Nat TurnerI am obviously new here. But I have a friend, Comrade Zeus. To introduce myself I first would like to tell you that I am from South California, I am a believer in communism, but I could change as quickly as I did with capitalism. Also I am open-minded.
But now to the matter at hand. Since I am new I felt it important to get to know the major players in this debate, to name a few; Gerard, Dan, and Stu. But I was appalled when I looked at Nat's writings. Or to the point the majority of his writings were narrow minded and weakly researched. To show you I would like to give you several occasions in which Nat did not research, appeared narrow minded, or ignorant to the world, capitalism, and communism.
(1)D, 297'Nat had said in reactions to forms other than capitalism "Why not consider ways of making the current system more fair, rather than some mad revolution, peaceful or not? Wouldn't it be possible to restructure taxes and prices in such a way as to smooth out some of the system's rough edges?" The fact of the matter this "mad revolution" has no merit in the Communist Manifesto. (to make it easier the 'CM') I have read the CM and nowhere does it suggest a "mad revolution" would occur. Also to "Wouldn't it be possible to restructure taxes and prices in such a way as to smooth out some of the system's edges?" the answer in yes, this is what the CM suggest in less words than 23 pages.
(2)As I read his writings I noticed he thought in terms of Capitalism and Non-Capitalism. That is the same as saying there is only two forms of government; Democracy and Non-Democracy. Throughout his writings he would constantly do this.
(3)D 8, 97' Nat said "Zeus does admit that Eastern Europeans overthrew their Communist master in an attempt to gain democratic freedoms. Many of these Eastern Europeans sacrificed their lives.
If this does not speak in favor of Capitalism, I'm not sure what does." Well, as Comrade Zeus and I have recently sent strat, according to the CM Democracy and Communism are to fit with each other, and are not counterpart governments. Just because they "over threw there communist masters" does not mean this speaks for Capitalism.
(4)D 8, 97' Nat said "Even Socialists who advocate seizing factories have offered no new technology that would enable us to exist without factories." I give your one example; Morris, the man that invented the telegraph. Which is what this Internet is based on, was a socialist in England. The telegraph has greatly contributed to the reduced need for factories.
(5)D 8, 97' Nat said "In Socialist economies, the environment doesn't fare much better." The truth is that even the Soviet Union had a better record on environmental matters. In fact the Russian counterpart of the Mississippi, the Volga, is clean enough to use as a beach. The Mississippi is not. In fact the Volga is one of courses the Russian cruise ships take.
(6)D 8, 97' Nat said "Yet another bloody revolution followed by years of experimentation under a socialist system doesn't seem like a wise gamble to make with Earth's five billion lives." The CM does not suggest a "bloody revolution" at all. And "experimentation" with new forms of government is precisely what America did, and it is obvious that you would not disagree with that "experimintation".
(7)D 8, 97' Nat said "Remember that nobody has ever seen this Socialism thing work before." Well, there are many tribes of people in the Amazon and other places that do live by the guide lines the CM sets out, but never even have heard of the CM.
(8)D 8,97' Nat said "Capitalism on the other hand has a good track record." (the subject of the posting was on the envirernment) He never goes on to describe to us how he came to this conclusion. It is a known fact that Capitalism is one of the worst forms of economy on the environment. It creates a train of thought that convinces each person that he must do whatever in his/her power to provide the most amount of capital that is possible. Unfortunately the train of thought that follows that is that just because I pollute doesn't mean the world will end. All I need to prove this is to look at the . Chicago river, Mississippi, Black Forest, and the grasslands formally known as England's forest But what it appears Capitalist want a world of capitalist economies, and this, based on their "track record" will certainly not be very peasant for the future.
(9)D 8, 97' Nat said "Goods are produced, people are employed, and most people in the world favor it." Weather or not people "favor it" is not saying much. Consider Nazi Germany. Most people in Germany believed in Nazism, but that was mainly on the word we Communist know and hate, Propaganda. Propaganda can convince "most people in the world" to do nearly anything. But Democracy (most of the time) allows people to go out and find this propaganda and show it to the world. For instance I know of a company that is currently looking at "Gulf War syndrome." They have found that (most likely) "Gulf War syndrome" is trace to vaccinations given in anticipation to the use of chemical weapons. Well, the vaccines did not work as planed. Also a poll taken by the government to see the opinions of the American people found that about 75% of people would support the Gulf War if there were casualty less than 1000. (it was 56% in England) Considerably less would support the war if there were over 1000 deaths. And so it appears started a large campaign to convince the world that the Gulf War had very few deaths. 131 on the 'coalition' side, and 250,000 on the Iraqi side, only 100,000 were military. This is just too out of hand. (sorry I got off subject)(also, you will note that once my friend Comrade Zeus had said 5,250,000 persons died. He had accidentally or intentionally done this. And this is adding a UNICEF estimate on future deaths of children (5,000,000) and the actually death rate.(250,000)
(10)D 8, 97' Nat said "When the price of butter goes up, farmers step up their production to meet demand. If the farmhands object, they will strike and force the farmer to pay better wages (note that the right to strike is essential to capitalism)" First off, when the price of butter goes up farmers do not allow increase butter production, in fact very often the American government will pay off farmers not to grow to keep prices down, this is not what you consider capitalism, this is a group of government workers thinking of the future, trying to keep the prices down. In the case of Tobacco $50,000,000,000 a year goes out to farmers not to grow. (this according to Bill Clinton in a speech on teen smoking) Second the "right to strike is essential to capitalism", although it is not "essential" to communism, it is not stopped, in fact the CM supports trade unions forming.
