NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that the anarchist thread is locked (dunno if that was for obscenity or not!), maybe we can actually have a discussion here. So come all those who want to rationally discuss anarchist and other left-wing ideas.

Vas.

Note: Oxymorons (anarcho-capitalists) are not invited.

Europe > America because we are socialist

Communism rocks

The flaws of capitalism :

* It rewards lazyness
* It exploits workers
* It takes away the freedom to move, think and talk from the lower class.

I believe Socialism can work. Not The karl marx theory of Communism though. Communism can only work if all humans didn't have desires or greed and served for a greater good, so in a way we need a form of control. I never liked capitalism because the rich get richer and the poorer get poorer and im tired of seeing stupid damn television adds urging me to buy some stupid product that probably wont be much better than something that is home brand. Poor Asian people are exploited by Western companies to make famous brands of clothes for some cents per day. Im never picky myself when buying clothes because i just say they are all made by soem poor bastard in a warehouse who gets a poor slary. Im a middle class citizen but i one day hope that there will be no rich or poor and a controlled economy. Education should be free for all.

I don't know what i am politically but according to a political compass i have done, i am a left wing Authoritarian.

Europe > America because we are socialist

Oh dear. Europe is not socialist, it's just more socialistic than the US. If it were socialist, it wouldn't be capitalist. It's somewhere in between.

Vas.

I think some sort of socialism would be the best way to organize a society. I also think that the argument that socialism has been tried and it failed in the Soviet Union and other suchs countries is not true since the USSR and others were pure tyrannies, not socialist countries.

Still, the Soviet Union underlined some problems in an noncapitalist system which will have to be solved before modern socialism can thrive:

1) The Feedback problem. In a capitalist system the market forces both incite innovation and boost production of goods for which there is most demand. The classical socialist theory offers no suchs system.

2) The Control level problem. On what level should a society, especially a noncapitalist system, be organized. If things are handled in large units, the byrocracy runs amok. And if things are handled locally, production will be highly inefficient.

Man, I haven't written this much political stuff in months. I need a beer!

I think some sort of socialism would be the best way to organize a society. I also think that the argument that socialism has been tried and it failed in the Soviet Union and other suchs countries is not true since the USSR and others were pure tyrannies, not socialist countries.

Still, the Soviet Union underlined some problems in an noncapitalist system which will have to be solved before modern socialism can thrive:

1) The Feedback problem. In a capitalist system the market forces both incite innovation and boost production of goods for which there is most demand. The classical socialist theory offers no suchs system.

2) The Control level problem. On what level should a society, especially a noncapitalist system, be organized. If things are handled in large units, the byrocracy runs amok. And if things are handled locally, production will be highly inefficient.

Man, I haven't written this much political stuff in months. I need a beer!
1) Capitalism tackles the market forces.
2) It depends on the type of industry.

1) The Feedback problem. In a capitalist system the market forces both incite innovation and boost production of goods for which there is most demand. The classical socialist theory offers no suchs system.

This is not true. Market forces are only one of the incentives, and are not normally the main one. The market prioritises profit and, thus, innovation is targetted towards the most profitable rather than the most useful products. Oil-based technology is a perfect example of this, the investment by oil companies into alternative sources of fuel is, in most cases, outstripped by their investment in marketting. Compare this to the development and advancements in the open-source software sector. Inventors and scientists are often completely unconcerned with money or the market and are motivated by simple intellectual challenges and everyday annoyances. This is fundamental in humans, the ability to use tools, adapt and innovate is what makes us different from other animals. It's not a product of the market system.

2) The Control level problem. On what level should a society, especially a noncapitalist system, be organized. If things are handled in large units, the byrocracy runs amok. And if things are handled locally, production will be highly inefficient.

Bureaucracy is the result of hierarchy - those at the top imposing a system that others do not necessarily want to follow. Federal communal organisation is a completely different beast, though what it would look like is hard to imagine now in a system so different. Suffice it to say, a system of organisation based at local level, but feeding across a federation through a mandated delegate system, could have the advantages of centralised organisation without the authoritarianism or the bureaucracy.

Vas.

This is not true. Market forces are only one of the incentives, and are not normally the main one. The market prioritises profit and, thus, innovation is targetted towards the most profitable rather than the most useful products. Oil-based technology is a perfect example of this, the investment by oil companies into alternative sources of fuel is, in most cases, outstripped by their investment in marketting. Compare this to the development and advancements in the open-source software sector. Inventors and scientists are often completely unconcerned with money or the market and are motivated by simple intellectual challenges and everyday annoyances. This is fundamental in humans, the ability to use tools, adapt and innovate is what makes us different from other animals. It's not a product of the market system. I think we can have a market without capitalism. We can trade goods and service.
So long as we don't trade capital, weapons and slaves no harm is done.

Bureaucracy is the result of hierarchy - those at the top imposing a system that others do not necessarily want to follow. Federal communal organisation is a completely different beast, though what it would look like is hard to imagine now in a system so different. Suffice it to say, a system of organisation based at local level, but feeding across a federation through a mandated delegate system, could have the advantages of centralised organisation without the authoritarianism or the bureaucracy.

Vas.
Anything is better than private-run global corporations when it comes to bureaucracy.

I think we can have a market without capitalism. We can trade goods and service.
So long as we don't trade capital, weapons and slaves no harm is done.

I find it difficult to see how that could be maintained alongside a system of free distribution (which would be the system within an anarchist communal federation). Co-operation is "trade" and "investment" in a non-monetary sense, I invest my time working with you in the hopes that together we will produce more than each of us individually. Extend that to the entire commune, and production and distribution are tailored towards needs rather than profit. I do some work in the field in the expectation that I will receive food when I return and that someone else will have made furniture, etc, etc. Thus, any form of monetary exchange would be meaningless, why would I pay for something I can get for free (the mp3 dilema :-) )? For those outside the commune, why do they remain there? Membership of an anarchist organisation is based on free association, anyone can join or leave at any time. Membership can be temporary, again a form of trade, trading a certain amount of labour for certain benefits (with a rational guarding by the commune against exploitation).

I am of the view that, once this can be established in a safe environment and in a comparably afluent part of the world, it will spread like wildfire, ending monetary systems quite quickly.

Anything is better than private-run global corporations when it comes to bureaucracy.

Are you sure? Governments are pretty bad too :-)

Vas.

I find it difficult to see how that could be maintained alongside a system of free distribution (which would be the system within an anarchist communal federation). Co-operation is "trade" and "investment" in a non-monetary sense, I invest my time working with you in the hopes that together we will produce more than each of us individually. Extend that to the entire commune, and production and distribution are tailored towards needs rather than profit. I do some work in the field in the expectation that I will receive food when I return and that someone else will have made furniture, etc, etc. Thus, any form of monetary exchange would be meaningless, why would I pay for something I can get for free (the mp3 dilema :-) )? For those outside the commune, why do they remain there? Membership of an anarchist organisation is based on free association, anyone can join or leave at any time. Membership can be temporary, again a form of trade, trading a certain amount of labour for certain benefits (with a rational guarding by the commune against exploitation).

I am of the view that, once this can be established in a safe environment and in a comparably afluent part of the world, it will spread like wildfire, ending monetary systems quite quickly. Sorry I didn't fully understand the topic. I thought any anti-capitalist proposal would be discussed. I am not an anarchist. I understand the concept though, I just think it is not the most efficient system (although it's the most free).

Are you sure? Governments are pretty bad too :-)

Vas.
Yes I'm sure. Governments can be bad. Corporation are purposedly bad, the more bad, the more successful.

I dont think the problem is the style of government, but rather the people who run it. Every one of those has to believe in the ideals too, otherwise it's not gonna work (that well).

The flaws of capitalism :

* It rewards lazyness
* It exploits workers
* It takes away the freedom to move, think and talk from the lower class.
As a product of te capitalist system...

* I'm lazy and unrewarded
* Unexploited (meaning unemployed)
* Enjoys the ability to move, think and talk... sometimes I'm even granted to right to eat (but not chew, this is stictly forbidden).

* I'm lazy and unrewardedWell you're not punished either. I should have said it punishes work maybe.

* Unexploited (meaning unemployed)If you find a job you will be exploited.

* Enjoys the ability to move, think and talk... sometimes I'm even granted to right to eat (but not chew, this is stictly forbidden).
You can move, think and talk, but not freely if you are in a cpitalist system.

Now that the anarchist thread is locked (dunno if that was for obscenity or not!), maybe we can actually have a discussion here. So come all those who want to rationally discuss anarchist and other left-wing ideas.
Note: Oxymorons (anarcho-capitalists) are not invited.
Note: Oxymorons (anarcho-socialists and anarcho-communists) have no business hijacking the term "anarchist" for their own, as anarchism is frankly incompatible with socialism and communism, and the definition says nothing about being anticapitalist (remember the philosophy dictionary definition I gave you?)

Wanna play the game, little one? I can follow you down the road and make you wish that you hadn't tried it.

The flaws of capitalism :

* It rewards lazyness

Sorry, how does capitalism reward laziness?

*feels like he's going to get yelled at*

Sorry I didn't fully understand the topic. I thought any anti-capitalist proposal would be discussed.

Eh, your view, my view, your view again. Isn't that a discussion?

Vas.

Sorry, how does capitalism reward laziness?

*feels like he's going to get yelled at*
I meant that it rewarded lazy people but it is not correct. It rewards the higer class. They are usually lazy for being in the higher class but it is not necessary.

Wanna play the game, little one? I can follow you down the road and make you wish that you hadn't tried it.

Go away troll. My thread, specifically started to exclude you. You come in, you're a troll and deliberately flaming.

Vas.

ugh.

Capitalism does NOT reward laziness. Sheesh you just described the flaws of socialism and communism, not capitalism.

Corporations are not "purposedly bad." Grow up. I don't even have time for that kind of mindless ignorance.

I'm a worker. I get paid to do a task. I like it. Am I being exploited? If you think so you must know more about me and my life than I do, and that would have to be pretty amazing considering how self centered I am!

Maybe if socialists and their kind had fewer people who are all CORPORATIONZ ARE TEH EVIL11!!!11! arguing against capitalism, I could take this subject more seriously.

Fuck off you moron. If you knew anything about the Proudhon argument, which you've shown over and over again, it's knowingly and internally contradictory. However, this "argument" is nonsense as it is ADDRESSED within Proudhon's book (yes, a book, not a f**king slogan) in the penultimate chapter - "That property is impossible".
Of course, we own ourselves. We are our own property. Therefore, property is possible, troll.

You want to play your little game--I'll be here to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.

Sorry, how does capitalism reward laziness?

In my experience, those who get promoted are those who don't think too much, don't work too much and don't rock the boat. As a result, I've often ended up with ignorant, unimaginative and useless bosses. Capitalism's great.

Vas.

Eh, your view, my view, your view again. Isn't that a discussion?

Vas.Yes it is. I still didn't understand it seems. Is this thread about any alternative to capitalism? Or is a thread about how to annihilate capitalism? Both?

It sucks that the anarchist thread was locked. It had 1,039 posts, which was the longest of all the threads. Oh, well.

In my experience, those who get promoted are those who don't think too much, don't work too much and don't rock the boat. As a result, I've often ended up with ignorant, unimaginative and useless bosses. Capitalism's great.

Vas.

But surely Socialism rewards laziness too? If I don't bother working, the state will still support me. If I can't be bothered working under a Capitalist system, I'll starve to death.

And the promotion thing is the fault of the silly people who do the promotions. The hardest working with the best ideas etc should be promoted first. I'm trying to work out if this is a failing of Capitalism or people.

But surely Socialism rewards laziness too? If I don't bother working, the state will still support me. If I can't be bothered working under a Capitalist system, I'll starve to death.

And the promotion thing is the fault of the silly people who do the promotions. The hardest working with the best ideas etc should be promoted first. I'm trying to work out if this is a failing of Capitalism or people.

Why would the state support someone who is able to work but doesn't?

ugh.
Capitalism does NOT reward laziness. Sheesh you just described the flaws of socialism and communism, not capitalism.
Well it rewards the capital and the owner of the capital at the expenes of the workers, regardless of his lazyness. It doesn't exactly reward the lazy.

Corporations are not "purposedly bad." Grow up. I don't even have time for that kind of mindless ignorance.I meant that corporations are driven by profit, which is in direct conflict with the common good.

I'm a worker. I get paid to do a task. I like it. Am I being exploited? If you think so you must know more about me and my life than I do, and that would have to be pretty amazing considering how self centered I am!Are you doing a salaried work? If so, then yes, you are exploited.

Maybe if socialists and their kind had fewer people who are all CORPORATIONZ ARE TEH EVIL11!!!11! arguing against capitalism, I could take this subject more seriously.
Actually I didn't expect to encounter people supporting capitalism here. So I didn't explain my stance, I thought it was obvious for the people who share my ideas.

But surely Socialism rewards laziness too? If I don't bother working, the state will still support me. If I can't be bothered working under a Capitalist system, I'll starve to death.

And the promotion thing is the fault of the silly people who do the promotions. The hardest working with the best ideas etc should be promoted first. I'm trying to work out if this is a failing of Capitalism or people.In capitalism, the interest of the ruling class is having the most working people at the bottom.

Yes it is. I still didn't understand it seems. Is this thread about any alternative to capitalism? Or is a thread about how to annihilate capitalism? Both?

Both, and anything else we want to talk about. I welcome opposing views of anti-capitalism. Well argued, and lacking in the usual historical ignorance of the Leninists, it's well worth a to-and-fro.

Unfortunately, we're also being trolled by the children known as BAAWA.

Vas.

But surely Socialism rewards laziness too? If I don't bother working, the state will still support me. If I can't be bothered working under a Capitalist system, I'll starve to death.

There's a number of issues here, you should look back to the origins of the welfare state. Capitalism relies on a certain level of unemployment, it keeps workers' demands down when they're easily replaced. In the days before welfare, the unemployed did run the risk of starving to death. Welfare payments to the unemployed takes the edge off that and, rather than being resented by we who work, should be welcomed. It has had the effect of removing the most coercive element of capitalism -- do what I say or you'll starve.

And the promotion thing is the fault of the silly people who do the promotions. The hardest working with the best ideas etc should be promoted first. I'm trying to work out if this is a failing of Capitalism or people.

Again, there's often a number of factors. Think about it, does it really make sense to "promote" the best worker to being supervisor? Doesn't that remove his creativity from the place where it has its best application? Won't it breed resentment among himself as others, as his experience has given him standards that others can't meet (if he was, through his own gifts, the best)? Hierarchical organisation is filled with these flaws, horizontal organisation can resolve them. If, rather than those on top choosing who should guide project, carry out certain tasks, etc, the people on the ground did it, there would be a very different situation. Why shouldn't the workers elect their supervisor?

Vas.

It sucks that the anarchist thread was locked. It had 1,039 posts, which was the longest of all the threads. Oh, well.

Most of it, unfortunately, was rubbish thanks to the oxymorons. The anarchist thread on the original board was a lot better.

Vas.

Capitalism allows for economic prosperity and a better standard of living for everyone. This is assuming the goverment is good enough to regulate it and make sure it doesn't get out of hand and such.

Now that the anarchist thread is locked (dunno if that was for obscenity or not!), maybe we can actually have a discussion here. So come all those who want to rationally discuss anarchist and other left-wing ideas.

Vas.

Note: Oxymorons (anarcho-capitalists) are not invited.
It was probably locked becacuse it was too long. And you're not going to get much accomplished by not inviting opposing viewpoints.

The flaws of communism :

* It rewards lazyness
* It exploits workers
* It takes away the freedom to move, think and talk from the lower class.
Yep.

I think we can have a market without capitalism. We can trade goods and service.
So long as we don't trade capital, weapons and slaves no harm is done.

so where could one find a good source of basic info on market socialism? i know it only in passing and by extrapolation

So how can one be lazy and exploited at the same time?

Sounds like socialsim to me.

Well it rewards the capital and the owner of the capital at the expenes of the workers, regardless of his lazyness. It doesn't exactly reward the lazy.
I meant that corporations are driven by profit, which is in direct conflict with the common good.
Are you doing a salaried work? If so, then yes, you are exploited.

Actually I didn't expect to encounter people supporting capitalism here. So I didn't explain my stance, I thought it was obvious for the people who share my ideas.


ex·ploit
Pronunciation: ik-'sploit, 'ek-"
Function: transitive verb
1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>

Well, let's take this last. Meanly or unjustly? I applied for the job of my own free will. How can I do something and have that be an unjust mean act being committed upon me? It's not like I was sitting there minding my own business when someone forced me into slavery, was it? That would be both mean and unjust.

Exploiting opponent's weakness... sure, if me and my boss were opponents. Sorry, we're not.

Make productive use of my talents? Yes. So, okay, I'm being 'exploited.' But I hope you don't think that's a bad thing. "To each according to his need," etc, right?

Profit is not in direct conflict with the common good. I work at a company, it makes profit, my stock goes up and I benefit. Neato huh? Then again maybe I'm just good at evilly exploiting/raping/stealing/killing/oppressing the working class....

I also like this continued villification of The Owner. Yes, all business owners are evil and they benefit without having contributed anything! Yay stupid stereotypes!

Both, and anything else we want to talk about. I welcome opposing views of anti-capitalism. Well argued, and lacking in the usual historical ignorance of the Leninists, it's well worth a to-and-fro.

Unfortunately, we're also being trolled by the children known as BAAWA.

You started this thread as flame-bait and to troll. Just giving something back to you, oxymoron.

You started this thread as flame-bait and to troll. Just giving something back to you, oxymoron.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346455

This is not true. Market forces are only one of the incentives, and are not normally the main one. The market prioritises profit and, thus, innovation is targetted towards the most profitable rather than the most useful products. Oil-based technology is a perfect example of this, the investment by oil companies into alternative sources of fuel is, in most cases, outstripped by their investment in marketting. Compare this to the development and advancements in the open-source software sector. Inventors and scientists are often completely unconcerned with money or the market and are motivated by simple intellectual challenges and everyday annoyances. This is fundamental in humans, the ability to use tools, adapt and innovate is what makes us different from other animals. It's not a product of the market system.

Bureaucracy is the result of hierarchy - those at the top imposing a system that others do not necessarily want to follow. Federal communal organisation is a completely different beast, though what it would look like is hard to imagine now in a system so different. Suffice it to say, a system of organisation based at local level, but feeding across a federation through a mandated delegate system, could have the advantages of centralised organisation without the authoritarianism or the bureaucracy.

Vas.

These two things are sort of tied together. I didn't mean that innovation doesn't happen in a socialist system but that socialism doesn't self regulate as well as capitalism. There were all sorts of great inventions that were tried out in the Soviet Union but they lacked an effective system of informing the inventors what sort of problems needed solving. Granted, capitalism does this on the basis of profitability, not usefulness but still. Same with what sort of products are needed most. This is known on the local level but gets easily tangled up in bureaucracy. The federal communal system does sound good but yes, I do have a hard time trying to imagine it in practice, especially since it would have to have built in safeguards against growing too centralized or bureaucratic.

Capitalism allows for economic prosperity and a better standard of living for everyone. This is assuming the goverment is good enough to regulate it and make sure it doesn't get out of hand and such.

Coughsweatshopworkerscough

I also like this continued villification of The Owner. Yes, all business owners are evil and they benefit without having contributed anything! Yay stupid stereotypes!

I don't know if they are all evil, but they do order us around and that is something I can't tolerate.

Coughsweatshopworkerscough



I don't know if they are all evil, but they do order us around and that is something I can't tolerate.

Does anyone besides me feel as if Letila doesn't understand Capitalism entirely? It seems he only understands what the result of corruption is...
(Which could happen in communism too)

Coughsweatshopworkerscough
Coughmillionsdeadinthegreatleapforwardcough
Coughmillionsdeadinthegulagscough
CoughhavingtoimportgrainbecauseofmoronswhofeltthatMendelandDarwinwerewrongandthattheNewSovietManwass uperiorcough

I don't know if they are all evil, but they do order us around and that is something I can't tolerate.
Ah. Reaction from having your parents tell you what to do.

Coughmillionsdeadinthegreatleapforwardcough
Coughmillionsdeadinthegulagscough
CoughhavingtoimportgrainbecauseofmoronswhofeltthatMendelandDarwinwerewrongandthattheNewSovietManwass uperiorcough

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. were not communist in any real sense. I thought you knew that by now.

Ah. Reaction from having your parents tell you what to do.

Partly. I hate being ordered around in general. Any political theory that believes hierarchy and the violence and/or lies inherent to it is justified is dead wrong.

Does anyone besides me feel as if Letila doesn't understand Capitalism entirely? It seems he only understands what the result of corruption is...
(Which could happen in communism too)

If you can get rid of sweatshops and taking orders in capitalism, try.

Letila, will you please explain to me the history and benefits of a capitalist system?

Letila, will you please explain to me the history and benefits of a capitalist system?
Uh, okay. Thanks.

Coughmillionsdeadinthegreatleapforwardcough
Coughmillionsdeadinthegulagscough
CoughhavingtoimportgrainbecauseofmoronswhofeltthatMendelandDarwinwerewrongandthattheNewSovietManwass uperiorcough
Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. were not communist in any real sense. I thought you knew that by now.
Yes they were. I thought that you would have learned not to try that No True Scotsman fallacy by now.


Ah. Reaction from having your parents tell you what to do.
Partly. I hate being ordered around in general. Any political theory that believes hierarchy and the violence and/or lies inherent to it is justified is dead wrong.
Good. Then you no longer advocate communism.

And do please try to start using reason and logic and not just rely on emotive pleas.

ugh.

I'm a worker. I get paid to do a task. I like it. Am I being exploited? If you think so you must know more about me and my life than I do, and that would have to be pretty amazing considering how self centered I am!

As a worker, working for someone else, then yes you are being exploited in a sense. You get rewarded with a pay cheque for the work you perform, but the compensation is only a fraction of the wealth you create for the business owner. The owner makes capital based on the efforts of your co-workers and yourself.

For a business to remain solvent, it must be able to generate enough profits from the sale of goods and/or services to cover all overhead expenditures (rent, utilities, taxes, wages, materials, etc.). The excess over costs is your employers profit. Generally speaking, most small businesses make smaller profits, and therefore are less exploitive of the workers than the larger corporations. The fact remains that the small business owner makes money through the fruits of your labour.

The most exploitive businesses, are the larger corporations and multi-national companies that are profit driven. Many of these companies not only exploit the workers, they also exploit the governments, and the environment. Many of these corporations have a view of growing even larger and are constantly pursuing mergers and acquistions. The capital rewards for the owners of these businesses tends to be excessive, and the game of greed and power is on.

