NationStates Jolt Archive

The people of Pan-Icaria demand that it be recognised that the exploitation of one man by another is fundamentally wrong and that to do so is to become a punishable offence

1/3 of people dont have safe water supply
20 million die each year of malenutrition
>850 million suffer from malenutrition
the worlds 300 richest have as much (money) as the 5 BILLION poorest.

THIS IS A MATTER OF URGENCY FOR ALL HUMANITY

1/3 of people dont have safe water supply
20 million die each year of malenutrition
>850 million suffer from malenutrition
the worlds 300 richest have as much (money) as the 5 BILLION poorest.

THIS IS A MATTER OF URGENCY FOR ALL HUMANITY
And banning capitalism will fix this how?

Also, there will still be capitalist nations outside the UN... And they'll all be richer than you.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.
In a society without profit there is no progress, and without profit you cannot improve the coniditions of the rest of the world without falling to their level.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.
In a society without profit there is no progress, and without profit you cannot improve the coniditions of the rest of the world without falling to their level. Profit is defined as being the result of exploitation. The idea that it is somehow to do with progress is a mis-interpretation of the word. A very servere misinterpreation. Let me ask you, do you believe that the "progress" made in the Soviet Union was somehow linked with the small amounts of profit drained from it by the beurocrats

1/3 of people dont have safe water supply
20 million die each year of malenutrition
>850 million suffer from malenutrition
the worlds 300 richest have as much (money) as the 5 BILLION poorest.

THIS IS A MATTER OF URGENCY FOR ALL HUMANITY

...and [what a surprise] the poorest mostly live in noncapitalist countries.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.
In a society without profit there is no progress, and without profit you cannot improve the coniditions of the rest of the world without falling to their level. Profit is defined as being the result of exploitation. The idea that it is somehow to do with progress is a mis-interpretation of the word. A very servere misinterpreation. Let me ask you, do you believe that the "progress" made in the Soviet Union was somehow linked with the small amounts of profit drained from it by the beurocrats

Wealth is NOT zero-sum. If I go into the office and get a $10,000 raise tomorrow that doesn't mean that you will be making $10,000 less.

All people profit... yes even sweatshop workers in the third world, as multinationals pay 2 to 3 times more than local labor does.

1/3 of people dont have safe water supply
20 million die each year of malenutrition
>850 million suffer from malenutrition
the worlds 300 richest have as much (money) as the 5 BILLION poorest.

THIS IS A MATTER OF URGENCY FOR ALL HUMANITY

...and [what a surprise] the poorest mostly live in noncapitalist countries.
Wrong. On Earth, Cuba is well ahead of the rest of the Alliance for Progress with better hospitals and education despite THE AMERIKKKAN EMBARGO and the CIA SPONSORED TERROR comitted by Omega 8. As for China, well that's capitalist nowadays and the EASTERN EUROPEANS are getting POORER WITH CAPITALISM except for the oligarchs.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.
In a society without profit there is no progress, and without profit you cannot improve the coniditions of the rest of the world without falling to their level. Profit is defined as being the result of exploitation. The idea that it is somehow to do with progress is a mis-interpretation of the word. A very servere misinterpreation. Let me ask you, do you believe that the "progress" made in the Soviet Union was somehow linked with the small amounts of profit drained from it by the beurocrats
No, how do you think most modern inventions are made usable-MONEY. The only other way they could do that is under threat of death (War). So. your wonderful Soviet Union did so much for it's people by saying they basically had to do the job they were given or die. And your wonderful USSR, they cared about the people so much they spent all their money trying to keep up with the American military, and forgetting things like bridges, roads, and other public service projects.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.
In a society without profit there is no progress, and without profit you cannot improve the coniditions of the rest of the world without falling to their level. Profit is defined as being the result of exploitation. The idea that it is somehow to do with progress is a mis-interpretation of the word. A very servere misinterpreation. Let me ask you, do you believe that the "progress" made in the Soviet Union was somehow linked with the small amounts of profit drained from it by the beurocrats
No, how do you think most modern inventions are made usable-MONEY. The only other way they could do that is under threat of death (War). So. your wonderful Soviet Union did so much for it's people by saying they basically had to do the job they were given or die. And your wonderful USSR, they cared about the people so much they spent all their money trying to keep up with the American military, and forgetting things like bridges, roads, and other public service projects.
I don't support the Soviet Union and the AVERAGE LABOURER recieves 1/10 of the wealth he generates making no profit


To make profit is to recieve more capital than the wealth you generate

1/3 of people dont have safe water supply
20 million die each year of malenutrition
>850 million suffer from malenutrition
the worlds 300 richest have as much (money) as the 5 BILLION poorest.

THIS IS A MATTER OF URGENCY FOR ALL HUMANITY

...and [what a surprise] the poorest mostly live in noncapitalist countries.
Wrong. On Earth, Cuba is well ahead of the rest of the Alliance for Progress with better hospitals and education despite THE AMERIKKKAN EMBARGO and the CIA SPONSORED TERROR comitted by Omega 8. As for China, well that's capitalist nowadays and the EASTERN EUROPEANS are getting POORER WITH CAPITALISM except for the oligarchs.
No, go look at those communist nations in Africa and Asia, wow, they're living so much better than those disgusting Americans. Clearly that is the kind of government the world needs. Actually, China is a communist nation adopting some capitalist policies. Oh, and North Korea! What a great nation, starving to death.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.
In a society without profit there is no progress, and without profit you cannot improve the coniditions of the rest of the world without falling to their level. Profit is defined as being the result of exploitation. The idea that it is somehow to do with progress is a mis-interpretation of the word. A very servere misinterpreation. Let me ask you, do you believe that the "progress" made in the Soviet Union was somehow linked with the small amounts of profit drained from it by the beurocrats
No, how do you think most modern inventions are made usable-MONEY. The only other way they could do that is under threat of death (War). So. your wonderful Soviet Union did so much for it's people by saying they basically had to do the job they were given or die. And your wonderful USSR, they cared about the people so much they spent all their money trying to keep up with the American military, and forgetting things like bridges, roads, and other public service projects.
I don't support the Soviet Union and the AVERAGE LABOURER recieves 1/10 of the wealth he generates making no profit


To make profit is to recieve more capital than the wealth you generate
Why is that a good thing, only getting 1/10th of what he makes? IT's not, but it's happening in most communist nations. That's why communist nations starve and live in crap, and capitalist nations like the US are so freaking rich.

So you ignore the good example of Cuba. You ignore the fact that murder rates are on the up in China because of social inequality. You ignore the fact the the peace loving U$ ripped up three countries back in the sixties and as for Africa, it has been the subject of pillage for years. The AIDs ridden cappie countries have hardly spared any thought for the African people either.

When I reffered to 1/10 of what he recieves I was talking about the average labourer INTERNATIONALLY under capitalism.

Etheopia is cappie
S. Africa is cappie
They so fecking rich?

So you ignore the good example of Cuba. You ignore the fact that murder rates are on the up in China because of social inequality. You ignore the fact the the peace loving U$ ripped up three countries back in the sixties and as for Africa, it has been the subject of pillage for years. The AIDs ridden cappie countries have hardly spared any thought for the African people either.
Cuba is not the world, and some day Fidel will die.
In China, the unemployment rate went down for a long time because of communist policies. Yes, they might have been poor as cowpie, but at least they were EQUAL.
In fact, saying only capitalist nations have AIDS problems is BS, the communist nations without AIDS are often getting things like Ebola, Malaria, whatever.

So you ignore the good example of Cuba. You ignore the fact that murder rates are on the up in China because of social inequality. You ignore the fact the the peace loving U$ ripped up three countries back in the sixties and as for Africa, it has been the subject of pillage for years. The AIDs ridden cappie countries have hardly spared any thought for the African people either.

When I reffered to 1/10 of what he recieves I was talking about the average labourer INTERNATIONALLY under capitalism.

Etheopia is cappie
S. Africa is cappie
They so fecking rich?
Actually, South Africa is possibly the richest nation in Africa due to the fact that they are the most naturally rich in minerals.

So you ignore the good example of Cuba. You ignore the fact that murder rates are on the up in China because of social inequality. You ignore the fact the the peace loving U$ ripped up three countries back in the sixties and as for Africa, it has been the subject of pillage for years. The AIDs ridden cappie countries have hardly spared any thought for the African people either.

When I reffered to 1/10 of what he recieves I was talking about the average labourer INTERNATIONALLY under capitalism.

Etheopia is cappie
S. Africa is cappie
They so fecking rich?

Whoa Ethiopia is capitalist? Please read on economics. Capitalism is the protected private ownership of property and the menas of production. It involves a viable legal system. None exists in ethiopia.

Also how is Cuba a 'good' example when people aren't allowed to quit their jobs, when kids have to go to summer camps to be virtual slave laborers, and when half the population is surviving on gifts from relatives in Miami?

The murder rate in China is up because it's transitioning from a communist dictatorship to a capitalist republic. Of course that's going to happen. In fact, a few months ago, China declared unlimited free speech in univerisites and they had to start clamping down again because that caused a massive increase in violent crime on university campuses. Certainly, you aren't suggesting we abolish free speech?

Africa isn't really capitalist. Read an economic freedom ratings index. My favorite one ranks most African countries between 3.0-4.0 on a scale where 5.0 is zero economic freedom and 0.0 is pure capitalism. The highest ranked country is Hong Kong, which is 0.3 or something in 2000 and also with a per capita income 20x that of the rest of China.

And Pan, even if you succeed, there will be thousands of capitalists nations outside the UN, like me.

Libya is a terrorist nation and more likely the richest but it to is socialist. :wink: We know what the opportunist U$ thinks of them though. My point was that poverty is rife for the capitalist system. S. Africa is richER but still has terrible poverty despite vast resources (notice a contradiction).

On Cuba, she has shown what socialism CAN do when implemented properly and against all the odds.

I though am for democracy (though not the fraudulent one which the U$ heralds as the be all and end all of democracy).

In China, the unemployment rate went down for a long time because of communist policies. Yes, they might have been poor as cowpie, but at least they were EQUAL.

I'd rather be unequally rich than equally poor, wouldn't you? Just like how I'd rather be unequally healthy than equally dead.

So if communism is so much better than capitalism, how come the immigrants from communist nations go to capitalist nations?

In China, the unemployment rate went down for a long time because of communist policies. Yes, they might have been poor as cowpie, but at least they were EQUAL.

I'd rather be unequally rich than equally poor, wouldn't you? Just like how I'd rather be unequally healthy than equally dead.
Exactly, I was being sarcastic.

I, in this resolution, demand only the end to FREE TRADE and not free speech. There are workable alternatives to these tyrant states of the USSR and China.


What of Allende and Arbenz?
What did the Amerikkkans do to democracy there?

Capitalism has nothing to do with social or political phenomenon but is entirely economic.

Libya is a terrorist nation and more likely the richest but it to is socialist. :wink: We know what the opportunist U$ thinks of them though. My point was that poverty is rife for the capitalist system. S. Africa is richER but still has terrible poverty despite vast resources (notice a contradiction).

On Cuba, she has shown what socialism CAN do when implemented properly and against all the odds.

I though am for democracy (though not the fraudulent one which the U$ heralds as the be all and end all of democracy).

Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the Carribean.

Libya is the richest nation because it has lots of oil.

South Africa has a per capita income of about $3,000. That's not that much to go around. Their massive problems are largely due to the racism of apartheid.

China abandoned communism in 1978. It's growth in 1979 was almost FIFTEEN times what it was in 1975. Likewise, Sweden went socialism-crazy in 1969. It's economy grew by 5.5% in 1965 and only 1.5% in 1970.

i'm sick and tired of anti-capitalist protestors claiming the need for freedom as an argument against capitalism. A globalised capitalist world will be complete freedom. Freedom to trade, freedom to consume, freedom to work, freedom to cross borders. I'll tell you the problem in the world today is the inbalance in the system. The western countries, eastern asia, and now central asia are becoming far more prosperous due to the deregulation of their market. Whereas africa in particular have not, due to a variety of reasons such as political instability etc. Is it right we do nothing to help the unfortunate people in africa? NO. Is right to go backwards and undo the work that has already been done to make the world a more prosperous place? NO.

The epidemic of poverty in Africa and other such places has alot to do with the EU and the US, i will concede this. However, this is not because of the liberalisation of their markets that we call capitalism, this is not because of an effort to integrate the world markets into one global, free market, that we call globalisation. It is because of protectionism, the complete opposite of what we are disicussing. To make the world a better place the EU must destroy the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common External Tariff, the US must cut all protection of its industries and there must be a concerted effort to make place such as africa a more stable and attractive place for foreign direct investment, through international aid, that will lift them out of the cycle of poverty in which they are trapped.

The proposal is ludicrous.

You realize ending free trade will ruin the economies of every UN nation, making most of the people poorer, but since they're communists, EVERYONE has to be EQUALLY POOR. Then, since you left out banning free speech, there will be dissent to the point where you have to switch to a dictatorship to keep your people from revolting.

i'm sick and tired of anti-capitalist protestors claiming the need for freedom as an argument against capitalism. A globalised capitalist world will be complete freedom. Freedom to trade, freedom to consume, freedom to work, freedom to cross borders. I'll tell you the problem in the world today is the inbalance in the system. The western countries, eastern asia, and now central asia are becoming far more prosperous due to the deregulation of their market. Whereas africa in particular have not, due to a variety of reasons such as political instability etc. Is it right we do nothing to help the unfortunate people in africa? NO. Is right to go backwards and undo the work that has already been done to make the world a more prosperous place? NO.

The epidemic of poverty in Africa and other such places has alot to do with the EU and the US, i will concede this. However, this is not because of the liberalisation of their markets that we call capitalism, this is not because of an effort to integrate the world markets into one global, free market, that we call globalisation. It is because of protectionism, the complete opposite of what we are disicussing. To make the world a better place the EU must destroy the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common External Tariff, the US must cut all protection of its industries and there must be a concerted effort to make place such as africa a more stable and attractive place for foreign direct investment, through international aid, that will lift them out of the cycle of poverty in which they are trapped.

The proposal is ludicrous.

Yeah first wrold nations need to unilaterally slash their tariffs. Compared to the EU, the USA has very low tariffs. In East Asia, China, Japan, and South Korea are planning to slash their tariffs against one another completely in 2010. In anticipation, the market is rising quikcly.

So if communism is so much better than capitalism, how come the immigrants from communist nations go to capitalist nations?
I'm glad you, new empire have brought this up as cappies often do.

1) I am not for Soviet-style migration control but am much more libertarian
2) There is no such thing as a "Communist" country and if you have ever picked up a book on Marxism you would know this.
3) THE US OF A GIVES CUBANS WHO ESCAPE TO MIAMI A FREE LIFE. They give them a free home and set them up good time. BRIBARY. THEY ALSO REJECT THE MAJORITY OF LEGAL APPLICATIONS SO THE MINORITY WHO WANT TO FLEE THESE COUNTRIES MUST DO SO ILLEGALLY and are subsequently rewarded. You see this then becomes a big propaganda coup. One which fooled you.

I, in this resolution, demand only the end to FREE TRADE and not free speech. There are workable alternatives to these tyrant states of the USSR and China.


What of Allende and Arbenz?
What did the Amerikkkans do to democracy there?

Capitalism has nothing to do with social or political phenomenon but is entirely economic.

...Yet more often than not, capitalist countries tend to be free, whereas command economies are almost all slave states.

I know who Allende is (Pinochet actually enjoyed a decent amount of public support, by the way. That doesn't excuse his clearly evil actions as military dictator but no one in Chile is saying that his economic policies were bad), but who the hell is Arbenz?

I am not for Soviet-style migration control but am much more libertarian


LIBERTARIAN! you should check the dictionary...

So if communism is so much better than capitalism, how come the immigrants from communist nations go to capitalist nations?
I'm glad you, new empire have brought this up as cappies often do.

1) I am not for Soviet-style migration control but am much more libertarian
2) There is no such thing as a "Communist" country and if you have ever picked up a book on Marxism you would know this.
3) THE US OF A GIVES CUBANS WHO ESCAPE TO MIAMI A FREE LIFE. They give them a free home and set them up good time. BRIBARY. THEY ALSO REJECT THE MAJORITY OF LEGAL APPLICATIONS SO THE MINORITY WHO WANT TO FLEE THESE COUNTRIES MUST DO SO ILLEGALLY and are subsequently rewarded. You see this then becomes a big propaganda coup. One which fooled you.
1)Good. Then you won't mind other people emigrating from their nations
2)I know this, but there is no such thing as a true "capitalist" nation either. Nobody has complete economic freedom.
3)The cubans that do escape are usually extremely poor. The ones that can apply are usually not.

"Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the Carribean."

You know how many islands there are in the Caribbean? no? Well they are all pretty poor and Cuba is not the poorest by a long shot.

Jamaica aint so rich

Neither, I hear is hispaniola; that playground of Amerikkkan imperialism

I do not mind people migrating and I object to the U$ or USSR from stopping them.

So if communism is so much better than capitalism, how come the immigrants from communist nations go to capitalist nations?
I'm glad you, new empire have brought this up as cappies often do.

1) I am not for Soviet-style migration control but am much more libertarian
2) There is no such thing as a "Communist" country and if you have ever picked up a book on Marxism you would know this.
3) THE US OF A GIVES CUBANS WHO ESCAPE TO MIAMI A FREE LIFE. They give them a free home and set them up good time. BRIBARY. THEY ALSO REJECT THE MAJORITY OF LEGAL APPLICATIONS SO THE MINORITY WHO WANT TO FLEE THESE COUNTRIES MUST DO SO ILLEGALLY and are subsequently rewarded. You see this then becomes a big propaganda coup. One which fooled you.

Well, then I could argue that there's no such thing as a pure capitalist country either, so therefore all of capitalism's problems aren't really because of capitalism.

Marxism has been TRIED many times... it always fails because of various factors, and any system that kills 100 million people over the last century, people aren't exactly willing to try all over again. Which is why there aren't that many Nazi states nowadays.

I think US immigration policy is unfair too. They should accept more legal immigrants so we can focus on stopping terrorists and criminals from coming in instead of just honest illegals searching for a better life.

"Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the Carribean."

You know how many islands there are in the Caribbean? no? Well they are all pretty poor and Cuba is not the poorest by a long shot.

Jamaica aint so rich

Neither, I hear is hispaniola; that playground of Amerikkkan imperialism

I do not mind people migrating and I object to the U$ or USSR from stopping them.

