govt uses..[issues]..coin
business uses paper

both interact..via credit
local counties..can even barter with exchange rates

use a lot..pay a lot
use less...pay less

get greedy

please explain

we begin with staking a claim
have a ownership local census

we must declare
egsactly..what we claim to own
then what remains unclaimed..is run by the state

because only the living can own
dead corperate intrests...are patent rights

only the living can own..
no ltd/..corperations..owning corperations..ltd

anti said...""unless you can come up with some entirely new formulation of the relationships between people.""

how about this one mate
govt cant own anything..but what it holds by trust
on behalf of all the people..

[ie cant sell off the nbn..nor telstra..
nor water/roads/power..or even water

yes living servants..can adminerster them
but only..we the people hold ownership

and we..*all share..in the dividends..
and price is based simply on cost recovery

big users pay the most
small users get the best price
use more pay more

'"I can't see how it is possible
to sustain a large welfare state
in the absence of a capitalist economic base.""

thats too easy
govt generates..'money'..by servicing the peoples needs
it pays out to repair..restore...and ensure the survival of the least[equally as it supports the most]

we as far as govt is concerned..are all equal
we all deal exclusivly in coin..or credit..with local currency

issued specificly to local
councils to expend locally

that local banks can collect and lend locally
but that can be nationalised..then traded by capitalists..[as credit]

that is taxed by transaction and according to the mass of it 'on the move'..if it leaves the state..or council or cuntry it has a different...'transaction tax rate'


govt uses [issues]..coin
business uses paper

both interact via credit
local counties can even barter with exchange rates

use a lot..pay a lot
use less...pay less

get greedy
please explain

we begin with staking a claim
have a ownership local census

we must declare what we claim to own

because only the living can own

dead corperate intrests...are patent rights
only the living can own..no corperations owning corperations

Yabby,

My point about the peasant owning the spinning wheel was that he owned the means for his own production. Industrialism usurped his autonomy in this respect by taking the means out of individual hands and placing it with those who possessed the capital. What they did in the communist model was to follow an industrial model where the state held ownership on behalf of the people.... to go forward with a foot n both camps.

I believe "industrialisation" has radically altered man's state and his relationship with material reality. My idea of owning the means of production is one where an individual impacts his environment in a self-motivated and creative way.

But, of course, I'll be accused of wanting to send us back to caves, peasantry or smoking dope in Byron Bay......I'm merely making an observation of the way humans throughout most of known history have interacted with their environment

Dear OUG,

Most Jews in Russia were desperately poor and had no wealth to take with them. My father and the family lived in a hut with a dirt floor.

Antiseptic,
I can't speak for anyone else but I have no sense that socialism is a necessity, or that capitalism is expendable. As Peter says, we already live under socialism, or big government, only it also incongruously maintains disparities between rich and poor. I say we have to find other ways for people to distinguish themselves, rather than accumulation, or rewarding them with obscene amounts of money and concomitant power.
I haven't said capitalism's expendable. I've even said the opposite many times, that capitalism is now "too big to fail". That doesn't alter the fact that fail it will if Marx is correct. It's humans that are and ever have been expendable!

davidf:
<To expect any system to be uniformly good and have no deleterious effects outside of the nation is unreasonable utopianism>

David, I don't believe in utopianism and neither did Marx. Neither do I see discrete "systems" (called countries); I see one system that disparitely connects all countries in a grossly unfair, inhuman and unsustainable dispensation, and I do believe the inequities could be addressed, though certainly not by capitalism!
As I've said ad nauseam, I don't defend or support any of the corrupt regimes you keep invoking, and neither did Marx.

Yabby:
<Squeers and Poirot, being altruistic types, think that Marx was
correct and that human nature will change without that evil capitalism
and if people are reeducated in the correct manner>

I've never said that and neither did Marx. Marx didn't believe in "human nature". In his early works he talks about "species being", but that was tied up "precisely" with its evolutionary development! Neither Marx nor I have romantic notions of human goodness, only human "potential". You forget that Marx, like Freud, was "part" of that materialist world-view that Darwin heralded. We are not "motivated by enlightened self-interest", we are psychically-constructed by our culture and motivated according to that culture's dictates, which includes being conflicted by its institutions (like the church, patriotism, heterosexuality..)
Why do you assume those you disagree with fit the intellectual cliches that you've collected in the place of genuine understanding?

Poirot & Squeers,

So, concerning the peasant at her spinning wheel ........ the Enlightenment philosophers' attention to the individual was progessive ? Yes, I would assert that it was/is, and that any future society must take into account the legitimacy of individual aspirations, and individuality generally.

My reading of Marx's 'On the Jewish Quesiton' is that he is totally hostile to this, and for this reason, opposes any move towards equal rights (so bourgeois) for Jewish people, indeed for all people: only under socialism would there ever be genuine equality, with all individuals mashed into a sort of people's soup.

If socialism means the suppression of individual foibles, then I've been following the wrong star for fifty years. Limitations on excess, yes, but not suppression.

Joe

Dear Squuers,

You wrote: davidf:
<To expect any system to be uniformly good and have no deleterious effects outside of the nation is unreasonable utopianism>

David, I don't believe in utopianism and neither did Marx. Neither do I see discrete "systems" (called countries); I see one system that disparitely connects all countries in a grossly unfair, inhuman and unsustainable dispensation, and I do believe the inequities could be addressed, though certainly not by capitalism!
As I've said ad nauseam, I don't defend or support any of the corrupt regimes you keep invoking, and neither did Marx.

Dear Squeers, I never said that Marx supported corruption. I wrote that he supported tyranny and cited passages in the Manifesto such as government control of expression and the elimination of bourgeois protections against state oppression to demonstrate that contention. The bigot might have expected the tyrannies he advocated to be free from corruption.

The bigot prescribed tyranny, and Lenin did his best to fill the prescription. Some leftists with open eyes such as Emma Goldman saw right away that the Leninist state she and my uncle left in 1921 was a tyranny. Marx did not support corruption, but he supported tyranny. That's what he got. The tyranny was supposed to lead to something better in the future. I'm afraid that if you start out with tyranny you're going to end up with tyranny.

There is much that is unfair in our present system, but the bigot advocated stripping the protections against state tyranny that existed in the current system. I have cited those passages. Whatever he wanted he simply made things worse.