Many times, the "entrepreneurs" that run these vast financial/industrial empires, will acquire some businesses in order to "diversify" their holdings, even though they have little or no experience in managing the newly acquired "assets". Sometimes when this happens, they realize that they have made a mistake, and after running the company into the ground, they sell it off and take a huge loss, which more often than not ends up being a tax write off. The sad part about this scenario, is that a company that was profitable, is no longer competitive and often times, thousands of workers lose their jobs.

Yes, capitalism can be evil and cruel.

Maybe if socialists and their kind had fewer people who are all CORPORATIONZ ARE TEH EVIL11!!!11! arguing against capitalism, I could take this subject more seriously.
Perhaps you should take this subject more seriously? Unless of course you are an owner of a corporation, which I doubt seriously.

Letila, will you please explain to me the history and benefits of a capitalist system?
Waiting for Letila to reply...

I work for a small/medium sized company. I assume that means I am being exploited as I do not receive the full benefit of my work. fair enough.
But is not my boss entitled to his cut? He was the one with the idea. He brought the capital. He's brought us together as a team. If the business goes under I lose my job (have to look for another). He loses everything.
So if the risks for him are higher, should he not get a higher reward?

I work for a small/medium sized company. I assume that means I am being exploited as I do not receive the full benefit of my work. fair enough.
But is not my boss entitled to his cut? He was the one with the idea. He brought the capital. He's brought us together as a team. If the business goes under I lose my job (have to look for another). He loses everything.
So if the risks for him are higher, should he not get a higher reward?
Perhaps in an anarcho-capitalism, the risks for him would be higher, but not in the way things are applied in the US. He would most likely be able to sell the business, or get a huge tax break which would more than compensate him for his loss.

Perhaps in an anarcho-capitalism, the risks for him would be higher, but not in the way things are applied in the US. He would most likely be able to sell the business, or get a huge tax break which would more than compensate him for his loss.

we're in spain. no such luck

we're in spain. no such luck
Oh, I see. Well, I don't know too much about Spain's tax systems and the like, so I can't comment on them.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346365&goto=nextoldest

Some of you might find this thread a treat i think

I work for a small/medium sized company. I assume that means I am being exploited as I do not receive the full benefit of my work. fair enough.
But is not my boss entitled to his cut? He was the one with the idea. He brought the capital. He's brought us together as a team. If the business goes under I lose my job (have to look for another). He loses everything.
So if the risks for him are higher, should he not get a higher reward?
Small businesses for the most part, are the heart and soul of any country. I was not trying to paint small businesses as evil and corrupt. The word "team" is far more applicable to smaller businesses where the companies viability is related to the success of the "team".

Having said that, one must remember that Mc Donalds started out as a "small business".

Small businesses for the most part, are the heart and soul of any country. I was not trying to paint small businesses as evil and corrupt. The word "team" is far more applicable to smaller businesses where the companies viability is related to the success of the "team".

Having said that, one must remember that Mc Donalds started out as a "small business".

True. So was it not following the logical next step. to grow?. The owners of any small company soon start to sell shares to raise capital. Modern practice is to offer it to the employees. So are not the bosses willing to other you the worker and share, and of the profits as well? Maybe companies should not be allowed to exceed a certain size then.

Anarchist come try to prove your point here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346602)

True. So was it not following the logical next step. to grow?. The owners of any small company soon start to sell shares to raise capital. Modern practice is to offer it to the employees. So are not the bosses willing to other you the worker and share, and of the profits as well? Maybe companies should not be allowed to exceed a certain size then.
The two largest failings of "capitalism" are greed and corruption. Eventually, the "capitalist society" will collapse, and eventually be replaced by a system of "collectivism". It is inevitable.

The two largest failings of "capitalism" are greed and corruption. Eventually, the "capitalist society" will collapse, and eventually be replaced by a system of "collectivism". It is inevitable.
Eh...not quite.

Anarchist come try to prove your point here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346602)
You really shouldn't be trying to hi-jack this thread?

You really shouldn't be trying to hi-jack this thread?
I'm not. Anti-anarchy is a different discussion from anti-capitalism, hence the link to another thread so that this thread can stay on topic.

You really shouldn't be trying to hi-jack this thread?
by requesting that his topic be discussed elsewhere he is not hijacking. putting an "ad" for your thread on somebody else's topic isn't hijacking; it would be hijacking if he tried to continue discussions from another thread on this one, or if he tried to divert this thread from its topic onto something very different.

by requesting that his topic be discussed elsewhere he is not hijacking. putting an "ad" for your thread on somebody else's topic isn't hijacking; it would be hijacking if he tried to continue discussions from another thread on this one, or if he tried to divert this thread from its topic onto something very different.
Exactly.

I think it is sad for someone to automatically denounce communism as a good way to do things. For one, many people denounce the Karl Marx theories towards the workings of communism...
It is my personal belief that the notions that communism is a bad thing stemming from many years of experience with oppressive leaders like Josef Stalin of the former USSR and Mao Zedong of the People's Republic of China.
Many people denouncing Marx are people who are totally unintelligible about his works or theories. Marx had a vision where the government was an accessory of the people, but at the same time drove the entire nation (all equal under the eyes of all men under a communist leadership) towards the goals of profitability and happiness.
Communism also has been misused in that the way it has been adopted in the world, it has never been truly used or accepted by leaders as true communist idealology. Rather the theories of communism and equality for all men politically, socially, and economically have been severely twisted to meet the needs of psychotic egomaniacs like Stalin. In this way, Stalin created a mass holocaust of his own inside the Soviet Union where he shot more people in his region than the dreaded SS Totenkopfsverbaende and SS Totenkopfsdivision in charge of the Konzentrationenlagern (Concentration Camps) had ever gassed to the large grief of many millions including myself.
Communism could become a workable economic, political, and social powerhouse if a few human factors were eliminated in the first place:

- The fact that the only people who gain control are motivated by pure greed and love of power.

- The twisting of the true meanings of capitalism as envisioned by Karl Marx and supported so widely by partakers in the famous October Revolution of 1917 with the fall of the Romanov Tsarist regime.

- The ability of the people to be able to partake in the decision's to make a more prosperous nation was realized and supported also as dreamed by Marx himself.

- NOBODY wants to do the dirty jobs unless it pays more... one of the reasons why modern-day communism constantly falters or is weak.

By removing these factors, the true dream of communism may be realized and the people of the world, regardless of age, sex, religion, or creed, may truly be equal under the eyes of the law.



Capitalism is strong in that it allows people to earn as much money as they want to, the bad thing is that you have to spend money to make money. With the prices of colleges going up and the refusal of many jobs to non-college degree holders, capitalism is becoming the true threat to the masses as the money-hungry investors and corporations move jobs out of their parent countries in order to make a larger margin of profitability by paying foreign workers lower wages than they would in their home country. This not only hurts the people who are now becoming unemployed...to do this purely horrible action motivated by greed for more cash, but it will begin to destroy the economy itself if that outward flow of jobs does not halt or be stemmed by protective legislation. If there must be capitalism... make it a limited capitalism... if not a limited capitalism... then socialism or communism must become the acceptable answer to our problems.


:sniper:

Ok, After reading all these posts I would like to clear up something about capitalism and socialism on the PHILOSOPHICAL GROUND.

First the captalism, won't you all agree with me that captialism ONLY works in a society of individual? that means, only when a person has a mind of his own will the a capital society works. Individual person work for themselves in order to raise in the class ladder (the incentive). You trade your work, your innovation, your ideas, for money (medium in the trade). the harder you work the higher you can move up the class ladder, the more ideas, innovations you contribute the higher you move up the class ladder.

now many of you would be like... no that's not possible because there will be exploition, ppl trying to take advantage of other people. well, let me tell you this, IT HAPPENS. it's human nature that there will always be someone who causes trouble, i do not believe we can eliminate that unless you wish to brainwash everyone. And by doing that you eliminate teh individual part of the equation, which mean, it will not be a capitalist system, but more of a dictatorial system.

Last i want to say about capitalism is that democracy depence on capitalism. Capitalism is the only economic system that supports individualism, which is what democracy needs to survive. once you get rid of capitalism, you'll have to find another government system to support whatever economic system you put in place, because democracy will go down hill from there.

Now, the socialism. I see socialism as a collective society. Where you give up your basic individual rights to benefit the society as a whole. To explain that lets look at the problem of socialism. Like other people has describe socialism will have laziness, because there will always be people who doesn't want to work or want to work. and without the incentives (going up the class ladder and to survive) there's no reason why they shouldn't. So for every one of those people who doesn't work there will have to be other people who will have to support them. So they have to work harder. Personally i see that as being wrong. One, if you can support yourself, then support yourself, don't depend on others, two by having me supporting you, you are taking away all of my works, therefore you are exploiting me, you are the parasite and i am the slave.

Of course, socialist need a way to counter that. they need a way of controlt to keep that from happening. As of now, i see only two way... if you see any more then please share it with me. One way is through governemental control. you let the governement regulate it. but by doing so you create a dictorial system of governement. (hence soviet russia). Another way is through collective society. If you restraint yourself from creating a governemtn to regulate it... the society as a whole will take over to regulate it. I can't quite explain that but the book "Anthem, by Ayn Rand" shows it perfectly. It's pretty much that if you do anything against the society's will... they are a traitor and therefore you are breaking the society law and blah blah blah.

But that's my opinion on this matter. It's not my full idea, but it's the basic. To share my full idea please counter this, so i can counter back and share the rest of my idea :) cheers.

By the way, there's the supporting forum for what i was saying:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345283

I think it is sad for someone to automatically denounce communism as a good way to do things. For one, many people denounce the Karl Marx theories towards the workings of communism...
It is my personal belief that the notions that communism is a bad thing stemming from many years of experience with oppressive leaders like Josef Stalin of the former USSR and Mao Zedong of the People's Republic of China.
Many people denouncing Marx are people who are totally unintelligible about his works or theories. Marx had a vision where the government was an accessory of the people, but at the same time drove the entire nation (all equal under the eyes of all men under a communist leadership) towards the goals of profitability and happiness.


:sniper:


I totally agree with you. I love the idea of communism as an idea, becuase it's so beautiful and every. I used to be really into communism, but the more i study it the more flaws i found. Now i know every social system has flaws... but as i study capitalism i found that they have flaws too, but much less and more of a way to counter it.


Communism also has been misused in that the way it has been adopted in the world, it has never been truly used or accepted by leaders as true communist idealology. Rather the theories of communism and equality for all men politically, socially, and economically have been severely twisted to meet the needs of psychotic egomaniacs like Stalin. In this way, Stalin created a mass holocaust of his own inside the Soviet Union where he shot more people in his region than the dreaded SS Totenkopfsverbaende and SS Totenkopfsdivision in charge of the Konzentrationenlagern (Concentration Camps) had ever gassed to the large grief of many millions including myself.
:sniper:

I believe that the reason for the control of power is becuase you have to control the people. If you create a society will everyoen shares and everyone gets everything great. But what about those who don't want to work? you'll still have to support them somehow. And that is the major flaw in it, to tell those people to work for the good of the people you have to do some coercion. And that's what soviet russia did. they used force to get their system going because otherwise, everyone will stop working and no one will be able to support themselves.




Communism could become a workable economic, political, and social powerhouse if a few human factors were eliminated in the first place:

- The fact that the only people who gain control are motivated by pure greed and love of power.

- The twisting of the true meanings of capitalism as envisioned by Karl Marx and supported so widely by partakers in the famous October Revolution of 1917 with the fall of the Romanov Tsarist regime.

- The ability of the people to be able to partake in the decision's to make a more prosperous nation was realized and supported also as dreamed by Marx himself.

- NOBODY wants to do the dirty jobs unless it pays more... one of the reasons why modern-day communism constantly falters or is weak.

By removing these factors, the true dream of communism may be realized and the people of the world, regardless of age, sex, religion, or creed, may truly be equal under the eyes of the law.
:sniper:

You know what all those have in common? It takes away my right as a human being. That's the main reason i'm against the communism. becuase i see it as a collective society where you GIVE UP your rights as a human being to who ever in order to benefit the society. In fact, for it to truely work you can not be human. YOu have to give up the way you think, the way you challenge the establish rules... and blah blah. So pretty much you'll have to give up your mind in order for it to work. Some of you might think that's cool.... but personally i value my intellecutalism very much, and i'll be damned if i give that up. And yes, every for the good of the society, because without intellectualism that society WILL be monotonic and stagnant.

here's the way i look at democracy and communism. For communism to work you need a society full of irrational being, meaning people who do not think and just work as it is, without challenging the rules and whole lot. Because in our world there will always be some rational being who wish to challenge the establishment of rules and blah blah.. it will not work because those individual will cause trouble in society such as that.

Democracy on the other hand only works when the whole society is full of rational being, meaning people who can think open mindedly, who can debate and care about the current issues. As we all know, in this world there are no such thing. There will always be ppl who don't give a shit, and will be damned if they think about anything. So that won't work, because in a society tehre will always be those who don't wish to think, and be lazy. Btw, that was total democracy.

That is why we have the governemnt we have today. To balance the two out. The democracy (rational beings) and communism (unmotivated people). Our governemtn is not total democracy, it's a representive democracy.


Capitalism is strong in that it allows people to earn as much money as they want to, the bad thing is that you have to spend money to make money. With the prices of colleges going up and the refusal of many jobs to non-college degree holders, capitalism is becoming the true threat to the masses as the money-hungry investors and corporations move jobs out of their parent countries in order to make a larger margin of profitability by paying foreign workers lower wages than they would in their home country. This not only hurts the people who are now becoming unemployed...to do this purely horrible action motivated by greed for more cash, but it will begin to destroy the economy itself if that outward flow of jobs does not halt or be stemmed by protective legislation. If there must be capitalism... make it a limited capitalism... if not a limited capitalism... then socialism or communism must become the acceptable answer to our problems.
:sniper:



Actually captitalism is strong becuase it give people the incentive to move up and to compete. With that you have competition, and you get better and better.

I want to say somethign about outsourcing. Of course outsourcing will happen. If you have a capitalism society you're bound to have outsourcing. Like a company in California move to New Mexico. that's outsourcing. But no one complain aobu tit becuase it's all within the nation and therefore benefit the nation. But whne the same thing happen as when they move to different country, then there's lots of buzzing. What's wrong with that? it benefits the world.. is that not better than a nation?

I want to say somehting about a revolution we are goign through now a day. Back in the time we have agricultural revolution. This is in direct contridiction with the nomad way of life... well.. lets say it destroy nomad way of life and everyone becomes farms because it's more beneficical. After that, there's the industrial revolution. this is in direct contridition with agricultual people.. because it takes jobs aways from farm and move it to the cities. And people complain because theya re lossing jobs that way as they are complaining today. WEll, there's another revolution going on now. And it's call the Service industry Revolution. Many developed countris are in this revolutino right now. LIke the America and Japan. In order to say competitive in the world with the cheap wage develping countries, they have to innovate, becausse they can't compete with manpower or indurstrial might anymore. So to stay alive they ahve to innovate. They have to be the inventor of the world. and with their invention you sell it to the world.. therefore a service. This is the trend we are going into today. All the low class jobs are going oversea because we can't compete with them anymore, to compete we have to more up to another level, which is service... You take it from there, i'm typing too much.

The two largest failings of "capitalism" are greed and corruption. Eventually, the "capitalist society" will collapse, and eventually be replaced by a system of "collectivism". It is inevitable.
Ah yes. Marx' moronic "historical dialectic". What a load! He rips-off Hegel and doesn't bother to give the old guy a reach-around.

Yes they were. I thought that you would have learned not to try that No True Scotsman fallacy by now.

They showed almost no real similarities to communism, though. They didn't even call themselves communist. They called themselves socialist.

Good. Then you no longer advocate communism.

Marxism, actually. I'm basically a green pacifist anarcho-communist.

And do please try to start using reason and logic and not just rely on emotive pleas.

I will not use your brand of reason that justifies the subjugation of sweatshop workers.

Letila, will you please explain to me the history and benefits of a capitalist system?

The history is complex. Marx did a good look at it, I'm told, and although I'm not a Marxist, he did understand capitalism well. As for benefits, the only ones are for the people at the top.

Letila, will you please explain to me the history and benefits of a capitalist system?Clicky... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346602)

If you're going to be against communism, could you at least not propagate the myth that people who are able to work but don't will be supported by society?

From reading some of Marx's works, it seems that the main reason he did not like capitalism was that it exploits workers. Capital tends to end up being owned by less and less people. Worker's are only paid enough to survive and find it extremely difficult to aquire capital for themselves. In his time, it may have been much worse that it is in todays Western world (USA, Canada, Western Europs, etc), however, it still exists today-- and one could argue that it shall still exist for years to come in the developing world.

One thing that I have been thinking about recently is cooperatives within capitalism-- specifically WORKER cooperatives. Through worker cooperatives, workers own their businesses, and are thus not exploited. Also, they are democratic in nature. Most people today believe in democracy within the political sphere, but why don't we have more democracy in the workplace? In a way, i guess, worker cooperatives are Marxist in nature.

I do see benefits in both socialism and capitalism, but I also see disadvantages. This is simply one way I have researched to mix the two economic systems together.

Kaewan

If you're going to be against communism, could you at least not propagate the myth that people who are able to work but don't will be supported by society?
Not in full-fledged capitalism...
Socialism however...is a different story...

If you're going to be against communism, could you at least not propagate the myth that people who are able to work but don't will be supported by society?
So if someone doesn't work will he just starve to death? I thought that's one of the biggest things that Letila, et al said was awful and cqercive in capitalism.
Work or you'll DIE!!
Also, what if he has a family, do they starve too, or does he get food for them and not for himself? What if he eats their food? (he's not a very good guy I think)
Perhaps this is just due to the difference in your opinion and Letila's

Ah yes. Marx' moronic "historical dialectic". What a load! He rips-off Hegel and doesn't bother to give the old guy a reach-around.
To be quite honest with you, I don't have a clue who Hegel is. As for true "communism" as expressed by Karl Marx, I believe it is an unattainable ideology. There will always be leaders and there will always be doers.

Just like "true communism" is an unattainable ideology, so is "true capitalism". There is a point where the wheels of capitalism will grind to a halt and the people that will be most affected by this collapse, will be the ones that are least prepared.

To be quite honest with you, I don't have a clue who Hegel is. As for true "communism" as expressed by Karl Marx, I believe it is an unattainable ideology. There will always be leaders and there will always be doers.

Just like "true communism" is an unattainable ideology, so is "true capitalism". There is a point where the wheels of capitalism will grind to a halt and the people that will be most affected by this collapse, will be the ones that are least prepared.


Thank you, CanuckHeaven. I totally agree with you. Our world is not designed for these two ideals. Sure they sound wonderful, but people are not ready for it. For true capitalism to work, every will have to be "smart" and are actually willing to care about the world around them. In another words, everyone will need to have their own minds. which is not possible in total's world. Same with true communism, for communism to work, you have to give up all your desires and emotions, so you all you do is to work for the good of the society. Which of course is not possible.

I don't know why we are arguing about why this is the best and blah blah. evidently one on its own will not workd. Just like every ideas in the world there's always flaw in them, so they always will fail. What we need to do is to combine them and balance the flaws and the benefit in all of them. This is why american democracy is so great, becuase what it really is is a huge balancing act, balancing all the ideas together and use the one that benefits them.

by requesting that his topic be discussed elsewhere he is not hijacking. putting an "ad" for your thread on somebody else's topic isn't hijacking; it would be hijacking if he tried to continue discussions from another thread on this one, or if he tried to divert this thread from its topic onto something very different.

True, now if someone can get rid of BWAHAHA(someone stole my bokkle), then we might be able to stay ON topic.

Vas.

One thing that I have been thinking about recently is cooperatives within capitalism-- specifically WORKER cooperatives. Through worker cooperatives, workers own their businesses, and are thus not exploited. Also, they are democratic in nature. Most people today believe in democracy within the political sphere, but why don't we have more democracy in the workplace? In a way, i guess, worker cooperatives are Marxist in nature.

Christ no. Two words - Jura Federation.

Vas.

which is not possible in total's world. Same with true communism, for communism to work, you have to give up all your desires and emotions, so you all you do is to work for the good of the society. Which of course is not possible.

Please stop talking as if anarchism didn't exist, thank you very much. If you're such an expert, how come you're leaving out the entire debate within anarchism about the individual vs the group and how the ideology is structured to meet the needs of the former as much as possible without destroying the latter. Emma Goldman, as the first theorist truly concerned with this issue, would be a good starting point.

Vas.

Please stop talking as if anarchism didn't exist, thank you very much. If you're such an expert, how come you're leaving out the entire debate within anarchism about the individual vs the group and how the ideology is structured to meet the needs of the former as much as possible without destroying the latter. Emma Goldman, as the first theorist truly concerned with this issue, would be a good starting point.

Vas.


Sorry if i sounded like an expert, I am not. I am only sharing my point of view and hope to learn along the way.

As for the individual vs group argument, i didn't leave it out on purpose. I left it out because i don't know it :) i didn't know there is one inside of the anarchism, i know there is one within the philosophy of objectivism, which is what i'm "expert" of. So if you may, please explain to me the concept of individualism and groupism inside of anarchy; and how it differs from the objectivism. While you at it, can you explain to me and others what you mean by "how the ideology is structured to meet the needs of the former as much as possible without destroying the latter" and also Emma Goldman's theory.

Maybe explaining it will give me a better understand of why "most" people here are for anarchy... which evidently i am not for. Thanks.

Yes they were. I thought that you would have learned not to try that No True Scotsman fallacy by now.
They showed almost no real similarities to communism, though. They didn't even call themselves communist. They called themselves socialist.
The two terms were used interchangeably by Marx and Engels. Any REAL communist would know that.

And they showed many similarities to communism. So don't try your No True Scotsman.


Good. Then you no longer advocate communism.
Marxism, actually.
Which is communism.

I'm basically a green pacifist anarcho-communist.
Ah. An oxymoron watermelon.


And do please try to start using reason and logic and not just rely on emotive pleas.
I will not use your brand of reason that justifies the subjugation of sweatshop workers.
Please try to start using reason and logic and not just rely on emotive pleas.


Letila, will you please explain to me the history and benefits of a capitalist system?
The history is complex. Marx did a good look at it, I'm told,
You're TOLD? You mean you haven't read the communist look at why capitalism fails? What the fucking fuck?

and although I'm not a Marxist, he did understand capitalism well. As for benefits, the only ones are for the people at the top.
Answer the damned question.