The absolute poorest country in the Carribean is Haiti, and the6y also ranked 4.something on the economic freedom scales.

THe richest countries in the Carribean are capitlaist ones, such as the Cayman Islands and the Bahams, that all have 5-digit per capita GDPs while other similiar islands of 5-digit ones too, 3 digits, a decimal point, then another 2 digits! :lol:

So if communism is so much better than capitalism, how come the immigrants from communist nations go to capitalist nations?
I'm glad you, new empire have brought this up as cappies often do.

1) I am not for Soviet-style migration control but am much more libertarian
2) There is no such thing as a "Communist" country and if you have ever picked up a book on Marxism you would know this.
3) THE US OF A GIVES CUBANS WHO ESCAPE TO MIAMI A FREE LIFE. They give them a free home and set them up good time. BRIBARY. THEY ALSO REJECT THE MAJORITY OF LEGAL APPLICATIONS SO THE MINORITY WHO WANT TO FLEE THESE COUNTRIES MUST DO SO ILLEGALLY and are subsequently rewarded. You see this then becomes a big propaganda coup. One which fooled you.

Well, then I could argue that there's no such thing as a pure capitalist country either, so therefore all of capitalism's problems aren't really because of capitalism.

Marxism has been TRIED many times... it always fails because of various factors, and any system that kills 100 million people over the last century, people aren't exactly willing to try all over again. Which is why there aren't that many Nazi states nowadays.

I think US immigration policy is unfair too. They should accept more legal immigrants so we can focus on stopping terrorists and criminals from coming in instead of just honest illegals searching for a better life.
Pure Capitalism failed in the 1930s with the Great Depression and since then a wellfare state for the rich has been requirement to stop Marx's prophesy from fullfilling itself.

Marxism has not been tried because it is democratic and the U$ wiped out democratic Marxism quickly (with the help of the Soviet Union) . Leninism, I agree, has failed

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.

Hmmm ... I'm not in favour of our currrent world order by any means, but I don't really see how profit = exploitation is the only option.

If I am a farmer and have excess produce that I sell to other people I make a profit ... but I'm not exploiting the buyer(s)

It's not capitalism per se that is exploitative, but capitalism combined with imperialism ... Greed is the root cause of the problem

To be honest, if you look closely at the derivation of the word 'communism' you'll see that it has no political connotations at all and does not rule out the possibility of a capitalist society ... The basis and means of a trade system (capitalism) has nothing whatsoever to do with governmental form (communism) ... And the only reason that people think the two are opposing ideologies is because the terms have been hijacked over the years by people with a political axe to grind ... The so-called communist nations in the World of yesterday and today are no more what I would recognise as genuinely communist societies than the US

Just to clarify...
Marxism is not about trying...it is an economic theory that said capitalism will EVENTUALLY fail and collapse...Marx would support capitalism, saying it was a means to an end. And that end being the economics associated with Marxism.

"Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the Carribean."

You know how many islands there are in the Caribbean? no? Well they are all pretty poor and Cuba is not the poorest by a long shot.

Jamaica aint so rich

Neither, I hear is hispaniola; that playground of Amerikkkan imperialism

I do not mind people migrating and I object to the U$ or USSR from stopping them.

The absolute poorest country in the Carribean is Haiti, and the6y also ranked 4.something on the economic freedom scales.

THe richest countries in the Carribean are capitlaist ones, such as the Cayman Islands and the Bahams, that all have 5-digit per capita GDPs while other similiar islands of 5-digit ones too, 3 digits, a decimal point, then another 2 digits! :lol:
The Cayman Islands don't have a trade embargo against them do they? The Cuban success though has been despite Amerikkkans doing there best to stop all tourism.

If this happened to teh Cayman Islands they would collapse quickly. :P

Just to clarify...
Marxism is not about trying...it is an economic theory that said capitalism will EVENTUALLY fail and collapse...Marx would support capitalism, saying it was a means to an end. And that end being the economics associated with Marxism. Capitalism DID fail in the thirties. We could argue all day about the Labour Theory of Value but, not to be patronising, many here wouldn't know what it was. I've finished for todays session so the noble leader of Pan-Icaria will be signing out

-God Less

Greed is the root cause of the problem


Although I am a supporter of a capitalist regime I would not say 'Greed' is the problem. Adam Smith's famous 'invisible hand' was all to do with greed. Ie the baker provides a family with bread not out of his benevolence but because of his own malevolence and greed.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.

Hmmm ... I'm not in favour of our currrent world order by any means, but I don't really see how profit = exploitation is the only option.

If I am a farmer and have excess produce that I sell to other people I make a profit ... but I'm not exploiting the buyer(s)

It's not capitalism per se that is exploitative, but capitalism combined with imperialism ... Greed is the root cause of the problem

To be honest, if you look closely at the derivation of the word 'communism' you'll see that it has no political connotations at all and does not rule out the possibility of a capitalist society ... The basis and means of a trade system (capitalism) has nothing whatsoever to do with governmental form (communism) ... And the only reason that people think the two are opposing ideologies is because the terms have been hijacked over the years by people with a political axe to grind ... The so-called communist nations in the World of yesterday and today are no more what I would recognise as genuinely communist societies than the US You do not make profit but merely transfer labour in to capital. Profit though is when the some of this capital is greater than It's labour value. Complex stuff which needs more time & depth.

Pan-Icaria capitalism did NOT fail in the thirties.. if Marx was right it would have been dead and gone upon failure. Indeed, the Depression led onto another thoery of economics, but it was not Marxism, it was Keynesian. And then this failed in the 70s to some extent, and Monetarism was developed. Perhaps Marx is right, capitalism will eventually fail...but now, history is showing us that our markets are tending to become more liberalised and deregulated and capitalism is flourishing.

"Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the Carribean."

You know how many islands there are in the Caribbean? no? Well they are all pretty poor and Cuba is not the poorest by a long shot.

Jamaica aint so rich

Neither, I hear is hispaniola; that playground of Amerikkkan imperialism

I do not mind people migrating and I object to the U$ or USSR from stopping them.

The absolute poorest country in the Carribean is Haiti, and the6y also ranked 4.something on the economic freedom scales.

THe richest countries in the Carribean are capitlaist ones, such as the Cayman Islands and the Bahams, that all have 5-digit per capita GDPs while other similiar islands of 5-digit ones too, 3 digits, a decimal point, then another 2 digits! :lol:
The Cayman Islands don't have a trade embargo against them do they? The Cuban success though has been despite Amerikkkans doing there best to stop all tourism.

If this happened to teh Cayman Islands they would collapse quickly. :P

I agree. We should end the embargo on Cuba. Once they get MTV and the Internet they'll abandon Castro quciker than you could imagine.

Also tourism is not hte Cayman Islands' main industry. They have the best banks this side of Switzerland.

Greed is the root cause of the problem


Although I am a supporter of a capitalist regime I would not say 'Greed' is the problem. Adam Smith's famous 'invisible hand' was all to do with greed. Ie the baker provides a family with bread not out of his benevolence but because of his own malevolence and greed.


I don't see why the baker must necessarily be supplying his surplus stock to others out of malevolance ... Whilst I could see an argument that they might be being greedy because they are not simply giving away their surplus rather than making a profit, I think it far too simplistic to reduce all such motivation in that way ... They may be trading surplus stock in return for other goods or services from others (which is merely a fair exchange) or for the purpose of being able to improve their land, livestock, methods ... or simply improve the quality of life of their loved ones and their own ... None of which, to my mind, is inherently immoral

I don't see why the baker must necessarily be supplying his surplus stock to others out of malevolance ... Whilst I could see an argument that they might be being greedy because they are not simply giving away their surplus rather than making a profit, I think it far too simplistic to reduce all such motivation in that way ... They may be trading surplus stock in return for other goods or services from others (which is merely a fair exchange) or for the purpose of being able to improve their land, livestock, methods ... or simply improve the quality of life of their loved ones and their own ... None of which, to my mind, is inherently immoral

I wasn't saying the actions were immoral...perhaps malevalent was the wrong word.

Instead, simply, the baker will provide the family with food for his own ends and benefit. Unfortunatley, capitalism is based on greed and it works.

However, when greed leads to monoploly power being abused and price fixing in olygopolies then the systme will break down. This may seem like double standards and to some extend it is. This is why anarchic capitalism doesn't work. Some trade and competition regulation is needs. However the ban capitalism altogether as the thread proposes is ridiculous.

You do not make profit but merely transfer labour in to capital. Profit though is when the some of this capital is greater than It's labour value. Complex stuff which needs more time & depth.

Hmmmm ... differential use of the term 'profit' perhaps ... Maybe I think more in terms of the idea of 'to profit from' rather than 'to exploit'

If the exchange is not balanced then I would agree that it is an exploitative relationship ... but I don't see 'profit' as inherently exploitative

It is only when the access to the means of production and the means to leading one's life on an even footing with all others is unfairly restricted by way of force (either physical or legislative) that the two go hand-in-hand, to my way of thinking ... If there were no way of unfairly enforcing exploitative control oover such means then I feel that a free market would be acceptable

As I indicated previously, I feel that it is the motivation (greed) rather than the means (capitalism) per se that is the problem ... After all, if someone is motivated to provide a service that is of benefit to others and is prepeared to work hard enough to offer a better service than anyone else who might be considered a 'competitor', why shouldn't they be allowed to make a living from it? ... Refusing to allow people such freedom to lead their lives any way they see fit is no fairer than the current, inegalitarian regimes we see worldwide (from the 'free' West to repressive regimes such as China)

i'm still not happy with you using the word greed in this way....greed produces mutual benefit in a capitalist market....perhaps...un-ethical behaviour or something

I wasn't saying the actions were immoral...perhaps malevalent was the wrong word.

Instead, simply, the baker will provide the family with food for his own ends and benefit. Unfortunatley, capitalism is based on greed and it works.

However, when greed leads to monoploly power being abused and price fixing in olygopolies then the systme will break down. This may seem like double standards and to some extend it is. This is why anarchic capitalism doesn't work. Some trade and competition regulation is needs. However the ban capitalism altogether as the thread proposes is ridiculous.

OK ... I agree with you regarding the latter ... although, to be honest, my view of what anarchy is would probably be viewed as being pretty radically divergent to most 'accepted' definitions, so I wouldn't say that the world in which we live was anything *other* than anarchic *now* ... So I would argue that *current* trade is *not* regulated

I don't, however, think that greed is a feature of capitalism per se, so much as of human nature ... If people were to treat each other with equinimity, I see no reason why anarchic capiitalism shouldn't be as fair and worthy a means of trading with one anotherr as any other system

i'm still not happy with you using the word greed in this way....greed produces mutual benefit in a capitalist market....perhaps...un-ethical behaviour or something

Depends upon whether or not the exchange is equitable or not, surely? ... If one person is being greedy at the expense of another then greed does *not* produce mutual benefit

OK ... I agree with you regarding the latter ... although, to be honest, my view of what anarchy is would probably be viewed as being pretty radically divergent to most 'accepted' definitions, so I wouldn't say that the world in which we live was anything *other* than anarchic *now* ... So I would argue that *current* trade is *not* regulated

I don't, however, think that greed is a feature of capitalism per se, so much as of human nature ... If people were to treat each other with equinimity, I see no reason why anarchic capiitalism shouldn't be as fair and worthy a means of trading with one anotherr as any other system

Greed is part of human nature, and that is why capitalism is the one economic sytem that works best at allocating resources.

Concerning regulation, the western world is regulated quite significantly. Competition laws stop large corporations gaining supernormal profit and regular laws and taxes discouraging 'de-merit goods' (ie goods which have negative external effects attached to them), eg drugs, from being bought and sold. Although black markets still exist, without these laws the now illegal and/or taxed markets would be far more extensive.
Without these laws, with anarchic capitalism, quality of life would no doubt decrease.

We do not have anarchy in our markets, and if we did, it would be almost definately be detrimental to our standard of living.

If one person is being greedy at the expense of another then greed does *not* produce mutual benefit

Greed, not exploitation. In capitalist economies, the greed produces mutual benefit ie the "invisible hand" of adam smith. however, regualtion of the market will aviod the explotation...and enforced efficient regualtion to do this is the goal of most western countries.

We do not have anarchy in our markets, and if we did, it would be almost definately be detrimental to our standard of living.

How much influence do you or I really have in this regard? ... I think you'll find that the political clout of business is a much greater influence upon governmental legislation than ethics

And I simply cannot look at the World as it is and see that there is any single body (no, not even the WTO) that is actually in charge of it all ... legislating for the benefit of all ... The mega-level politics we see in the World is simply a fractal at a much lower resolution than the micro-level of individual nations/states/cities ... The processes are identical at all levels ... Nations lobby to protect their own interests and to Hell with everyone else ... even economic bloc such as the EU are no more than a group of individuals working towards related goals ... once they achieve their mutual goal(s) they go back to internecine warfare (albeit on an politico-economic footing rather than a military one)

I maintain, therefore, that we all live in an anarchy *now* ... the existence of nations and so forth is no more than a meta-level continuation of what you'll find in any village anywhere in the World

The poll is biased but this is a great proposal. I hope it passes!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

What exactly do you stand for Letila? Anarchism would be the ultimate form of capitalism, no laws or goverment to get in the way of a company.

Wrong. Anarchism is based on the lack of hierarchy. That includes government or social classes. Capitalism creates social classes and needs government unless companies have their own militaries and police to protect them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Exactly. Without a goverment or police force there would be nothing to stop company from raising their own armies and warring with other companies. Instead of one big hierarchy there would be tons of little ones, all fighting and killing each other. It'd be like Road Warrior everyone fighting over gasoline and natural resources.

There aren't companies either.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

What exactly do you stand for Letila? Anarchism would be the ultimate form of capitalism, no laws or goverment to get in the way of a company.

Incorrect, capitalism cannot exist in the absence of laws. Laws are needed to protect property and other rights, as well as the right of individuals to freely contract with each other, which is the foundation of capitalism.

This is an old debate... this proposal probably will not reach the floor and if it does will not be passed. There are enough capitalist nations and nations with at least a small private sector to block this thing. I think people should be able choose whatever economic system they wish.

There aren't companies either.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Without goverment or laws, what's to prevent me from starting one?

People only accept the immoral class system because they are kept in line by the state.

Without goverment or laws, what's to prevent me from starting one?

What idiot would give up a classless society for working under a boss who keeps most of the money for him/herself and can make your life miserable by firing you? They are free to leave and make a capitalist society, but they wouldn't be smart to.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

What's to prevent me from taking over a farm then selling the grain to people? Most people don't know how to farm or grow their own food, most people can't. So what stops me from using force to take the farm over?

People only accept the immoral class system because they are kept in line by the state.

Without goverment or laws, what's to prevent me from starting one?

What idiot would give up a classless society for working under a boss who keeps most of the money for him/herself and can make your life miserable by firing you? They are free to leave and make a capitalist society, but they wouldn't be smart to.

The reason we abandoned anarchy in the first place was because it was, well, stupid.

Anarchy is for savages
Tyranny for barbarians
The Rule of Law is the government of civilized people

In the modern world anarchy would be chaos. People would kill each other for food, water, and other basic commodities. People with the most weapons or resources would rule, they would force other people under their power. It would be a return to feudalism, only more violent.

"Tyranny and anarchy are never far asunder."
--Jeremy Bentham

[Note I'm not a utilitarian at all, but that's a pretty good point]

Also, there will still be capitalist nations outside the UN... And they'll all be richer than you.

Actually, Marxism is far, faaar, more efficient than capitalism. Cuts out the middle man. The idea that neoliberalism improves an economy like this is a myth.

For more info, see the CACE economic expert Seocc.

You are wrong. Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Some people will just leech off of the productive people so they won't have to do any work. Also workers in a capitalist society will be more motivated because they can see the results of their work more immediately.

Hard workers like it because they'll reap the rewards of their work directly in their improving lives.

Lazy people wouldn't because they would also see the results of their work in their poverty.

People will work harder for themselves than for their neighbor.

In the modern world anarchy would be chaos. People would kill each other for food, water, and other basic commodities. People with the most weapons or resources would rule, they would force other people under their power. It would be a return to feudalism, only more violent.

Is it really in anyone's best interest(unless they're hoping for a state to be made) to be constantly fighting everyone else when it's far better to organize a way to distribute the resources? That's not how anarchism works.

What's to prevent me from taking over a farm then selling the grain to people? Most people don't know how to farm or grow their own food, most people can't. So what stops me from using force to take the farm over?

One person can't take over a farm by force. You'd need a lot of people on your side and few people in such a society would be fond of capitalism.

Anarchy is for savages
Tyranny for barbarians
The Rule of Law is the government of civilized people

A brutal force that keeps people in line with death threats and imprisonment is hardly civilized.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Also, there will still be capitalist nations outside the UN... And they'll all be richer than you.

Actually, Marxism is far, faaar, more efficient than capitalism. Cuts out the middle man. The idea that neoliberalism improves an economy like this is a myth.

For more info, see the CACE economic expert Seocc.

...which is exactly why the Soviet Union sucks whereas the United States is one of the better places in the world to live, right?

Marxism may be efficient at production, but its as inefficient at growth as any system. There's a significant difference there, best summed up by China's former Premier Jiang Zemin:

"We can live with citrus and steel, but we can only live better with computers and the free market."

Marxism killed upwards of 45 million people in 25 years in China with about 0% economic growth. Semi-capitalism has made for between 7.5-10% economic growth almost every year from 1978 to 2003.

OK...I'm not even going to bother...this is just retarded.

Only thing I will say here: Pan-Icaria, screw your head back on. No matter how much your pink heart may bleed, capitalism is the ONLY moral system because it is the ONLY system that respects individual rights.

Only thing I will say here: Pan-Icaria, screw your head back on. No matter how much your pink heart may bleed, capitalism is the ONLY moral system because it is the ONLY system that respects individual rights.

And I suppose slaving away to make clothes for some company is a necessary evil.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Only thing I will say here: Pan-Icaria, screw your head back on. No matter how much your pink heart may bleed, capitalism is the ONLY moral system because it is the ONLY system that respects individual rights.

And I suppose slaving away to make clothes for some company is a necessary evil.

It's not evil at all; people actually compete for those jobs. And with good reason. According to a UN report, P-Diddy's sweatshops in Central America aren't all that sweaty--most have air conditioning and pay, on average, two to three times more than local manufacturers do.

