlled by corporations.

And of course this kind of democracy would require an engaged population, alot more politicized than the present American population.
And perhaps I shouldn’t just leave it at economic institutions, but all institutions.

I think the germ of the kind of radically democratic socialism is best represented by Peter Winn’s book Weavers of Revolution, where workers take the initiative of building the base blocks of a socialist society.
http://www.amazon.com/Weavers-Revolution-Workers-Chiles-Socialism/dp/0195045580/ref=sr_1_2/103-4176143-2805414?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219814965&sr=1-2

Or in the more recent film The Take, where Argentinian workers take over and re-start the factory that they have been locked out of.
http://www.thetake.org/

MAYBE, I will address more of your points and questions tommorow.

The point about capitalism is that it is the vilest kind of materialism not because it dares to assume that human life has a material basis but because it systematically obfuscates this fact. It makes human suffering a metaphysical conceit, exactly like a conceit in a poem only this epic is played out with real flesh and blood, the flesh and blood of the common people not the pigs who are edified by its spiritualization.

If you do not start with the actual conditions of life you end up not only thinking nonsense but thinking you are uncommonly virtuous in doing so.

As to the possibilities of socialism, that is a question for people who can think not idiots who think that real life is somehow too sordid and materialistic when lived by others and too elevated when lived by themselves.

I will probably get thrown off this website but honestly I cannot imagine why Sheldon bothers with you. You clearly know less than nothing-precisely less than nothing.

Secondly, the outlay of monies to become a doctor or whatever merely represents an investment, an investment capable of being made due to the privileged class position of the people wo make it-so your argument is looking a little circular-the upper-middle class invests in the education of their offspring expecting a return. So what?

Thirdly, your mastery of routine research reflects your class postion and the incapacity of its members for critical thought and illustrates my argument perfectly when you start talking about Sumer. How retrograde do you want to be? How about direct colonization and racism, an even more recent example of the impenetrable darkness of the human soul? Or is liberation only viable when it applies to you personally? Why don’t you grow a brain? You can afford to.

PS You idea of spirituality reeks of hypocrisy. Do you remember what Nehru said at the Red Fort? Do you recall what Ghandi stood for? They stood for socialism-the development of each as the condition for the development of all.