Ah yes. Marx' moronic "historical dialectic". What a load! He rips-off Hegel and doesn't bother to give the old guy a reach-around.
To be quite honest with you, I don't have a clue who Hegel is.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. The father of socialism. Promulgator of the idiotic notion of the geist, of which the state was the highest expression, showing the "march of god through time", and that the individual must be suborned to the state/society/collective.

A good resource can be found here (http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/hege.htm)

True, now if someone can get rid of BWAHAHA(someone stole my bokkle), then we might be able to stay ON topic.
I think I'll stay and keep putting my dick in the mashed potatoes. You wanted to whine and cry by starting this thread. I'll keep reminding you of your abject failure to substantiate any of your worthless claims.

It is getting difficult to explain to capitalists that capitalism doesn't reward work, because once you have explained to one, there is another who comes and talk again the capitalist propaganda. It seems like the damage McCarthy has done can not be undone in a reasonable amount of time.

I will say it one last time : capitalism does not reward work but does reward the capital. This is exactly the same as the old feudal system which rewarded your blood-line. Nowadays, the capitalists are rewarded because they are born with the capital.

Now for those who have already this knowledge, I think we can debate the best way to get out of this capitalist class-exploitation.

In my opinion, the first thing to do is to abolish inheritance. I think it is the best way to eliminate the bourgeois and to give back their belongings to the workers.

Any thoughts?

It is getting difficult to explain to capitalists that capitalism doesn't reward work, because once you have explained to one, there is another who comes and talk again the capitalist propaganda. It seems like the damage McCarthy has done can not be undone in a reasonable amount of time.

I will say it one last time : capitalism does not reward work but does reward the capital. This is exactly the same as the old feudal system which rewarded your blood-line. Nowadays, the capitalists are rewarded because they are born with the capital.

Now for those who have already this knowledge, I think we can debate the best way to get out of this capitalist class-exploitation.

In my opinion, the first thing to do is to abolish inheritance. I think it is the best way to eliminate the bourgeois and to give back their belongings to the workers.

Any thoughts?

Abolish inheritance??? NEVER!!! Although I agree with some points that has been mentioned in this thread, not this. Why should I work and make money, if after i die i cannot pass it on to my children! Also if I am to inherite anything from my parents or family, it is my right.
You cannot remove the family instinct so easily. We are social creatures and will always want the best for our children.
Myabe there could be a roof amount, I don't think Bill Gates children should be become instant billionaires when he dies.

Abolish inheritance??? NEVER!!! Although I agree with some points that has been mentioned in this thread, not this. Why should I work and make money, if after i die i cannot pass it on to my children! Also if I am to inherite anything from my parents or family, it is my right.
You cannot remove the family instinct so easily. We are social creatures and will always want the best for our children.
Myabe there could be a roof amount, I don't think Bill Gates children should be become instant billionaires when he dies.But if you want your children to be happy you should give them the opportunity to change the world.
You should also think about the children of the proletariat, they don't have anything. Your children will not be happy if they are fat ass masters. They will be happier if they know they deserve what they have.

Oh and just so as to remove some unnecessary capitalist propaganda in regards to this, I'm not talking about abolishing the inheritance of personal stuffs like a picture of your grand-mother. It is about the bourgeois inheritance. I'm talking about the means of production and the tools of slavery. I think noone should be born and inherit slaves because it would mean people are born slaves.

But if you want your children to be happy you should give them the opportunity to change the world.
You should also think about the children of the proletariat, they don't have anything. Your children will not be happy if they are fat ass masters. They will be happier if they know they deserve what they have.

Oh and just so as to remove some unnecessary capitalist propaganda in regards to this, I'm not talking about abolishing the inheritance of personal stuffs like a picture of your grand-mother. It is about the bourgeois inheritance. I'm talking about the means of production and the tools of slavery. I think noone should be born and inherit slaves because it would mean people are born slaves.

So I can inherite or my children can inherite property or money. That's fair enough.
Psylos I do respect your opinion as you do seem to be educated. But come on! Most responsible parents would make sure they're children will deserve their inheritence. THey will have to study and work hard for it.
The impression I get is the phrase "If I can't have it, no one should!". And to me that does not seem fair.
If you were to look as some of the larger family run companies that you can find in europe, they are very good to their proletariat "slaves".
Its these larger mega-companies that screw everyone over. But they are only interested in short term profits for themsleves + shareholders.

So I can inherite or my children can inherite property or money. That's fair enough.
Psylos I do respect your opinion as you do seem to be educated. But come on! Most responsible parents would make sure they're children will deserve their inheritence. THey will have to study and work hard for it.
The impression I get is the phrase "If I can't have it, no one should!". And to me that does not seem fair.
If you were to look as some of the larger family run companies that you can find in europe, they are very good to their proletariat "slaves".
Its these larger mega-companies that screw everyone over. But they are only interested in short term profits for themsleves + shareholders.Well no they don't deserve it more than the next guy.
And I'm not suggesting to destroy the property of the bourgeois, I'm suggesting this is acquired by the state, therefore by everyone.

mmmm

i didn't know there is one inside of the anarchism, i know there is one within the philosophy of objectivism, which is what i'm "expert" of. So if you may, please explain to me the concept of individualism and groupism inside of anarchy; and how it differs from the objectivism.

The origins of anarchism as a socio-political theory are two-fold - both political/economic (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin) and individual (William Godwin, Benjamin Tucker, Max Stirner and Lysander Spooner). The former group concentrated largely on the well known aspects of anarchism, the opposition to property, to government and proposed collective/communist means of organisation. However, being largely of their time, the did tend to see people as masses rather than individuals and references to the rights of the individual, while implicit, tended to be vague. The latter group contrated completely on the rights and freedoms of the individual. Less political (in the organisational sense), their opposition to hierarchy tended to be on the basis that it oppressed the individual rather than the "class" or the "people". The attempt to combine these two disparate is important, and how it differs from objectivism (and it's oxymoronic child, anarcho-capitalism) - both of which are hugely influenced by individual anarchism, is simply this - political anarchism is used as a method to bring about a situation where all can achieve liberty, and not simply have the freedom to do so. Any laissez-faire capitalist system, even were it to begin with a completely level playing field, would soon result in massive disparities of wealth and thus lead to renewed hierarchy.

While you at it, can you explain to me and others what you mean by "how the ideology is structured to meet the needs of the former as much as possible without destroying the latter" and also Emma Goldman's theory.

The internal slogan of anarchism, marrying the political to the individual threads of anarchism, is "The freedom to do whatever you like, as long as it doesn't interfere with the right of everyone else to do whatever they like". In anarchism, the group is nothing more nor less than a collection of individuals. However, if more individuals wish to do one thing than wish to do the other, and both cannot be done, then fairness dictates that the larger group should have their way conditional upon its respecting the rights and liberty of the smaller group. The liberty of the smaller group should only be curtailed to the degree that their absolute liberty would deny liberty to a greater number of individuals.

Emma Goldman was not so much a theorist as an activist and campaigner who tried to draw in as many influences as possible into her work. That said, her contribution to anarchism, and the entire left worldwide, can largely be summed up in the phrase "The personal is political" (or, in her own words, "If I can't dance, it's not my revolution!"). Goldman basically introduced the concepts of women's complete liberation (as opposed to simple suffrage), homosexual rights, birth control and many others to radical politics, alongside the more common issues of workers' organisation, freedom of speech, etc. Racism, as an issue, had previously been addressed by Kropotkin. (At this time, it's also important to point out Emma Goldman's partner in much of her life, Alexander Berkman, whose experiences in prison revolutionised thought regarding criminality and punishment in anarchist thought.)

Maybe explaining it will give me a better understand of why "most" people here are for anarchy... which evidently i am not for. Thanks.

I hope this gives you something of a better idea what we're talking about, feel free to ask questions.

Vas.

Oh and just so as to remove some unnecessary capitalist propaganda in regards to this, I'm not talking about abolishing the inheritance of personal stuffs like a picture of your grand-mother. It is about the bourgeois inheritance. I'm talking about the means of production and the tools of slavery. I think noone should be born and inherit slaves because it would mean people are born slaves.

Exactly, basically the Proudhon distinction between capitalist property and possessions. That which you use is your possession, that which you do not use but charge others for the use of is property. The only difficulty with abolishing inheritance of property is that it would be very difficult to work out how to redistribute it, and what would stop parents giving it to their children when still alive? It's a common dodge used to avoid inheritance tax now.

Vas.

Letila, will you please explain to me the history and benefits of a capitalist system?
Why, is the public education system where you live so shitty that you never learned?

In an anarchy, what would stop me and a bunch of people like me to form a society with a government, a police force and an army, claiming a piece of land for our selves and kicing the asses of anyone wanting to interfere with our state?

Exactly, basically the Proudhon distinction between capitalist property and possessions.
There is no such distinction, though, as you have been shown.

In an anarchy, what would stop me and a bunch of people like me to form a society with a government, a police force and an army, claiming a piece of land for our selves and kicing the asses of anyone wanting to interfere with our state?

Nothing, except that would no longer be an Anarchy. It's quite simple, anarchism is based on voluntary association. If people decided that they didn't like it anymore and wanted to set themselves up in a neo-hierarchical oppressive system, then fair balls to them. However, it's one thing if a bunch of people like you decided to set up, among yourselves, such a system. It's quite another if you then tried to impose said system on others by strength of arms (a la Franco in the Spanish Civil War and Trotsky in post-Civil War Ukraine). Then the commune would fight back and to the winner the spoils, alas.

However, should that not happen, you can have your hierarchy of bosses with no workers, of police with no recruits, of an army with no cannon-fodder and see how happy you'd be.

Vas.

It is getting difficult to explain to capitalists that capitalism doesn't reward work, because once you have explained to one, there is another who comes and talk again the capitalist propaganda. It seems like the damage McCarthy has done can not be undone in a reasonable amount of time.

I will say it one last time : capitalism does not reward work but does reward the capital. This is exactly the same as the old feudal system which rewarded your blood-line. Nowadays, the capitalists are rewarded because they are born with the capital.

Now for those who have already this knowledge, I think we can debate the best way to get out of this capitalist class-exploitation.

In my opinion, the first thing to do is to abolish inheritance. I think it is the best way to eliminate the bourgeois and to give back their belongings to the workers.

Any thoughts?

What do you mean by "capitalism doesn't reward work". I am sorry if i sound naive but i can not figure out how you arrive to that conclusion. Can you please explain to me so i can understand it better? And what is this capitalist propaganda?

You also talked rewarding the capital. Here's the way I look at capital (as in money). I look at capital as the medium between trading of your work. So you work this much, and the capital is the measurement of how much your work is worth, so you can trade that with someone's work... and that's how the capital works in my opinion. Consequently that is also the reason why I believe capitalism rewards work. It is a medium of trade thefore makes it easier to trade individual work.

As for abolishing inheritance... That is a new idea.. and let me tell you, the more i think about it, the more attractive it sounds. I mean, if capital is medium or substitute of the worthiness of your work... then by giving it to your children... you are merely rewarding him (or prepare him) for the laziness. yes i belive our children should earn their own capital by working so they understand the meaning behind it. Perhaps for the inheritance... we can put a certain cap on it... like 10k or whatever as a jump start for the descentant, but they'll have to work for their own later on; and learn the lesson of life.

It is getting difficult to explain to capitalists that capitalism doesn't reward work, because once you have explained to one, there is another who comes and talk again the capitalist propaganda. It seems like the damage McCarthy has done can not be undone in a reasonable amount of time.

I will say it one last time : capitalism does not reward work but does reward the capital. This is exactly the same as the old feudal system which rewarded your blood-line. Nowadays, the capitalists are rewarded because they are born with the capital.

Now for those who have already this knowledge, I think we can debate the best way to get out of this capitalist class-exploitation.

In my opinion, the first thing to do is to abolish inheritance. I think it is the best way to eliminate the bourgeois and to give back their belongings to the workers.

Any thoughts?

Only a person with nothing to inherit would make a statement such as this. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

In the end, politics is about being self-serving. The person posting this would be best served if they didn't have to fight against the disadvantage of not having any substantial inheritance. In order to manufacture this supposed equality, he/she would rather take away what other people have earned than try to work for it themselves.

Capitalism works on one fundamental principal that has to be understood and accepted. Those who refuse to accept this principal invariable rail against capitalism because they feel its "unfair" nature, which is ironic, considering the principal.

The principal is simple:
Life is not fair and not all people are equal.

We are neither born equally, grow equally, or experience things equally. The ony thing that makes people equal is their freedom to express their inequality. You cannot force human beings to be equal to one another. We are a class based system because that is the only system that works. It is the only system that gives people the opportunity to achieve and to succeed. Lacking this, we become stagnant, because there is no motivation to achieve.

I fully understand and appreciate that capitalism rewards capital. Money makes money.

If you don't have it, you have to find a way to earn it. If you do have it, you have to find a way to grow it and keep it. If you don't have it, but want it, you should stop whining about why other people have it and get a job.

Only a person with nothing to inherit would make a statement such as this. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

And these people are few and far between right?
The principal is simple:
Life is not fair and not all people are equal.

So you wouldn't complain if the Bolsheviks took all your money in a revolution?
Or if a socialist government increased taxes?

Neithers fair, but hey, that's life right?

And these people are few and far between right?

Does it look like I care? Just because you may be a have not, does not mean I should be a have not as well. Your lot is not my lot.

So you wouldn't complain if the Bolsheviks took all your money in a revolution? Or if a socialist government increased taxes?

Neithers fair, but hey, that's life right?

Yep, that's life. My government did just increase taxes. My plan? To move. See, being in a socialist country presently, I am still in a democratic enough environment that if I choose to make my living somewhere else, I can.

You cannot force people down to your level. You have to go up to theirs. Your concept of fairness may as well be to cut off the legs of someone who's too tall, or to stab out one of the eyes of a person who's vision is 20/20. Because hey, it's not fair that one person needs glasses and another doesn't.

The origins of anarchism as a socio-political theory are two-fold - both political/economic (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin) and individual (William Godwin, Benjamin Tucker, Max Stirner and Lysander Spooner). The former group concentrated largely on the well known aspects of anarchism, the opposition to property, to government and proposed collective/communist means of organisation. However, being largely of their time, the did tend to see people as masses rather than individuals and references to the rights of the individual, while implicit, tended to be vague. The latter group contrated completely on the rights and freedoms of the individual. Less political (in the organisational sense), their opposition to hierarchy tended to be on the basis that it oppressed the individual rather than the "class" or the "people". The attempt to combine these two disparate is important, and how it differs from objectivism (and it's oxymoronic child, anarcho-capitalism) - both of which are hugely influenced by individual anarchism, is simply this - political anarchism is used as a method to bring about a situation where all can achieve liberty, and not simply have the freedom to do so. Any laissez-faire capitalist system, even were it to begin with a completely level playing field, would soon result in massive disparities of wealth and thus lead to renewed hierarchy.


First of all, thanks for you kind reply.
So let me summarize it and please correct me if i'm wrong. There are two ways of looking at anarchism: the political/economic ways which looks at people as in groups and masses. therefore look at their rights as in righs of the groups and masses. The individual which focuses on the individual rights and do not look at the rights of the masses or groups.

Ok, already I am seeing a contridiction. So let me explain my contridiction the best i can and please ask for clarification if you don't get it. First let me start off with quote from above: "their opposition to hierarchy tended to be on the basis that it oppressed the individual rather than the "class" or the "people" So the first (political/economic) way of looking wants to get rid of this corrupted government and give the rights to the people. So therefore it is for the people to decide. But yet the first ways of looking (political/economic) looks at people as in groups and masses... so therefore it's not the individual who decides, it's the groups and masses who decide... and the bigger the group the stronger their voices is... can you see where this is leading to? A replacement of our current dictatorial ways of ruling into a "group and masses" ways of ruling. It is the same thing... but in different form. That's basically my conclusion, becasue eventually to govern a society in anarchism... you'll have to move to a "group/mass rules" as in collectivism society mentioned by objectivism or you go back to the old ways of ruling and that is our current form.


The internal slogan of anarchism, marrying the political to the individual threads of anarchism, is "The freedom to do whatever you like, as long as it doesn't interfere with the right of everyone else to do whatever they like". In anarchism, the group is nothing more nor less than a collection of individuals. However, if more individuals wish to do one thing than wish to do the other, and both cannot be done, then fairness dictates that the larger group should have their way conditional upon its respecting the rights and liberty of the smaller group. The liberty of the smaller group should only be curtailed to the degree that their absolute liberty would deny liberty to a greater number of individuals.


I also see contridiction in this on. The contradiction is related to the above contradiction i pointed out so perhaps this one is easier to explain. I would liek to start off with this quote: "However, if more individuals wish to do one thing than wish to do the other, and both cannot be done, then fairness dictates that the larger group should have their way conditional upon its respecting the rights and liberty of the smaller group." On this one i assume are you talking about the second ways of looking at anarcy (individual), so we are talking about individual rights. It agrees that individual rights are a good thing if not the most important thing... but right after it says that it turns around and say but compare to group right, individual right is nothing. I do not get that.

If you are talking about group rights then you are putting the society above one individual and therefore a collectivist society..(and the contridiction in it as i mentioned above). If you are talking about individual rights, you are putting individual above everyone so we are talking about libertiarian society (if i am not mistaken) So what it was trying to do is combine libertiarian and collective society together.... that's the way i am looking at it and that's why its a contradiction in my eyes.

Please explain how you are going to counter that... and i look forward to your reply.

Only a person with nothing to inherit would make a statement such as this. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


First of all i just want to say that i disagree :) I have lots to gain from inheritance but if i was given a chance... I would not get it becasue I wish to work for myself and know the work and know that i earn it. (or maybe not.... but that's not my point!)

I agree with getting "rid" of inheritance because it will benefit our children in the long run. It give them the chance to experience the real world and what not. Instead of using inheritance and just being lazy. Those are the people everyone is fighting, so lets fight the same battle.



The principal is simple:
Life is not fair and not all people are equal.

We are neither born equally, grow equally, or experience things equally. The ony thing that makes people equal is their freedom to express their inequality. You cannot force human beings to be equal to one another. We are a class based system because that is the only system that works. It is the only system that gives people the opportunity to achieve and to succeed. Lacking this, we become stagnant, because there is no motivation to achieve.


I totally agree with you here. People are not equal, Life is not fair, the chances you start out with is not equal. But let me tell you what is equal adn that is our ability and our the mindset we can have.

I am always worry how people look at equal. they look at it as, everyone should be equal and given the same opportunity, so they force equalness on people. And by forcing equalness you force sameness... no diversity therefore stagnant you are talking about. I think people are fighting the wrong battle. It is not the equalness that they should be fighting becasue it will always exist. (btw, i was talking about equalness as in class structure for those of you who didn't catch that)

First of all i just want to say that i disagree :) I have lots to gain from inheritance but if i was given a chance... I would not get it becasue I wish to work for myself and know the work and know that i earn it. (or maybe not.... but that's not my point!)

I agree with getting "rid" of inheritance because it will benefit our children in the long run. It give them the chance to experience the real world and what not. Instead of using inheritance and just being lazy. Those are the people everyone is fighting, so lets fight the same battle.

Who's to say someone who stands to gain an inheritance will be lazy? I will likely get an inheritance and I am not presently lazy, nor do I plan to be lazy. Why is it, when people talk about inheritance, they immediately are thinking of hundreds of millions of dollars?

It is fundamentally wrong to take away from someone something they have earned. It is called THEFT. You can slice it anyway you want, you can try to justify it to yourself because of your own lack of wealth and your jealousy of others, but in the end, it is nothing more than plain, unhinged THEFT.

Someone earned that money for it to be inherited. Someone. And if they choose to pass it to their unworthy children, then so be it. You are not the person to judge that and if you think you are, then that is nothing more than jealousy..

You don't think I'd love to be Bill Gates' son? Or be born into a powerful Royal Family? Or have my family be wealthy from the get go? I'd love it.

But that is not my lot in life. I have to work, the way my father worked for his wealth. I will one day inherit his wealth, whatever it is he leaves behind and I will be happy with it. Anyone who tries to take that away had best be prepared to fight for it. :sniper:

At the same time, I don't believe anyone should touch the wealth Bill Gates has worked hard to earn for him and his family. That is his money, earned out of the creation of a highly successful business. You can be jealous all you like and bitch and piss and moan about how it's not fair to you, but... as we agreed on... life isn't fair.


I totally agree with you here. People are not equal, Life is not fair, the chances you start out with is not equal. But let me tell you what is equal adn that is our ability and our the mindset we can have.

I am always worry how people look at equal. they look at it as, everyone should be equal and given the same opportunity, so they force equalness on people. And by forcing equalness you force sameness... no diversity therefore stagnant you are talking about. I think people are fighting the wrong battle. It is not the equalness that they should be fighting becasue it will always exist. (btw, i was talking about equalness as in class structure for those of you who didn't catch that)

I agree. There should always be the opportunity to succeed. HOWEVER - the caveat is that if a person does not take that opportunity, no one is under any obligation to give it to them again. They must find it themselves.

First of all, thanks for you kind reply.
So let me summarize it and please correct me if i'm wrong. There are two ways of looking at anarchism: the political/economic ways which looks at people as in groups and masses. therefore look at their rights as in righs of the groups and masses. The individual which focuses on the individual rights and do not look at the rights of the masses or groups.

I wouldn't go that far, there are two historical ideas that have been wedded to create modern anarchism - the rights of the individual within the group.

Ok, already I am seeing a contridiction. So let me explain my contridiction the best i can and please ask for clarification if you don't get it. First let me start off with quote from above: "their opposition to hierarchy tended to be on the basis that it oppressed the individual rather than the "class" or the "people" So the first (political/economic) way of looking wants to get rid of this corrupted government and give the rights to the people. So therefore it is for the people to decide. But yet the first ways of looking (political/economic) looks at people as in groups and masses... so therefore it's not the individual who decides, it's the groups and masses who decide... and the bigger the group the stronger their voices is... can you see where this is leading to? A replacement of our current dictatorial ways of ruling into a "group and masses" ways of ruling. It is the same thing... but in different form. That's basically my conclusion, becasue eventually to govern a society in anarchism... you'll have to move to a "group/mass rules" as in collectivism society mentioned by objectivism or you go back to the old ways of ruling and that is our current form.

But, the reality is that we do not, nor have we ever truly, had a system where the group and masses rule. Representative democracy is a oligarchy. Direct democracy, rule by the majority, is something that's rarely been achieved. Where it has, such as Chiapas in Mexico, it's a freer society than the rest of Mexico.