I never thought I'd see someone justify what is essentially slavery. Most have air conditioning? :roll: Would you want to work in a sweat shop?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I never thought I'd see someone justify what is essentially slavery. Most have air conditioning? :roll: Would you want to work in a sweat shop?

If I got paid two to three times more [which is what sweatshops pay] than what my ordinary job pays, then of course yeah.

Global inequality is a major problem in today's society. I don't think any reasonable person would attempt to deny this. However capitalism does not cause 'unfair' dicrimination in the world. On the contrary, LACK of it does. As soon as countries adopt the capitalist system by deregulating their economies (and i'm including the richer west here also) the sooner the world will become a richer, more equal place.

Also to clarify... again...
As i've said before, Marx accepted that capitalism should exist. He said that it was necessary for a means to an end, that end being Marxist economics. Marxism has never occured, only economics that claim to be Marxist.

Also, people who argue against globalisation and capitalism often fall into the fallacy of accepting statistics involving wage rates that, to some extent, bend the truth. Instead of looking at nominal wage rates, which these stats do, we should look at the real value of them, that is to say the purchasing power of the money in the country/region where the wage was earned. This amplifies the wage rate to something that, although is still small compared to the rich west, is far beyond slavery standards.

In the modern world anarchy would be chaos. People would kill each other for food, water, and other basic commodities. People with the most weapons or resources would rule, they would force other people under their power. It would be a return to feudalism, only more violent.

Is it really in anyone's best interest(unless they're hoping for a state to be made) to be constantly fighting everyone else when it's far better to organize a way to distribute the resources? That's not how anarchism works.

What's to prevent me from taking over a farm then selling the grain to people? Most people don't know how to farm or grow their own food, most people can't. So what stops me from using force to take the farm over?

One person can't take over a farm by force. You'd need a lot of people on your side and few people in such a society would be fond of capitalism.

Anarchy is for savages
Tyranny for barbarians
The Rule of Law is the government of civilized people

A brutal force that keeps people in line with death threats and imprisonment is hardly civilized.

We went over this already... just laws expand freedom by preventing other people from killing, raping, robbing, etc. from you.

Letila, too bad lots of people don't care about other people or the best interests of the community, they only care about themselves or people close to them. People would form gangs just like in inner cities, only they would be more heavily armed and have more opportunity and motivation to take by force what they want. Suddenly the 7th Street Gang of Chicago doesn't have a police force to worry about so they start being more bold, stealing, killing, and taking over more territory. People that have most guns, balls, or charisma would be in power. Sure people would resist the sudden influx in violent crime so there would be shootouts every day between a father defending his house from a gang.

I guess you just have more faith in people then I do.

Letila, too bad lots of people don't care about other people or the best interests of the community, they only care about themselves or people close to them. People would form gangs just like in inner cities, only they would be more heavily armed and have more opportunity and motivation to take by force what they want. Suddenly the 7th Street Gang of Chicago doesn't have a police force to worry about so they start being more bold, stealing, killing, and taking over more territory. People that have most guns, balls, or charisma would be in power. Sure people would resist the sudden influx in violent crime so there would be shootouts every day between a father defending his house from a gang.

I guess you just have more faith in people then I do.

Yeah. You see, Letila, the police are my favorite street gang. Unlike other street gangs, they are bound by things called 'laws' that you seem to hate. You ought to realize that being bound by laws is what separates police from the 7th Street Gang of Chicago. In a lawless society, you'll have to deal with units like the Gestapo and the Mafia and plain old-fashioned vigilante lynch mobs. Wouldn't you rather have cops that you can sue in open court if they violate your rights?

Yeah. You see, Letila, the police are my favorite street gang. Unlike other street gangs, they are bound by things called 'laws' that you seem to hate. You ought to realize that being bound by laws is what separates police from the 7th Street Gang of Chicago. In a lawless society, you'll have to deal with units like the Gestapo and the Mafia and plain old-fashioned vigilante lynch mobs. Wouldn't you rather have cops that you can sue in open court if they violate your rights?

Ignoring the fact that you used to quite opposed to government, need I point out the laws are made by the government that controls the police. They are controlled only by themselves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Plus, out of the chaos there would rise uber "corporations" (kingdoms) that have their own army and are not bound by any laws. They would probably "oppress" people far more then corporations today.

Anarchism doesn't mean chaos. It's a common misconception, but it doesn't.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Anarchism doesn't mean chaos. It's a common misconception, but it doesn't.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.
You are quite correct and it is unfortunate that people still do not understand what Anarchism is about. I am not an anarchist but as anyone knows, Marxists (of which I am of a liberal Anti-Leninist variety) want to work towards this state free from oppression or intervention of any kind.

Anarchism doesn't mean chaos. It's a common misconception, but it doesn't.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.
You are quite correct and it is unfortunate that people still do not understand what Anarchism is about. I am not an anarchist but as anyone knows, Marxists (of which I am of a liberal Anti-Leninist variety) want to work towards this state free from oppression or intervention of any kind.

Did I say that twice

Yes, anarchism does not mean chaos, but it will lead to it. It would be nice if we could live together in harmony and feed strawberrys to each other under a elm tree, but that ain't the real world.

Yes, anarchism does not mean chaos, but it will lead to it. It would be nice if we could live together in harmony and feed strawberrys to each other under a elm tree, but that ain't the real world.

Yes, but hey, it increases your post count, PI.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Of course it does.

The people of Pan-Icaria demand that it be recognised that the exploitation of one man by another is fundamentally wrong and that to do so is to become a punishable offence

Yes, so then you have to ban all forms of socialism and government/statism. Anarchocapitalism is the only proper system.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.

Hint: Marx was a Hegelian moron. You'd do well to junk all that tosswad nonsense, especially the refuted-to-death Labor Theory of Value.

Oh wait. I doubt you even know what that is. I doubt you've read anything of Marx. You just know the bumper-sticker slogans.

Yes, anarchism does not mean chaos, but it will lead to it. It would be nice if we could live together in harmony and feed strawberrys to each other under a elm tree, but that ain't the real world.
It will not happen if there is no OVERWHELMING majority. I am a Marxist because I do not think it can generate this in the capitalist society. If there is that majority then it will thrive and as a Marxist (being anti-dogmatic) I will support all regions of the labour movement. This proposal is not about politics. It's about doing away with a murderous ECONOMIC structure as quickly as possible.

Too true. Capitalism is choking us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

History has clearly shown that a capitalistic economy leads to growth and wealth while socialist economies do not.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.

Hint: Marx was a Hegelian moron. You'd do well to junk all that tosswad nonsense, especially the refuted-to-death Labor Theory of Value.

Oh wait. I doubt you even know what that is. I doubt you've read anything of Marx. You just know the bumper-sticker slogans.

Hehehe. You're a funny person. I have heard good critiques of the LTV and yours is not the best. You want to challenge my theoretical knowledge then do your best. :D :D

History has clearly shown that a capitalistic economy leads to growth and wealth while socialist economies do not.
So the Soviet Union (which I do not endorse) did not go from backward to industrial in the time it took Nazis to seize power in Deutschland. And Latin America/Africa/Asia/Antarctica are really thriving. Bull...

Yes, anarchism does not mean chaos, but it will lead to it.

No, it won't necessarily.

It would be nice if we could live together in harmony and feed strawberrys to each other under a elm tree, but that ain't the real world.

Anarchism doesn't require a "utopia" or "perfect people"

The people of Pan-Icaria demand that it be recognised that the exploitation of one man by another is fundamentally wrong and that to do so is to become a punishable offence

Yes, so then you have to ban all forms of socialism and government/statism. Anarchocapitalism is the only proper system.
BAAWA, explain this logic.

Without of government/police force there would be nothing to stop people from stealing/raping/killing. There would be an incredible rise in crime.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.

Hint: Marx was a Hegelian moron. You'd do well to junk all that tosswad nonsense, especially the refuted-to-death Labor Theory of Value.

Oh wait. I doubt you even know what that is. I doubt you've read anything of Marx. You just know the bumper-sticker slogans.

Hehehe. You're a funny person. I have heard good critiques of the LTV and yours is not the best. You want to challenge my theoretical knowledge then do your best. :D :D

You have no theoretical knowledge. That's your problem. You only have bumper-sticker economics.

Have a little Ludwig von Mises. Human Action.
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec6.asp#p608

That will help you. That's real economics.

Without of government/police force there would be nothing to stop people from stealing/raping/killing. There would be an incredible rise in crime. Do not consider this a defence of the Anarchist method but that depends upon how you define anarchy. Back to the topic at hand delegates...

The people of Pan-Icaria demand that it be recognised that the exploitation of one man by another is fundamentally wrong and that to do so is to become a punishable offence

Yes, so then you have to ban all forms of socialism and government/statism. Anarchocapitalism is the only proper system.

BAAWA, explain this logic.

Any form of statism involves the initiation of force, which is "exploitation".

Any form of socialism involves the initiation of force, which is "exploitation".

Anarchism doesn't do that.

Capitalism doesn't do that.

Get it?

(made it simple enough for you to bite on)

Without of government/police force there would be nothing to stop people from stealing/raping/killing.

There's nothing about a police force that requires it to be from a government. You can have a police force under an anarchy, and especially anarchocapitalism.

[quote=Pan-Icaria]Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.

Hint: Marx was a Hegelian moron. You'd do well to junk all that tosswad nonsense, especially the refuted-to-death Labor Theory of Value.

Oh wait. I doubt you even know what that is. I doubt you've read anything of Marx. You just know the bumper-sticker slogans.

Hehehe. You're a funny person. I have heard good critiques of the LTV and yours is not the best. You want to challenge my theoretical knowledge then do your best. :D :D

You have no theoretical knowledge. That's your problem. You only have bumper-sticker economics.

Have a little Ludwig von Mises. Human Action.
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec6.asp#p608

That will help you. That's real economics.
Are cliches all you have to refute the LTV? You want to make a challenge against it then go ahead.

Since you have no grounds for a good arguement I shall start by asking if you acknowledge that labour is qualitative and quantative in measurements?

If the answer was no then you are confused.

If yes then would you attempt to justify the daily equating of labour (which can only be done in qualitative terms) quantatively.

Labour has a social content, no?

I'd take "explotation" over chaos.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.

Hint: Marx was a Hegelian moron. You'd do well to junk all that tosswad nonsense, especially the refuted-to-death Labor Theory of Value.

Oh wait. I doubt you even know what that is. I doubt you've read anything of Marx. You just know the bumper-sticker slogans.

Hehehe. You're a funny person. I have heard good critiques of the LTV and yours is not the best. You want to challenge my theoretical knowledge then do your best. :D :D

You have no theoretical knowledge. That's your problem. You only have bumper-sticker economics.

Have a little Ludwig von Mises. Human Action.
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec6.asp#p608

That will help you. That's real economics.

Are cliches all you have to refute the LTV? You want to make a challenge against it then go ahead.

Did you read that part of Human Action?

Didn't think so.

Go back and read it.

Then post to me.

Without of government/police force there would be nothing to stop people from stealing/raping/killing.

There's nothing about a police force that requires it to be from a government. You can have a police force under an anarchy, and especially anarchocapitalism.

Who funds and equips the police force? Who is it made up of?

Without of government/police force there would be nothing to stop people from stealing/raping/killing.

Actually, I've read that crime dropped a lot in anarchist communes in Spain when the revolution occurred.

Any form of statism involves the initiation of force, which is "exploitation".

Any form of socialism involves the initiation of force, which is "exploitation".

Anarchism doesn't do that.

Capitalism doesn't do that.

Actually, anarchist socialism is voluntary and capitalism does use force. You can be fired, for example.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

The people of Pan-Icaria demand that it be recognised that the exploitation of one man by another is fundamentally wrong and that to do so is to become a punishable offence

Yes, so then you have to ban all forms of socialism and government/statism. Anarchocapitalism is the only proper system.

BAAWA, explain this logic.

Any form of statism involves the initiation of force, which is "exploitation".

Any form of socialism involves the initiation of force, which is "exploitation".

Anarchism doesn't do that.

Capitalism doesn't do that.

Get it?

(made it simple enough for you to bite on)
What sort of Bullshit is that?! I am yet to concede that the initiation of force is exploitation!! And who the f**k said socialism has anything to do with violence against anyone other than he who uses violence against the proletarian. When force is used against a vulnerable majority to exploit (I will make clear again that this is the use of one man to make PROFIT for another) then this is wrong but when in self-defence it is right.

You would like to pacify the majority wouldn't you to secure your privelage? Always though it is so egocentric with you.

WHEN HAVE YOU KNOWN A CAPPIE NATION TO NOT RESORT TO VIOLENCE WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS ITSELF?

The use of violence is political and this thread is not! I am not here to start proletarian revolution but to avoid bloodshed.

[quote]Without of government/police force there would be nothing to stop people from stealing/raping/killing.

Actually, I've read that crime dropped a lot in anarchist communes in Spain when the revolution occurred.

State source.

Quite simply you can not have profit without exploitation. Those stats are the stats of exploitation. In a society without exploitation where the worker sees the results of his labour there would be none of this suffering.

Hint: Marx was a Hegelian moron. You'd do well to junk all that tosswad nonsense, especially the refuted-to-death Labor Theory of Value.

Oh wait. I doubt you even know what that is. I doubt you've read anything of Marx. You just know the bumper-sticker slogans.

Hehehe. You're a funny person. I have heard good critiques of the LTV and yours is not the best. You want to challenge my theoretical knowledge then do your best. :D :D

You have no theoretical knowledge. That's your problem. You only have bumper-sticker economics.

Have a little Ludwig von Mises. Human Action.
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec6.asp#p608

That will help you. That's real economics.

Are cliches all you have to refute the LTV? You want to make a challenge against it then go ahead.

Did you read that part of Human Action?

Didn't think so.

Go back and read it.

Then post to me. Have you read any of my posts? Have you even read your own link and if so give me a summary because I sincerely doubt you have read or understand it.

AND I'M STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO GIVE ME A GOOD ARGUEMENT AGAINST THE LTV.

State source.

I don't remember it. It was a webpage about the basics of anarchism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Well that was in Anarchist "communes" where I assume there was little people all with beliefs in anarchism. People in communes are usually ones that don't commit crimes.

Yeah. You see, Letila, the police are my favorite street gang. Unlike other street gangs, they are bound by things called 'laws' that you seem to hate. You ought to realize that being bound by laws is what separates police from the 7th Street Gang of Chicago. In a lawless society, you'll have to deal with units like the Gestapo and the Mafia and plain old-fashioned vigilante lynch mobs. Wouldn't you rather have cops that you can sue in open court if they violate your rights?

Ignoring the fact that you used to quite opposed to government, need I point out the laws are made by the government that controls the police. They are controlled only by themselves.

I AM opposed to government, but I realize that it's a necessary evil. The tool you use to control government is law. Which is why you need a viable judiciary. It hasn't worked all that well in the United States, but then again, anarchy hasn't either.

I believe in the Lockean model of government, which is a government effectively hogtied by laws derived from empirics and used to protect hte individual's rights, serving only as a tool by which people are protected from the intiation of force and fraud.

The key is to strike a balance between government and anarchy. I'm not a statist by any standard, but I realize that rights are best protected under a small and lawful state. So did the Founding Fathers, which is why they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but then we run into the problem of establishing an effective and lawful judiciary.

Yes, anarchism does not mean chaos, but it will lead to it. It would be nice if we could live together in harmony and feed strawberrys to each other under a elm tree, but that ain't the real world.
It will not happen if there is no OVERWHELMING majority. I am a Marxist because I do not think it can generate this in the capitalist society. If there is that majority then it will thrive and as a Marxist (being anti-dogmatic) I will support all regions of the labour movement. This proposal is not about politics. It's about doing away with a murderous ECONOMIC structure as quickly as possible.

10,000 years of recorded history prove that you cannot divorce an economic system from a political one.

Simply put, command economies tend not to be free states and I don't think you can find a single counterexample to that.

One of my favorite parts of Atlas Shrugged is when the People's State takes John Galt prisoner and begs him to run the economy. And Galt then says something like "okay, I want you to abolish the income tax." and the interrogator then says "but then we'd have to fire all the government employees! that's not economics anymore, that's politics."

But quite clearly, it's both.

Ignoring the fact that you used to quite opposed to government, need I point out the laws are made by the government that controls the police. They are controlled only by themselves.

Also the state always claims a monopoly on the usage of force. That's protecting peopel from being robbed, murdered, raped, etc. The people should always remain vigilant of the state and realize that everything is a potential slippery slope. That may not happen, which is what the judiciary and a strictly interpreted Constitution are for.

But be that as it may, a tiny government that is capable of controlling itself is the hallmark of suceessful society. As America has demonstrated, a balance of power alone is often insufficient to guarentee this. A balance of interests should also be adopted, though both must be balanced to prevent Romanesque intrigue.

Without of government/police force there would be nothing to stop people from stealing/raping/killing.

There's nothing about a police force that requires it to be from a government. You can have a police force under an anarchy, and especially anarchocapitalism.

Who funds and equips the police force? Who is it made up of?

1. Initially, people who start the company with their own fund, who then offer their services via contract much like private security firms today.

2. People who wish to work for a police force, just like today.

Any form of statism involves the initiation of force, which is "exploitation".

Any form of socialism involves the initiation of force, which is "exploitation".

Anarchism doesn't do that.

Capitalism doesn't do that.

Actually, anarchist socialism is voluntary and capitalism does use force. You can be fired, for example.

That's not initiatory force. By what whacked-out stretch of the imagination do you call it "force" (especially initiatory force)?

What will prevent the police from targeting people like me who seek to undermine them?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

What will prevent the police from targeting people like me who seek to undermine them?

A lawful judiciary that protects individual rights.

I've said some nasty [and believe me, I mean nasty] things about the police in public speeches but I've never been arrested yet.

And if all else fails, juries have a common-law right to judge for themselves not only the facts of the case, but the justice of the law itself, and therefore to nullify unjust laws by acquitting people who are clearly guilty. This has been done a few times in drug-related cases.

I was talking about AC police.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I am for capitalism. Just look at the capitalist nations. They're prosperous, and there are much fewer problems than in non-capitalist nations. Yes, there are still problems such as poverty, crime, and terrorism. But those problems exist in non-capitalist nations, as well (and in some or most cases, these problems are more profound in non-capitalist nations). Thus, I vote that we should not ban capitalism.

