Lincoln's Socialist Tendencies
- Thread starter I'm Watermark
- Start date
Steelplate
New member
Labor is prior to, and independent of, Capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could not have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the Superior of Capital and deserves the much higher consideration - Abraham Lincoln
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
It just affirms the position of Michael Harrington - that socialism is the logical extension of liberalism. Any liberal that claims to be a democrat on any level must oppose wage labor. The two - democracy and capitalist labor economics - are... incompatible, really.
Steelplate
New member
I don't necessarily agree with that. I think they can coexist, if the people at the top of the food chain are decent people with a sense of community and patriotism.
There is nothing socialist about a worker opr group of workers negioating wages with an employer....nothing liberal about it either...
but laws that FORCE a worker to belong to a union for the right to have job are socialistic and are a afront to an individuals freedom.
laws the FORCE a worker to pay dues to a union against his will are socialistic and against a workers freedom.....
but laws that FORCE a worker to belong to a union for the right to have job are socialistic and are a afront to an individuals freedom.
laws the FORCE a worker to pay dues to a union against his will are socialistic and against a workers freedom.....
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Oh, that may well be true. But they still, by nature, steal from and restrict the creativity of workers.
Steelplate
New member
That's fine...but then don't expect union wages or benefits, or union representation if you make a mistake or if a boss has a personal beef with you.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Yeah, I agree with that - save the part about it being socialistic. Though, I'll make two points.
-Collectivism is a higher, more developed school of individualism. Simply, because it caters to the rights of all individuals, and accounts for the harm caused by class separation and inequality (Or, the right of an individual to stand above another, which is anti-individualist in essence.)
-This conversation is about wage labor and co-ops.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Let's see here...
-Lincoln's view of free labour was vastly different than Marx's. Lincoln's freedom sprang from within a free society and grew naturally. Marx's comes from violence, mass murder, and massive levels of theft, and grows from fear and tyranny.
-Collectivism is not a school of individualism; it stems from empire and royalty. Individualism stems from the republicicanism, and is built upon the beliefs that the good life is built in virtue. Both kingdoms abd republics pursue these philosophies in the hopes of strengthening themselves, rather than the simple glory/subservience of the people, but the means lead to massively divergent ends.
-Lastly, capital may indeed come from labour, but that doesn't give labour any magical rights or privileges when it is applied toward capital. You earn what is owed or promised to you, and nothing more.
-Lincoln's view of free labour was vastly different than Marx's. Lincoln's freedom sprang from within a free society and grew naturally. Marx's comes from violence, mass murder, and massive levels of theft, and grows from fear and tyranny.
-Collectivism is not a school of individualism; it stems from empire and royalty. Individualism stems from the republicicanism, and is built upon the beliefs that the good life is built in virtue. Both kingdoms abd republics pursue these philosophies in the hopes of strengthening themselves, rather than the simple glory/subservience of the people, but the means lead to massively divergent ends.
-Lastly, capital may indeed come from labour, but that doesn't give labour any magical rights or privileges when it is applied toward capital. You earn what is owed or promised to you, and nothing more.
Steelplate
New member
Actually...violence, mass murder and tyranny came after Marx...by those hungry for power instead of community.
Republicanism isn't the recipe for individualism. There are many Republican forms governments in the world, many of which are every bit as repressive and tyrannical as Communist ones. What makes ours special is that it's a Democratic Republic. That the people get a say in how our government is run...of course, that's not quite the case anymore....those with the money get the lion's share of the say.
Capital certainly isn't entitled to it either.
Tell me something. What do you think would happen if the entire workforce of the nation went on strike? Just how "important" would that capital be? However....if all capital left the country, the people still have skills, still have imaginations and still have the means to trade...even if it's a barter system for a while. Capital needs labor a hell of a lot more than labor needs capital. Because without the labor....there would be no capital..... so tell me again why capital is so untouchable?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
My turn.
- Marx really had two views. An inevitable, natural violent revolution, and democratic reform. And, generally, it's considered a kind of radical libertarianism, within academic circles - Marx himself actually fell closer to Bakunin than he did to Trotsky et al. So, yeah, tyranny and mass murder were the product of bureaucratic collectivists, not communists.
- There are two major manifestations of collectivist thought. The libertarian and the statist. I was referring to the latter.
- Haha, so the other two had errors in the facts you presented. But this is just an abstractish moral conception. So I might as well type out a similar bullet to yours.
The structure of capitalist labor is in no way self-justifying. If you're to say labor has no "magical rights or privileges when applied to capital", then I'll extend that to power. The notion that, just because property has already been removed from the commons, and that current structures allow exploitation, current structures of employment are ethical is purely inane. Yes, currently, "you earn what is promised to you, and nothing more", but this only applies to the proletariat - not the upper classes - and cannot hold itself up against reason or criticism. The "moral" foundation for such an argument is that, if something is so, it is just.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Property never belonged to the "commons." There is nothing to give or to take back, except by force of theft. Trotsky really gets a bad rap, seeing as he was driven out of Russia and murdered in exile - he never got a chance to show what kind of leader he would be. That said, you can never claim to be peaceful or outside of an establishment when you are celebrating murderous revolution. Marx knew perfectly well what he was advocating because he had the perfect hindsight of the French Revolution to observe. This society, at least, has no royalty or nobility - the is no institution granting anyone preferential contracts or claims upon anything. The only moral in a constitutional society is the legal and the contract.
Also, what precisely is collective about libertarian thought?