I also see contridiction in this on. The contradiction is related to the above contradiction i pointed out so perhaps this one is easier to explain. I would liek to start off with this quote: "However, if more individuals wish to do one thing than wish to do the other, and both cannot be done, then fairness dictates that the larger group should have their way conditional upon its respecting the rights and liberty of the smaller group." On this one i assume are you talking about the second ways of looking at anarcy (individual), so we are talking about individual rights. It agrees that individual rights are a good thing if not the most important thing... but right after it says that it turns around and say but compare to group right, individual right is nothing. I do not get that.

You're stuck in the logical impossibility of separating the individual from the mass, from society. What is a majority but more individuals than the minority. The only way to respect the most individual rights is to respect the wishes of the majority once that respects the rights of the minority. Those rights are easily worked out - the Christians had the right idea, treat others like you want to be treated yourself.

If you are talking about group rights then you are putting the society above one individual and therefore a collectivist society..(and the contridiction in it as i mentioned above). If you are talking about individual rights, you are putting individual above everyone so we are talking about libertiarian society (if i am not mistaken) So what it was trying to do is combine libertiarian and collective society together.... that's the way i am looking at it and that's why its a contradiction in my eyes.

But, you see, there's no contradiction. The idea of respecting the wishes of the individual above the group is contradictory - which individual? It's impossible to completely respect the wishes of all individuals all the time, any form of right libertarianism (as opposed to left libertarianism, we haven't given up all claims to the term) is destined to grant liberty only to a minority. Collective or, particularly communist, systems (libertarian, of course, not authoritarian) aim to create the circumstances where there's least conflict between the rights and wishes of each individual - abolish government and you abolish political competition, abolish money and the market system and you abolish the rich/poor dichotomy, reducing crime, reducing competition and reducing the amount of work that needs to be done (while also maximising the workforce) granting everyone more leisuretime. It is only be creating a system where there is most equality and least hierarchy that the rights and wishes of all individuals can be respected and fulfilled.

Vas.

Only a person with nothing to inherit would make a statement such as this. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

In the end, politics is about being self-serving. The person posting this would be best served if they didn't have to fight against the disadvantage of not having any substantial inheritance. In order to manufacture this supposed equality, he/she would rather take away what other people have earned than try to work for it themselves.On the other hand, the bourgeois with a lot of capital would be best served by maintaining the status quo.
This is what the struggle of classes is all about. Marx and Engels said about the utopian communists that they were lying to themselves if they thought they could convince the bourgeois to give up their privileges for their own good. He said there was no point in trying to convince the ruling class to change the system since the ruling class does not have interest in changing the system, like in all the previous class sytems looking so wrong today (the monarchs and the subjects, the masters and the slaves...). They said the revolution was the only way and that the proletariat had the means of the revolution because they controlled the means of production.

I think they were wrong. I think it is possible to change the system through democracy. I think the current ruling class in intelligent enough to see their best interest in justice and peace. I think a lot of progress have already been made until now without a revolution (in terms of social education, progressive taxation, taxations on inheritance, labor unions, etc...). Of course there are always a small number of bourgeois who try to hold the world back and sometimes they make it move backward, but overall, I think we are going forward.

Capitalism works on one fundamental principal that has to be understood and accepted. Those who refuse to accept this principal invariable rail against capitalism because they feel its "unfair" nature, which is ironic, considering the principal.

The principal is simple:
Life is not fair and not all people are equal.

We are neither born equally, grow equally, or experience things equally. The ony thing that makes people equal is their freedom to express their inequality. You cannot force human beings to be equal to one another. We are a class based system because that is the only system that works. It is the only system that gives people the opportunity to achieve and to succeed. Lacking this, we become stagnant, because there is no motivation to achieve.

I fully understand and appreciate that capitalism rewards capital. Money makes money.

If you don't have it, you have to find a way to earn it. If you do have it, you have to find a way to grow it and keep it. If you don't have it, but want it, you should stop whining about why other people have it and get a job.But getting a job is not easy in some parts of the world where there is no capital.
You say the world is not fair, and you are right when you say it, and it can not be fair. However, the law can be fair, at least it can progress toward fairness. There is an article of the human rights which says "everyone is born equal in rights under the law". The more fair he more successful the system will be. That's my opinion.

If people resigned themselves to the idea of inequality and that "life is not fair", then we'd still be having slavery today.

Life will never be 100% fair, but it can be made far more fair than it is now. And people will never be completely equal, but they can become far more equal than they are now.

Capitalism doesn't just create inequality. It creates absurd, immense inequality. Consider the following graph:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/antic/wealth.gif

The entire history of human civilization has been one long struggle for ever-increasing equality. There's no reason why we should stop now.

On the other hand, the bourgeois with a lot of capital would be best served by maintaining the status quo.

This is what the struggle of classes is all about. Marx and Engels said about the utopian communists that they were lying to themselves if they thought they could convince the bourgeois to give up their privileges for their own good. He said there was no point in trying to convince the ruling class to change the system since the ruling class does not have interest in changing the system, like in all the previous class sytems looking so wrong today (the monarchs and the subjects, the masters and the slaves...). They said the revolution was the only way and that the proletariat had the means of the revolution because they controlled the means of production.

And human nature dictates that when these "proletariat" take power away from the bourgeois, they in turn become bourgeois and inherit the power they had fought to remove. In so doing, they now must protect the power they just fought for and earned by in turn "suppressing" a new class of proletariat.

In my experience, the first rule of understanding politics is understanding humans. You can argue the golden rainbow of equal opportunity and utopian society - but in the end, it is all hypothetical argument. The best system is the one that gives as many people the opportunity to succeed as possible, without discouraging them to succeed from the start line.

Capitalism is the best way to achieve this, because communism tells you you're not going to go anywhere, no matter how much potential you have.

There is no such thing as equality, because there is always someone more equal than others.


I think they were wrong. I think it is possible to change the system through democracy. I think the current ruling class in intelligent enough to see their best interest in justice and peace. I think a lot of progress have already been made until now without a revolution (in terms of social education, progressive taxation, taxations on inheritance, labor unions, etc...). Of course there are always a small number of bourgeois who try to hold the world back and sometimes they make it move backward, but overall, I think we are going forward.

On the contrary, I think the bourgeois are the ones most often inclined to move things forward - because moving things forward means taking risks for potential profit. Profit is the driving force of our advancement, because human nature again dictates that we do not do things for free. We need some reward - and while for some people, the reward is a simple sense of accomplishment, for a vast majority of others, it is something more tangible. Like a house, a car, and a big dog.

So long as society continues to provide tangible rewards for effort, progress will be made.


But getting a job is not easy in some parts of the world where there is no capital.

You say the world is not fair, and you are right when you say it, and it can not be fair. However, the law can be fair, at least it can progress toward fairness. There is an article of the human rights which says "everyone is born equal in rights under the law". The more fair he more successful the system will be. That's my opinion.

Now that entirely depends on what the laws are dictating. Are the laws trying to manufacture fairness where none should rightly exist? If so, I disagree with that law. If the law is there to protect the rights and opportunities of all people, so that regardless of your background, you are given the opportunity to succeed, then I agree with it.

Now when I say opportunity to succeed, I do not mean that everyone should start on the same footing. Some people will be given greater opportunities than others and for those people, success will be easier for them. Others will have to fight twice as long and twice as hard to get the exact same point someone else may have started at.
However...

They and their future lot will be better off for the struggles that individual has put forward, because now any wealth they have earned to that point will continue to pass down their off-spring, in the hopes that they will have a better lot to start from than they did. And then the torch is passed to that offspring to seize upon the opportunity they have been given to succeed.

This does not always happen. Their offspring may be screw ups and squander the opportunity they have been given, in which case the work of the parent is for naught.

But, life isn't fair. :) It is a natural unfairness in the world. You cannot lower everyone to the lowest common denominator in order to create a supposed fair starting line.

If people resigned themselves to the idea of inequality and that "life is not fair", then we'd still be having slavery today.

Life will never be 100% fair, but it can be made far more fair than it is now. And people will never be completely equal, but they can become far more equal than they are now.

Capitalism doesn't just create inequality. It creates absurd, immense inequality. Consider the following graph:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/antic/wealth.gif

The entire history of human civilization has been one long struggle for ever-increasing equality. There's no reason why we should stop now.

But the methods people are proposing to make it more fair are equally absurd. Taking away inheritance? That's ludiricous. You didn't earn that money, so you have absolutely no right to judge where it should go or who should get it. If you agree with removing inheritance than you are nothing more than a jealous conniving thief.

I am a firm believer in people getting what they earn - in the same breath, I am a firm believer in people taking the consequences of their actions. They are effectively, the same thing.

People should be given the equal opportunity to succeed, but for some that opportunity will be harder to grasp and they will have to struggle longer and harder to get there. For others, the path is easier. Some people may just be faster, stronger, smarter than others - so regardless of their humble beginnings, they may succeed against all odds, simply because the genetic card they were dealt meant for them to succeed.

Capitalism doesn't create equality, and nor should it ever. Capitalism's ideal is to create opportunity and that is all it should have to do. The rest will sort itself out.

In the long run, capitalism destroys opportunities. The necessary concentration of capital end up in monster corporations doing nothing but killing opportunities.


On the contrary, I think the bourgeois are the ones most often inclined to move things forward - because moving things forward means taking risks for potential profit. Profit is the driving force of our advancement, because human nature again dictates that we do not do things for free. We need some reward - and while for some people, the reward is a simple sense of accomplishment, for a vast majority of others, it is something more tangible. Like a house, a car, and a big dog.

So long as society continues to provide tangible rewards for effort, progress will be made. I agree that society must provide reward for effort and I think a communist society can do that, by giving cars, house and big dogs to those who work more. However, I think that the bourgeois are rewarded at birth. They're not rewarded to invent, work or move things forward, are they? Aren't the inventors in the proletariat?

And human nature dictates that when these "proletariat" take power away from the bourgeois, they in turn become bourgeois and inherit the power they had fought to remove. In so doing, they now must protect the power they just fought for and earned by in turn "suppressing" a new class of proletariat.Ideally, in Marx' words, everybody should be in the proletariat.

Now that entirely depends on what the laws are dictating. Are the laws trying to manufacture fairness where none should rightly exist? If so, I disagree with that law. If the law is there to protect the rights and opportunities of all people, so that regardless of your background, you are given the opportunity to succeed, then I agree with it.I think Communism achieves that

Now when I say opportunity to succeed, I do not mean that everyone should start on the same footing. Some people will be given greater opportunities than others and for those people, success will be easier for them. Others will have to fight twice as long and twice as hard to get the exact same point someone else may have started at.
However...

They and their future lot will be better off for the struggles that individual has put forward, because now any wealth they have earned to that point will continue to pass down their off-spring, in the hopes that they will have a better lot to start from than they did. And then the torch is passed to that offspring to seize upon the opportunity they have been given to succeed.

This does not always happen. Their offspring may be screw ups and squander the opportunity they have been given, in which case the work of the parent is for naught.

But, life isn't fair. :) It is a natural unfairness in the world. You cannot lower everyone to the lowest common denominator in order to create a supposed fair starting line.
It is not about lowering evreyone to the same common denominator.
The property which is about to be abolished is not the personal peoperties, but the bourgeois property. And it is not about to be destroyed, but redistributed.

But the methods people are proposing to make it more fair are equally absurd. Taking away inheritance? That's ludiricous. You didn't earn that money, so you have absolutely no right to judge where it should go or who should get it. If you agree with removing inheritance than you are nothing more than a jealous conniving thief.The bourgeois inheriting that money didn't win it either.
Property itself is theft.

In the long run, capitalism destroys opportunities. The necessary concentration of capital end up in monster corporations doing nothing but killing opportunities.

And how is that? Corporations want to continue to generate profit and so long as there are laws regulating complete monopolies and price-fixing (etc.) the challenge of competition will force corporations to continue to take risks and invent and progress.

A corporation that sits on its capital will die to the corporation that does not. Capital leads to research and risk-taking for the hope of ever greater profits. This money has to go somewhere and someone has to be the brains behind helping corporations continue to profit and progress - and those are the people seizing opportunities.

If anything, big government staunch opportunity because of over-regulation and attempts at faux equality.

Opportunity is created by a driving need to advance and get better. Corporations only promote this in the fact that they do it for the goal of a better bottom line. No matter what the motivation however, corporations support more research and funding and venture than governments do, because that is where the money is.

I agree that society must provide reward for effort and I think a communist society can do that, by giving cars, house and big dogs to those who work more. However, I think that the bourgeois are rewarded at birth. They're not rewarded to invent, work or move things forward, are they? Aren't the inventors in the proletariat?

And how is that system judged? In your communist society, the person who makes the decision for Family ABC to get the Big Nice Car suddenly has all the power, don't they? Suddenly, the person able to reward is more equal than the people they are rewarding. Communism creates fake, corruptable equality that has proven in most instances to fail, because of the corruptable nature of humans.

I have no issues with being rewarded from birth. Because those so rewarded can still fail. Someone in the bourgeois is further rewarded and maintains their position by continuing to work - not by ceasing to. You seem to be of the impression that anyone who has anything to inherit will never have to work a moment in their entire life. An assumption I think that is as gradiose as it is completely false.

Most people in the middle class will inherit a modest amount, enough to raise the wealth of their family, but certainly not enough for them to sit back on their laurels and do nothing for the rest of thier lives. A very very very tiny minorioty of people are afforded to do that, and anyone who speaks ill of them are simply jealous that they were not born of that lot. They may be useless bags of human skin with no skill or value to add - but eventually their line and wealth will die out because of their own lack of vision. It will happen, even if we don't see it in our life time. It is the nature of survival to kill off the weak, even if it takes generations to do so.

If you struggle and achieve wealth, wouldn't you want to pass that to your offspring so that they can start from a better footing than you did? So that they could be afforded the luxuries you were not? Wouldn't you want them to be given a better opportunity than you? That is a natural human reaction and it cannot be stopped. Why would you want your children to suffer the things you did? To give them character? PLEASE... Most people who love thier family and their children will do what they can to ensure they can start off with as good a life as can be afforded them. And thus the struggle continues, generation after generation.

The bourgeois inheriting that money didn't win it either.
Property itself is theft.

Wow, that's ridiculous. They didn't earn it, but their parents did. And their parents freely gave it to them.

You don't like that? Tough. Maybe you should have asked your mom and dad to work a little harder (or smarter, depending on what corporate slogans you're abiding to).

Who are you to "redistribute" that wealth? What gives you the right to judge? Who says you know any better? By giving yourself the power to redistribute someone else's wealth, you are in effect making yourself a greater amongst equals, by using law and force to redistribute something that isn't yours to begin with.

It is theft. It is corruption and it has proven to be failure. Proven time and time again.

And how is that? Corporations want to continue to generate profit and so long as there are laws regulating complete monopolies and price-fixing (etc.) the challenge of competition will force corporations to continue to take risks and invent and progress.But isn't property already a monopoly?
In reality, the bigger corporation will always win, because it has the most capital and therefore the most property. Property breeds property.

A corporation that sits on its capital will die to the corporation that does not. Capital leads to research and risk-taking for the hope of ever greater profits. This money has to go somewhere and someone has to be the brains behind helping corporations continue to profit and progress - and those are the people seizing opportunities.The brains you are talking about are the property of the corporation. They are the proletariat. The bourgeois owning the corporation does just have to buy the best brains because he has the biggest capital.

If anything, big government staunch opportunity because of over-regulation and attempts at faux equality.Indeed the government is over-regulating. Supressing the bourgeois property would simplify the law though.

Opportunity is created by a driving need to advance and get better. Corporations only promote this in the fact that they do it for the goal of a better bottom line. No matter what the motivation however, corporations support more research and funding and venture than governments do, because that is where the money is.
NASA? Military research? Quite frankly, the civil research is quite under-funded right now and most inventions are state-sponsored.
The internet was invented by the military.

And how is that system judged? In your communist society, the person who makes the decision for Family ABC to get the Big Nice Car suddenly has all the power, don't they? Suddenly, the person able to reward is more equal than the people they are rewarding. Communism creates fake, corruptable equality that has proven in most instances to fail, because of the corruptable nature of humans.No communism is based on democracy. All the people should decide in common which work is to receive which reward.

I have no issues with being rewarded from birth. Because those so rewarded can still fail. Someone in the bourgeois is further rewarded and maintains their position by continuing to work - not by ceasing to. You seem to be of the impression that anyone who has anything to inherit will never have to work a moment in their entire life. An assumption I think that is as gradiose as it is completely false.

Most people in the middle class will inherit a modest amount, enough to raise the wealth of their family, but certainly not enough for them to sit back on their laurels and do nothing for the rest of thier lives. A very very very tiny minorioty of people are afforded to do that, and anyone who speaks ill of them are simply jealous that they were not born of that lot. They may be useless bags of human skin with no skill or value to add - but eventually their line and wealth will die out because of their own lack of vision. It will happen, even if we don't see it in our life time. It is the nature of survival to kill off the weak, even if it takes generations to do so.

This is exactly the reason why people are fighting for communism, because of the nature of survival.

If you struggle and achieve wealth, wouldn't you want to pass that to your offspring so that they can start from a better footing than you did? So that they could be afforded the luxuries you were not? Wouldn't you want them to be given a better opportunity than you? That is a natural human reaction and it cannot be stopped. Why would you want your children to suffer the things you did? To give them character? PLEASE... Most people who love thier family and their children will do what they can to ensure they can start off with as good a life as can be afforded them. And thus the struggle continues, generation after generation.
The problem is that by doing that to your kids, you are killing my kids' future.

Wow, that's ridiculous. They didn't earn it, but their parents did. And their parents freely gave it to them.

You don't like that? Tough. Maybe you should have asked your mom and dad to work a little harder (or smarter, depending on what corporate slogans you're abiding to).

Who are you to "redistribute" that wealth? What gives you the right to judge? Who says you know any better? By giving yourself the power to redistribute someone else's wealth, you are in effect making yourself a greater amongst equals, by using law and force to redistribute something that isn't yours to begin with.

It is theft. It is corruption and it has proven to be failure. Proven time and time again.No I'm not about to redistribute myself. It is about democracy. All the people should decide, not just a few.

I think that communism can't be installed from scratch. Democracy is a pre-requisite. The first step is to eliminate feudalism, and install capitalism, then democracy. Communism can be installed from that.

Trying to install communism on a monarchy will lead to a utter failure (dictatorship). There has to be a workable transition. One step will lead to the next.

Here I'm discussing the communism in its final form in order to show how efficient this system will be. However, I'm not suggesting to wipe everything out and put communism. I'm suggesting to move forward and to defend what's already acquired (progressive taxation of the capital, nationalization of the train system, mandatory social education, ban on child labor, etc...), step by step.

If people resigned themselves to the idea of inequality and that "life is not fair", then we'd still be having slavery today.
No, we wouldn't. Ignorantio elenchi/non sequitur.

Life will never be 100% fair, but it can be made far more fair than it is now. And people will never be completely equal, but they can become far more equal than they are now.
Good, then you want a market system.

Capitalism doesn't just create inequality. It creates absurd, immense inequality.
Blatant question begging. What makes it absurd? By what standard do you apply?

The entire history of human civilization has been one long struggle for ever-increasing equality. There's no reason why we should stop now.
So why do you want to stop it by implementing socialism?

No, we wouldn't. Ignorantio elenchi/non sequitur.


Good, then you want a market system.


Blatant question begging. What makes it absurd? By what standard do you apply?


So why do you want to stop it by implementing socialism?Worthless.

The bourgeois inheriting that money didn't win it either.
Nor does someone who is having a birthday win all the gifts, but I doubt you have a problem with birthday gifts. There's thus no reason to have a problem with inheritance--unless of course you want to special plead and be a hypocrite.

Property itself is theft.
*sigh*

In this article, I shall confine myself to the analysis of a single principle — a single fallacy — which is rampant in the writings of the neo-mystics and without which their doctrines could not be propagated.

We call it "the fallacy of the stolen concept."

To understand this fallacy, consider an example of it in the realm of politics: Proudhon's famous declaration that "All property is theft."

"Theft" is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of "rightfully owned property" — and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner's consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as "theft." Thus, the statement "All property is theft" has an internal contradiction: to use the concept "theft" while denying the validity of the concept of "property," is to use "theft" as a concept to which one has no logical right — that is, as a stolen concept.

All of man's knowledge and all of his concepts have a hierarchical structure. The foundation or ultimate base of this structure is man's sensory perceptions; these are the starting points of his thinking. From these, man forms his first concepts and (ostensive) definitions — then goes on building the edifice of his knowledge by identifying and integrating new concepts on a wider and wider scale. It is a process of building one identification upon another — of deriving wider abstractions from previously known abstractions, or of breaking down wider abstractions into narrower classifications. Man's concepts are derived from and depend on earlier, more basic concepts, which serve as their genetic roots. For example, the concept "parent" is presupposed by the concept "orphan"; if one had not grasped the former, one could not arrive at the latter, nor could the latter be meaningful.

The hierarchical nature of man's knowledge implies an important principle that must guide man's reasoning: When one uses concepts, one must recognize their genetic roots, one must recognize that which they logically depend on and presuppose.

Failure to observe this principle — as in "All property is theft" — constitutes the fallacy of the stolen concept."
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ton04.html

whine
Worthless

If property is a theft, then anyone who owns anything is a thief.

That includes everybody on this message board. We're all thieves because we have possessions.

Of course, property ISN'T theft...

If property is a theft, then anyone who owns anything is a thief.

That includes everybody on this message board. We're all thieves because we have possessions.

Of course, property ISN'T theft...

get thee to a "what is property?" (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346365) thread.

property is distinct from possessions.

I'm just informing what property is NOT, not what it IS. Tell thy fellow messageboarder who said property is theft to get him hence to the what-is-property board!

But isn't property already a monopoly?

No, because no one else is required to use or have to use your property. A monopoly only becomes a problem when everyone is forced to use it for lack of any other options. Try again.


In reality, the bigger corporation will always win, because it has the most capital and therefore the most property. Property breeds property.
The brains you are talking about are the property of the corporation. They are the proletariat. The bourgeois owning the corporation does just have to buy the best brains because he has the biggest capital.
Indeed the government is over-regulating. Supressing the bourgeois property would simplify the law though.

No it wouldn't, it would only prove as a dissincentive to progress. Human nature requires that people be given incentive. Incentive is property and wealth - wealth that they are free to distribute however they see fit and to spend in whatever manner results in their own personal happiness.