(11)D 8, 97' Nat said "Sears, Roebuck is a giant American retailer. This firm once controlled an insurance, real-estate, credit card, and stock brokerage subsidiary. The conglomerate was too difficult to administer under a command system and had to be broken up û so the more efficient price system could take over.
How productive would a single worldwide conglomerate be?"Please look at General Electric. The owner of Time-Warner, which owns CNN, TIME, NBC, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, And Waner Brothers, which owns several TV stations. (the WB network) Also GE owns the rights to several airplane companies that themselves receive billions yearly. This command system has no need to break up, but also is larger now than Sears, Roebuck ever was.
(12)D 8, 97' Nat said "Even thought we would all be shareholders,(in Communism) our shares wouldn't be worth much. So much effort would be wasted on layer after layer of unproductive management" I don't know how shares of the companies creates "layer after layer of unproductive management", in addition, Capitalism it self produces "layer after layer of unproductive management", in the CM the Bourgeois (owners of factories and companies) are proven to be the producers of bureaucracy, and compel all net profits to be directed at the companies' executive board.
(13)D 8, 97' Nat said "Capitalism is superior not only because it better reflects human nature, but because it better reflects to inherent difficulties in managing a global economic system." I must say that that statement would be 100% true if one added a 'not' right after "Capitalism is" The reason for this is because human nature is greedy, and capitalism reflects and personifies "human nature."(greed) Capitalism reflects and personifies the "inherent difficulties in managing a global economic system." (we will go over this later)
(14)D 9, 97' Nat said "The 1987 Stock crash is a good example. Wealthy investors misread the economy and overbid the prices of capital (firms). They paid for their foolishness with their fortunes when the market fell." According to every source I have read or watched or listened to the crash on October 1987 (Black Friday) was not "foolishness" of "wealthy investors" but rather over eager software of Mutual funds etc. which were programmed to sell at a certain channel. Slowly the more "liberal" funds sold which brought the prices down to levels which make the "conservative" funds sell allowing the market to fall, not investors misreading.
(15)D 9, 97' Nat said "Titoism only solves part of the price problem. Breaking up the State in smaller firms my (may) make management easier, but where will these managers get their information?" The same place as now, simply lissoning to the people Viz. If they see a better price at another shop that is < profit the people simply shop for the item in question there. Nat also says "If consumers cannot signal their needs by bidding up prices on certain goods, the State will be forced to guess, or decide by fiat what they think the people "need". And if they are wrong, a recession will followà or there will be too few pairs of shoes for the coming winter. (either that or people get an extra pair(I must agree, either way there screwed(sarcasm))). And about the "State will be forced to guess, or decide by fiat what they think the people "need". I previously proved that nowhere in the CM does it suggest that the "State" will be in charge o the prices of any one item.
(16)D 9, 97' Nat said "I can find nothing in any description of Socialism to suggest that it would be better at innovation and much to suggest it would be much worse." Nor can I find in any description of Capitalism that would show innovation would be increased, but to answer that, one merely looks at the past. And to contradict the said statement one merely looks at the past. Look at Nazism, one should call it sicialism, at least how the economy ran, but they still managed to get rockets into outer space. (V2) Although the first jet was invented in England, Germany perfected it as the modern (1945) fighter. So to the said statement, I have proven you (Nat) wrong.
(17)D 9, 97' Nat said "My point is that only the incentive of profit can mobilize the best minds against the problems we face. Whatever new technology we develop well be directed towards the hungry people in the world." The first man was put in to space, the first Americans put into space, and the first people to break the sound barrier were not in the industry of making money. In fact most were payed simply military wages. G-10s etc. I, and I'm sure that most of my comrades would agree that the assumption that the only way to get things done is to put money on the table is preposterous, Sophist ideals. I for one would be happy to work in a state that is not based on greed and injustice. And to the statement that all new technology will be directed at hungry people in not imaginable, at least not in this time.
(18)D 9, 97' Nat said "Earth has hundreds of millions of unemployed peopleà we need to get these people into the capitalist system so that they can start earningàand eating." This statement is just as true if one were to change the word 'capitalist' with the word communist. And to the fact of the matter is that many of the world's poorest nations, or 'third world' if you like, have been assimilated into capitalist systems long ago. Much of the US's products are created in the 'Third World' 'sweat shops' which are owned by Capitalist companies such as Macy's and Sears. In fact capitalism has been allowing 'Third World' despots like Pol Pot to thrive in capitalist economies. And force the proletariat citizens to poverty. Also, many times you say that the right to strike for better wages etc. is essential to capitalism. Well, in these 'Third World' countries their is no one, or few, to stop the strikers from getting killed, as they commonly do. In fact just this year a union organizer only 10 years old who helped start a union that was over a 100,000 strong, but he was killed by 'Third World' Capitalists, like Pol Pot.