I was talking about AC police.

And, unfortunately, therein lies the key problem of contractual anarchocapitalism, in principle the most just system there is, but in practice, similiar to other forms of anarchy in that over time, it guarentees a tyranny will manifest.

It is not capitalism or "communism" or an other ism that is causing the inequality between poor and rich. It is one thing and one thing and one thing only. Repressive, maniacal, dictators who strip all these countries of their wealth then go hide in some 4th world hell hole country that has no extradition laws. They take all the money and leave the citizens to fend for themselves. When that happens it can take a generation or 2 for an ecomoy to recover. Especially if there is no infrastructure or desire to improve.

And yes I know everyone will say that the richer countries should help them out, but we have our own damn problems to worry about. Aside from taking them over and running their country for them, there is not a whole lot that can be done.

The people of Pan-Icaria demand that it be recognised that the exploitation of one man by another is fundamentally wrong and that to do so is to become a punishable offence

Yes, so then you have to ban all forms of socialism and government/statism. Anarchocapitalism is the only proper system.

BAAWA, explain this logic.

Any form of statism involves the initiation of force, which is "exploitation".

Any form of socialism involves the initiation of force, which is "exploitation".

Anarchism doesn't do that.

Capitalism doesn't do that.

Get it?

(made it simple enough for you to bite on)

What sort of Bullshit is that?!

Reality.

I am yet to concede that the initiation of force is exploitation!! And who the f**k said socialism has anything to do with violence against anyone other than he who uses violence against the proletarian.

The entire system is based on the forced redistribution of anything and everything, like it or not.

When force is used against a vulnerable majority to exploit (I will make clear again that this is the use of one man to make PROFIT for another) then this is wrong but when in self-defence it is right.

Did you happen to notice the key word in my statement? The key word of "INITIATORY"? Do you know what INITIATORY means?

Get back to me when you do.

Oh--and making a profit isn't exploiting anyone. Redistributing wealth and "socializing" (whatever that is supposed to mean) the means of production is. It exploits the people who are entrepreneurs.

You would like to pacify the majority wouldn't you to secure your privelage?

No, I just want to have the respecting of property rights which socialism can never have. To not respect property rights is to attempt to exploit people. This is why you've got everything backwards and your proposal is utterly ludicrous.

WHEN HAVE YOU KNOWN A CAPPIE NATION TO NOT RESORT TO VIOLENCE WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS ITSELF?

I ask the same question of you wrt socialist ones.

The problem here is more of governments, actually.

The use of violence is political and this thread is not! I am not here to start proletarian revolution but to avoid bloodshed.

You can't avoid it with socialism. People will get fed up.

AND I'M STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO GIVE ME A GOOD ARGUEMENT AGAINST THE LTV.


In reviewing the whole history of mankind from the early beginnings of civilization up to our age, it makes sense to establish in general terms the fact that the productivity of human labor has been [p. 608] multiplied, for indeed the members of a civilized nation produce today much more than their ancestors did. But this concept of the productivity of labor in general is devoid of any praxeological or catallactic meaning and does not allow any expression in numerical terms. Still less is it permissible to refer to it in attempts to deal with the problems of the market.

Present-day labor-union doctrine operates with a concept of productivity of labor that is designedly constructed to provide an alleged ethical justification for syndicalistic ventures. It defines productivity either as the total market value in terms of money that is added to the products by the processing (either of one firm or by all the firms of a branch of industry), divided by the number of workers employed, or as output (of this firm or branch of industry) per manhour of work. Comparing the magnitudes computed in this way for the beginning of a definite period of time and for its end, they call the amount by which the figure computed for the later date exceeds that for the earlier date "increase in productivity of labor," and they pretend that it by rights belongs entirely to the workers. They demand that this whole amount should be added to the wage rates which the workers received at the beginning of the period. Confronted with these claims of the unions, the employers for the most part do not contest the underlying doctrine and do not question the concept of productivity of labor involved. They accept it implicitly in pointing out that wage rates have already risen to the full extent of the increase in productivity, computed according to this method, or that they have already risen beyond this limit.


Now this procedure of computing the productivity of the work performed by the labor force of a firm or an industry is entirely fallacious. One thousand men working forty hours a week in a modern American shoe factory turn out every month m pairs of shoes. One thousand men working with the traditional old-fashioned tools in small artisan shops somewhere in the backward countries of Asia produce over the same period of time, even when working much longer than forty hours weekly, many fewer than m pairs. Between the United States and Asia the difference in productivity computed according to the methods of the union doctrine is enormous. It is certainly not due to any inherent virtues of the American worker. He is not more diligent, painstaking, skillful, or intelligent than the Asiatics. (We may even assume that many of those employed in a modern factory perform much simpler operations than those required from a man handling the old-fashioned tools.) The superiority of the American plant is entirely caused by the superiority of its equipment and the prudence of its entrepreneurial conduct. What [p. 609] prevents the businessmen of the backward countries from adopting the American methods of production is lack of capital accumulated, not any insufficiency on the part of their workers.

Human Action. Page 608

What will prevent the police from targeting people like me who seek to undermine them?

The private legal code. Reputation. Profit. Things like that.

Of course, they would target you if you happened to violate the legal code.That's just part of the deal.

I was talking about AC police.

And, unfortunately, therein lies the key problem of contractual anarchocapitalism, in principle the most just system there is, but in practice, similiar to other forms of anarchy in that over time, it guarentees a tyranny will manifest.

And how does it do that?

Oh, you're not going to try "one company will try to force the others out of business/will gain a monopoly", are you? Please don't pin your hopes on that rubbish if you are thinking about it.

This proposal far outreaches the power that the UN should have over member nations.

While I do not think that this is an issue that the UN should have any influence over, I am most definitely all for outlawing capitalism. If a country is so wealthy, why are some of its citizens so poor? Why should, say, football players (a nonessential service) make so much more than someone that actually performs a necessary and dangerous/unpleasent duty? Doesn't make much sense to me.

I was talking about AC police.

And, unfortunately, therein lies the key problem of contractual anarchocapitalism, in principle the most just system there is, but in practice, similiar to other forms of anarchy in that over time, it guarentees a tyranny will manifest.

And how does it do that?

Oh, you're not going to try "one company will try to force the others out of business/will gain a monopoly", are you? Please don't pin your hopes on that rubbish if you are thinking about it.

Because there's no real law in anarchocapitalism and the police are effectively unchecked except by other police. State-controlled police can [theoretically] be checked by a judiciary.

Under AC police, you also run into the problem of determining who's in who's jurisdiction (i.e. what if I don't agree to be under the jurisdiction of one police unit and instead want to be under the jurisdiction of another)?

While great in principle, putting it into practice is a bigger risk than I'm willing to afford.

While I do not think that this is an issue that the UN should have any influence over, I am most definitely all for outlawing capitalism. If a country is so wealthy, why are some of its citizens so poor? Why should, say, football players (a nonessential service) make so much more than someone that actually performs a necessary and dangerous/unpleasent duty? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Simple: Because we like football.

In the Etheric realms we are moving away from wage slavery. we are not governed by greed and the need to have mere bits of metal to barter with those that provide are provided.

all who with to join me in this ideal please send me a message. together we can build a truly the ultimate modern society.

no monitory system holding us back. no class divide every thing one owns the other owns let us make a committee not to rule but help and guide our peoples so that no longer petty squabbling and herding is a thing of the past.

In the Etheric realms we are moving away from wage slavery. we are not governed by greed and the need to have mere bits of metal to barter with those that provide are provided.

all who wish to join me in this ideal please send me a message. together we can build truly the ultimate modern society.

no monitory system holding us back. no class divide every thing one owns the other owns let us make a committee not to rule but help and guide our peoples so that no longer petty squabbling and hoarding blight our kin.

In the Etheric realms we are moving away from wage slavery. we are not governed by greed and the need to have mere bits of metal to barter with those that provide are provided.

all who wish to join me in this ideal please send me a message. together we can build truly the ultimate modern society.

no monitory system holding us back. no class divide every thing one owns the other owns let us make a committee not to rule but help and guide our peoples so that no longer petty squabbling and hoarding blight our kin.

Did you do that just to increase your post count? C'mon, fess up.

AND I'M STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO GIVE ME A GOOD ARGUEMENT AGAINST THE LTV.


In reviewing the whole history of mankind from the early beginnings of civilization up to our age, it makes sense to establish in general terms the fact that the productivity of human labor has been [p. 608] multiplied, for indeed the members of a civilized nation produce today much more than their ancestors did. But this concept of the productivity of labor in general is devoid of any praxeological or catallactic meaning and does not allow any expression in numerical terms. Still less is it permissible to refer to it in attempts to deal with the problems of the market.

Present-day labor-union doctrine operates with a concept of productivity of labor that is designedly constructed to provide an alleged ethical justification for syndicalistic ventures. It defines productivity either as the total market value in terms of money that is added to the products by the processing (either of one firm or by all the firms of a branch of industry), divided by the number of workers employed, or as output (of this firm or branch of industry) per manhour of work. Comparing the magnitudes computed in this way for the beginning of a definite period of time and for its end, they call the amount by which the figure computed for the later date exceeds that for the earlier date "increase in productivity of labor," and they pretend that it by rights belongs entirely to the workers. They demand that this whole amount should be added to the wage rates which the workers received at the beginning of the period. Confronted with these claims of the unions, the employers for the most part do not contest the underlying doctrine and do not question the concept of productivity of labor involved. They accept it implicitly in pointing out that wage rates have already risen to the full extent of the increase in productivity, computed according to this method, or that they have already risen beyond this limit.


Now this procedure of computing the productivity of the work performed by the labor force of a firm or an industry is entirely fallacious. One thousand men working forty hours a week in a modern American shoe factory turn out every month m pairs of shoes. One thousand men working with the traditional old-fashioned tools in small artisan shops somewhere in the backward countries of Asia produce over the same period of time, even when working much longer than forty hours weekly, many fewer than m pairs. Between the United States and Asia the difference in productivity computed according to the methods of the union doctrine is enormous. It is certainly not due to any inherent virtues of the American worker. He is not more diligent, painstaking, skillful, or intelligent than the Asiatics. (We may even assume that many of those employed in a modern factory perform much simpler operations than those required from a man handling the old-fashioned tools.) The superiority of the American plant is entirely caused by the superiority of its equipment and the prudence of its entrepreneurial conduct. What [p. 609] prevents the businessmen of the backward countries from adopting the American methods of production is lack of capital accumulated, not any insufficiency on the part of their workers.

Human Action. Page 608

Which entirely ignores the labour required to produce the equipment.

And if you're so bothered about Marx adopting a Hegelian approach, try reading Daniel Bensaid, who analyses Marx from a Derridean viewpoint.

Example of a socialist country avoiding using force? How about the Soviet Union under Lenin doing everything possible to end World War I.

I was talking about AC police.

And, unfortunately, therein lies the key problem of contractual anarchocapitalism, in principle the most just system there is, but in practice, similiar to other forms of anarchy in that over time, it guarentees a tyranny will manifest.

And how does it do that?

Oh, you're not going to try "one company will try to force the others out of business/will gain a monopoly", are you? Please don't pin your hopes on that rubbish if you are thinking about it.

Because there's no real law in anarchocapitalism and the police are effectively unchecked except by other police.

There's no real law in anarchocapitalism? What makes you say that?

The police would be effectively checked--by those contracting with them. Any overstepping of bounds would be noticed.

State-controlled police can [theoretically] be checked by a judiciary.

....which is controlled by the state.

Under AC police, you also run into the problem of determining who's in who's jurisdiction

And the various agencies wouldn't have worked this out before?


Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase law enforcement from private firms. Each such firm faces possible conflicts with other firms. Private policemen working for the enforcement agency that I employ may track down the burglar who stole my property only to discover, when they try to arrest him, that he too employs an enforcement agency.

There are three ways in which such conflicts might be dealt with. The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. When a conflict occured, it would then be up to the two agencies to determine whether the accused customer of one would or would not be deemed guilty and turned over to the other.

A still more attractive and more likely solution is advance contracting between the agencies. Under this scenario, any two agencies that faced a significant probability of such clashes would agree on an arbitration agency to settle them-a private court. Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled.

Under these circumstances, both law enforcement and law are private goods produced on a private market. Law enforcement is produced by enforcement agencies and sold directly to their customers. Law is produced by arbitration agencies and sold to the enforcement agencies, who resell it to their customers as one characteristic of the bundle of services they provide.[4]

The resulting legal system might contain many different law codes. The rules governing a particular conflict will depend on the arbitration agency that the enforcement agencies employed by the parties to the conflict have agreed on. While there will be some market pressure for uniformity, it is logically possible for every pair of enforcement agencies to agree on a different arbitration agency with a different set of legal rules.[5]

Indeed, one could have more diversity than that. Suppose there is some small group within the population with specialized legal requirements. An example might be members of a religious sect that forbade the taking of oaths, in a society where conventional legal procedure required such oaths. Such a group might have its own enforcement agency and let that agency negotiate appropriate legal rules on its behalf. Alternatively, an agency might produce a specialized product for members of the group by negotiating agreements under which those customers, if involved in litigation, were not required to swear the usual oaths.

As this example suggests, the potential legal diversity of such a system is very large; in principle, a different set of legal rules might apply between every pair of persons. In practice, such diversity will be constrained by costs of negotiation and by costs of legal diversity. The transaction costs of separately negotiating a different law code between every pair of persons would be prohibitively high, so it is likely that each pair of enforcement agencies will agree on a single law code interpreted by a single arbitration agency, with provisions for occasional variances of the sort described above.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html

(i.e. what if I don't agree to be under the jurisdiction of one police unit and instead want to be under the jurisdiction of another)?

Then you're free to switch your contract.

While great in principle, putting it into practice is a bigger risk than I'm willing to afford.

Not putting it into practice is what has lead us to the conflicts we see today.

AND I'M STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO GIVE ME A GOOD ARGUEMENT AGAINST THE LTV.


In reviewing the whole history of mankind from the early beginnings of civilization up to our age, it makes sense to establish in general terms the fact that the productivity of human labor has been [p. 608] multiplied, for indeed the members of a civilized nation produce today much more than their ancestors did. But this concept of the productivity of labor in general is devoid of any praxeological or catallactic meaning and does not allow any expression in numerical terms. Still less is it permissible to refer to it in attempts to deal with the problems of the market.

Present-day labor-union doctrine operates with a concept of productivity of labor that is designedly constructed to provide an alleged ethical justification for syndicalistic ventures. It defines productivity either as the total market value in terms of money that is added to the products by the processing (either of one firm or by all the firms of a branch of industry), divided by the number of workers employed, or as output (of this firm or branch of industry) per manhour of work. Comparing the magnitudes computed in this way for the beginning of a definite period of time and for its end, they call the amount by which the figure computed for the later date exceeds that for the earlier date "increase in productivity of labor," and they pretend that it by rights belongs entirely to the workers. They demand that this whole amount should be added to the wage rates which the workers received at the beginning of the period. Confronted with these claims of the unions, the employers for the most part do not contest the underlying doctrine and do not question the concept of productivity of labor involved. They accept it implicitly in pointing out that wage rates have already risen to the full extent of the increase in productivity, computed according to this method, or that they have already risen beyond this limit.


Now this procedure of computing the productivity of the work performed by the labor force of a firm or an industry is entirely fallacious. One thousand men working forty hours a week in a modern American shoe factory turn out every month m pairs of shoes. One thousand men working with the traditional old-fashioned tools in small artisan shops somewhere in the backward countries of Asia produce over the same period of time, even when working much longer than forty hours weekly, many fewer than m pairs. Between the United States and Asia the difference in productivity computed according to the methods of the union doctrine is enormous. It is certainly not due to any inherent virtues of the American worker. He is not more diligent, painstaking, skillful, or intelligent than the Asiatics. (We may even assume that many of those employed in a modern factory perform much simpler operations than those required from a man handling the old-fashioned tools.) The superiority of the American plant is entirely caused by the superiority of its equipment and the prudence of its entrepreneurial conduct. What [p. 609] prevents the businessmen of the backward countries from adopting the American methods of production is lack of capital accumulated, not any insufficiency on the part of their workers.

Human Action. Page 608

Which entirely ignores the labour required to produce the equipment.

And Marx entirely ignores that fact that the means of production have to be produced and aren't just there.

Of course, my objection to Marx has merit, while your objection to Mises...has none. Of course there is labor required to produce the equipment. So what?

And if you're so bothered about Marx adopting a Hegelian approach, try reading Daniel Bensaid, who analyses Marx from a Derridean viewpoint.

Unfortunately, Marx is simply Hegel without the supernaturalism.

Example of a socialist country avoiding using force? How about the Soviet Union under Lenin doing everything possible to end World War I.

....who then proceeded to have Dzerzhinsky slaughter his (Lenin's) rivals.

Yeah, that's a good example. Can you say "Lubyanka"? Can you say "Cheka"?

Which entirely ignores the labour required to produce the equipment.

And Marx entirely ignores that fact that the means of production have to be produced and aren't just there.

Of course, my objection to Marx has merit, while your objection to Mises...has none. Of course there is labor required to produce the equipment. So what?

:lol: of course! But (have you read Capital?) Marx is fully aware that the means of production have to be produced. By um- what was it - labour! So what? Well, it kinda negates the false assumptions of the quote

Clearly this labour-generates means of production-enables labour can be seen as a chicken-and-egg situation, and you are looking it at it from the opposite viewpoint, believing that it is more effective to analyse the world in terms of things than (like Marx) in terms of people.

And if you're so bothered about Marx adopting a Hegelian approach, try reading Daniel Bensaid, who analyses Marx from a Derridean viewpoint.

Unfortunately, Marx is simply Hegel without the supernaturalism.
This statement has a little truth in it. In purely theoretical terms (ignoring, that is, action), Marx was more heavily influenced by Hegel than by any other philosopher. Naturally, he discarded Hegel's supernaturalism (though some might argue not entirely). Bensaid offers a different approach arriving at the same conclusions, hence my mentioning it.

Example of a socialist country avoiding using force? How about the Soviet Union under Lenin doing everything possible to end World War I.

....who then proceeded to have Dzerzhinsky slaughter his (Lenin's) rivals.

Yeah, that's a good example. Can you say "Lubyanka"? Can you say "Cheka"?