If that personal happiness means giving it back to the community, I have no quams about that. If that personal happiness is buying a yacht and sailing for 25 years, go for it.

I do not judge them for it and nor should you, because you have no right to.


NASA? Military research? Quite frankly, the civil research is quite under-funded right now and most inventions are state-sponsored.
The internet was invented by the military.

Invented by the military and made popular by corporations and businesses. Just because something is invented by a government body does not mean it can't be made better by corporations. The internet itself proved to be an opportunity that smart people took advantage of to grow it. Hence allowing us to even have this discussion in the first place.


No communism is based on democracy. All the people should decide in common which work is to receive which reward.

This is exactly the reason why people are fighting for communism, because of the nature of survival.

Fighting and losing. As losing is also part of survival.


The problem is that by doing that to your kids, you are killing my kids' future.

What proof do you have? That is a remarkably bold statement without a shred of an argument to back it up. One-liners does not a debate make.

I'm just informing what property is NOT, not what it IS. Tell thy fellow messageboarder who said property is theft to get him hence to the what-is-property board!

check the thread - it goes into a explanation of how exactly property is theft. because it quite plainly is. in a very real sense the bundle of legal rights and privileges called 'property' come from, and amount to theft from the rightful users.

(though it got sidetracked because somebody can't tell the difference between the labor theory of value and a labor theory of ownership/control - even when the argument was explicitly about the second being incompatible with a system of private property in land)

No, because no one else is required to use or have to use your property. A monopoly only becomes a problem when everyone is forced to use it for lack of any other options. Try again.Do you agree that everything is not equal in this world?
Do you agree that there is a better land and a worse one?
Do you agree that there are clever people and stupid ones?
Then won't someone have a monopoly on the better land, someone on the most clever employees?
Won't this monopoly be a problem when the owner of the best employee buys the 2nd best employee thanks to his capital earned on the back of the best employee and so forth until there is no other option?

No it wouldn't, it would only prove as a dissincentive to progress. Human nature requires that people be given incentive. Incentive is property and wealth - wealth that they are free to distribute however they see fit and to spend in whatever manner results in their own personal happiness.

If that personal happiness means giving it back to the community, I have no quams about that. If that personal happiness is buying a yacht and sailing for 25 years, go for it.

I do not judge them for it and nor should you, because you have no right to.
I agree with you here, but I'm not talking about the same thing. You talk about the personnal possessions.
Communism is not about abolishing the personal properties. It is about abolishing the bourgeois property, or the tools of slavery. We are talking about the means of production.
There is no point in owning a factory. It can not be given as a reward.
If you give that as a reward, the reward is infinite because the factory will produce wealth and reward to the owner in turn. But the owner did not provide infinite work.

Invented by the military and made popular by corporations and businesses. Just because something is invented by a government body does not mean it can't be made better by corporations. The internet itself proved to be an opportunity that smart people took advantage of to grow it. Hence allowing us to even have this discussion in the first place.
Indeed people took advantage of it, like they did with the minitel in France. However the point is that most of the research is done by the state because research is not rewarded by capitalism. Only exploitation is rewarded by capitalism.

What proof do you have? That is a remarkably bold statement without a shred of an argument to back it up. One-liners does not a debate make.
Well your kids will inherit the capital, my kids can not inherit it as well. They can't both inherit the same land. If you give a bigger land to your kids than you were given by your fathers, there is less land left for my kids.

No, because no one else is required to use or have to use your property. A monopoly only becomes a problem when everyone is forced to use it for lack of any other options. Try again.

No it wouldn't, it would only prove as a dissincentive to progress. Human nature requires that people be given incentive. Incentive is property and wealth - wealth that they are free to distribute however they see fit and to spend in whatever manner results in their own personal happiness.

I do not judge them for it and nor should you, because you have no right to.
I think the word he's looking for is "oligopsony."

While it is true that an incentive is required, the acquisition of property isn't the only -or even the best- one.

Of course we have a right to judge them. If they have the right to say "I deserve this" then a person has the right to say "no, you don't."

Do you agree that everything is not equal in this world?
Do you agree that there is a better land and a worse one?
Do you agree that there are clever people and stupid ones?
Then won't someone have a monopoly on the better land, someone on the most clever employees?

The better land, possible. The most clever employees, hardly. Because clever employees (and here's the clincher) can think for themselves. They can move to someone else's company if they want, work for themselves if they want and/or move and do whatever they please. You cannot have a "monopoly" on clever employees.


Won't this monopoly be a problem when the owner of the best employee buys the 2nd best employee thanks to his capital earned on the back of the best employee and so forth until there is no other option?

This is the nature of competition as well as human nature. It is in our nature to want change when we can control it. It is in our nature to move and seek better opportunities. No corporation in a free society can "control" or "monopolize" the best human resources. It is simply not possible. Because the competition with similar capital and interest may be able to offer more to the same employee - perhaps even more than the first corporation can. And then that employee can choose.

You are assume employees are static resources that simply go to the highest bidder. That is simply not the case.

Communism is not about abolishing the personal properties. It is about abolishing the bourgeois property, or the tools of slavery. We are talking about the means of production.

There is no point in owning a factory. It can not be given as a reward.
If you give that as a reward, the reward is infinite because the factory will produce wealth and reward to the owner in turn. But the owner did not provide infinite work.

And communism is a failed pipe dream because where there is humanity, there is corruption and power mongering. Communism does not work because people are greedy and self-serving.

If you get rid of all corruptable people and self-serving ideals from humanity, then communism may stand a chance. Until such a time, it cannot work. I'm a realist. I understand the conceptual utopia that communism attempts to achieve and I believe it commendable. I also am realistic enough to know humans do not operate in this manner and therefore true socially equally communism is unattainable.


Well your kids will inherit the capital, my kids can not inherit it as well. They can't both inherit the same land. If you give a bigger land to your kids than you were given by your fathers, there is less land left for my kids.

Yep. Too bad for you.
I guess you'll just have to struggle to give your kids what you can so that they may have a better chance of giving even more to their own kids.

One of the failures in your argument is you assume immortality on the part of corporations and capital. This is not true. Corporations die constantly. Competition kills as well as mismanagement and corruption. How many major US and Canadian corruptions succumbed to financial mismanagement in the past 2-3 years? HUGE corporations that people thought were IMMORTAL fell and were dissolved into nothingness. All the capital in the world they had could not save them from their own ineptitude. All the capital they had was suddenly released back to the populace for "redistribution". However, the redistribution took place in a capital market, as opposed to be forcefully redistribute by a governmental body.

Nothing is immortal. My current claim to my wealth and land is not immortal, any more than yours is. Fight to survive and you may one day have my land. Give up and argue that the government should just give it to you because you want it, and you'll never get it.

I think the word he's looking for is "oligopsony."

While it is true that an incentive is required, the acquisition of property isn't the only -or even the best- one.

I agree - but it is the one most often sought after because of human nature. If you can change that, then all the power to you. I doubt it though. And so realistically, since you cannot change this about human nature, we have to live with what humanity can allow.

And that is NOT communism.


Of course we have a right to judge them. If they have the right to say "I deserve this" then a person has the right to say "no, you don't."

Nope. People were given the right to "deserve" something when they earned it. Someone who did not earn it has no right to say otherwise.

And if you think they do, then that's jealousy and theft. You want something you didn't earn, and you want it fast and free. Gee... Handouts anyone?

As copied from Dictionary.com

earn1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ûrn)
tr.v. earned, earn·ing, earns
To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work: earned money by mowing lawns.
To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action: She earned a reputation as a hard worker.
To yield as return or profit: a savings account that earns interest on deposited funds.

Which definition of "Earn" are you using?

get thee to a "what is property?" (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346365) thread.

property is distinct from possessions.
No it's not. Possessions are a type of property.

Learn about subsets, moron. What you're claiming is the same as saying that people who live in Milwaukee do not live in Wisconsin! Fucking ludicrous.

The better land, possible. The most clever employees, hardly. Because clever employees (and here's the clincher) can think for themselves. They can move to someone else's company if they want, work for themselves if they want and/or move and do whatever they please. You cannot have a "monopoly" on clever employees.

This is the nature of competition as well as human nature. It is in our nature to want change when we can control it. It is in our nature to move and seek better opportunities. No corporation in a free society can "control" or "monopolize" the best human resources. It is simply not possible. Because the competition with similar capital and interest may be able to offer more to the same employee - perhaps even more than the first corporation can. And then that employee can choose.

You are assume employees are static resources that simply go to the highest bidder. That is simply not the case. But the corporation with the most capital will be able to pay the most and therefore have the best employees, isn't that correct?

And communism is a failed pipe dream because where there is humanity, there is corruption and power mongering. Communism does not work because people are greedy and self-serving.

If you get rid of all corruptable people and self-serving ideals from humanity, then communism may stand a chance. Until such a time, it cannot work. I'm a realist. I understand the conceptual utopia that communism attempts to achieve and I believe it commendable. I also am realistic enough to know humans do not operate in this manner and therefore true socially equally communism is unattainable.
I don't share your analysis.
I think communism failed because they attempted to go from a feudal system straight to socialism in a very short time. They did not achieve capitalism and democracy prior to that and they ended up in a dictatorship.
I think that socialism is working very well in the scandinavian countries though.
Some progress can be made in the US. This is real, this is not an utopia. Look at what has already being achieved :
* ban on child labor
* mandatory social education
* progressive taxes on the capital
...
the list goes on. This has already been achieved. If you had said to the bourgeois of the 19th century that one of these days there would be a ban on child labor under 14, they would have said it was purely utopic, but it has been achieved, this is REAL.
We are civilizing day after day.

Yep. Too bad for you.
I guess you'll just have to struggle to give your kids what you can so that they may have a better chance of giving even more to their own kids.

One of the failures in your argument is you assume immortality on the part of corporations and capital. This is not true. Corporations die constantly. Competition kills as well as mismanagement and corruption. How many major US and Canadian corruptions succumbed to financial mismanagement in the past 2-3 years? HUGE corporations that people thought were IMMORTAL fell and were dissolved into nothingness. All the capital in the world they had could not save them from their own ineptitude. All the capital they had was suddenly released back to the populace for "redistribution". However, the redistribution took place in a capital market, as opposed to be forcefully redistribute by a governmental body.
I think it happened but it was far from a general rule. The really big corporations did not loose much. It was mainly the small ones which paid the price of the slow down. The big oil companies are still ass kicking on the market.
And the 'redistribution' was not for the populace but for the bourgeois only. There was no capital loss to the proletariat.

Nothing is immortal. My current claim to my wealth and land is not immortal, any more than yours is. Fight to survive and you may one day have my land. Give up and argue that the government should just give it to you because you want it, and you'll never get it.
Are you suggesting a revolution?

No it's not. Possessions are a type of property.

Learn about subsets, moron. What you're claiming is the same as saying that people who live in Milwaukee do not live in Wisconsin! Fucking ludicrous.Go say that on the thread about property please.

Nope. People were given the right to "deserve" something when they earned it. Someone who did not earn it has no right to say otherwise.

And if you think they do, then that's jealousy and theft. You want something you didn't earn, and you want it fast and free. Gee... Handouts anyone?There were people living on their land since centuries. They've been spoiled by capitalists. This is theft in the first place and the property should return to its rightfully owner : the people, ALL the people.

Interesting article from 1998:


Global capitalism breeds gross inequality
By Donna Goodman

When Marx and Engels analyzed capitalism in the Communist Manifesto, the industrial age was just beginning. Since then, capitalism has shown an extraordinary productive ability and capacity to create wealth for a few — but at the cost of wage exploitation and national oppression, the annihilation of Native peoples, the enslavement of Africans, colonial subjugation, horrendous world wars and imperialist adventures.

As Marx foretold, capitalism’s great wealth has not appreciably benefited the lives of the majority of the world’s people because that wealth is distributed so unequally. Workers in industrialized countries have been allowed to obtain a small share of capitalism’s wealth in order to keep them from rebelling, but they also experience periodic economic crises, wars, financial insecurity and alienation.

Despite certain historic achievements, an objective analysis of capitalism’s economic and social history demonstrates the continuing viability of the socialist alternative Marx and Engels outlined 150 years ago.

With the downfall of the Soviet Union nearly a decade ago, the global economy has come under the joint ownership of the major capitalist industries, corporations and banks. We are told the history of socio-economic transformation is over. In September, Retired Gen. Colin Powell told West Point cadets that capitalism is a great system despite some faults and, after all, "There are no competing ideologies on the face of the earth." He meant the very idea of a society based on cooperation and genuine equality is no longer valid.

We’ll see about that.

Meanwhile, global capitalism must take responsibility for the "faults" Powell mentioned.

The world has nearly 6 billion people. Most live in the capitalist orbit. About 1.2 billion live in what the United Nations calls "developed" countries — the industrialized imperialist nations. Some 4.8 billion live in less developed countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

According to the UN "Human Development Report 1998," the 20 percent of the global population living in the developed countries consumes 86 percent of the world’s goods. The remaining 80 percent consume just 14 percent of the goods. This includes the poorest 20 percent, who get 1.3 percent of the goods.

As the manifesto notes, capitalism generates great wealth, but pauperism develops far more rapidly. The UN predicts that in 50 years 8 billion people — out of a projected world population of 9.8 billion — will live in poor countries.

Incomes fall in 75 countries

Some 75 nations suffered a reduction in per capita income over the last 30 years. Between 1980 and 1990, the poverty rate in Latin America and the Caribbean jumped from 33 to 50 percent. In Africa, consumption dropped 20 percent since the mid-1970s.

Sixty percent of people who live in less developed countries lack safe sewage systems. Over 30 percent lack clean water, and 25 percent live in exceptionally poor housing. Twenty percent have no access to doctors, ever.

Millions of children under the age of five die every year for lack of just pennies worth of preventive medicines. More than two billion people have no access to schools. One billion are starving or malnourished.

A billion of the world’s working people are looking for jobs, according to the International Labor Organization. Over 150 million are out of work — including nearly 40 million in the industrialized countries. The rest are under-employed and looking for full-time jobs.

These conditions will only worsen as the effects of the capitalist economic crisis spread through the world. According to the World Bank, over 20 million workers in east Asia fell into poverty last year.

Robbery by the rich

The UN says it would cost $6 billion to provide a basic education to all who now can’t get one. It would cost $9 billion to provide adequate water and sanitation to billions more.

Is capitalism lacking funds to do the job? Hardly.

If Microsoft’s Bill Gates donated just 25 percent of his personal wealth, billions of people could be educated, drink clean water and live in a sanitary environment.

Speaking of billionaires, the world’s 225 richest capitalists have nearly as much money as the poorest 50 percent of the world’s people combined. The three richest people have assets exceeding the combined gross domestic products of the poorest 48 countries.

Washington used to disparage the Soviet Union when it had a socialist economy, despite its full employment and generous social policies. How fares Russia today, a decade after the counterrevolution?

Capitalism has nearly destroyed Russia. Russia’s gross domestic product has dropped 81 percent since 1990. Agricultural output has decreased 63 percent. Over 70,000 factories have closed. Prices have risen by 350 percent. Average monthly wages and pensions have declined by 78 percent and 67 percent, respectively.

The country’s free medical care system is a shambles. Life expectancy has fallen by several years. More than 13 million people are unemployed, and tens of millions of workers who are working haven’t been paid in at least six months.

‘Grave problems’ for U.S. workers

Grave problems also plague the U.S.

The richest 1 percent here own 44 percent of the country’s total assets. From 1977 to 1994, their average income rose 72 percent. The richest 10 percent got nearly 90 percent of the benefits from the stock market boom between 1989 and 1997.

Meanwhile, 1,500 Wall Street brokers received $1 million or more in 1997. Average compensation on Wall Street jumped $120,000 between 1996 and 1997. Corporate executives are also raking it in. The AFL-CIO reports that CEOs make 209 times the average factory worker’s pay. In 1965 it was "only" 44 times as much.

The reality for working-class people is very different.

Even during the boom years, according to the Economic Policy Institute, inflation-adjusted earnings for workers in 1997 were 3.1 percent lower than in 1989. Real hourly wages stagnated or fell for 60 percent of workers.

Since 1973, hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, have dropped over 12 percent. The institute also says a "typical married-couple family" worked 247 more hours in 1996 than in 1989 — six weeks of additional work.

The hardest hit workers are those who have not graduated from college — almost 80 percent of the work force.

Right now 16.5 percent of the U.S. population lives below the official poverty line. In 1995, there were 2.5 million poor people in New York State alone.

Some 26.5 percent of African Americans live in poverty. So do 27 percent of Latinos.

The incomes of the poorest 20 percent in the U.S. fell almost 15 percent between 1977 and 1990. A worker who gets the $5.15 an hour minimum wage and has two children lives far below the poverty line.

At least 25 percent of children under the age of six live in poverty, according to the National Center for Children in Poverty.

There’s no food shortage here. But this year, according to the Institute for Food and Development Policy, 30 million Americans are going hungry, including 12 million children. Hunger here has increased 50 percent since 1985.

The institute says between 5 and 7 million people in the U.S. are homeless for all or part of the year. The number of people without health insurance jumped this year to 16.1 percent — the highest level in a decade, according to the Census Bureau.

Highway robbery

In 1997, taxes on Corporate America constituted just 11 percent of the nation’s tax revenue. Fifty years earlier, big business contributed 40 percent. If today’s giant corporations paid taxes at the rate they paid in 1947, the U.S. could wipe out poverty.

Washington’s gigantic military machine continues to expand, even while social programs are gutted. Congress recently passed a $270 billion Pentagon spending bill. On Oct. 21, President Clinton and Congress added another $8.1 billion.

What does all this mean?

It means we must work to create a society based on cooperation, not competition; economic equality, not inequality; support for education, health and welfare, not the military, the corporations and the rich; brotherhood and sisterhood, not racism, sexism and anti-gay/lesbian bias; an end to world poverty and the elimination of class differences, not allowing one small class of rich people to grab most of the wealth.

I think a lot of people agree with these sentiments, even if they have never considered the socialist alternative.

But the corporation with the most capital will be able to pay the most and therefore have the best employees, isn't that correct?

Up to the point where they do not believe the value they are paying out is worth the value of the return that employee can produce.

Here's the MARVELOUS thing about a free market - competition. No one is irreplaceble.

NO ONE.

You think you are a unique and special snowflake? Think again. Someone out there in this world of 6~ billion people can do what you do better, smarter, faster and possibly for less money.

You are also making the colossal assumption that there is only one corporation with all the available capital. Because that is not true, no monopoly can ever exist for human potential. Your argument's level of imagination is beyond scope. There is no possible way for any institution to monopolize human resources in a free market.

In a communist regime however...


I don't share your analysis.
I think communism failed because they attempted to go from a feudal system straight to socialism in a very short time. They did not achieve capitalism and democracy prior to that and they ended up in a dictatorship.
I think that socialism is working very well in the scandinavian countries though.

Socialism works well in countries with relatively low populations and small infrastructures. There is less cost associated to the government for maintaining a relatively high standard of living. Socialism works less well in large countries with large infrastructure that have high costs to maintain.
I.e. it may work well in small scandinavian countries, but it works less well in huge land masses like...Canada.


Some progress can be made in the US. This is real, this is not an utopia. Look at what has already being achieved :
* ban on child labor
* mandatory social education
* progressive taxes on the capital
...
the list goes on. This has already been achieved. If you had said to the bourgeois of the 19th century that one of these days there would be a ban on child labor under 14, they would have said it was purely utopic, but it has been achieved, this is REAL.
We are civilizing day after day.

First and foremost, one of the reasons for the ban on child labour is the realization of a longer average human life span. If you look at it historically, someone who was 14 and NOT working would be consider a lazy bum back in a time when you were practically married by 16 and had your own family and trade by 18.

As we are able to live longer, our idea of childhood extends.

I have no quams about this, but this is a natural progression based on our perception of time. Since our average life span is in the mid-70s now, and not low-40s, we can safely say that someone who is 14 is still a child. Meanwhile, if we were dying off at avg. age 45, then 14 is a grown man. You have to take things in perspective.

And I agree there are some great social advances. I'm not disagreeing with those. But I believe in an open and free market where the government provides you the opportunity to succeed, and it is up to your to grasp it (if you are able). Mandatory education is part n' parcel of providing you the basic necessities of succeeding. However, even though that is provided, many people drop out before even getting a high-school diploma.

A consequence of such is these people will often fail and blame the "system" had failed them. What they need to realize is that they failed themselves and now they are living the consequences of their decision.



I think it happened but it was far from a general rule. The really big corporations did not loose much. It was mainly the small ones which paid the price of the slow down. The big oil companies are still ass kicking on the market.

And how long will that last? You realize that the concept of alternative fuels is growing larger and larger. The moment an enterprising company comes up with a viable and affordable alternative form of energy, you know how many people would jump ship from Big Oil to use that? Already the dual-fuel system cars that run on both electric and fossil fuels are -huge-. What started with a car offered only by Honda now has a matching brand in every single major car manufacturer.

All you need to do is provide incentive to a corporation to discover it. As soon as they realize there is a potential for profit there and to get a segment of market share, then the free market will handle the rest.

Are you suggesting a revolution?

If that is the only way you can conceive of obtaining wealth for yourself, then by all means. You're free to try. Good luck with that.

There were people living on their land since centuries. They've been spoiled by capitalists. This is theft in the first place and the property should return to its rightfully owner : the people, ALL the people.

How far back in history are you willing to go to achieve this? All of North America should go back to the native americans then, obviously. Should Germany, France, England and basically all of Europe go back to Italy? Should all the middle east go back to Greece, or Iran - formerly Persia?

Or wait, do we all become one big-happy-la-la-land family and live off the big green Earth in perfect harmony?

Be realistic.

check the thread - it goes into a explanation of how exactly property is theft. because it quite plainly is. in a very real sense the bundle of legal rights and privileges called 'property' come from, and amount to theft from the rightful users.

(though it got sidetracked because somebody can't tell the difference between the labor theory of value and a labor theory of ownership/control - even when the argument was explicitly about the second being incompatible with a system of private property in land)

Very well. Then my original point stands, and everyone is a thief if they own property. To which I say - oh well.

Very well. Then my original point stands, and everyone is a thief if they own property. To which I say - oh well.

nah, its really only if they claim property rights over more than they can personally use. landlords and capitalists and such. it comes from the idea that all people have an equal right to life - the argument being that private property, especially in land but also in capital, is in direct contradiction to that right.

nah, its really only if they claim property rights over more than they can personally use. landlords and capitalists and such. it comes from the idea that all people have an equal right to life - the argument being that private property, especially in land but also in capital, is in direct contradiction to that right.

