: Let's get one thing straight here. There is no such thing as capitalism . . . except in the particular minds of particular individuals here. We can go back thousands of years and produce situations that could easily be described as capitalism. Tradesmen and guilds have always had a wage relation with "a capitalist" and "a worker". And the ideas of "rule of law" and private property massively predate what you all consider "capitalism". Yes, indeed, M-C-M has existed for thousands of years, and it formed a tiny part of the overall economy, fuedal tenures, slave relations, or basic tribalism tended to predominate. Capitalism grew from the social logical roots of this sections of soceity, it is a society dominated by a specific section of society, by one certain class, proletarians have existed in many societies, but not on such a vast scale as we do now.
Capitalism is the society where Capital production is the *dominant* mode.
: Yes, Gideon does agree with myself and the Chicago School taht the IMF should be abolished. But no one else has given any other ideas, and I'm sorry, but "abolishing money and the nation-state" goes well beyond silly; I laugh my ass off every time I read it.
And along with it goes socialising the means of production, instututing democratic control over production, etc.
: You might respond that "capitalism came quickly", but remember that "capitalism" is a nominal description from your particular minds.
OK- our current society came about very quickly, and is demonstrably very diffferent from teh society that preceded it.
: The nation-state, while I'm not a big fan of it, is currently what allows people to rationally and socially interact with one another so as to have an idea where they stand in relation to one another.
But it didn't exist before the English revolution- Englands a bad example, because our coast line gives the illusion of stable boundaries, but even here Government was spread out among Fuedal baronies, there was no real national power base, people related in terms or a relationship to the person above them in the fuedal chain. Round my way was the Land of The Prince Bishops.
England evolved as the City State of London, and came about because of the power fo the merchants there. France ahd to be created, as did Germany, etc. People have oterh recognisable relationships other than that of the state- which is more or less a unit of property.
: I have a good idea what would appear: ancient tribalism.
Why do you think this? Something more than your 'opinion' would be nice.
: But this would no more be common ownership then what currently exists. Sure single ownership would end, but exclusion of access to property would be greater than ever as small groups sought each other out for means of providing consistency in interactsions.
No, because we are part of a world wide system of production now, and its those networks of production that would provide teh basis for world unity and interaction
.
:. I can never criticize your conception of what you see as "capitalism". Such a concept is a particular public manifestation fo a private event, but make no mistake the idea of "capitalism" is solely one of your particular representation of the world.
We have listed time and again the *specific* actions, and events that we think make capitalism. It is these specific actions we want to do away with, rather, that we, the Socialist party, want to, I shan't retend to speak for others here.
: Society, as a whole, evolves independent of "rational" planning. This has been the course of history and no one here has shown otherwise.
I agree, usually advocates of planning asume a stable point from without the system, by which to plan, what i mean by it is simply freeeing up all those individual consciousnesses to make plans, and interact with oneanother, withing a different system, plan their own lives, rather than be a victim of the flaws in the system.
None.