Did I say they used no force ever? I'm not defending Lenin's every action (though I would defend the SU's actions to defend itself), rather offering an example where the Soviet Union could have prolonged a conflict and perhaps gained territorially, and in the longer term maybe economically, but instead opted for international solidarity.

The Soviet Union tried to stop WWI because they were suffering massive casualties.

The Soviet Union tried to stop WWI because they were suffering massive casualties.

They tried to stop it because the working class internationally were suffering massive casualties. It was the declared aim of the groups brought to power in each of the 1917 revolutions, but the Bolsheviks carried it out, while the earlier coalition did not.

1/3 of people dont have safe water supply
20 million die each year of malenutrition
>850 million suffer from malenutrition
the worlds 300 richest have as much (money) as the 5 BILLION poorest.

THIS IS A MATTER OF URGENCY FOR ALL HUMANITY

Capiltalism is NOT the problem.The World would not be fed at all if the natural law of evolution was not incorporated into our societal organizations. Some people are better managers of resources, some people are better manual labors, some technicians...capitalism is the only system that can adjust both at the macro and the micro level to provide to the best degree 'each to his ability and each to his need'. Furthermore, the acquisition of capital serves as the central organizing priciple for research and high cost projects.

The problem that faces the world today is not capitalism, but a two-fold problem that lies within the lack of legal protection for humankind and in the very heart of humankind itself:

1)A Global Bill of Rights is the first step to creating a peaceful global society. The trillions spent in Defense would no longer be necessary and the natural wealth of human liberation would serve to generate more wealth worldwide in one stroke across the spectrum. A good legal system protecting the rights of citizens will protect them from uncompassionate and immoral capitalist leaders.

2)HumanKind must be educated to the natural law of our shared existence. While this cannot be forced on anyone, education to the fact of a benevolent creator and the broad requirement of our shared dreams, goals, and desires and rights MUST become the forefront and foundation of the global educational system and the family unit. With an increase in morality an increase in compassionate capitalism will occur as well.

Which entirely ignores the labour required to produce the equipment.

And Marx entirely ignores that fact that the means of production have to be produced and aren't just there.

Of course, my objection to Marx has merit, while your objection to Mises...has none. Of course there is labor required to produce the equipment. So what?

:lol: of course! But (have you read Capital?) Marx is fully aware that the means of production have to be produced. By um- what was it - labour! So what? Well, it kinda negates the false assumptions of the quote

Actually, no. Marx takes the means of production as just being there. Silly idea.

Clearly this labour-generates means of production-enables labour can be seen as a chicken-and-egg situation, and you are looking it at it from the opposite viewpoint, believing that it is more effective to analyse the world in terms of things than (like Marx) in terms of people.

Marx analyzed things in terms of some silly historical dialectic mangled from Hegel.

[snip]

Example of a socialist country avoiding using force? How about the Soviet Union under Lenin doing everything possible to end World War I.

....who then proceeded to have Dzerzhinsky slaughter his (Lenin's) rivals.

Yeah, that's a good example. Can you say "Lubyanka"? Can you say "Cheka"?

Did I say they used no force ever?

No. However your "socialist country avoiding using force" in one instance simply has no matter.

I'm not defending Lenin's every action (though I would defend the SU's actions to defend itself), rather offering an example where the Soviet Union could have prolonged a conflict and perhaps gained territorially, and in the longer term maybe economically, but instead opted for international solidarity.

Because Lenin needed to consolodate his position more effectively.

1/3 of people dont have safe water supply
20 million die each year of malenutrition
>850 million suffer from malenutrition
the worlds 300 richest have as much (money) as the 5 BILLION poorest.

THIS IS A MATTER OF URGENCY FOR ALL HUMANITY

Capiltalism is NOT the problem.The World would not be fed at all if the natural law of evolution was not incorporated into our societal organizations. Some people are better managers of resources, some people are better manual labors, some technicians...capitalism is the only system that can adjust both at the macro and the micro level to provide to the best degree 'each to his ability and each to his need'. Furthermore, the acquisition of capital serves as the central organizing priciple for research and high cost projects.

The problem that faces the world today is not capitalism, but a two-fold problem that lies within the lack of legal protection for humankind and in the very heart of humankind itself:

1)A Global Bill of Rights is the first step to creating a peaceful global society. The trillions spent in Defense would no longer be necessary and the natural wealth of human liberation would serve to generate more wealth worldwide in one stroke across the spectrum. A good legal system protecting the rights of citizens will protect them from uncompassionate and immoral capitalist leaders.

2)HumanKind must be educated to the natural law of our shared existence. While this cannot be forced on anyone, education to the fact of a benevolent creator and the broad requirement of our shared dreams, goals, and desires and rights MUST become the forefront and foundation of the global educational system and the family unit. With an increase in morality an increase in compassionate capitalism will occur as well.

Could you please explain how your points could be achieved in the neo-Darwinian capitalist society you describe?

Which entirely ignores the labour required to produce the equipment.

And Marx entirely ignores that fact that the means of production have to be produced and aren't just there.

Of course, my objection to Marx has merit, while your objection to Mises...has none. Of course there is labor required to produce the equipment. So what?

:lol: of course! But (have you read Capital?) Marx is fully aware that the means of production have to be produced. By um- what was it - labour! So what? Well, it kinda negates the false assumptions of the quote

Actually, no. Marx takes the means of production as just being there. Silly idea.

No you haven't read Capital? It shows.


Clearly this labour-generates means of production-enables labour can be seen as a chicken-and-egg situation, and you are looking it at it from the opposite viewpoint, believing that it is more effective to analyse the world in terms of things than (like Marx) in terms of people.

Marx analyzed things in terms of some silly historical dialectic mangled from Hegel.

[snip]


Brief dismissive statement to reasoned debate: sure sign of having lost the arguement.


Example of a socialist country avoiding using force? How about the Soviet Union under Lenin doing everything possible to end World War I.

....who then proceeded to have Dzerzhinsky slaughter his (Lenin's) rivals.

Yeah, that's a good example. Can you say "Lubyanka"? Can you say "Cheka"?

Did I say they used no force ever?

No. However your "socialist country avoiding using force" in one instance simply has no matter.

I'm not defending Lenin's every action (though I would defend the SU's actions to defend itself), rather offering an example where the Soviet Union could have prolonged a conflict and perhaps gained territorially, and in the longer term maybe economically, but instead opted for international solidarity.

Because Lenin needed to consolodate his position more effectively.

See reply above.

Natural selection is cruel. Why should we give into it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Hard workers like capitalism because they'll reap the rewards of their work directly in their improving lives.

Lazy people wouldn't because they would also see the results of their work in their poverty.

People will work harder for themselves than for anyone else. Capitalism is the only way to go.

So what if the people on the bottom get paid less than those on the top. Those on the top have skills that are either better or more in demand than those on the bottom. Are any of you insinuating that people should be paid the same regardless of how well they perform their jobs? Should a careless factory worker be paid less than a CEO leading his company to the top? I think so.

Oops. Double posted.

This topic is futile in the eyes of my nation, even if we are just starting our economy and we have no private enterprising (this not being a choice but the result of the way our people had to live after our independence, we had to be self-sufficient), we see no problem in capitalism by itself but in the way it reaches into the political decitions by manipulating the interests of the people in power, the way my country is trying to solve this is by letting the citizens take more and more politic decitions every day and taking power away from the "government", making our main goal to reach Direct Democracy someday (OOC: hope NS2 makes it possible :D )

Which entirely ignores the labour required to produce the equipment.

And Marx entirely ignores that fact that the means of production have to be produced and aren't just there.

Of course, my objection to Marx has merit, while your objection to Mises...has none. Of course there is labor required to produce the equipment. So what?

:lol: of course! But (have you read Capital?) Marx is fully aware that the means of production have to be produced. By um- what was it - labour! So what? Well, it kinda negates the false assumptions of the quote

Actually, no. Marx takes the means of production as just being there. Silly idea.

No you haven't read Capital? It shows.

*laughs*

Suuuure it does.

Just like I know that nowhere in Das Kapital does Marx actually get around to explaining what he means by "class". Sure, he has about 3 paragraphs at the start of where he wants to, but that's as far as he ever got. And considering that "class" is a huge part of Marxian doctrine, you'd think he would have been able to actually put forth what he meant. But he never could or did.

So much for not reading Das Kapital.

Clearly this labour-generates means of production-enables labour can be seen as a chicken-and-egg situation, and you are looking it at it from the opposite viewpoint, believing that it is more effective to analyse the world in terms of things than (like Marx) in terms of people.

Marx analyzed things in terms of some silly historical dialectic mangled from Hegel.

[snip]


Brief dismissive statement to reasoned debate: sure sign of having lost the arguement.

Non sequitur. Try again without the fallacy.

And I *can* dismiss Marx that way. Anyone who latches on to dual-realm crap gets that treatment. Silly pythagorean hangover mysticism.


Example of a socialist country avoiding using force? How about the Soviet Union under Lenin doing everything possible to end World War I.

....who then proceeded to have Dzerzhinsky slaughter his (Lenin's) rivals.

Yeah, that's a good example. Can you say "Lubyanka"? Can you say "Cheka"?

Did I say they used no force ever?

No. However your "socialist country avoiding using force" in one instance simply has no matter.

I'm not defending Lenin's every action (though I would defend the SU's actions to defend itself), rather offering an example where the Soviet Union could have prolonged a conflict and perhaps gained territorially, and in the longer term maybe economically, but instead opted for international solidarity.

Because Lenin needed to consolodate his position more effectively.

See reply above.

Ok, but please explain the relevance.

As a communist nation the United Socialist States of Russu do not believe that communism should be forced on any people, no matter how exploited they are. The day will come, Pan Incaria, when communism will thriumph over the evils of capitalism.

This topic is futile in the eyes of my nation, even if we are just starting our economy and we have no private enterprising (this not being a choice but the result of the way our people had to live after our independence, we had to be self-sufficient), we see no problem in capitalism by itself but in the way it reaches into the political decitions by manipulating the interests of the people in power, the way my country is trying to solve this is by letting the citizens take more and more politic decitions every day and taking power away from the "government", making our main goal to reach Direct Democracy someday (OOC: hope NS2 makes it possible

If you keep up the lack of capitalism, you'd be anarchist like me! That would be great.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

*laughs*

Suuuure it does.

Just like I know that nowhere in Das Kapital does Marx actually get around to explaining what he means by "class". Sure, he has about 3 paragraphs at the start of where he wants to, but that's as far as he ever got. And considering that "class" is a huge part of Marxian doctrine, you'd think he would have been able to actually put forth what he meant. But he never could or did.

So much for not reading Das Kapital.


If you can't find it in Capital (and the three volumes do require a little effort), try the "Communist Manifesto", or Engel's "Condition of the Working Class in England in 1848". It's quite clear.

Non sequitur. Try again without the fallacy.

And I *can* dismiss Marx that way. Anyone who latches on to dual-realm crap gets that treatment. Silly pythagorean hangover mysticism.


Well, if you've suddenly decided not to debate the issue, ok. Slinging unsubstantiated insults is a little childish.


Ok, but please explain the relevance.


Its my analysis of the Bolshevik's actions. Remember, Lenin didn't care much for his personal power. Hence him offering the leadership in 1917 to Trotsky (who refused).

As a communist nation the United Socialist States of Russu do not believe that communism should be forced on any people, no matter how exploited they are. The day will come, Pan Incaria, when communism will thriumph over the evils of capitalism.

While I suspect I won't agree with your politics, on this point I agree entirely. "The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself". And just abolishing capitalism will achieve nothing.

Don't like capitalism? Then don't go to the store and buy food, computers clothes etc. Buisness is good for people.

(is glad he's not wasting his time with these pinko lunatics)

The people of the Community of Bariloche worked very hard to emancipate themselves by communal and self-supporting spirit and now have no need of other countries products or technologies, every step we take into the future is for the people's own good, fueled by the insatiable desire of living in a peaceful and non competitive world where everyone has what can make their lives better for free and give whatever they can to their countrymen.

As a communist nation the United Socialist States of Russu do not believe that communism should be forced on any people, no matter how exploited they are. The day will come, Pan Incaria, when communism will thriumph over the evils of capitalism.

The International Communist Conspiracy (henceforth referred to as the ICC) died out over a decade ago. We already won. Sorry.

As a country founded on the principles of the new democratic party, we beleive that when a company generates a profit, we must punish them. The Democratic States of The Nieve Nine officially endorses Pan-Icaria's proposal to outlaw capitalism.

With increased government spending, financial problems with citizens can be fixed. As long as the govenment spends money, the people will have money, and thus will not need to generate profits.

As a country founded on the principles of the new democratic party, we beleive that when a company generates a profit, we must punish them. The Democratic States of The Nieve Nine officially endorses Pan-Icaria's proposal to outlaw capitalism.

With increased government spending, financial problems with citizens can be fixed. As long as the govenment spends money, the people will have money, and thus will not need to generate profits.

You realize that the government gets all its revenue by physical force and therefore the government budget is zero-sum, right?

As a country founded on the principles of the new democratic party, we beleive that when a company generates a profit, we must punish them. The Democratic States of The Nieve Nine officially endorses Pan-Icaria's proposal to outlaw capitalism.

With increased government spending, financial problems with citizens can be fixed. As long as the govenment spends money, the people will have money, and thus will not need to generate profits.

Now that's some staunch state socialism! :shock:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

OK, you managed to drag me into it. Congratulations.


With increased government spending, financial problems with citizens can be fixed. As long as the govenment spends money, the people will have money, and thus will not need to generate profits.

Eh...um...ok.

Money is simply a means of representing ownership of a fixed amount of some good. The mere presence of money does not create wealth--rather, it is the useful or desirable goods the money represents that are wealth. Money is merely a more convenient means of exchanging wealth than physically lugging around a carton of eggs or basketballs or whatnot with you.

If money is not itself wealth, then the wealth it represents must be produced from somewhere. It is not enough to merely coin money and distribute it--that accomplishes nothing.

I hope that was enough to explain the economic fallacy of your statement...if you wish, I can expand on that.

OK, you managed to drag me into it. Congratulations.


With increased government spending, financial problems with citizens can be fixed. As long as the govenment spends money, the people will have money, and thus will not need to generate profits.

Eh...um...ok.

Money is simply a means of representing ownership of a fixed amount of some good. The mere presence of money does not create wealth--rather, it is the useful or desirable goods the money represents that are wealth. Money is merely a more convenient means of exchanging wealth than physically lugging around a carton of eggs or basketballs or whatnot with you.

If money is not itself wealth, then the wealth it represents must be produced from somewhere. It is not enough to merely coin money and distribute it--that accomplishes nothing.

I hope that was enough to explain the economic fallacy of your statement...if you wish, I can expand on that.

Or inflate on it!

EDIT: In restrospect, I realize how not funny that was. I humbly apologize.

Actually, I forgot to explain what this all has to do with profit.

Profit, simply put, occurs whenever an economic activity causes a net increase in wealth--in other words, when opportunity benefit exceeds opportunity cost. Wealth is simply anything that one values--it need not be a material good.

All voluntary economic activities are inherently profitable for their participants. No individual would choose to engage in something in which he did not get out something that he values more than what he puts in.

The philanthropist profits because he values the feeling of fulfillment he gets when he donates his wealth to a just cause more than the wealth itself--otherwise he would just keep his money.
The entrepreneur profits because he values the wealth he attains for himself more than the effort he expends creating it--otherwise he wouldn't waste his time.
The assembly-line worker profits because he values his food and water and shelter more than the time he could have spent at home.

All are profitable activities, and all are voluntary because no one is threatened with the loss of what was his beforehand if he should choose to not participate.

If all voluntary activities are profitable, then if any econonomic activity is not profitable it must be not be voluntary. Logically, the only alternative to voluntary economic activity is involuntary economic activity--i.e. slavery. In truth, even slavery is not completely without profit, for there must be something in it for the slavemasters; otherwise they would not order the work done.

Thus, it is completely impossible to totally eliminate profit, and the only way to come even close requires resorting to slavery--something I, and I'm sure you as well, do not desire.

To eliminate profit is to eliminate freedom itself.

OOC: you know what, I WOULD argue with you people, but I'm just too damn lazy.

Money is simply a means of representing ownership of a fixed amount of some good. The mere presence of money does not create wealth--rather, it is the useful or desirable goods the money represents that are wealth. Money is merely a more convenient means of exchanging wealth than physically lugging around a carton of eggs or basketballs or whatnot with you.
A poor statement. Money does not represent labour as I have already discussed. It is a quantative measure used to describe a qualitative and quantative subject (ie the fruits of a man's labour).


All voluntary economic activities are inherently profitable for their participants. No individual would choose to engage in something in which he did not get out something that he values more than what he puts in.
Such is the problem in capitalism. Profit, when we consider a net increase in stored labour, is entirely qualitative. In the by gone era of bartering at local markets I might agree with you but THIS WAS NOT CAPITALISM. When the modern capitalist tries to make a profit he does so only in so much as he reaps a certain reward greater than the labour costs he has employed. The value of the labour and the labour costs are distinctly different. The difference between what the Company produces (the combined workforce) and the cost of the labour is the profit. It is also the exploitation as the individual Capitalist did not fork PERSONALLY for this "profit". His labour value is zilch. zero.

You may describe the "profit" in a pretty picture or a diamond but you might see that those items are only within the reach of the upper classes in the current system. They have no labour value either. But they barely acount for mass suffering.

Many of you comrades have made the observation that the fall of Capitalism is inevittable and I agree.
I do this to save much bloodshed. Through democracy, whilst we may fail, we must try.
Until Revolution.

And I suppose your idea of a good economy is a country full of farming communes?

And I suppose your idea of a good economy is a country full of farming communes?
Is that addressed to me.
If so then no.

A poor statement. Money does not represent labour as I have already discussed. It is a quantative measure used to describe a qualitative and quantative subject (ie the fruits of a man's labour).

Money is a medium of exchange. It represents what people are willing to pay for a certain good or service.

Such is the problem in capitalism. Profit, when we consider a net increase in stored labour, is entirely qualitative.

Perhaps because money is qualitative. Economically speaking, the value of something is equal to what people are willing to pay for it. Period.

In the by gone era of bartering at local markets I might agree with you but THIS WAS NOT CAPITALISM. When the modern capitalist tries to make a profit he does so only in so much as he reaps a certain reward greater than the labour costs he has employed.

Well, duh. It's called "self-interest". Everyone does it. Thankfully, wealth is not zero-sum. That's why we have "growth" in economics.