I fundamentally disagree with that ideal. Every one has an equal right to seek out the best life they can get. Who actually "wins" is an entirely different story.

Your ideal only works if there is an assurance of unlimited resources so that everyone who is born can be given all they want and therefore want of nothing. It otherwise doesn't stand up to the problem of limited resources.

First and foremost, one of the reasons for the ban on child labour is the realization of a longer average human life span. If you look at it historically, someone who was 14 and NOT working would be consider a lazy bum back in a time when you were practically married by 16 and had your own family and trade by 18.

As we are able to live longer, our idea of childhood extends.

I have no quams about this, but this is a natural progression based on our perception of time. Since our average life span is in the mid-70s now, and not low-40s, we can safely say that someone who is 14 is still a child. Meanwhile, if we were dying off at avg. age 45, then 14 is a grown man. You have to take things in perspective.

i believe you have confused life span with life expectancy. life span is pretty much the same as it ever was, pushed up a year or five by modern medicine's ability to keep really old people alive artificially. life expectancy has increased dramatically, but that is almost entirely due to today's vastly lower infant and childhood mortality rates. people that lived past 18 a couple hundred years ago were fairly likely to live into their 60s or 70s. the only thing that really knocks down age-adjusted life expectancy beyond childhood is disease - as is the case in large parts of africa due to the aids epidemic.

Very well. Then my original point stands, and everyone is a thief if they own property. To which I say - oh well.
nah, its really only if they claim property rights over more than they can personally use. landlords and capitalists and such. it comes from the idea that all people have an equal right to life - the argument being that private property, especially in land but also in capital, is in direct contradiction to that right.
Which, of course, it isn't. There's no such thing as "everyone owns it before an individual does". That's meaningless garbage.

No one owned the land prior to someone claiming it. It was not in common ownership. It was unowned. That's something the leftists have never grasped.

i believe you have confused life span with life expectancy. life span is pretty much the same as it ever was, pushed up a year or five by modern medicine's ability to keep really old people alive artificially. life expectancy has increased dramatically, but that is almost entirely due to today's vastly lower infant and childhood mortality rates. people that lived past 18 a couple hundred years ago were fairly likely to live into their 60s or 70s. the only thing that really knocks down age-adjusted life expectancy beyond childhood is disease - as is the case in large parts of africa due to the aids epidemic.

You're correct, I meant the term life-expectancy.

Although, I'm not necessarily referring to just a few centuries ago, but rather at a time over a thousand years ago. You ask a person in the post-Rome Dark Ages whether he thought putting a 14 year old boy to work was child labour and you'd get the most ridiculous laughter of your life.

The concepts of child-labour did not go away until the truly deplorable conditions industrialization caused. But then again, old habits die hard, eh?

Up to the point where they do not believe the value they are paying out is worth the value of the return that employee can produce.

Here's the MARVELOUS thing about a free market - competition. No one is irreplaceble.

NO ONE.

You think you are a unique and special snowflake? Think again. Someone out there in this world of 6~ billion people can do what you do better, smarter, faster and possibly for less money.

You are also making the colossal assumption that there is only one corporation with all the available capital. Because that is not true, no monopoly can ever exist for human potential. Your argument's level of imagination is beyond scope. There is no possible way for any institution to monopolize human resources in a free market.

In a communist regime however...I may agree with you that no one is irreplaceble and that out there in this world of 6~ billion people can do what you do better, smarter, faster and possibly for less money. And I think this is a problem because competition will drive the workers to ask for less and less money, because there is competition on the worker market but not on the capital market. The capitalists own the resources and the workers will have to work for the owner for less and less money.

Socialism works well in countries with relatively low populations and small infrastructures. There is less cost associated to the government for maintaining a relatively high standard of living. Socialism works less well in large countries with large infrastructure that have high costs to maintain.
I.e. it may work well in small scandinavian countries, but it works less well in huge land masses like...Canada.It works pretty well in Canada too.

And I agree there are some great social advances. I'm not disagreeing with those. But I believe in an open and free market where the government provides you the opportunity to succeed, and it is up to your to grasp it (if you are able). Mandatory education is part n' parcel of providing you the basic necessities of succeeding. However, even though that is provided, many people drop out before even getting a high-school diploma.I agree.

And how long will that last? You realize that the concept of alternative fuels is growing larger and larger. The moment an enterprising company comes up with a viable and affordable alternative form of energy, you know how many people would jump ship from Big Oil to use that? Already the dual-fuel system cars that run on both electric and fossil fuels are -huge-. What started with a car offered only by Honda now has a matching brand in every single major car manufacturer.

All you need to do is provide incentive to a corporation to discover it. As soon as they realize there is a potential for profit there and to get a segment of market share, then the free market will handle the rest.

I disagree. The market will tell you that it is cheaper to exploit the oil to death, kill the arabs who stand in the way, destroy the forest, exploit the workers to death and annihilate the industry.

If that is the only way you can conceive of obtaining wealth for yourself, then by all means. You're free to try. Good luck with that.
I think we can progress with democracy.

You're correct, I meant the term life-expectancy.

Although, I'm not necessarily referring to just a few centuries ago, but rather at a time over a thousand years ago. You ask a person in the post-Rome Dark Ages whether he thought putting a 14 year old boy to work was child labour and you'd get the most ridiculous laughter of your life.

The concepts of child-labour did not go away until the truly deplorable conditions industrialization caused. But then again, old habits die hard, eh?
I'm sorry I can't provide a link in english, but I have a paper in french here with an article from the 1900'. It is a letter from the management of a factory to the employees. It says that the 48 hours/week they're asking for is utopic, as well as the 30 minutes break for eating. It also says that it should not take more than 5 minutes in the toilets and that they don't need to go to the toilets more than twice a day. It also states the regulation concerning their wearings and it condemns some of them for not be concentrated enough while there are eating at work.

No one owned the land prior to someone claiming it. It was not in common ownership. It was unowned. That's something the leftists have never grasped.Even under the current system the concept of 'common land' is recognised by UK law. And it's also the case here that a large deal of the UKs concept of land ownership goes specifically back to William the Conqueror and the Land Enclosure Acts enacted at that time. I know you're not a Brit, but I don't think you can question the idea that, certainly over here, the whole idea of land ownership is tied directly to the hereditary nobility and feudalism.

No one owned the land prior to someone claiming it. It was not in common ownership. It was unowned. That's something the leftists have never grasped.
Even under the current system the concept of 'common land' is recognised by UK law. And it's also the case here that a large deal of the UKs concept of land ownership goes specifically back to William the Conqueror and the Land Enclosure Acts enacted at that time. I know you're not a Brit, but I don't think you can question the idea that, certainly over here, the whole idea of land ownership is tied directly to the hereditary nobility and feudalism.
I'll grant that there still are titular lands in the remnants of pseudo-tribalistic Europe. But the fact remains that "common land" is really unowned! If it is "in commons", then who can say s/he has ownership? "Everyone"? Makes no sense.

I'll grant that there still are titular lands in the remnants of pseudo-tribalistic Europe. But the fact remains that "common land" is really unowned! If it is "in commons", then who can say s/he has ownership? "Everyone"? Makes no sense."Everyone" is naturally impossible under the centralised goverment of the modern nationstate. I support it's original usage- that it belonged specifically to the local community.

I'll grant that there still are titular lands in the remnants of pseudo-tribalistic Europe. But the fact remains that "common land" is really unowned! If it is "in commons", then who can say s/he has ownership? "Everyone"? Makes no sense.
It does make sense.
The tropical forests, the oceans, the moon, the sun... How can that not belong to everybody?

It does make sense.
The tropical forests, the oceans, the moon, the sun... How can that not belong to everybody?
In what sense do they belong to everyone in a way that is different from belonging to nobody?

I'll grant that there still are titular lands in the remnants of pseudo-tribalistic Europe. But the fact remains that "common land" is really unowned! If it is "in commons", then who can say s/he has ownership? "Everyone"? Makes no sense.
It does make sense.
The tropical forests, the oceans, the moon, the sun... How can that not belong to everybody?
The question is: how can it belong to everyone? Just because we can derive enjoyment from it or study it doesn't mean we own it.

In what sense do they belong to everyone in a way that is different from belonging to nobody?
In the sense that everyone can affect the things. Look at the tropical forests. Obviously we have to take care of it. But who is to decide how to do it? Is it about one capitalist to decide he will burn the lumber so as to get some personal profit and get a bigget car? Or is it up to all the people to decide how to preserve it and get the benefits of it at the same time? Or is it up to nobody and we just let the forest or the ocean and never set foot there?

I think it is up to everybody to decide democratically.

In what sense do they belong to everyone in a way that is different from belonging to nobody?
In the sense that everyone can affect the things. Look at the tropical forests. Obviously we have to take care of it. But who is to decide how to do it? Is it about one capitalist to decide he will burn the lumber so as to get some personal profit and get a bigget car?
I'll bet you'd like to think that is the biggest threat to tropical forests. But it's not. The biggest threat is....the people who actually live near them and are cutting the wood for fuel, housing and to clear land for crops. You know...the proletariat.

Or is it up to all the people to decide how to preserve it and get the benefits of it at the same time?
All the people can't do that.

Or is it up to nobody and we just let the forest or the ocean and never set foot there?
Sounds like a false trichotomy to me.

I think it is up to everybody to decide democratically.
What if the decision isn't something you like?

I'll bet you'd like to think that is the biggest threat to tropical forests. But it's not. The biggest threat is....the people who actually live near them and are cutting the wood for fuel, housing and to clear land for crops. You know...the proletariat.Wait a minute. Of course the proletariat is doing the dirty job. The proletariat is also the one who is enforcing the unjust capitalistic law. This is why the proletariat has the mean of the revolution. They just don't have the conscience of their conditions.
They are still doing it for the bourgeois.

In the sense that everyone can affect the things.
The moon and sun? Lol
Look at the tropical forests. Obviously we have to take care of it. But who is to decide how to do it? Is it about one capitalist to decide he will burn the lumber so as to get some personal profit and get a bigget car? Or is it up to all the people to decide how to preserve it and get the benefits of it at the same time? Or is it up to nobody and we just let the forest or the ocean and never set foot there?
I'm no expert but I think the best preserved rainforests are the ones belonging to private trusts in Costa Rica. The best way to preserve resources is not to have them "owned by everybody" in some vague sense because then you have the tragedy of the commons. The best way is to have someone who has an interest in preserving it as the owner.

Why are we running out of cod (owned "by everyone") but not sheep (owned by farmers)? Capitalism, if property rights are enforced properly, is good for the environment.

Also, private loggers have an incentive to replant. This goes on a lot where I'm from. Most of the forests are not wild forests but pine planted by profit seeking companies.

I think it is up to everybody to decide democratically.
And if they democratically decide to chop down the forest for quick profit?

What if the decision isn't something you like?I won't take a gun and shoot my neightbour, I will debate them, that's all.

The moon and sun? LolYou would be surprised to learn that there are companies selling parts of the moon

I'm no expert but I think the best preserved rainforests are the ones belonging to private trusts in Costa Rica. The best way to preserve resources is not to have them "owned by everybody" in some vague sense because then you have the tragedy of the commons. The best way is to have someone who has an interest in preserving it as the owner.
But aren't the interests of the owner in conflict with the interests of the group?

Why are we running out of cod (owned "by everyone") but not sheep (owned by farmers)? Capitalism, if property rights are enforced properly, is good for the environment.Because cods are not owned by everyone but by noone currently.

Also, private loggers have an incentive to replant. This goes on a lot where I'm from. Most of the forests are not wild forests but pine planted by profit seeking companies.

And if they democratically decide to chop down the forest for quick profit?
It is not their interest to do so.

You would be surprised to learn that there are companies selling parts of the moon
No I wouldn't. I'd be surprised if these property rights were ever respected, though.
But aren't the interests of the owner in conflict with the interests of the group?
Groups don't have interests. Some people will disagree with what the owner does whatever he does. It doesn't matter. If rainforests are owned by charities preserving them then would you rather "the group" decided to cut them down?
Because cods are not owned by everyone but by noone currently.
I still don't understand the difference, or how land was originally "owned by everyone".

It is not their interest to do so.
I imagine it might well be in their interest.

Groups don't have interests. Some people will disagree with what the owner does whatever he does. It doesn't matter. If rainforests are owned by charities preserving them then would you rather "the group" decided to cut them down?
Well I think they have interests. The interest of the people is to survive.

I still don't understand the difference, or how land was originally "owned by everyone".
I think it was never owned by everyone, hence the chaos, the wars and all the turmoil that happened until now. It will continue while we don't have communism.

I imagine it might well be in their interest.
If it was in their interests, they would be right to do it.

I'll bet you'd like to think that is the biggest threat to tropical forests. But it's not. The biggest threat is....the people who actually live near them and are cutting the wood for fuel, housing and to clear land for crops. You know...the proletariat.
Wait a minute. Of course the proletariat is doing the dirty job. The proletariat is also the one who is enforcing the unjust capitalistic law.
No, they aren't. They're farming on land they claimed. They just aren't factory owners or whatnot like the rest of the morons like to think of when they hear "capitalist".

This is why the proletariat has the mean of the revolution. They just don't have the conscience of their conditions.
They are still doing it for the bourgeois.
No, they are doing it for themselves.

No, they aren't. They're farming on land they claimed. They just aren't factory owners or whatnot like the rest of the morons like to think of when they hear "capitalist".


No, they are doing it for themselves.
Then they're bourgeois if they own land.

The moon and sun? Lol
You would be surprised to learn that there are companies selling parts of the moon
People also tried selling the Brooklyn Bridge and oceanfront property in Arizona.

Here's something for you to ponder: how can the land be sold when that company doesn't have the property rights to it in the first place? I mean, someone could conceivably sell the whole of Mars to someone else, but doesn't that entail that the seller already owns Mars? Granted, people have owned lands that they have never been to, but that was on this planet and those were lands that someone else had owned. No one has ever been to Mars. The only people to be on the moon have been a select few astronauts.

Do you see the point?


I'm no expert but I think the best preserved rainforests are the ones belonging to private trusts in Costa Rica. The best way to preserve resources is not to have them "owned by everybody" in some vague sense because then you have the tragedy of the commons. The best way is to have someone who has an interest in preserving it as the owner.
But aren't the interests of the owner in conflict with the interests of the group?
Not necessarily. And even if they are, so what? A group might be interested in taking my car because they want to joy-ride. But I own my car.


Why are we running out of cod (owned "by everyone") but not sheep (owned by farmers)? Capitalism, if property rights are enforced properly, is good for the environment.
Because cods are not owned by everyone but by noone currently.
BINGO! That's what we've been saying.

Then they're bourgeois if they own land.

So...if you are below the poverty level, but own land, you're bourgeois?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psylos
Because cods are not owned by everyone but by noone currently.


BINGO! That's what we've been saying.


So no-one should be allowed to own anything?

Here's something for you to ponder: how can the land be sold when that company doesn't have the property rights to it in the first place? I mean, someone could conceivably sell the whole of Mars to someone else, but doesn't that entail that the seller already owns Mars?



Hypothetical - how would people go about claiming land on the moon? First one there gets it all or what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psylos
Because cods are not owned by everyone but by noone currently.


BINGO! That's what we've been saying.


So no-one should be allowed to own anything?

Nope - no one owns the cods, and so they are being depleted. If someone owned them, it would be in their best interest to prevent this from happening. It is a rather good example.

Nope - no one owns the cods, and so they are being depleted. If someone owned them, it would be in their best interest to prevent this from happening. It is a rather good example.

oh sorry i got you wrong i was thinking that you said that the cods were so well preserverd because noone owned them srry :P

No, they aren't. They're farming on land they claimed. They just aren't factory owners or whatnot like the rest of the morons like to think of when they hear "capitalist".
Then they're bourgeois if they own land.
No, the closest you could say is "petit bourgeois", but they "scratch off" a living from the land. They are farmers. That's it.

Hypothetical - how would people go about claiming land on the moon? First one there gets it all or what?
First-comers do have claims.

Here's an article (http://www.againstpolitics.com/jan_narveson/narveson_first_comers.html) by Jan Narveson on the justification of property rights for first comers, if you are interested.

I may agree with you that no one is irreplaceble and that out there in this world of 6~ billion people can do what you do better, smarter, faster and possibly for less money. And I think this is a problem because competition will drive the workers to ask for less and less money, because there is competition on the worker market but not on the capital market. The capitalists own the resources and the workers will have to work for the owner for less and less money.

Again you are making the colossal mistake of assuming a single entity being in control of the human resources market and being able to dictate wages as such. You aren't even considering the concept of competition.

A labourer who is working for a corporation that is unwilling to pay them the wages they are satisified with is free to look for a corporation who does. This may not necessarily come in the form of true monetary wages, but perhaps better benefits, health coverage and the like.

A professional never even has to worry about this, as there is -always- a market for professionally trained and educated workers. It may not be in your exact area - maybe you have to move to where the market is booming and expanding to get a job, but a job always exists for this class of worker and thus your entire model falls to peices. One corporation unwilling to pay the wages a professional expects to earn will soon find they have a lack of professionals. This corporation will then be forced to raise salaries to the point where they can expect to see professionals lured back into their organization. However, this goes up and down based on what the market is looking for in terms of skilled labour and what the supply is. Like everything else, the how good the marketplace is a factor of supply and demand. If that means certain professions become obsolete, then those people need to re-educate themselves in the newest trend to find appropriate employment.

You make everything seem static. Nothing is static. People need to adapt and adjust, not just sit back and expect a paycheque for doing nothing. The government should not take care of you, you should take care of yourself.

It works pretty well in Canada too.

Being a Canadian living in Canada, I disagree.


I disagree. The market will tell you that it is cheaper to exploit the oil to death, kill the arabs who stand in the way, destroy the forest, exploit the workers to death and annihilate the industry.

Incorrect. Due to increasing environmentally concerned citizens in the free market, the search for alternative sources of energy is becoming a larger economic factor. Maybe you don't notice, but here in North America, oil prices fluctuate quite rapidly. A lot of people are frankly quite sick of Big Oil and their unability to keep a stable price for gas.

The populace is increasingly aware of pollution and the health problems it causes. There is a big push for more environmentally friendly fuels and people are willing to pay money for it. It's already out there, someone just has to fully exploit it with a viable and affordable method. The market will take care of the rest.

I think we can progress with democracy.

Sure... which is why democratic nations are not electing communist governments.

In the sense that everyone can affect the things. Look at the tropical forests. Obviously we have to take care of it. But who is to decide how to do it? Is it about one capitalist to decide he will burn the lumber so as to get some personal profit and get a bigget car? Or is it up to all the people to decide how to preserve it and get the benefits of it at the same time? Or is it up to nobody and we just let the forest or the ocean and never set foot there?

I think it is up to everybody to decide democratically.

As an FYI, the tropical forests are not being clear cut for lumber. As a general rule, for North American purposes at any rate, tropical wood is not strong enough, nor does it go straight enough for typical logging purposes. The massive forests in British Columbia, Canada, for example, is a better example of corporate clear-cutting.

I will note though, that many of those forests are also being re-planted. Probably not fast enough for the hippies, but hey, it's a start.

I fundamentally disagree with that ideal. Every one has an equal right to seek out the best life they can get. Who actually "wins" is an entirely different story.

Your ideal only works if there is an assurance of unlimited resources so that everyone who is born can be given all they want and therefore want of nothing. It otherwise doesn't stand up to the problem of limited resources.

limited resources is exactly the problem. let me put on my proudhon and henry george hat here:

three principles have to be laid out first.
#1. people have an right to life.
#2. people have a right to the fruits of their labor.
#3. land is not the fruit of anyone's labor.

let's imagine a rather nice sized island in the middle of the ocean. now a population of humans are magically dropped off there and they find the island vacant of previous inhabitants. they all need access to the land in order to live, so they decide that the land was given to them all in common - as opposed to being originally granted to one or a few of them by god or something (the divine right of kings has no traction anymore so this probably doesn't need elaboration). they then have to decide how they are going to go about assuring that they each will have access to the land. perhaps they decide that land should be divided up so that an exclusive and perpetual set of property rights will be granted on a first come, first served basis. so they all go off across the island looking for some good land and claiming as much of it as they can before anyone else gets there. soon the entire island has been claimed and divided into rather unequal shares. but this is only a minor problem as people all have access to enough land to making a living off of in some fashion or another, and the extra land that some people have claimed mostly just sits there unused.

suppose that a new set of people magically arrives on the island now. they too require access to land in order to live, however all of the land is already private property. but then the property owners that have more land than they need come up with an idea. "we'll let you live on our unused land in exchange for x amount of the fruits of your labor." the new people, having no other choice, grudgingly accept the offer. but the cry goes up among some of them, "by what right can you charge us for our right to live? by what right do you claim ownership over part of the fruits of our labor?" the land owners say that it is the right of private property - "it is our property and we will let you use it under whatever conditions we choose, including disallowing you from using it at all."

but the rights of private property were invented and intstituted in order to fulfill the right to life, which carries with it the necessity of people having access to land to live and work on. but already they have given some people power over other people's lives; in a very real sense some can declare the rights of others to life to be null and void, because denying people access to a place to live and work is denying them life. and already these private property rights have made it inevitable that some people will be forced to give up the fruits of their labor to others on pain of death. and this situation can only get worse as population increases. which means that there is something fundamentally wrong here. either people do not really have a right to life and the fruits of their labor can rightfully be taken from them under the threat of death or the system of land ownership that was used was unjust and illegitimate.

it seems much more likely to me that a system of dividing limited resources that does so in such a way as to allow some to hold the lives of others for ransom is unjust than the idea that only some people have a right to life and a right to the fruits of their labor. especially because there are numerous other ways the system of land distribution could be set up. and tossing out the right to life or the right to the fruits of your labor tosses out a whole lot of other things along with it.

The flaws of capitalism :

* It rewards lazyness
* It exploits workers
* It takes away the freedom to move, think and talk from the lower class.

the flaws of comunisim:

* people cannot carry it out succesfully due to human nature
* due to this it turns into a dictatorship
* it bans religion claiming that there is nothing beyond the realm of human perception
* read don camillo

in summary stalin> :cool: :sniper: so :p

limited resources is exactly the problem. let me put on my proudhon and henry george hat here:

three principles have to be laid out first.
#1. people have an right to life.
#2. people have a right to the fruits of their labor.
#3. land is not the fruit of anyone's labor.