Also, what precisely is collective about libertarian thought?
Steelplate
New member
It doesn't grant preferential contracts or claims? The law isn't being manipulated by our most powerful?
Lastly...where did property come from and how did the well to do attain so much of it? Why is it in the hands of so few while the people that actually do the work have so little?
You don't think there's royalty or nobility here?
If that were the case, why is it that whatever socioeconomic level you were born in, the overwhelming odds are you will die in?
How is it our most powerful can petition the government and pretty much have every whim granted?
How is it that our electoral system virtually guarantees that nothing will change? That those with the money and power to elect our governmental representation will be the ones making policy?
Robo
Verified User
Actually, socialism is the natural extension of leftism not “traditional American liberalism.” The problem with y’all socialist is you haven’t a fucking clue of the differential between traditional American liberalism, i. e., The Traditional Liberalism of The Bill Of Rights, and Leftist Socialist Redistribution Social Engineering, i. e., Communism.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Uggg... I hate posts like that. Time to use bullets.
1. Yes, it did. Notably, in the stage directly before capitalist seizure.
2. it's more abolition of theft, than theft itself. Employers steal from, and inhibit the creativity of the workforce. What I'd like to do is allow employees to file for collective ownership. Sure, in some perverse definition, this is theft. But wage labor is not self justifying, and there's no getting around that.
3. Trotsky could have done some good for the SU, but during his time, he aided Lenin in shifting the country away from socialism. Honestly, from what I know, I'd have been more comfortable with Kerensky than Trotsky.
4. I'm not "celebrating murderous revolution". The reason Marx advocated this was because there were very few democratic systems to allow the implementation of socialism - as more came about, he made a shift to democratic reformism.
5. Yeah, that last bit just isn't true. At some point you need to let people's individual morals take precedence over authoritative institutions.
6. It depends upon what kind of libertarian thought. No, the U.S. definition of libertarian is not collectivist. But if you look at the actual meaning of the word, you'll find that it's original usage was to describe the anti-state sects of socialism. That, applied to it's new global context, is how I use it. So, moving on, those groups were incredibly collectivist. Their philosophies were based on a kind of "I scratch your back, you scratch mine", mindset. They believed in the democratization and decentralization of decision making, and, basically, a kind of commune.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Fair point. But I'm using liberal in the European sense - i.e. center (typically left) reformist. While the European liberals were generally left wing, they were still (usually) parliamentary capitalists, so the term fits.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
As per always, leftists confuse libertarianism with anarchy. How predictable...
Prior to capitalism, property did not belong to the commons - it belonged to the crown. The crown, in turn, could gift anything he wanted to his subjects, such as titles of nobility, lands, wealth, etc. In America, land grants were issued by the crown to corporations in the form of monopolistic charters. The first two of these charters were the Virginia Company of London and the Virginia Company of Plymouth. The Plymouth Charter was squandered, and later sold to the Massachusetts Bay Company, which settled within the confines of the original charter, and famously landed its ships at the site of Plymouth Rock.
Capitalism began to take root here as people were allowed to settle and purchase their own lands. A growing class of gentry emerged, whose prestige and power were based upon wealth and merit rather than upon titles of nobility and the pleasure of the state. Regardless of how you feel about private ownership, I will remind you once again that to try and seize or abolish it is both immoral and un-American. Our history began with private property and ownership, and can only screech to a halt when tyrants such as you force your feudalism upon us as the Norman French forced theirs upon Anglo-Saxon England.
To celebrate Marx is always to celebrate murderous revolution. It is what he wrote about, talked about, advocated, and reveled in. He was an evil man with murder in his heart, who believed in the mass theft of all private property for the pleasure of the state. That he saw the benefits of democratic processes is of little reform - democracy was used to implement Nazism, and has led to all sorts of horror. In a Republic such as America, the Constitution and individual liberty trumps democracy, which is fortunate - it makes communism patently unconstitutional in any public form.
Lenin transitioned the USSR away from what he initially established, because the economy was failing. Is anyone really surprised?
As it should be........80% or more or the workers get along just fine without unions and the unions can't stand it......
Steelplate
New member
Oh...don't get me wrong. I am not 100% Pro union. I view them as a necessary evil....they do love their power, but they also help the people who work for others so they don't get taken advantage of.
And yes, there are times when unions, in order to save face...or keep their memberships up, push too hard, especially in rough economic times. That's what happened in the 70's that brought about Reagan and his Union busting tactics in the early 80's..remember the air traffic controllers' strike? That particular piece of history started the downward spiral of union strength.
The strongest unions today are Public sector unions. Other than the NEA(teacher's union), most of them learned to give concessions when they needed to...but I ascribe that the stubbornness of the NEA to the fact that almost exclusively, school districts are local entities and draw from a much smaller group of members. A big fish in a little pond is more apt to control the rest of the fish.
For example....in my state...Pennsylvania, There hasn't been a general strike of Public Sector workers in close to 40 years. But with our school districts, who are all locally run, you see it at least once every year.
On a personal note...the only item that I would strike on is one....pensions. I have invested 24 years of my life into the Commonwealth. I still have three years of college education for my youngest to help pay for, and I have only 11 till I hit 35. That's not enough time to prepare for a retirement that you thought was going to be there and was promised as part of your terms of employment. I have no problem with going a different route with young employees and new hires. I know that circumstances have changed and that those changes will precipitate changes in employment...but it's unfair and unreasonable to go across the board.