The value of the labour and the labour costs are distinctly different. The difference between what the Company produces (the combined workforce) and the cost of the labour is the profit. It is also the exploitation as the individual Capitalist did not fork PERSONALLY for this "profit". His labour value is zilch. zero.

No, but he needed to afford the investment, didn't he?

You may describe the "profit" in a pretty picture or a diamond but you might see that those items are only within the reach of the upper classes in the current system. They have no labour value either. But they barely acount for mass suffering.

Oh, yes, life for the average American is soooooo miserable... :roll:

Many of you comrades have made the observation that the fall of Capitalism is inevittable and I agree.

Yeah, I agree that hte fall of capitalism is inevitable too. The fall of the human race is also inevitable, the issue is just how far in the future...

I do this to save much bloodshed. Through democracy, whilst we may fail, we must try.
Until Revolution.

Amazingly capitalism seems to be more popular than communism these days...

It was addressed to you, Pan Icaria.

I'm not going to bother any more with this topic. Your thinking is so backwards that I don't see any way that could turn you around except, perhaps, participating in an economy you approve of.

Oh, yes, life for the average American is soooooo miserable...

What about life for the slave in a sweatshop? Don't tell me they have it good.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Money is simply a means of representing ownership of a fixed amount of some good. The mere presence of money does not create wealth--rather, it is the useful or desirable goods the money represents that are wealth. Money is merely a more convenient means of exchanging wealth than physically lugging around a carton of eggs or basketballs or whatnot with you.
A poor statement. Money does not represent labour as I have already discussed. It is a quantative measure used to describe a qualitative and quantative subject (ie the fruits of a man's labour).

Eh...just one question.

Compare what I said and your response. How do they differ?

Oh, yes, life for the average American is soooooo miserable...

What about life for the slave in a sweatshop? Don't tell me they have it good.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.


They have it better than they could unemployed. Nobody is forcing them to work there. I think it's already been mentioned that people compete over those jobs.

Damn, and I wasn't going to say anything else on this topic. Oh well.

Oh, yes, life for the average American is soooooo miserable...

What about life for the slave in a sweatshop? Don't tell me they have it good.

Considering that they are paid TWO to THREE times more than workers employed by local manufacturers, I'd say they have it pretty good for third-worlders.

They have it better than they could unemployed. Nobody is forcing them to work there. I think it's already been mentioned that people compete over those jobs.

Damn, and I wasn't going to say anything else on this topic. Oh well.

And what about child labor? Those children are forced to work by their parents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Oh, yes, life for the average American is soooooo miserable...
That was not what I was trying to imply. I was showing how qualitative produce is irrelevant to the suffering majority. Indeed rich Amerikkkans are some of the few who can consume diamonds and jewls.

Eh...just one question.
Compare what I said and your response. How do they differ?
You say that capital somehow represents labour when it clearly does not. I tried to prove that. You should reread my implication.

And no, no one suggests that sweatshop labourers don't have an opportunity. They could always quit and starve. How can they compete with companies who drive down labour costs and physically repress and hence have massive volumes of capital to invest?

*laughs*

Suuuure it does.

Just like I know that nowhere in Das Kapital does Marx actually get around to explaining what he means by "class". Sure, he has about 3 paragraphs at the start of where he wants to, but that's as far as he ever got. And considering that "class" is a huge part of Marxian doctrine, you'd think he would have been able to actually put forth what he meant. But he never could or did.

So much for not reading Das Kapital.


If you can't find it in Capital (and the three volumes do require a little effort),

I can't find it there because the chapter entitled "The Classes" in vol. 3 is a scant 3 paragraphs long and tells nothing of what the classes are! Engels tried to get around this by saying that Marx died before he could finish it, which is a load of crap.

try the "Communist Manifesto", or Engel's "Condition of the Working Class in England in 1848". It's quite clear.

Sorry, neither of them explain what Marx meant precisely by the "classes".

Non sequitur. Try again without the fallacy.

And I *can* dismiss Marx that way. Anyone who latches on to dual-realm crap gets that treatment. Silly pythagorean hangover mysticism.


Well, if you've suddenly decided not to debate the issue, ok. Slinging unsubstantiated insults is a little childish.

Unsubstantiated? Marx makes use of some sort of idiotic polylogistic "class sense" (which he never fully articulates, especially with "class", and assumes that everyone in a "class" thinks the same way, which is utter nonsense) and that we are guided by some sort of "animal instinct" that drives us via the "historical dialectic" of which we are unaware in any real sense. It's dual-realm metaphysics. It's Plato's Forms. It's the supernatural. It's Kant's nouma. It's Hegel's Geist. Call it whatever you want, but it's dual-realm junk. It's leftover Pythagorean alcohol, and it poisons the mind, rather than the liver.

Unsubstantiated my ass.


Ok, but please explain the relevance.


Its my analysis of the Bolshevik's actions. Remember, Lenin didn't care much for his personal power. Hence him offering the leadership in 1917 to Trotsky (who refused).

Yet Lenin certainly had no problem being in power once he got there.

They have it better than they could unemployed. Nobody is forcing them to work there. I think it's already been mentioned that people compete over those jobs.

Damn, and I wasn't going to say anything else on this topic. Oh well.

Well then if they are truly forced to work (abuse), then they have the right to seek help. If its voluntary, then who are we to stop them?

Unless you want to argue that children belong to the State.

Oh, yes, life for the average American is soooooo miserable...

What about life for the slave in a sweatshop? Don't tell me they have it good.

As Locke put it, paraphrased, "It's better than starving to death."

BAAWA,
Do you have some poor understanding of the word class? or is it historical materialism? Or are you trying to dogmatize the works of Marxists. If you have a question then I would be happy to try and answer. Fire away...

Eh...just one question.
Compare what I said and your response. How do they differ?
You say that capital somehow represents labour when it clearly does not. I tried to prove that. You should reread my implication.

1) I think you meant to direct that to me, not CNB.
2) My exact words:
Money is simply a means of representing ownership of a fixed amount of some good.

Assuming that people said what you WANTED them to say instead of what they ACTUALLY DID say is poor debating practice and really hurts your credibility. Next time, try reading through posts and arguing against what really was said rather than what you would like to have been said.

BAAWA,
Do you have some poor understanding of the word class? or is it historical materialism? Or are you trying to dogmatize the works of Marxists. If you have a question then I would be happy to try and answer. Fire away...

I'm from China. Say what you want about Mao, but his economic policies were clearly Marxist. Military controlled its own farms and factories, universal primary and secondary education, collectivism, public ownership of the means of production, etc., etc.

And, in the twenty-five years between 1950 and 1975, China achieved less than 10% GDP growth. That's less than a third of a percent a year... and all at the cost of 45 million lives.

Now reform began in 1978 with opening up the markets. China's most recent GDP growth was 8% in 2002.

Eh...just one question.
Compare what I said and your response. How do they differ?
You say that capital somehow represents labour when it clearly does not. I tried to prove that. You should reread my implication.

1) I think you meant to direct that to me, not CNB.
2) My exact words:
Money is simply a means of representing ownership of a fixed amount of some good.

Assuming that people said what you WANTED them to say instead of what they ACTUALLY DID say is poor debating practice and really hurts your credibility. Next time, try reading through posts and arguing against what really was said rather than what you would like to have been said.
Sorry I misdirected my post. I would reinterpret your post when YOU describe how these goods do not have a value proportional to the labour required to produced them. Since I have suggested that labour is qualatitive then it only follows that the use value of the GOODS must be measured upon the same scale

BAAWA,
Do you have some poor understanding of the word class? or is it historical materialism? Or are you trying to dogmatize the works of Marxists. If you have a question then I would be happy to try and answer. Fire away...

I'm from China. Say what you want about Mao, but his economic policies were clearly Marxist. Military controlled its own farms and factories, universal primary and secondary education, collectivism, public ownership of the means of production, etc., etc.

And, in the twenty-five years between 1950 and 1975, China achieved less than 10% GDP growth. That's less than a third of a percent a year... and all at the cost of 45 million lives.

Now reform began in 1978 with opening up the markets. China's most recent GDP growth was 8% in 2002.
You may or may not be right. Did China though not have some exclusion from the markets BECAUSE it was Marxist. Again and again I have explained that I in NO way support state sponsored reppression. Marxists (as oppose to Leninists) demand the end of military apparatus. China abused the People's Army. Marxism was also designed for a country with something of a working class which China did not have. And how is this relevant to my post?

The labor theory of value has been refuted time and time again. Value is dependent on quite a bit more than the labor invested in it.

For example, if you are lost in the desert, which will you value more--a glass of water or an electric lightbulb? Which took more to produce?

Just one example out of an infinite number...the amount of labor invested in making a good has absolutely no bearing on its value.

The labor theory of value has been refuted time and time again. Value is dependent on quite a bit more than the labor invested in it.

For example, if you are lost in the desert, which will you value more--a glass of water or an electric lightbulb? Which took more to produce?

Just one example out of an infinite number...the amount of labor invested in making a good has absolutely no bearing on its value.
Yes. Some generalisations are necessary. One is that most of the population will not be sat in the desert dying of thirst. The labour though that went into purifying the water? It would be quite absurd to make that which is not in need. But you can not put a value in terms of $s or £s of a product or of a man's labour. THESE GENERALISATIONS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY IN AN INDUSTRIAL, MARKET ECONOMY.

BAAWA,
Do you have some poor understanding of the word class? or is it historical materialism? Or are you trying to dogmatize the works of Marxists. If you have a question then I would be happy to try and answer. Fire away...

I'm from China. Say what you want about Mao, but his economic policies were clearly Marxist. Military controlled its own farms and factories, universal primary and secondary education, collectivism, public ownership of the means of production, etc., etc.

And, in the twenty-five years between 1950 and 1975, China achieved less than 10% GDP growth. That's less than a third of a percent a year... and all at the cost of 45 million lives.

Now reform began in 1978 with opening up the markets. China's most recent GDP growth was 8% in 2002.
You may or may not be right. Did China though not have some exclusion from the markets BECAUSE it was Marxist. Again and again I have explained that I in NO way support state sponsored reppression. Marxists (as oppose to Leninists) demand the end of military apparatus. China abused the People's Army. Marxism was also designed for a country with something of a working class which China did not have. And how is this relevant to my post?

China suffered market exclusion because Mao advocated ending all foreign trade since first world nations were exploitative. He actually did that, with predictably catstrophic results.

And what kind of a working class do you need for Marxism? An industrial one? Time and time again shows that industry flows naturally to capitalism whereas agriculture is more willing to adopt Marxism.

The labor theory of value has been refuted time and time again. Value is dependent on quite a bit more than the labor invested in it.

For example, if you are lost in the desert, which will you value more--a glass of water or an electric lightbulb? Which took more to produce?

Just one example out of an infinite number...the amount of labor invested in making a good has absolutely no bearing on its value.
Yes. Some generalisations are necessary. One is that most of the population will not be sat in the desert dying of thirst. The labour though that went into purifying the water? It would be quite absurd to make that which is not in need. But you can not put a value in terms of $s or £s of a product or of a man's labour. THESE GENERALISATIONS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.

The first rule of economics is that the value of any good or service is what people are willing to pay for it. Law of supply and demand. If we suddenyl suffer and orange famine, the price of oranges will go up. Likewise, if everyone suddenly decides to buy Nike Sneakers, the price of Nike Sneakers will go up.

BAAWA,
Do you have some poor understanding of the word class? or is it historical materialism? Or are you trying to dogmatize the works of Marxists. If you have a question then I would be happy to try and answer. Fire away...

I'm from China. Say what you want about Mao, but his economic policies were clearly Marxist. Military controlled its own farms and factories, universal primary and secondary education, collectivism, public ownership of the means of production, etc., etc.

And, in the twenty-five years between 1950 and 1975, China achieved less than 10% GDP growth. That's less than a third of a percent a year... and all at the cost of 45 million lives.

Now reform began in 1978 with opening up the markets. China's most recent GDP growth was 8% in 2002.
You may or may not be right. Did China though not have some exclusion from the markets BECAUSE it was Marxist. Again and again I have explained that I in NO way support state sponsored reppression. Marxists (as oppose to Leninists) demand the end of military apparatus. China abused the People's Army. Marxism was also designed for a country with something of a working class which China did not have. And how is this relevant to my post?

China suffered market exclusion because Mao advocated ending all foreign trade since first world nations were exploitative. He actually did that, with predictably catstrophic results.

And what kind of a working class do you need for Marxism? An industrial one? Time and time again shows that industry flows naturally to capitalism whereas agriculture is more willing to adopt Marxism.
AGAIN, I do not support all that Mao did. Do I expect you to bear upon your shoulders all that has been done in the name of the "Free Market".
Yes, you need quite an industrial one. In the Paris Commune there was a proletariat. In the USSR the revolution was based largely in Petrograd and the armies. But the economic success was somewhat larger than China's too. It was totally industrialised but better policy and the seeds of industrialisation were there.

The labor theory of value has been refuted time and time again. Value is dependent on quite a bit more than the labor invested in it.

For example, if you are lost in the desert, which will you value more--a glass of water or an electric lightbulb? Which took more to produce?

Just one example out of an infinite number...the amount of labor invested in making a good has absolutely no bearing on its value.
Yes. Some generalisations are necessary. One is that most of the population will not be sat in the desert dying of thirst. The labour though that went into purifying the water? It would be quite absurd to make that which is not in need. But you can not put a value in terms of $s or £s of a product or of a man's labour. THESE GENERALISATIONS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.

The first rule of economics is that the value of any good or service is what people are willing to pay for it. Law of supply and demand. If we suddenyl suffer and orange famine, the price of oranges will go up. Likewise, if everyone suddenly decides to buy Nike Sneakers, the price of Nike Sneakers will go up.
Under Capitalist constraint there is a certain degree of what you suggest. But just because a product is in demand it does not change its use value. The Capital that can be obtained from a good has little to do with its labour value either. The distribution of oranges SHOULD remain even but true enough, people will try to make a profit from demand by abusing the NEEDS of a population.

BAAWA,
Do you have some poor understanding of the word class?

Everyone does wrt Marxian usage. Marx couldn't define it, so how the hell does anyone know what it means!

or is it historical materialism?

That's Hegel's Geist minus the supernatural crap.

Or are you trying to dogmatize the works of Marxists.

Nope. Just trying to get some consistency. If you're a Marxist, then you'd better follow Marx!

If you have a question then I would be happy to try and answer. Fire away...

Yes: why do you think it's fine to initiate force against people. That is what Marxism is all about: forced redistribution of the means of production and anything else they can.

Under Capitalist constraint there is a certain degree of what you suggest. But just because a product is in demand it does not change its use value. The Capital that can be obtained from a good has little to do with its labour value either. The distribution of oranges SHOULD remain even but true enough, people will try to make a profit from demand by abusing the NEEDS of a population.

Nice evasion.

Value of a good is about the only subjective quantity in the entire universe. It is entirely dependent on how much people decide they want it. If you make a fruitcake, then if absolutely no one wants it, then it is completely worthless--it has no value--no matter how much work you put into it.

BAAWA,
Do you have some poor understanding of the word class?

Everyone does wrt Marxian usage. Marx couldn't define it, so how the hell does anyone know what it means!

or is it historical materialism?

That's Hegel's Geist minus the supernatural crap.

Or are you trying to dogmatize the works of Marxists.

Nope. Just trying to get some consistency. If you're a Marxist, then you'd better follow Marx!

If you have a question then I would be happy to try and answer. Fire away...

Yes: why do you think it's fine to initiate force against people. That is what Marxism is all about: forced redistribution of the means of production and anything else they can. OK. On dogmatizing Marx, I am share many of his views but you should know that Marxism is a flexible thing. You would call Lenin a Marxist but did he follow Marx? No. So it is OK to call a man a Marxist when he bends the rules for the worse but when someone tries to adopt certain Marxist values and then improve them you demand I call myself something different? What I am does not matter to you. Marx himself suggested that through debate ideas and PRSCTICAL solutions can be formed. He would be disappointed in those who dogmatize his work, I am sure.

Historical Materialism is beyond any doubt a scientific principal. As the productivity of a society has increased, as has its political climate. A new political/social system is developed to support this. When a certain level of productivity is reached, the social conditions can not support any further development. Primitive Communism, where the POWs were cannibalised came first because of scarcity of food. As productivity increased we were plunged into a new era where it was more efficient to keep a POW as a slave. The slave has no rights. The next political movement was feudalism where a serf (with some rights though he had to farm his master's field) and his lord were those in opposition through public pressure to stop slavery. In the towns there were also artisans and merchants. Eventually serfdom was abolished through POPULAR pressure. The serfs though found themselves to be vagrants and filling the new cities, selling their labour to the merchants, and the low level capitalists who were rising to become the new ruling elite. The Capitalists and deposed serfs then had their revolution which finally did away with feudal system. And now we have the modern construct with the same class tensions which inevitably destroyed old systems.

Under Capitalist constraint there is a certain degree of what you suggest. But just because a product is in demand it does not change its use value. The Capital that can be obtained from a good has little to do with its labour value either. The distribution of oranges SHOULD remain even but true enough, people will try to make a profit from demand by abusing the NEEDS of a population.

Nice evasion.

Value of a good is about the only subjective quantity in the entire universe. It is entirely dependent on how much people decide they want it. If you make a fruitcake, then if absolutely no one wants it, then it is completely worthless--it has no value--no matter how much work you put into it.
You are right. But is there ever a time when the humble fruit cake will have no use value (consider carefully how many uses it does hav)? Why though would labour be put into a product for which there is no use value? You make these suggestions which are wholly reasonable if people would bother, in Communist or Capitalist societies, to put labour into useless goods. I am pressuming though that this is not desirable.

People put labor into useless goods because they want them.

People put labor into useless goods because they want them.
Then it would have a use. I though believe that priority IS given to what people need rather in Communism than Capitalism (where need can not yet be satisfied yet the rich get what they want). Interesting that Ithuania accused a good that is unwanted of being useless. Johnistan, your idea flies in the face of Ithuania's suggestion

BAAWA,
Do you have some poor understanding of the word class?

Everyone does wrt Marxian usage. Marx couldn't define it, so how the hell does anyone know what it means!

or is it historical materialism?

That's Hegel's Geist minus the supernatural crap.

Or are you trying to dogmatize the works of Marxists.

Nope. Just trying to get some consistency. If you're a Marxist, then you'd better follow Marx!