On the contrary to point 3, land itself can provide you nothing unless you perform labour on it. It directly contradicts point #2. If you have the right to the fruits of your labour, then you are also entitled to the land, because properly maintained land that can yield year after year of bountiful harvest is the fruit of labour. Unworked land, all by itself, can provide you nothing (except wild fruits and maybe some hamsters).

let's imagine a rather nice sized island in the middle of the ocean. now a population of humans are magically dropped off there and they find the island vacant of previous inhabitants. ...<<removed big story>>

And that is pretty much what happened historically speaking. Thousands, and thousands of years ago. Now the ownership of land is firmly fixed. The concept of ownership is entirely ingrained in the collective conscious of about 6 billion people.

How are you going to undo it?

You're not. You're not going to undo it without providing a system of unlimited resources, which at our present stage of scientific knowledge and growth, is impossible.

Therefore, your utopian dream world is impossible. What you ask for, and what you claim you want to see happen, is impossible. It is not reality. While I'm perfectly happy to debate a fantasy land with you, I am not prepared to accept your political system as being even remotely viable in the real world. Because it is not viable - ever (given limited resources).

I fundamentally disagree with that ideal. Every one has an equal right to seek out the best life they can get. Who actually "wins" is an entirely different story.

Your ideal only works if there is an assurance of unlimited resources so that everyone who is born can be given all they want and therefore want of nothing. It otherwise doesn't stand up to the problem of limited resources.
limited resources is exactly the problem. let me put on my proudhon and henry george hat here:

three principles have to be laid out first.
#1. people have an right to life.
#2. people have a right to the fruits of their labor.
#3. land is not the fruit of anyone's labor.
And the best way to divide land is to let the market system work out the allocation. Nothing else is fair.

No one person will be able to claim the entirety of the land (as you like to envisage. Of course, that's just Hollywood).

let's imagine a rather nice sized island in the middle of the ocean. now a population of humans are magically dropped off there and they find the island vacant of previous inhabitants. they all need access to the land in order to live, so they decide that the land was given to them all in common
...meaning that no one owns it.

- as opposed to being originally granted to one or a few of them by god or something (the divine right of kings has no traction anymore so this probably doesn't need elaboration). they then have to decide how they are going to go about assuring that they each will have access to the land. perhaps they decide that land should be divided up so that an exclusive and perpetual set of property rights will be granted on a first come, first served basis. so they all go off across the island looking for some good land and claiming as much of it as they can before anyone else gets there. soon the entire island has been claimed and divided into rather unequal shares. but this is only a minor problem as people all have access to enough land to making a living off of in some fashion or another, and the extra land that some people have claimed mostly just sits there unused.
Coincidentally, this is getting to the market solution. Amazing how it works!

suppose that a new set of people magically arrives on the island now. they too require access to land in order to live, however all of the land is already private property.
Sucks to be them.

but then the property owners that have more land than they need come up with an idea. "we'll let you live on our unused land in exchange for x amount of the fruits of your labor." the new people, having no other choice, grudgingly accept the offer. but the cry goes up among some of them, "by what right can you charge us for our right to live?
They aren't being charged for their right to live, fuckwit. They are being charged for use of the land, which is owned already.

You own a car, right? If you let a friend borrow your car, don't you ask for some gas money or that your friend put gas in the car when done?

SAME FUCKING THING, MORON.

but the rights of private property were invented and intstituted in order to fulfill the right to life, which carries with it the necessity of people having access to land to live and work on. but already they have given some people power over other people's lives;
No they have not. Besides, your analogy is so far from real it's not even funny. Yes, people do come to places where land is already owned. But--and here's the difference--THEY ALREADY KNOW THAT THE LAND IS OWNED IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Moron!

in a very real sense some can declare the rights of others to life to be null and void,
No, they cannot.

because denying people access to a place to live and work is denying them life.
How are they being denied anything?

and already these private property rights have made it inevitable that some people will be forced to give up the fruits of their labor to others on pain of death. and this situation can only get worse as population increases. which means that there is something fundamentally wrong here.
Yes--your analogy, which sucks ass and has no relation to reality.

either people do not really have a right to life and the fruits of their labor can rightfully be taken from them under the threat of death or the system of land ownership that was used was unjust and illegitimate.
False dichotomy.

it seems much more likely to me that a system of dividing limited resources that does so in such a way as to allow some to hold the lives of others for ransom is unjust than the idea that only some people have a right to life and a right to the fruits of their labor. especially because there are numerous other ways the system of land distribution could be set up. and tossing out the right to life or the right to the fruits of your labor tosses out a whole lot of other things along with it.
Yes, tossing out the idea of private property tosses out the right to life and the right to the fruits of your labor. I agree.

On the contrary to point 3, land itself can provide you nothing unless you perform labour on it. It directly contradicts point #2. If you have the right to the fruits of your labour, then you are also entitled to the land, because properly maintained land that can yield year after year of bountiful harvest is the fruit of labour. Unworked land, all by itself, can provide you nothing (except wild fruits and maybe some hamsters).

no. land is not and cannot be the fruit of anyone's labor. land exists prior to labor. that is the point. you are entitled to the fruits of your individual labor, but how can that give you permanent and exclusive rights to land which you did not and cannot create? land is a completely seperate factor of production from labor. you need access to land, but how that access is arranged is a matter of social convention - currently based on an extremely recent history of theft and violence.

and unworked land by itself seems to have provided quite well for the vast majority of human history, and still does in those places where the indigenous populations haven't yet been enslaved or slaughtered.

And that is pretty much what happened historically speaking. Thousands, and thousands of years ago. Now the ownership of land is firmly fixed. The concept of ownership is entirely ingrained in the collective conscious of about 6 billion people.

How are you going to undo it?

You're not. You're not going to undo it without providing a system of unlimited resources, which at our present stage of scientific knowledge and growth, is impossible.

try 400 years, tops, for most of the world. it is not so firmly fixed as you would have us believe. it has been changed before, and quite recently i might add. are you under the impression that the system of private property curently in use is the same as the system of land ownership in use under fuedalism? we'll change it the same way it has been changed before, namely revolution (in one form or another).

the fact that land is finite doesn't make the abolition of the bundle of rights in land and capital we call 'property' impossible. it makes it necessary.

Those capitalists. They never consider the needs of the sweatshop workers.

Those capitalists. They never consider the needs of the sweatshop workers.

And given the positions were switched, they wouldn't give a damn either. So better to stay on top while you are on top, eh?

You, of course, are more than free to give all your wealth and life to them. But I suppose you're too busy living your own life and enjoying what luxuries are afforded you while you only argue for their benefit on message boards to actually -do- something about it.

It's Ok. Hypocrisy is a natural state of the left.

Those capitalists. They never consider the needs of the sweatshop workers.
So everyone employed by a "capitalist" is a sweatshop worker?

You're so fucking stupid it's not even to the level of pathetic.

Anyway, consider the case of Henry Kaiser, evil capitalist.

Who was he?

Oh, he made all sorts of money by building roads and ships.

Especially the Liberty Ship of WW2.

Why is his special?

Well, as I said, he's one of those evil capitalists. Y'know--the kind who exploit the poor worker and all.

How did he exploit his workers?

I'm glad that you asked. He exploited them by *caring for them*.

Yep. It's true.

When his shipyard in Richmond, CA grew to such a proportion that the number of workers were overwhelming the infrastructure, did that evil capitalist tell the workers to fuck off and die?

No.

That evil capitalist built schools which ran in 3 shifts, to educate the children of his workers.

That evil capitalist built a huge hospital, to care for his workers' health needs.

That evil capitalist built movie theaters, restaurants, housing...anything his workers needed.

Damn that evil capitalist! Damn him good! He exploited those poor workers, didn't he?

Now Letila, can you tell me what the moral of the story is?

So everyone employed by a "capitalist" is a sweatshop worker?

No, but many are.

You're so fucking stupid it's not even to the level of pathetic.

Anyway, consider the case of Henry Kaiser, evil capitalist.

Who was he?

Oh, he made all sorts of money by building roads and ships.

Especially the Liberty Ship of WW2.

Why is his special?

Well, as I said, he's one of those evil capitalists. Y'know--the kind who exploit the poor worker and all.

How did he exploit his workers?

I'm glad that you asked. He exploited them by *caring for them*.

Yep. It's true.

When his shipyard in Richmond, CA grew to such a proportion that the number of workers were overwhelming the infrastructure, did that evil capitalist tell the workers to fuck off and die?

No.

That evil capitalist built schools which ran in 3 shifts, to educate the children of his workers.

That evil capitalist built a huge hospital, to care for his workers' health needs.

That evil capitalist built movie theaters, restaurants, housing...anything his workers needed.

Damn that evil capitalist! Damn him good! He exploited those poor workers, didn't he?

Now Letila, can you tell me what the moral of the story is?

Actually, workers taking orders from him built these things. Did he go out there and actually build stuff along side his employees?

So everyone employed by a "capitalist" is a sweatshop worker?
No, but many are.
Proof?


You're so fucking stupid it's not even to the level of pathetic.

Anyway, consider the case of Henry Kaiser, evil capitalist.

Who was he?

Oh, he made all sorts of money by building roads and ships.

Especially the Liberty Ship of WW2.

Why is his special?

Well, as I said, he's one of those evil capitalists. Y'know--the kind who exploit the poor worker and all.

How did he exploit his workers?

I'm glad that you asked. He exploited them by *caring for them*.

Yep. It's true.

When his shipyard in Richmond, CA grew to such a proportion that the number of workers were overwhelming the infrastructure, did that evil capitalist tell the workers to fuck off and die?

No.

That evil capitalist built schools which ran in 3 shifts, to educate the children of his workers.

That evil capitalist built a huge hospital, to care for his workers' health needs.

That evil capitalist built movie theaters, restaurants, housing...anything his workers needed.

Damn that evil capitalist! Damn him good! He exploited those poor workers, didn't he?

Now Letila, can you tell me what the moral of the story is?

snip Letila not giving the moral of the story
What is the moral of the story, Letila?

Proof?

Look at the tag on your shirt. It probably says "made in China". More likely than not, it was made by sweatshop workers. The movie "Zoolander" did have a little basis in fact.

What is the moral of the story, Letila?

That capitalists can improve their reputation by taking credit for others' labor.

Proof?
Look at the tag on your shirt. It probably says "made in China". More likely than not, it was made by sweatshop workers.
Proof?

Don't just assert. You claim that most capitalists use sweatshops. FUCKING PROVE IT NOW.


What is the moral of the story, Letila?
something that isn't the moral of the story
What's the moral of the story, Letila?

You're going to be asked this until you get it right.

Proof?

Don't just assert. You claim that most capitalists use sweatshops. FUCKING PROVE IT NOW.

No, I said that many people employed by capitalists work in sweatshops.

What's the moral of the story, Letila?

You're going to be asked this until you get it right.

The story is complete BS. Your beloved Henry Kaiser didn't build anything. Workers did. You fail to realize that.

No, but many are.

Wow, that's a nice bold statement. I hope you're not wearing or owning made from a potential sweat shop. Otherwise, that would make you a HYPOCRITE.

And we can't have a left-wing nut ball being a hypocrite, now can we?

Actually, workers taking orders from him built these things. Did he go out there and actually build stuff along side his employees?

He probably did. In fact, the capitalist may very well have started out working on the line right next to his downtrodden, unhappy, prole workers. Alas, he made something of himself and became a success entreprenuer. Why, are you jealous of that success?

Go Socialist Representative Democracy!

No, I said that many people employed by capitalists work in sweatshops.

The story is complete BS. Your beloved Henry Kaiser didn't build anything. Workers did. You fail to realize that.

Yes yes yes, all power to the workers. La La La, the sad downtrodden plight of the poor. You know, the interesting thing about these low, beneath-the-notice-of-my-feet workers is... they aren't putting anything on the line, are they?

Let's see - in order for them to even have jobs with which to support their families, some enterprising capitalist has to decide that he/she is going to risk their financial monies to start a company with which to provide them employement. If that company should fail then the owner, the same enterprising capitalist, loses his shirt, reputation and all his invested money and interest. Meanwhile, the worker, loses their job and then goes on with their lives, likely going to the next job started by another enterprising entrepreneur.

You know the old saying; nothing ventured nothing gained? If you venture something and are successful, you're called an evil capitalist pig for exlpoiting workers and becoming successful by risking YOUR OWN FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS in the process. If you're a worker who risks absolutely nothing, you're called a hero to the people for going to work, day after day in a riskless job doing riskless work.

God, you people are warped. I sickens me to think that you may actually be benefiting from a free market and yet be completely lacking in intelligence to even realize it.

Wow, that's a nice bold statement. I hope you're not wearing or owning made from a potential sweat shop. Otherwise, that would make you a HYPOCRITE.

And we can't have a left-wing nut ball being a hypocrite, now can we?

If you can find clothes made in the US by workers not working in sweatshops, tell me where I can buy them.

He probably did. In fact, the capitalist may very well have started out working on the line right next to his downtrodden, unhappy, prole workers. Alas, he made something of himself and became a success entreprenuer. Why, are you jealous of that success?

I mean, did he build those things that BAAWA said he built?

Yes yes yes, all power to the workers. La La La, the sad downtrodden plight of the poor. You know, the interesting thing about these low, beneath-the-notice-of-my-feet workers is... they aren't putting anything on the line, are they?

Let's see - in order for them to even have jobs with which to support their families, some enterprising capitalist has to decide that he/she is going to risk their financial monies to start a company with which to provide them employement. If that company should fail then the owner, the same enterprising capitalist, loses his shirt, reputation and all his invested money and interest. Meanwhile, the worker, loses their job and then goes on with their lives, likely going to the next job started by another enterprising entrepreneur.

You know the old saying; nothing ventured nothing gained? If you venture something and are successful, you're called an evil capitalist pig for exlpoiting workers and becoming successful by risking YOUR OWN FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS in the process. If you're a worker who risks absolutely nothing, you're called a hero to the people for going to work, day after day in a riskless job doing riskless work.

God, you people are warped. I sickens me to think that you may actually be benefiting from a free market and yet be completely lacking in intelligence to even realize it.

You're an idiot. You don't have to be capitalist to start a fucking company. Now that your whole argument is gone, shut the fuck up.

If you can find clothes made in the US by workers not working in sweatshops, tell me where I can buy them.

Oh god, are you that stupid? How about you look for any label that says "Made in America" or "Made in Canada". There are loads of them. I own quite a few myself. Now, the problem of course, is those labels tend to add about $40 to the price tag, because the cost of manufacturing in our lovely first nations is a LOT more expensive, what with unions and higher wages and benefits.

Thus, you pay a LOT more for goods made right here locally, than you do from goods made from poorer countries.

So, now the question is, do you pay $20 for a pair of jeans, or $60? You COULD buy the more expensive, Made-With-Pride In America brands, but you probably don't, do you? You probably don't even think about it, because you aren't fucking smart enough to realize you buy an equal quality pair of jeans for $20 instead of $60 and you BENEFITTED from menial labour over the far seas. And then you go around accusing others of being capitalist pig-dogs.

See? Typical hypocrite.

You're an idiot. You don't have to be capitalist to start a fucking company. Now that your whole argument is gone, shut the fuck up.

You have to be in a free market to start a company - say, a free market run by capitalism as opposed to, oh I don't know, state run communism.

Now who's argument is gone shit-for-brains?

You have to be in a free market to start a company - say, a free market run by capitalism as opposed to, oh I don't know, state run communism.

Now who's argument is gone shit-for-brains?

And you have to have a lot of money.

Oh god, are you that stupid? How about you look for any label that says "Made in America" or "Made in Canada". There are loads of them. I own quite a few myself. Now, the problem of course, is those labels tend to add about $40 to the price tag, because the cost of manufacturing in our lovely first nations is a LOT more expensive, what with unions and higher wages and benefits.

Thus, you pay a LOT more for goods made right here locally, than you do from goods made from poorer countries.

So, now the question is, do you pay $20 for a pair of jeans, or $60? You COULD buy the more expensive, Made-With-Pride In America brands, but you probably don't, do you? You probably don't even think about it, because you aren't fucking smart enough to realize you buy an equal quality pair of jeans for $20 instead of $60 and you BENEFITTED from menial labour over the far seas. And then you go around accusing others of being capitalist pig-dogs.

I'm not exactly made of money. Maybe you can afford hundreds of dollars of clothes, but that kind of money isn't exactly easy for all of us to get.


Yes yes yes, all power to the workers. La La La, the sad downtrodden plight of the poor. You know, the interesting thing about these low, beneath-the-notice-of-my-feet workers is... they aren't putting anything on the line, are they?

Let's see - in order for them to even have jobs with which to support their families, some enterprising capitalist has to decide that he/she is going to risk their financial monies to start a company with which to provide them employement. If that company should fail then the owner, the same enterprising capitalist, loses his shirt, reputation and all his invested money and interest. Meanwhile, the worker, loses their job and then goes on with their lives, likely going to the next job started by another enterprising entrepreneur.

You know the old saying; nothing ventured nothing gained? If you venture something and are successful, you're called an evil capitalist pig for exlpoiting workers and becoming successful by risking YOUR OWN FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS in the process. If you're a worker who risks absolutely nothing, you're called a hero to the people for going to work, day after day in a riskless job doing riskless work.

God, you people are warped. I sickens me to think that you may actually be benefiting from a free market and yet be completely lacking in intelligence to even realize it.

The workers lose their jobs if the business fails and that hurts them more than losing what is a small amount of money for a rich capitalist.

You have to be in a free market to start a company - say, a free market run by capitalism as opposed to, oh I don't know, state run communism.

Now who's argument is gone shit-for-brains?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Communism and socialism are different. In a socialist system, you can start a company, you just can't exploit your workers. You still can be paid more than them, just not by an exorbitant amount (i.e. nike, mcdonalds).

And you have to have a lot of money.

Not personally. You have to be able to BORROW a lot of money. You know the difference, don't you? I'm not going to have to explain the concept of banking to you, am I?

I'm not exactly made of money. Maybe you can afford hundreds of dollars of clothes, but that kind of money isn't exactly easy for all of us to get.

Wow... isn't that interesting. So here you are, complaining you don't have enough money, so you -cannot- buy the brand names that are made in the USA and Canada, and are therefore forced to buy the brandnames made by cheaper labour. Mm... so here you are, benefiting from capitalism. But oh, you must hate it, don't you?

The workers lose their jobs if the business fails and that hurts them more than losing what is a small amount of money for a rich capitalist.

NEWSFLASH
Not all capitalists are rich. In fact, many capitalist never become rich. All you idiot lefties waltz into these debates thinking that all capitalists start with a billion dollars to do with what they like. You realize most entrepreneurs start businesses with almost nothing? Everything they have invested in loaned from a bank, held against whatever assets and equity they may have as collateral? Do you realize that somewhere around 80% of small business fail in the first 2 years?

Just because you're capitalist, it doesn't immediately make you RICH. It's not like you one day declare, "I'm a capitalist" and some guy walks up to you and says, "Congratulations, here's your $3 million dollar start-up capital for declaring yourself a capitalist. Please try to step on as many working class citizens as you can on your way to unbridled automatic success."

Please. Get a clue.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Communism and socialism are different. In a socialist system, you can start a company, you just can't exploit your workers. You still can be paid more than them, just not by an exorbitant amount (i.e. nike, mcdonalds).

See thread history over the last few pages. Most of the discussion is communism vs. capitalism.

Not personally. You have to be able to BORROW a lot of money. You know the difference, don't you? I'm not going to have to explain the concept of banking to you, am I?

Banks don't lend large amounts of money to just anyone.

Wow... isn't that interesting. So here you are, complaining you don't have enough money, so you -cannot- buy the brand names that are made in the USA and Canada, and are therefore forced to buy the brandnames made by cheaper labour. Mm... so here you are, benefiting from capitalism. But oh, you must hate it, don't you?

It is a very interesting paradox, really.

Not all capitalists are rich. In fact, many capitalist never become rich. All you idiot lefties waltz into these debates thinking that all capitalists start with a billion dollars to do with what they like. You realize most entrepreneurs start businesses with almost nothing? Everything they have invested in loaned from a bank, held against whatever assets and equity they may have as collateral? Do you realize that somewhere around 80% of small business fail in the first 2 years?

That doesn't change the fact that the market is dominated by a few small corporations and the average person must work for someone to survive.

Banks don't lend large amounts of money to just anyone.

No, they certainly don't. Otherwise, all banks would be bankrupt. But if they do happen to lend it to the evil baby-killing capitalist, then that capitalist is on loan to pay it back, usually with something held in collateral. Do you understand what this means?

All this stemmed from your ignorance regarding the risks an entrepreneur takes when he starts and runs a business. Even a business that's been successful for 10 years does not guarantee it will survive the next 10.

That doesn't change the fact that the market is dominated by a few small corporations and the average person must work for someone to survive.

You should do your research. You should check out the sheer number of smal businesses that are run. The big corporations make all the headlines, but I think the number of small businesses in your community alone would stagger your brain.

And yes, the average person must work for someone else to survive. If you don't like that, then you may want to check out of this world, since obviously the concept of working must be fairly foreign to you.

Not personally. You have to be able to BORROW a lot of money. You know the difference, don't you? I'm not going to have to explain the concept of banking to you, am I?



Wow... isn't that interesting. So here you are, complaining you don't have enough money, so you -cannot- buy the brand names that are made in the USA and Canada, and are therefore forced to buy the brandnames made by cheaper labour. Mm... so here you are, benefiting from capitalism. But oh, you must hate it, don't you?



NEWSFLASH
Not all capitalists are rich. In fact, many capitalist never become rich. All you idiot lefties waltz into these debates thinking that all capitalists start with a billion dollars to do with what they like. You realize most entrepreneurs start businesses with almost nothing? Everything they have invested in loaned from a bank, held against whatever assets and equity they may have as collateral? Do you realize that somewhere around 80% of small business fail in the first 2 years?

Just because you're capitalist, it doesn't immediately make you RICH. It's not like you one day declare, "I'm a capitalist" and some guy walks up to you and says, "Congratulations, here's your $3 million dollar start-up capital for declaring yourself a capitalist. Please try to step on as many working class citizens as you can on your way to unbridled automatic success."

Please. Get a clue.

And that is why we don't run down the street gunning people down. A tiny number of people (a few tens of thousands) are responsible for almost all the worlds' issues. We don't think every capitalist is evil, just the dumbasses who exploit the poor for financial gain.

And that is why we don't run down the street gunning people down. A tiny number of people (a few tens of thousands) are responsible for almost all the worlds' issues. We don't think every capitalist is evil, just the dumbasses who exploit the poor for financial gain.