(19)D 9, 97' Nat said "It takes minds to invent machines and it takes hands to use them. These are the true means of production. Under Capitalism, hands and minds are owned by the workers" Well, to put it explicitly, the same is true in the CM.
(20)D 9, 97' Nat said "In America, when workers with hold their labor, production stops. Witness the UPS strikes. While the system is not perfect, workers have a lot of negotiating power." I please ask you; where in the CM does it say any thing which would lead anyone to the conclusion that workers in Communism could not strike?
(21)D 9, 97' Nat said "In America, most of the factories and land are owned by a small number (20%) of the people, but the rest of the country still does very well because they always own their own laboràand can demand a fair price for it." In communism one can do the same. Also, if those 20% of people were only given the average salary and the rest of the capital went to taxes, or a form there of, there would be no more income taxes at all.
(22)D 10, 97' Nat said "It would be wonderful to begin each lunch with a glass of all-natural, fresh-squeezed, orange juice. But this product requires a lot of labor and environmental resources to produce. Until we get better technology, Earth can't supply this good to every body." Yet the day before he had said "I love to eat steak. It requires large amounts of resources labor to produce a steak dinner. I work extra hard so I can afford to have one every now and then. Under Socialism, who would determine how much steak I'm allowed to have? Who, other than myself, the chef, and the farmer has the right to make this decision?" Did you notice this contradiction?
(23)D 10 D 9, 97' Nat said advertising is non-violent and non-coercive. You don't have to buy the stuff if you don't want to."à"Rather than lead over all of our labor to some central planner, we can choose to only work for what we want." Again, I see not where you get this information about a "central planer". I assure you no where in the CM does it state this. In fact that would create a bourgeois class, which is what the CM tries to stop. You sate that advertising is "non-coercive" but somehow you have found these capitalistic dogmas which have lead you to believe communism stands for "central planers". Call it 'Selective Education' when we were in grade school, or whatever, but your statement has no merit.
(24)D 10, 97' Nat said "Rather than lead the world on some wild Socialist adventure, wouldn't it be better to just modify Capitalism?" "Socialist adventure"? Where does he get this? Also the same adventure that capitalism has lead us? We would not be here arguing you comrades if we thought capitalism was better. Also to the question; "wouldn't it be better to just modify Capitalism?" , I have found is your standard question, and I would have to answer yes, "modifying capitalism" is what communism wishes, but what should be obvious to anyone after one "modifies capitalism" it is no longer capitalism.
(25)D 12, 97' Nat said "Suppose we can only afford to give everybody "x" amount of goods? Why not make them happier by providing "x" in many colors, flavors, and brand-names? We can do this without using up more resources." Why would Nat assume that we would not providing "x" as many colors, flavors, and brand-names. Perhaps he assumes that in a Communist state individuality would be look down upon, and he might get this impression from the counties widely considered communist (Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.)were militant, which appears that everyone is the same in the exterior, because of training that taught them to be discipline. Well, no all communist counties were militant, and all don't have to be. So please don't think that we would not want people happier by providing "x" as many colors, flavors, and brand-names.
(26)D 16, 97' Nat said "My point is that a system of currency is meaningless unless prices are free to change" If one would assume that only a capitalist economy is the only place where "prices are free to change" one would be wrong. This is just another time when Nat has used his assumptions on other forms of economy. Once again making a mockery of what we hold to be true.
(27)D 17, 97' Nat said in the question of what is communism; "Everybody works. All the goods are turned over to the government. The government decides who get how much of each good. the people elect the government." According to the CM all goods are not turned over to the State, but rather sold to businesses that buy the state produced goods, which intern sell those goods, just like in capitalism, in fact the largest difference between capitalism and Communism is that Communism does not allow places of mass production (namely factories) to be owned by any person or persons. Also the government does not decide who gets how much of each good, but rather the people decide how much of each good they get, or how much they can afford. People can have different size houses, more cars than another, more food, and more independent time in Communism. And lastly; the people don't have to elect the people, it all depends on what form of government the Communism exist in.
(28)D 17, 97' Nat said (on how capitalism works in USA) "The government taks (takes) a third of the goods. You trade what's left with your neighbor to get what you want. The givernment (government) gives it's third to the people who still don't have "enough" after the trading is done." This is not so, trillions (more than half it's third) goes directly to the military. 100,000,000,000 goes directly to NASA, and the rest are spread throughout the other sub-agencies.
As you can see, since Nat has been here, he has incorporated capitalist propaganda, his teachings under 'Selective Education', and petty inconsistencies. He is so consumed with finding what is wrong, when he finds something right he can only say "thing aren't prefect. But, I'm unwilling to scrap all we've gained so for and start from scratch" which itself is would be against the CM. If we wish to have a perspicacious debate on the subject of Capitalism, and it's Alternatives we must stop having the said actions embodying the debate. And I wish Nat would consider this argument on his ability to argue justly.
Thank You
-Comrade October