If you have a question then I would be happy to try and answer. Fire away...

Yes: why do you think it's fine to initiate force against people. That is what Marxism is all about: forced redistribution of the means of production and anything else they can.

OK. On dogmatizing Marx, I am share many of his views but you should know that Marxism is a flexible thing. You would call Lenin a Marxist but did he follow Marx? No. So it is OK to call a man a Marxist when he bends the rules for the worse but when someone tries to adopt certain Marxist values and then improve them you demand I call myself something different? What I am does not matter to you. Marx himself suggested that through debate ideas and PRSCTICAL solutions can be formed. He would be disappointed in those who dogmatize his work, I am sure.

It's not being dogmatic. It's being consistent.

Historical Materialism is beyond any doubt a scientific principal.

No, it's not.

As the productivity of a society has increased, as has its political climate.

Not always.

A new political/social system is developed to support this. When a certain level of productivity is reached, the social conditions can not support any further development. Primitive Communism, where the POWs were cannibalised came first because of scarcity of food. As productivity increased we were plunged into a new era where it was more efficient to keep a POW as a slave. The slave has no rights. The next political movement was feudalism where a serf (with some rights though he had to farm his master's field) and his lord were those in opposition through public pressure to stop slavery. In the towns there were also artisans and merchants. Eventually serfdom was abolished through POPULAR pressure. The serfs though found themselves to be vagrants and filling the new cities, selling their labour to the merchants, and the low level capitalists who were rising to become the new ruling elite. The Capitalists and deposed serfs then had their revolution which finally did away with feudal system. And now we have the modern construct with the same class tensions which inevitably destroyed old systems.

Well, that's a very nice gross oversimplification and doesn't fit with reality. It's all nicely bumper-stickerish, but if you had some real evidence, that would be nice.

Also, this "class" thing you keep mentioning--you don't even know what it means. It's a crass anticoncept.

You are right. But is there ever a time when the humble fruit cake will have no use value (consider carefully how many uses it does hav)?

Fruitcake, and food in general, are an example of a good which has a limited amount of time that it can be used before it is no longer fit for use, no matter how much time and effort you put into it - not to mention could be produced incorrectly. No one might like your fruitcake because you forgot the fruit, or because they perceive you to be a bad cook with or without proper knowledge of such. Other goods are made simply for peoples' enjoyment, such as paintings and works of fiction. Or that Halloween costume that is made out of materials that cost a sum of $3700 to build and will be used once.

It's not being dogmatic. It's being consistent.
Well then. If I do not obey all of Marx's teachings am I no longer a Marxist. Sorry I will not bow to that demand.

Not always. Every time in history when productivity has reached a certain level a political movement has arisen. When has that not been true (except in the impending fall of Capitalism)?

YOU ALSO SAID:
"Well, that's a very nice gross oversimplification and doesn't fit with reality. It's all nicely bumper-stickerish, but if you had some real evidence, that would be nice.

Also, this "class" thing you keep mentioning--you don't even know what it means. It's a crass anticoncept."

Do you want me to cite every example of cannibalism and slavery and serfdom.

Again, your cliches do not do much to disprove what seems to be obvious throughout history.

So, on classes, do you think that you do not fit into one or that they do not exist. They are just simply areas in which people fall. A rich man who lives off exploitation (or profit as you fondly call it) fits into a descriptive category called the Capitalist Class. Those who are forced to sell their labour to sustain their lives are working class. There is also a middle class who earn about the value of their labour but society is more and more being polarized. What is wrong with giving these denominations as "classes"?

You are right. But is there ever a time when the humble fruit cake will have no use value (consider carefully how many uses it does hav)?

Fruitcake, and food in general, are an example of a good which has a limited amount of time that it can be used before it is no longer fit for use, no matter how much time and effort you put into it - not to mention could be produced incorrectly. No one might like your fruitcake because you forgot the fruit, or because they perceive you to be a bad cook with or without proper knowledge of such. Other goods are made simply for peoples' enjoyment, such as paintings and works of fiction. Or that Halloween costume that is made out of materials that cost a sum of $3700 to build and will be used once.
I didn't mean one ever-lasting fruit cake but the fruit cake generally. There will never be a period when there isn't a mouth prepared to consume this produce.
As for paintings, diamonds etc. they are consumed internally by the upper classes largely and have no bearing for the majority. They do not exploit but are irrelevant (though sustainable in Communism) to the working class man. They exist through the movement of surplus stored labour within the upper classes. They are not independant of the LTV but rely upon industries which are dictated by it.

It's not being dogmatic. It's being consistent.

Well then. If I do not obey all of Marx's teachings am I no longer a Marxist. Sorry I will not bow to that demand.

What demand?

Not always.

Every time in history when productivity has reached a certain level a political movement has arisen.

No, it hasn't.

When has that not been true (except in the impending fall of Capitalism)?

Show that it has been true.


"Well, that's a very nice gross oversimplification and doesn't fit with reality. It's all nicely bumper-stickerish, but if you had some real evidence, that would be nice.

Also, this "class" thing you keep mentioning--you don't even know what it means. It's a crass anticoncept."

Do you want me to cite every example of cannibalism and slavery and serfdom.

I want you to be able to define "class".

Again, your cliches do not do much to disprove what seems to be obvious throughout history.

Again, your "obvious in history"...isn't obvious.

So, on classes, do you think that you do not fit into one or that they do not exist.

If they do exist, they are purely arbitrary.

They are just simply areas in which people fall. A rich man who lives off exploitation

Exploitation can only happen in socialism.

(or profit as you fondly call it) fits into a descriptive category called the Capitalist Class.

Who, according to Marx, all think alike. That, of course, is ludicrous.

Those who are forced to sell their labour

No one is. Marx is simply wrong.

to sustain their lives are working class.

And the "capitalist class" don't work? Oh wait, they do.

Marx was an idiot.

There is also a middle class who earn about the value of their labour but society is more and more being polarized. What is wrong with giving these denominations as "classes"?

Purely arbitrary and ill-defined.

If they do exist, they are purely arbitrary.

While both race and social class are cultural, social class doesn't pretend to be anything else, like race does(Note that I don't mean this literally). While the distinction between the middle and lower class is rather vague compared the middle/lower and upper class, social classes still exist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Pan-whatever: Can you define "value"? If you can't, you seriously need to rethink your whole "philosophy". Words have meanings. I get the feeling that rather than having one definition for "value", you define it rather nebulously as a way of avoiding the issue at hand when you feel you can't deal with it. This is not only dishonest, but makes you look like a fool. When debating, it is absolutely essential to define your terms. Failure to do so completely erases the strength of your arguments because they no longer have any meaning.

You can define a word to mean whatever you like for the purposes of debate--after all, sometimes it's more convenient to attach a meaning to a word slightly different from its standard meaning and simply use that word than to use the complete definition you would otherwise attach to that word every time it comes up--as long as you make sure everyone knows what you mean by a certain word. To avoid defining your terms for others--especially when, as I suspect is the case here, you aren't quite sure yourself--is dishonest, evasive, and immature.

1) Capitalism works. Communism does not. Cuba is a craphole and has been a craphole since Castro took power. Communism raped the Soviet Union, raped North Korea, raped Vietnam, and with Mao's purges and "Cultural Revolution" raped China as well.

2) That isn't to say that pure capitalism is a wonderful idea; some level of socialistic policies provide a safety net and reduce human suffering. However, nobody outside of the most idiotic Libertarians and most jackbooted Republicans would suggest that a purely capitalistic society is the best thing for a country or for the human species.

3) Communism has always, in theory, been the most wonderful social system known to man; Jesus and his disciples practiced it. In practice, it has proven to be the worst.

4) It's "America," Pan-Icaria. Spell it properly, dickwad. You don't call my country "Amerikkka," I won't call your country "Home of the stupidest person on the planet." Got it? Good.

The people of Pan-Icaria demand that it be recognised that the exploitation of one man by another is fundamentally wrong and that to do so is to become a punishable offence

"Labels are for filing. Labels are for clothing. Labels are not for people."

- Martina Navratilova

"Yeah, except your an IDIOT."

- Me.

A rep of Komokom, tired to come back after holidays to find that there are still misguided, ignorant people out there, who have too much time if they can sit and bend figures to their will...

P.S. Oh, and I suppose you bet communism is the answer, ? Pfffrt. go back to sleep, maybe you'll drool into the keyboard and get zapped.

( ( ( I don't even need to go into the fact this idea is contrary to the ideals of the U.N. ) ) )

1/3 of people dont have safe water supply
20 million die each year of malenutrition
>850 million suffer from malenutrition
the worlds 300 richest have as much (money) as the 5 BILLION poorest.

THIS IS A MATTER OF URGENCY FOR ALL HUMANITY

Ok Pan, it's about money, right. Ok by devine fiat everyone on the face of the earth gets $1 billion. There did that help?

No?

Oh poverty is about the scarcity of resources. Please oh please tell me what incentive I would have under a socialist system to excel and produce.

"For the good of Man I should work to my upmost ability."

And what's in it for me? The state or society will take care of me because I am helping society... Ok fine, but since society is taking care of me by providing me with just what I need there is no need for me to bust my hump is there? In fact I think I will only work 95% of my ability. Who is going to know that I am not working to my full potential?

Hmmm I skated with 95%, shoot why not only work 90%. If 90% is enough to get by why not 85% of my ability? Why not 70%? Why not 50%? Heck why should *I* even help society at all? Let the others do it.

In a capitalist system I produce because it is the only way to get what I want. If I am happy with 80% of what I want then I am happy to put forward 80% effort. My efforts are *required* to keep the system humming. What are you going to do in order to ensure a level of production in your socialist society?

simply eliminating a single form of idiological economic fanaticism,
could that even be achived in this manor might not yeald the desired
resaults, attractive as such a propisition might otherwise be.
so we do advise caution less martyrs be avoidably created.
we would dearly love to see an end to all forms of fanatacism, including idiological and economic.
capitolism has served a useful purpose for a time. it has enabled
tecnology to make up for the thousands of years it had previously lost to other forms of fanatacism.
this part of it is not a bad thing.
and this happening has giving us the ability, should we choose to use it that way, an opportunity to
restore paradise by ceasing to destroy it, by liveing closer to nature in ways that do not require giving up basic comforts. things like narrow gauge railways and this internet.
like all fanatacisms it does in fact and reality cause real harm
and in no small measure alone.
its some of its resaults may very well threaten the very future of our species. and that is what makes the idea of eliminating it so attractive.
we need to realize though that the cautions expressed also apply.
another point that had those other fanatacism never come into being the making up for lost time it has given us would not have been neccessary either.
i do believe the putting of little green pieces of paper ahead of the real effects of real policies on real people, places and things seriously and despirately needs to be phased out. replacing one such fanatacism with another would likely be trading one set of problems for another and an 'anti-capitolism' in and of itself might well do just that.
such measures might also not be neccessary.
monitary economics will in time of its own accord become obsolete, perhapse sooner then anyone realizes. and NOT by being replaced by some other form of economic fanatacism either.
for the time being
a more reasonable apprach
would be merely to insure
that no form of fanatacism
economic, idiological or any other
be prioritised ahead of the real effects of real policies and priorities.
granted the challanges of enforcing that are as great and nearly identical to those of the origeonal proposal
a truely independent of any single soverignty or small powerful clique of the most powerful ones, international peacekeeping force is in any case neccessitated by either approach

productivity is the holy grail only of economic fanatacism
sustainable universal happiness is the holy grail of good sense

gratuitous accumulation overlooks the reality of the interdependence
of all life, that of our own species included. without the
'polution' created by trees, which just happens to be the air you breate,
neither you nor i would be here or exist

that the means of creative gratification be universaly accessable
does not require the promotion or enshrinement of gratuitous accumulation
nor even directly bennifit from it

granted a high level of productivity is achieved, but with it a high level of waste and devistating harm
that is cutting our own throats, all of us, even those gaining the most
at the most expense of others could they but realize it

=^^=
.../\...

Hint: Try typing in standard prose, it makes your post much readable.

And happiness is a factor of productivity. I'd say the average American is happier than the average Haitian.

Hint: Try typing in standard prose, it makes your post much readable.

And happiness is a factor of productivity. I'd say the average American is happier than the average Haitian.

[OOC]
Hint: Try not double posting, it makes your post less ridiculous. :D

The BBS conducted a world-wide poll and reached the conclusion that the country with the highest happiness percentage is Nigeria, they are surely loaded.

Please remember to put OOC, this is the UN forum and I'm here to RPing my nation, not having arguments about the "real" world

Hint: Try typing in standard prose, it makes your post much readable.

And happiness is a factor of productivity. I'd say the average American is happier than the average Haitian.

Ok I'll take this one. How is the avarage american more happy then the avarage haitian. Why would the avarage haitian be unhappy if their life is all they know.

What is the main goal of all systems. If the main goal is productivity, why is that so? Does the production of more goods then is needed actually help society? If it is survival, then why should people work harder then they need to for survival?

Just a few questions.

This poll is crazy (if not already noted)
yes I want to be free. So I ban people from doing something :P.

I know there is a whole philosophy behind it. But I don't think it works for something as general as capitalism.

Hint: Try typing in standard prose, it makes your post much readable.

And happiness is a factor of productivity. I'd say the average American is happier than the average Haitian.

Ok I'll take this one. How is the avarage american more happy then the avarage haitian. Why would the avarage haitian be unhappy if their life is all they know.

What is the main goal of all systems. If the main goal is productivity, why is that so? Does the production of more goods then is needed actually help society? If it is survival, then why should people work harder then they need to for survival?

Just a few questions.

To fight of invading nations, duh :P
What do you think happened to the indians ;).

Ban capitalism? I'm tired so I won't say much. Why not just ban America then? Freedom means nothing without businesses and markets and the such. You need companies and an economy. If everyone is free doing what they want to do, then, there is no government.

Hint: Try typing in standard prose, it makes your post much readable.

And happiness is a factor of productivity. I'd say the average American is happier than the average Haitian.

Ok I'll take this one. How is the avarage american more happy then the avarage haitian. Why would the avarage haitian be unhappy if their life is all they know.

What is the main goal of all systems. If the main goal is productivity, why is that so? Does the production of more goods then is needed actually help society? If it is survival, then why should people work harder then they need to for survival?

Just a few questions.

You know what, you are absolutely right. There is no way to meausre happiness.

Which is why you can't claim that Cubans are happier than Americans.

Which is also why we have to measure quality of life over happiness, which I think we can agree is much higher in the United States than Cuba. We have a higher per capita inocme, a higher life expectancy, higher standards of education, better technology, rule of law, liberty, and other factors that go into quality of life.

Shinra X put it best: The purpose of government is to shoot people that try to shoot you. Not productivity. Productivity is the purpose of industry. Not commerce. That's the job of business. Not social welfare. That's what charities are for.

Though the production of more goods than are actually needed certainly helps society. Goods beyond what is needed are called "luxury goods". By using a computer, you are indulging yourself in decadent evil capitalist swine luxury goods, eh?

Ban capitalism? I'm tired so I won't say much. Why not just ban America then? Freedom means nothing without businesses and markets and the such. You need companies and an economy. If everyone is free doing what they want to do, then, there is no government.

You realize that the slave system you propose is just as opposed to capitalism as marxism is, right?

Freedom also isn't "meaningless" without the free market. "Incomplete" maybe, and "impossible", certainly, but meaningless has a whole different meaning.

i cannot believe 40% of people who voted are opposed to capitalism. Reading through the posts here, many people have become misguided in the the actual definition of capitalism, here it is.

Capitalism: system in which trade and industry are controlled by private means.

The economic system in which we live, or in which we are moving towards living in, is undoubtably is this one.
All of the statistics show that countries that have deregualted their markets, at least to some extend, have benefited by becoming richer. Although riches does not equate to happiness as discussed earlier, economically speaking, GDP per capita, will always be a significant measure in equating prosperity.

However, the one drawback to a total capitalist system is the problem of poverty. Althgouh many argue that income disparaties will actually be significantly reduced in a capitalist regime, the problem today appears to be prevalent. These are people who are victims of circumstance, that is to say, have slipped through the net. This is why rich, western countries have welfare systems to cater for those people who have been unfortunate in the system.
To scrap the system of a capitalist economy, to stop the system whihc benefits those with the most comparative advantage is ridiculous, and will only be detrimental to our overrall prosperity.
If you want to argue against capitalism, please learn the implications first, read books and stop just flounting meaningless statistics that appear to have been heard from an activist ranting on a street corner.

Ban capitalism? I'm tired so I won't say much. Why not just ban America then? Freedom means nothing without businesses and markets and the such. You need companies and an economy. If everyone is free doing what they want to do, then, there is no government.

You realize that the slave system you propose is just as opposed to capitalism as marxism is, right?

Freedom also isn't "meaningless" without the free market. "Incomplete" maybe, and "impossible", certainly, but meaningless has a whole different meaning.

yep. But I think Dark Cow has a think skull.....don't bother :P Maybe one day he gets his insights and connects what he believes and what he is saying for real :).

Funny actually........I deeply empathise with Dark Cow. Almost feel responsable for improving his vision. I to am allured by a dictatorship of the smart. However I am smart enough to oversee the complications ;). Sorry just kidding. But I found it kinda funny when I thought, does he realize there is a chance he will not be in the upper class?

That particular part annoys me rather much. For if some idiot is forcing me around, there be a change that is is for the better. There could also be chance that the guy just has a bigger gun :P.

i cannot believe 40% of people who voted are opposed to capitalism. Reading through the posts here, many people have become misguided in the the actual definition of capitalism, here it is.

Capitalism: system in which trade and industry are controlled by private means.

The economic system in which we live, or in which we are moving towards living in, is undoubtably is this one.
All of the statistics show that countries that have deregualted their markets, at least to some extend, have benefited by becoming richer. Although riches does not equate to happiness as discussed earlier, economically speaking, GDP per capita, will always be a significant measure in equating prosperity.

However, the one drawback to a total capitalist system is the problem of poverty. Althgouh many argue that income disparaties will actually be significantly reduced in a capitalist regime, the problem today appears to be prevalent. These are people who are victims of circumstance, that is to say, have slipped through the net. This is why rich, western countries have welfare systems to cater for those people who have been unfortunate in the system.
To scrap the system of a capitalist economy, to stop the system whihc benefits those with the most comparative advantage is ridiculous, and will only be detrimental to our overrall prosperity.
If you want to argue against capitalism, please learn the implications first, read books and stop just flounting meaningless statistics that appear to have been heard from an activist ranting on a street corner.

Ever considered that there are other....better ways. Just because something seems work....doesn't mean you can't improve on it. That and because I don't think NS is a good sample of the world population :P
And lots of people afcourse discart something for the part they don't like. And temporary forget the part they do like. That is why we tend to fall back generally from highly developed systems. But I rather accept human nature (abuse it maybe ;)) than pretend it isn't true.

The people of Pan-Icaria demand that it be recognised that the exploitation of one man by another is fundamentally wrong and that to do so is to become a punishable offence

"Labels are for filing. Labels are for clothing. Labels are not for people."

- Martina Navratilova

"Yeah, except your an IDIOT."

- Me.

A rep of Komokom, tired to come back after holidays to find that there are still misguided, ignorant people out there, who have too much time if they can sit and bend figures to their will...

P.S. Oh, and I suppose you bet communism is the answer, ? Pfffrt. go back to sleep, maybe you'll drool into the keyboard and get zapped.

( ( ( I don't even need to go into the fact this idea is contrary to the ideals of the U.N. ) ) )

You where talking about misguided people? something about pot and kettle :P

There are lots and lots of ways to do things. And all work on unique ways. None is perfect and each one will in time be improved. But you are about as pig headed as the one you accuse. Well I you know are. I shall just be so kind to assume you have point and the other one is too :). I didn't read all the messages.

Now, when you both realize that you are ramming brainlessly your heads together. And look in the mirror and recognises your oppent. At that great moment you realize......hmmm......maybe we should talk. And it is then where progress will be made. If you can catch the rest of us up ;). Then you would start finding answers.

Until that point, I wish you both good luck. I am sorry for the troubles and annoyances of man kind. I understand that everybodies stupidity is a very heavy load to carry. I feel very sorry for you. However you are the only one that can help you sin these matters.

I just so wonder if this even gives a momentery flash of light.....or results in a nice flaming :P. Ah well, at least I tried :).

Ever considered that there are other....better ways. Just because something seems work....doesn't mean you can't improve on it. That and because I don't think NS is a good sample of the world population :P
And lots of people afcourse discart something for the part they don't like. And temporary forget the part they do like. That is why we tend to fall back generally from highly developed systems. But I rather accept human nature (abuse it maybe ;)) than pretend it isn't true.

The problem is that know one can seriously come up with an ECONOMIC system that best ensures that resources are allocated fairly according to comparative advantage. All these other system are complete ideological nonsense that do not allocate resources fairly and, if they attempt to, uses so many factors of production doing so that the economy implodes.

People who know anything about economics cannot seriously consider ridding the world of free market capitalism, the costs would be ridiculous.

Maybe Marx is right and capitalism will indeed fall, I will not argue against this, I haven't read his theories. However, one thing is for sure, if capitalism fails, it will do so when the costs of maintaining the system are greater than the benefits from it. This is NOT the case now.

Capitalism can encourage invention, innovation and enterprise, but it must be regulated to ensure fairness and a level playing field.

Antitrust laws should be strictly enforced.

Capitalism can encourage invention, innovation and enterprise, but it must be regulated to ensure fairness and a level playing field.

Antitrust laws should be strictly enforced.

Amen!
Just to add to this...
The regulation does not just mean the firms and companies who use the system unfairly, ie monopoly power etc, it is also about regualting double standards among countries and politicians who enforce illegal trade barriers and create domestic subsidies. This is the problem in the world today, NOT capitalism.

Ever considered that there are other....better ways. Just because something seems work....doesn't mean you can't improve on it. That and because I don't think NS is a good sample of the world population :P
And lots of people afcourse discart something for the part they don't like. And temporary forget the part they do like. That is why we tend to fall back generally from highly developed systems. But I rather accept human nature (abuse it maybe ;)) than pretend it isn't true.

The problem is that know one can seriously come up with an ECONOMIC system that best ensures that resources are allocated fairly according to comparative advantage. All these other system are complete ideological nonsense that do not allocate resources fairly and, if they attempt to, uses so many factors of production doing so that the economy implodes.

People who know anything about economics cannot seriously consider ridding the world of free market capitalism, the costs would be ridiculous.

Maybe Marx is right and capitalism will indeed fall, I will not argue against this, I haven't read his theories. However, one thing is for sure, if capitalism fails, it will do so when the costs of maintaining the system are greater than the benefits from it. This is NOT the case now.

I can.....if you think you know how to make money from it I suggest a partnership. Just that reading and writing takes a lot time, energy and effort. And that is particular unpleasant when you think....a screw the world....I rather have a good time.

Lots of 3rd world countries out there hoping capitalists will save their behinds from all the problems you posted.

Oh and you are right. Capitalism will....I rather not call it fall. Replaced is a better word. Replaced by a more profetable system.

To good thing about it is that the capitalists won't complain and fight it that much. Just can be just to productive to ignore it. Actually I am half way through Adam Smith too see what he actually said. And it seems you can grow it out of kapitalism. Kapitalism is brilliant......the power of improvement is within the system :).

let's here it then....i assume it's some sort of communism.
Fantastic ideologically, but i feel the costs of lack of motivation to work coupled with the massive beaurocratic costs of the inevitablly monstrous government would be too much for Pettifog to bear.
The economy will thrive, however, on a free market model and generate enough benefits, relative to a communist system, far beyond the cost involved with an underclass of people that some say is inevitable in a free market model. Although this is a problem, by implementing a free market, capitalist system, a government can work within this system to help these people with an efficient welfare system. Also by careful macroeconomic management the damaging boom-bust cycle, which i believe was the crux of Marx's argument in terms of the inevitable destruction of capitalism, is reduced with the long term aim of ridding it altogether.

Capitalism will fall. It's time is limited by the naïveté of it's victims.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Oh and you are right. Capitalism will....I rather not call it fall. Replaced is a better word. Replaced by a more profetable system.

To good thing about it is that the capitalists won't complain and fight it that much. Just can be just to productive to ignore it. Actually I am half way through Adam Smith too see what he actually said. And it seems you can grow it out of kapitalism. Kapitalism is brilliant......the power of improvement is within the system :).

Finally, a communist that understands Marx!! There are probably alot more out there but I get tired about all of the people wanting to throw down the free market regime in the name of Marx.

I actually agree with you in the fact that this is a theory of what may happen in the future. Although, as in my previous post, the boom-bust cycle problem has been somewhat alieviated with modern economic management, so alot of Marx's theories are throw into question.

let's here it then....i assume it's some sort of communism.
Fantastic ideologically, but i feel the costs of lack of motivation to work coupled with the massive beaurocratic costs of the inevitablly monstrous government would be too much for Pettifog to bear.
The economy will thrive, however, on a free market model and generate enough benefits, relative to a communist system, far beyond the cost involved with an underclass of people that some say is inevitable in a free market model. Although this is a problem, by implementing a free market, capitalist system, a government can work within this system to help these people with an efficient welfare system. Also by careful macroeconomic management the damaging boom-bust cycle, which i believe was the crux of Marx's argument in terms of the inevitable destruction of capitalism, is reduced with the long term aim of ridding it altogether.

Well first statement that would relieve your heart. Plan economy is so out. That works horibly, and that could kinda have been predicited. It is completely based free market economy. Supply and demand. That are the core principals. Not as ideology, but just because that is reality works. Plan economies also work on supply and demand, they are just not good at following it. By letting every individual make the private decision what he thinks is best for him you have a huge efficient thinking machine. Same way the ants and the bees solved it. Also in computer technology we are giong for it now. Bottum up programming instead of Top down.

The key lies in what I once heard that somewhere in the works of adam smith was noted. No inherentance right. Though I am looking to ways to make it a more gradual process instead of a big blast when somebody dies.

There have to be unlimited suppliers, and unlimited demanders. (sort of)

The thing is, capitalism eats it self up. More less the same like a monopoly game. After competetion one would probe to be stronger and take over. In the beginning this is not problem but eventually this means that this free market thing is self destructive. It eats itself up and slowly forms itself into a monopoly or an oligipoly.

What you need to do to remain the system.....is to constantly press the reset button.

The connection to the forum is to crappy. I can't get on it properly. I don't even know if this will get through.

This is if I may say so the Worst (technology wise) forum I ever have been. The amounts of times I had to leave because it didn't work anymore are uncountable :-S.

The key lies in what I once heard that somewhere in the works of adam smith was noted. No inherentance right. Though I am looking to ways to make it a more gradual process instead of a big blast when somebody dies.

There have to be unlimited suppliers, and unlimited demanders. (sort of)

The thing is, capitalism eats it self up. More less the same like a monopoly game. After competetion one would probe to be stronger and take over. In the beginning this is not problem but eventually this means that this free market thing is self destructive. It eats itself up and slowly forms itself into a monopoly or an oligipoly.

What you need to do to remain the system.....is to constantly press the reset button.

The problem manifested in the wall street crash and subsequently the great depression. The ideology of 'supply creates it own demand', is false, as you highlighted. This was realised by Keynes who created the model of Aggregate Demand and Supply. This solved the problem somewhat and allowed the process of demand management to take place.
How ever, I agree that supply is limited at one time. However, scarcity is the number one problem of economics. It has always existed. This is why we have price. Thorugh this price mechanism, the finite supply is allocated to our unlimited wants. Scarcity will not go away with another economic system. Our psychology determines that we will always have unlimited wants.

In terms of monopoly and oligopolies, I have never argued for a completely unregulated system, competition policy is a significant component of what I would say is an ideal system. Will the cost of competition policy become too great to sustain in the future??? I doubt it. As technologies increase new firms will enter the market place will a greater comparative advantage.

At the time when capitalism fails i believe, humans will have reached their pinnacle. As no more can be done to improve our standard of living. Not until then will Marx's theories come into fruition, and even then, how can that be economics when there is no way to improve ourselves.

Capitalism can encourage invention, innovation and enterprise, but it must be regulated to ensure fairness and a level playing field.

Regulation achieves the opposite. Government favoritism. Government handouts.

Antitrust laws should be strictly enforced.

"Antitrust" is objectively meaningless. Hence, it should not have a legal principle around it.

Why Communism Always Leads to Dictatorship [A simple logical explanation behind a historical reality]:

In communism, there is no market (and no money for that matter).

Without a market, there are no prices.

Without prices, there is no way to how much of what goods should be produced and bought.

Which means, in practice, that all economic decisions are made by a central authority and that common people have no input in it.

This leads to economic dictatorship, which in fact leads to civil dictatorship since all means of production are controlled, in effect, by a single entity, such as Josef Stalin.

And what about in hunter gatherer societies? They didn't have prices there and few had any real government.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Why Communism Always Leads to Dictatorship [A simple logical explanation behind a historical reality]:

In communism, there is no market (and no money for that matter).

Without a market, there are no prices.

Without prices, there is no way to how much of what goods should be produced and bought.

Which means, in practice, that all economic decisions are made by a central authority and that common people have no input in it.

This leads to economic dictatorship, which in fact leads to civil dictatorship since all means of production are controlled, in effect, by a single entity, such as Josef Stalin.
Hmm. You really are a dumbass. Why that bit about all decisions being made by a central authority? Maybe economic actions but not decisions. Admittedly, that was the failure of Leninism. Democracy didn't fail in Russia. It never had the chance.
And what Letila said. The market economy (no matter how "natural" you think it is) is a recent invention. I advocate neither civil or economic dictatorship but central administration and a referendum based system or demarchy (something like a lottery and MUCH less corruptable than western democracy).

Down with capitalism!

Why didn't we die off in the 100,000 years when there was no capitalism?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Why didn't we die off in the 100,000 years when there was no capitalism?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.
(S)He was wrong, plain and simple. It's a common mistake that uninformed capitalists make. (S)He is just grasping for straws in an attempt to discredit the Communistic system to no avail.

Why Communism Always Leads to Dictatorship [A simple logical explanation behind a historical reality]:

In communism, there is no market (and no money for that matter).

Without a market, there are no prices.

Without prices, there is no way to how much of what goods should be produced and bought.

Which means, in practice, that all economic decisions are made by a central authority and that common people have no input in it.

This leads to economic dictatorship, which in fact leads to civil dictatorship since all means of production are controlled, in effect, by a single entity, such as Josef Stalin.
Hmm. You really are a dumbass. Why that bit about all decisions being made by a central authority? Maybe economic actions but not decisions. Admittedly, that was the failure of Leninism. Democracy didn't fail in Russia. It never had the chance.
And what Letila said. The market economy (no matter how "natural" you think it is) is a recent invention. I advocate neither civil or economic dictatorship but central administration and a referendum based system or demarchy (something like a lottery and MUCH less corruptable than western democracy).

THe market (not the market economy, the market itself) existed since basically the beginning of human civlization.

"I want meat. You have club. We trade." --> A market

Let me reprhase what I said: There's no way to meet the people's needs under communism because there's no way to know what they want.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims is the most oppressive. It is better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
--CS Lewis

Why didn't we die off in the 100,000 years when there was no capitalism?

We won't "die off" no matter how bad teh economy system is. The problem is that under a communist system there is no way to gauge the people's needs. So all economic decisions, in effect, are made by Josef Stalin. And, even if Stalin was a great incorruptible guy, do you really think he knows what a caribou hunter in Vladivostok wants?

You don't need capitalism to measure the people's wants. But you do need prices. And that means a market.

And what about in hunter gatherer societies? They didn't have prices there and few had any real government.

Everyone in a hunter-gatherer society knew each other. Not everyone in Russia knows each other.

I'm going to ask both of you again... in a society of more than 25 people, how do you determine what people want without prices?

I don't mean without capitalism... I mean without prices. In a market-less system, the producers are not accountable to their customers since there's no feedback mechanism. How do you determine what to produce?

Until you provide an alternate solution, then...

Why didn't we die off in the 100,000 years when there was no capitalism?

We won't "die off" no matter how bad teh economy system is. The problem is that under a communist system there is no way to gauge the people's needs. So all economic decisions, in effect, are made by Josef Stalin. And, even if Stalin was a great incorruptible guy, do you really think he knows what a caribou hunter in Vladivostok wants?

You don't need capitalism to measure the people's wants. But you do need prices. And that means a market.

Close but not entirely true. The burocrats of the communists system spend there whole work time trying to figure out what the "price" would be and trying to make it properly happen. More or less on the same way you make decisions when playing a game of civilizition. But alas.....the human mind is just not up to that. It doesn't know enough, not only because lack of information, but also lack of the ability to handle information. We are just not smart enough. Maybe in the time that we invented workable super computers we can try the system again. But until that time, trust the market. Thrust capitalism in that thing. This bottom up way of thinking is so much cheaper and more efficient. Sure, as some lefties might point out it has its drawbacks. (But those do not always have to do with the market system). But it works cheap and efficient and gives a very good guess for the price. Not a perfect guess, because each individual human cannot oversee all the knowledge of the universe to make the proper decision, but it works more or less. Remember a market needs complete open information (or something close to that) and that is not the case. For one, here to a human mind cannot handle and read all information. What capitalism does however very well is change the entire community into one big supercomputer. By letting every individual make the decisions that effect close to his home as a collective they can preform feats that are far greater than each individual can. Sort of, it the way the ants do too. Each ant is a stupid retarder creature. W don't like it either, but we are not particular impressive either, even while we are suppost to be made in the image of god. Sort of a very trimmed down version then :P. But by working together we can make far smarter and more creative decision than an individual human could. Just like a complete ants nest seems to be far smarter as the individual ants. And now we are trying to put the same structure in computers too, because it works just very well.

But it is true that the communists don't know the price. As said, the market exists whether you want it or not. It is a natural effect. I think it is a sub part of the evolution theory actually. But the communists could work with something as simple as a price. However there are other ways to find out what is needed. For example, something might not be more expensive in money. But there was a price in the form of waiting list. If there was a waiting list the market was out of balance and more needed to be created. If there was to much left over in the store, exactly the opposite.

About staling making all decisions. Don't silly. He used burocratic system of governing as is used in lost of this situations. The top makes a general decision and gives it true to the people around it. They fill in more blanks and give it to the next one. And this goes down all the way till the bottom. That too is a very good system. And I believe that too should be used in programming AI's for computer games. But it doesn't work as good and effective an bottom up capitalist system.

Actually for the people that hate governments. And probably hate the communist PLAN economy system as well. Those two are interlinkt. Governments all over the world use a PLAN economy. And that is generally why they perform so lousy compared to privatised businesses. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are government. It has to do that they use a bad system for making decisions. It would be a good thing if governments would just start improving the way how things happen. How often does it not happen that an organization spends his money on something silly just so his subsidy isn't cut. While on another place there is a shortage.

Actually the same things count for big corporations. The kapitalist system of organizing was so perfect for a state. But when a corporation grows it is suddenly not welcome anymore. It is a system that works very well for ANY group of people. Making your subdivisions compete with each other. Making them trade with each other and have virtual money flows would make them work far more efficient. Either that or just agree you think we should become a communist plan economy, but I don't think the CEO is going to agree with that ;).

Our psychology determines that we will always have unlimited wants.


This is very debatable. And I do want to note that while they base there system on something of psychology, they didn't really ask the psychologist for whether it was true. When the psychologist shows there are mistakes in it, they rather use an ostrich reaction.

It makes sense to think that there is an unlimited wants. I don't know if it is actually true, you would to have a specialist psychologist that. But this good feeling theory actually would say than there is unlimited wants, over time. At a specific moment in time however those wants are not unlimited. The existence and often used by economists of commercials are showing that a bit. It is about creating demand for you product. True it might also be about giving information about the market, but you have to admit that the average commercial is not particular information richt ;). I think a good adverticing agency that is willing to talk openly over how it does things would admit that they are actually trying to create demand.

Funny enough the economist that suggest using adverticing is kinda breakking the 10 commandments of econics :P. If we have to bring scarity and wants together. How is increasing the wants going to do that? In fact if there exists positive adverticing that increases the wants for a product. Should there not also be negative adverticing. To make scarcity and wants meet, shouldn't be reducing the wants be a solution that should be researched? There have been funy hard to explain things that happened in the history of economy and some of them had to do with the question, is demand really unlimited? Is the demand at a specific moment in time really unlimited. Where the people in the middle ages really miserable because they didn't had cell phones?

If you want to look for negative adverticing. Look at religions. They are masters in that. They have done it for milenia and are really good at it.