Sort of like every single person in North America does? Unless you're willing to spend the extra dough to buy goods made locally in home country where you know there is no sweat shops and exploitation, you really shouldn't say anything about it.

I'm sure you could afford it, if you made the right sacrifices. Instead of buying 5 pairs of jeans at $20 a piece per year, you may be only able to afford 2 pairs of jeans at $60 a piece. But then, you're not supporting those evil exploiting corporations, are you?

So the question is; do you make that sacrifice? Do you pay the extra money to buy goods made right here at home, instead of goods made overseas from exploited workers?

If the answer is No, then you are being hypocritical. You are also benefiting financially from the exploitation of the poor. You COULD make the buyers choice of not supporting companies that you believe are exploiting workers in poor countries. Only that would mean a sacrifice that directly affects you as a person and your personal happiness.

Put it another way: In a free-market, you the buyer have all the power in the world. More power than any corporation. Why? Only you can choose where you spend your money. And if you choose not to spend your money on a particular corporation because you don't believe in what they do, then you are hurting that evil corporation.

I personally do not purchase any cosemetic goods tested on animals. Why? Because that is something I feel strongly against. So... instead of paying $3.00 for a bottle of Head n' Shoulders, made by a company that does test on animals, I buy an $8.99 bottle of Joico, that is not tested on animals.

Quite a huge difference, eh? All for one little belief I have. Yet I, as a consumer, am making a conscious choice to try to change somthing I don't believe is right. Unless you are willing to make the same sacrifice, you cannot say ANYTHING about anyone exploiting the poor workers. Becuase you are doing it too for your own financial benefit.

Sort of like every single person in North America does? Unless you're willing to spend the extra dough to buy goods made locally in home country where you know there is no sweat shops and exploitation, you really shouldn't say anything about it.

I'm sure you could afford it, if you made the right sacrifices. Instead of buying 5 pairs of jeans at $20 a piece per year, you may be only able to afford 2 pairs of jeans at $60 a piece. But then, you're not supporting those evil exploiting corporations, are you?

So the question is; do you make that sacrifice? Do you pay the extra money to buy goods made right here at home, instead of goods made overseas from exploited workers?

If the answer is No, then you are being hypocritical. You are also benefiting financially from the exploitation of the poor. You COULD make the buyers choice of not supporting companies that you believe are exploiting workers in poor countries. Only that would mean a sacrifice that directly affects you as a person and your personal happiness.

Yes, I do make it. I don't buy Nike's shit, or anything else from a sweatshop. I also don't buy products tested on animals, or even eat meat for that matter.

No, they certainly don't. Otherwise, all banks would be bankrupt. But if they do happen to lend it to the evil baby-killing capitalist, then that capitalist is on loan to pay it back, usually with something held in collateral. Do you understand what this means?

All this stemmed from your ignorance regarding the risks an entrepreneur takes when he starts and runs a business. Even a business that's been successful for 10 years does not guarantee it will survive the next 10.

So anyone can just walk into a bank and borrow thousands of dollars?

You should do your research. You should check out the sheer number of smal businesses that are run. The big corporations make all the headlines, but I think the number of small businesses in your community alone would stagger your brain.

And yes, the average person must work for someone else to survive. If you don't like that, then you may want to check out of this world, since obviously the concept of working must be fairly foreign to you.

Small businesses aren't somehow extempt from anarchist criticism. They still exploit workers.

Yes, I do make it. I don't buy Nike's shit, or anything else from a sweatshop.

Please see my addendum in my previous post, in case you wish to comment more.

So anyone can just walk into a bank and borrow thousands of dollars?

No. You have to wear a shirt and shoes.

Small businesses aren't somehow extempt from anarchist criticism. They still exploit workers.

Oh yes, of course. Every business exploits it workers. By simply asking them to work for wages or salary, the worker is being exploited. Poor downtrodden worker. Will their suffering never abate? Oh well.

No. You have to wear a shirt and shoes.

Then why is it that the unemployed don't try this?

Then why is it that the unemployed don't try this?

Lack of entreprenurial spirit?
Lack of willingness to take the risk?
Lack of ability to succeed?

This may surprise you, but many businesses are started by unemployed people who have decided they want to try to be an entrepreneur. This doesn't mean they'll succeed, it only means they're willing to risk their money and time on a venture.

EDIT: Anyway, I think I'm through trying to educate you on what a free market stands for, and the fact that capitalism does not automatically equate wealth. Being a capitalist simply means you believe in a free market of open competition. Our North American society and live style benefits in thousands of ways from capitalism. You, personally, benefit in hundred of ways and probably aren't even aware of it. And yet you make snide remarks and ignorant statements about the entire system. Until you're willing to make the personal sacrifices it takes to try to change things the way you think its better, you should step off before you hurt yourself.

Most people who use your bent of argument usually are never willing to make personal sacrifices to backup their statemetns and beliefs. Thus, it makes them hypocrites. Much like you.

Being a capitalist simply means you believe in a free market of open competition.

no. a capitalist is someone who owns some of the means of production, specifically if they can live entirely off of the wealth gained through that ownership.

Three is another definition : a capitalist is someone who supports capitalism.
I prefer to call the ones who own the means of production the bourgeois.

A Maniacal Autocrat : you call us hypocrits because you don't understand us.
You say that being communist should mean that we would give away all our properties but it is not the case because we are living in a capitalist world. It means that if we give away all our porperties, we are to give it away to other bourgeois and we are to become the slaves of those bourgeois, hence giving more power to them.
No that is not what being a communist means. Being a communist means supporting communism (by voting for example), not being the poor and exploited part of capitalism. Our properties will be given away only if it is to be be exploited by the commune along with your property. Otherwise it makes no sense.

No, the closest you could say is "petit bourgeois", but they "scratch off" a living from the land. They are farmers. That's it.Yes and they are humans too and they are also animals but they are consumers and whatever. Yes they are farmers and they are bourgeois.
Yes "petit bourgeois" (small bourgeois), still bourgeois. They own the land and use it for their sole interest. They exploit the forest and desecrate it. They are not evil. It is the system which forces them to do it.

Proof?

Don't just assert. You claim that most capitalists use sweatshops. FUCKING PROVE IT NOW.
No, I said that many people employed by capitalists work in sweatshops.
Then prove it.


What's the moral of the story, Letila?

You're going to be asked this until you get it right.
(Letila does not give the moral of the story)
What's the moral of the story, Letila?

[QUOTE=Psylos]The flaws of capitalism :

* It rewards lazyness
[QUOTE]

How is that a flaw? Suddenly i really like capitalism

Yes and they are humans too and they are also animals but they are consumers and whatever. Yes they are farmers and they are bourgeois.
Prove it. They are doing what they have to in order to live.

Yes "petit bourgeois" (small bourgeois), still bourgeois. They own the land and use it for their sole interest. They exploit the forest and desecrate it.
Exploit and desecrate? wtf?

They are not evil. It is the system which forces them to do it.
And what "system" is that?

Prove it. They are doing what they have to in order to live.


Exploit and desecrate? wtf?


And what "system" is that?
Use your brain a little bit and just shut the fuck up. I'm not going to stop and explain everything to you because you have too much things to learn. Read some books and come again when you know something.

I want to have an intelligent debate with the others and progress a little.

Three is another definition : a capitalist is someone who supports capitalism.
I prefer to call the ones who own the means of production the bourgeois.

A Maniacal Autocrat : you call us hypocrits because you don't understand us.
You say that being communist should mean that we would give away all our properties but it is not the case because we are living in a capitalist world. It means that if we give away all our porperties, we are to give it away to other bourgeois and we are to become the slaves of those bourgeois, hence giving more power to them.
No that is not what being a communist means. Being a communist means supporting communism (by voting for example), not being the poor and exploited part of capitalism. Our properties will be given away only if it is to be be exploited by the commune along with your property. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Actually Psylos, you are hypocritical not because you're unwilling to give away all your material wealth and live in some communal convent. You're hypocritical because you still make personal financial choices to support capitalist corporation and a capitalist market when you have other choices available. That is hypocrisy.

You don't have to give away your wordly possessions, although I would imagine you don't have that many, since.. well, as far as you folk are concerned, property is "theft" and I'm assuming you don't like being a thief.

You simply have to make the buyer's choice of not purchasing goods made from a company you don't believe in. So, you don't like sweat shops - don't ever buy anything from a company that has a label "Made in China" again. Or "Made in Malyasia" or "Made in Thailand", etc.

You may notice the price tag jump quite significantly from the products made in overseas sweat shops to the goods you purchase made in your home town. However, that's a sacrifice you have to make to stsand up for your beliefs in fighting a system you feel is wrong. If you can't make that sacrifice, then you have absolutely no right coming here on a message board and harping on people for being cold, heartless capitalist and gleaning financial benefit off the backs of the poor.

Because guess what... so do you..

Actually Psylos, you are hypocritical not because you're unwilling to give away all your material wealth and live in some communal convent. You're hypocritical because you still make personal financial choices to support capitalist corporation and a capitalist market when you have other choices available. That is hypocrisy.

You don't have to give away your wordly possessions, although I would imagine you don't have that many, since.. well, as far as you folk are concerned, property is "theft" and I'm assuming you don't like being a thief.

You simply have to make the buyer's choice of not purchasing goods made from a company you don't believe in. So, you don't like sweat shops - don't ever buy anything from a company that has a label "Made in China" again. Or "Made in Malyasia" or "Made in Thailand", etc.

You may notice the price tag jump quite significantly from the products made in overseas sweat shops to the goods you purchase made in your home town. However, that's a sacrifice you have to make to stsand up for your beliefs in fighting a system you feel is wrong. If you can't make that sacrifice, then you have absolutely no right coming here on a message board and harping on people for being cold, heartless capitalist and gleaning financial benefit off the backs of the poor.

Because guess what... so do you..And what if I don't have the money to buy the more ethical products, and what if I don't have the information available? You say it is written where it comes from. It is written thanks to a socialist law which made it mandatory to write it.

I think you didn't understand the critic. I'm not criticizing the capitalists, but capitalism.

nothing of value
You want to have a debate, yet you post nothing that allows for it.

That's good.

You want to have a debate, yet you post nothing that allows for it.

That's good.Well what I post requires some knowledge to understand. I do not know everything and sometimes I need people to explain what they say and I suppose the reverse is true. So when someone ask me to explain what I said, I'm glad to do it. You however ask me to explain every single word and once I've explained, you ask me to explain every single word of the explanation. I suppose you know nothing and learn nothing. That must be why you find nothing allowing debate.

the flaws of comunisim:

* people cannot carry it out succesfully due to human nature

Wrong, a system that is set up to work based on co-operation and solidarity is less likely to be damaged by greed and selfishness than one based on greed and selfishness, yet expects fair play. Capitalism, by promoting the negative, gets the negative.

* due to this it turns into a dictatorship

Wrong, attempts at Marxism have ended up as dictatorships because Marxism is flawed. Anarchism is the answer to this flaw.

* it bans religion claiming that there is nothing beyond the realm of human perception

Marxism is not the only form of communism, and there has always been forms of Christian Communism. True communism would ban nothing.

Vas.

And what if I don't have the money to buy the more ethical products, and what if I don't have the information available? You say it is written where it comes from. It is written thanks to a socialist law which made it mandatory to write it.

Everyone can make the necessary sacrifices it takes. Except that those sacrifices would impinge on your personal happiness. Maybe by purchasing goods made from non-sweatshop origins, you may only be able to buy 1/4 of the number of goods you normally buy. Maybe you have to sacricice personal enjoyment like a good computer, or a faster internet connection, or cable TV. Maybe you have to watch fewer movies, go out to bars and clubs less often, or not partake in a yearly vacation. Who knows.

But those are sacrifices you make to not support the things you don't believe in supporting.

Just because I'm a capitalist, it does not make me an extremist. I believe there needs to be laws to protect the consumer and allow them the full range of choice to decide where their money goes. You the consumer have the power to force change by simply not buying (and therefore not supporting) corporations and companies you feel are exploiting workers. Yet, if you refuse to find that information, or you refuse to make the sacrifices necessary to your personal happiness to follow up on your beliefs, then you are a hypocrite.

You cannot come here and decry the evils of capitalism when you benefit from it financially on the day-to-day basis and take no action to change it otherwise.

It's easy to write a post on a message board with all your bleeding heart beliefs. It's a lot harder when you actually have to make a consumer choice that you affect your personal happiness.

I think you didn't understand the critic. I'm not criticizing the capitalists, but capitalism.

Capitalist believe in capitalism. By criticizing the system, you are critcizing those who believe in it. It's one in the same.

People on these boards seem to be extremist. It is either all the way, or no way. It can be a little bit more moderate than that. I am a capitalist, but that doesn't mean I don't hold some social values. I do believe in laws that need to be maintained by government. However, I believe in small government and I believe those laws should be there to protect the consumer from false advertisement and unsafe, poor quality goods. I do believe in capitalism and the necessary class system it creates because that is the way my lifestyle is best benefitted.

The sooner people realize their own latent hypocrisy, the more they may realize the changes they're advocating would drastically alter how much they enjoy their own life, and that may in turn change their outlook on the "evils" of a free market.

And that is pretty much what happened historically speaking. Thousands, and thousands of years ago. Now the ownership of land is firmly fixed. The concept of ownership is entirely ingrained in the collective conscious of about 6 billion people.

Really? The concept of ownership we have now? The ability to buy and own your own land, which dates back a few hundred years to the end of aristocracy and feudalism? That's why there are no land rights activists like the MST in the world then, is it? That's why every Western country has a proportion of squatters and, in fact, most have some form of Squatters' Rights which transfer ownership to the user after a certain amount of time. That's why most countries with a developed welfare system have council houses, with occupier ownership schemes.

Vas.

Really? The concept of ownership we have now? The ability to buy and own your own land, which dates back a few hundred years to the end of aristocracy and feudalism? That's why there are no land rights activists like the MST in the world then, is it? That's why every Western country has a proportion of squatters and, in fact, most have some form of Squatters' Rights which transfer ownership to the user after a certain amount of time. That's why most countries with a developed welfare system have council houses, with occupier ownership schemes.

Vas.

I'm talking about the very concept of ownership of property - not the laws by which this ownership may be obtained. Get with the program.

Had you followed our discussion properly, you would have seen we were talking about the very concept of claiming ownership itself. That is to say, something as simple and mundane as someone walking onto a plot of land with a big club and saying; "This Land Be Mine".

That was done thousands of years before history even started recording. Ownership is as simple as human nature. We see things we want and we claim it for ourselves.

The laws we create to determine who owns what is not in question, but rather, the very idea that something like land can be owned.

Everyone can make the necessary sacrifices it takes. Except that those sacrifices would impinge on your personal happiness. Maybe by purchasing goods made from non-sweatshop origins, you may only be able to buy 1/4 of the number of goods you normally buy. Maybe you have to sacricice personal enjoyment like a good computer, or a faster internet connection, or cable TV. Maybe you have to watch fewer movies, go out to bars and clubs less often, or not partake in a yearly vacation. Who knows.

But those are sacrifices you make to not support the things you don't believe in supporting.

Just because I'm a capitalist, it does not make me an extremist. I believe there needs to be laws to protect the consumer and allow them the full range of choice to decide where their money goes. You the consumer have the power to force change by simply not buying (and therefore not supporting) corporations and companies you feel are exploiting workers. Yet, if you refuse to find that information, or you refuse to make the sacrifices necessary to your personal happiness to follow up on your beliefs, then you are a hypocrite.

You cannot come here and decry the evils of capitalism when you benefit from it financially on the day-to-day basis and take no action to change it otherwise.

It's easy to write a post on a message board with all your bleeding heart beliefs. It's a lot harder when you actually have to make a consumer choice that you affect your personal happiness.



Capitalist believe in capitalism. By criticizing the system, you are critcizing those who believe in it. It's one in the same.

People on these boards seem to be extremist. It is either all the way, or no way. It can be a little bit more moderate than that. I am a capitalist, but that doesn't mean I don't hold some social values. I do believe in laws that need to be maintained by government. However, I believe in small government and I believe those laws should be there to protect the consumer from false advertisement and unsafe, poor quality goods. I do believe in capitalism and the necessary class system it creates because that is the way my lifestyle is best benefitted.

The sooner people realize their own latent hypocrisy, the more they may realize the changes they're advocating would drastically alter how much they enjoy their own life, and that may in turn change their outlook on the "evils" of a free market.You make a good point.
As a bourgeois, I benefit more from capitalism than from communism. However, I can't hide the truth. There is something in me which doesn't allow me to do that.

I'm talking about the very concept of ownership of property - not the laws by which this ownership may be obtained. Get with the program.

The very concept of ownership you refer to has changed. Kings owned everything because god gave it to them - they had a divine right to own it. This has changed to a monetary right to own something - totally different concept.

Had you followed our discussion properly, you would have seen we were talking about the very concept of claiming ownership itself. That is to say, something as simple and mundane as someone walking onto a plot of land with a big club and saying; "This Land Be Mine".

As opposed to walking onto a plot of land with a big wallet and saying "this land be mine". Different concept again, ownership by force compared to ownership by divine right or ownership by economics.

That was done thousands of years before history even started recording. Ownership is as simple as human nature. We see things we want and we claim it for ourselves.

That's possession, not property. That which I own and use is my possession, that which I own but do not use, preferring to charge others for its use, is property. Two different things.

The laws we create to determine who owns what is not in question, but rather, the very idea that something like land can be owned.

Throughout history there have been cultures that do not believe land can be owned, but can only be used. There are still nomadic cultures at the fringes of modern existence, in parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas, that exist on the basis that land exists to be used wherever it is.

The vast majority of people in the world do not accept that property ownership is justified "because it is", they accept that it exists because the law says it is and are fearful of the consequences of defying those laws. Crime rates prove that even that doesn't necessarily do the job, many people do not respect the right to property. The regular appearance of communes through human history shows that this is an enforced, rather than a natural, state of being and can easily be overturned.

Vas.

It's easy to write a post on a message board with all your bleeding heart beliefs. It's a lot harder when you actually have to make a consumer choice that you affect your personal happiness.

And it's even harder when you make a professional choice between principles and a promotion, leading to a change of country and ten months of unemployment. Fuck off with your judgemental crap about people you know nothing about.

The sooner people realize their own latent hypocrisy, the more they may realize the changes they're advocating would drastically alter how much they enjoy their own life, and that may in turn change their outlook on the "evils" of a free market.

Oh, I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge my complete and utter hypocrisy. I live in a world dominated and controlled by something with which I disagree, so I've no option but to use things produced in ways I reject. I'm a union official, who works towards the revolution through negotiating compromise, I'm an anarchist who voted Green last time to block the BNP, I'm a pacificist who believes in kicking the shit out of racists and homophobes, I'm a hypocrite!

Now that that's out of the way, I don't regard my personal hypocrisy to be an issue. I'm an anarchist, anarchism isn't a religion or a personality cult. I don't expect to ever live in an Anarchy, but I hope that I can help build an Anarchy for those who come after me. Unlike capitalists, who think nothing of tomorrow and are destroying the world today, I'm an idealist who believes another, better world is possible and want that for the people who come after me.

Which, by the way, is a two-fingered salute to the sectarian bigots that claim socialism is based on envy. I'm not a socialist for myself, I'm a socialist/communist/anarchist because I see what a better world could be like and I want it for people other than myself.

Vas.

And it's even harder when you make a professional choice between principles and a promotion, leading to a change of country and ten months of unemployment. Fuck off with your judgemental crap about people you know nothing about.

And yet people like you come onto message boards and judge and condemn others for their beliefs while being unable to properly adhere to your own, all the while benefiting from the very thing you decry. Fuck off with your own judgemental crap about values you can't even uphold yourself.

Oh, I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge my complete and utter hypocrisy. I live in a world dominated and controlled by something with which I disagree, so I've no option but to use things produced in ways I reject. I'm a union official, who works towards the revolution through negotiating compromise, I'm an anarchist who voted Green last time to block the BNP, I'm a pacificist who believes in kicking the shit out of racists and homophobes, I'm a hypocrite!

Well, so long as you admit it, the rest of us are free to completely ignore anything you have to say, because it holds little to no real value. Anything you say you'd simply turn around and do something different, because you lack the will to be better than that. Why should anyone listen to you?

Now that that's out of the way, I don't regard my personal hypocrisy to be an issue. I'm an anarchist, anarchism isn't a religion or a personality cult. I don't expect to ever live in an Anarchy, but I hope that I can help build an Anarchy for those who come after me. Unlike capitalists, who think nothing of tomorrow and are destroying the world today, I'm an idealist who believes another, better world is possible and want that for the people who come after me.

And how precisely are you going to "build a better world" when you do nothing about it today? Change starts with you. I don't judge what you believe, I judge the fact that you can't even live up to it.

You lead by example. If you cannot provide that example, you have no right telling someone else how they should live based on a belief you yourself refuse to adhere to.

Which, by the way, is a two-fingered salute to the sectarian bigots that claim socialism is based on envy. I'm not a socialist for myself, I'm a socialist/communist/anarchist because I see what a better world could be like and I want it for people other than myself.

Vas.

That's a very self-sacrificing statement. Yet not two paragraphs previously, you claim you are a hypocrite unwilling to make the sacrifices to your own personal happiness that would be required in order for you to build a better world for people other than yourself.

So which is it? How are you going to build this better world? Talking about it on message boards isn't going to do a damn thing, except, ease your own conscience. If that's enough for you, then, heh, so be it I suppose. That's not good enough for me. Anything I believe, I make a consumer choice to uphold it.

You make a good point.
As a bourgeois, I benefit more from capitalism than from communism. However, I can't hide the truth. There is something in me which doesn't allow me to do that.

You're absolutely right. It is the truth. There are people being exploited by large corporations to produce cheap labour. This in turn produces cheaper goods and those savings are passed onto the consumer. And we consumers buy these goods up wholesale - lock, stock and two smoking barrels.

If you want to change that, start buying things from non-sweatshop companeis. They do exist, because likeminded people like yourself have the freedom, in a free market, to create a company and prosper from it, while adhering to their social beliefs. I don't see this as socialism, as socialism still requries the redistribution of wealth for the supposed "common good". I see a capital free market, not necessarily a fundamentalist capitalist state.

Too many people take extremes here to make an effective debate. Human beings are not creatures of extremes. By in large, we're moderates - it just depends on which side we lean towards.

this is for all you goons that think that comunisim is the way forward
(sad deluded folks) :gundge:

capitalisim may not work all that well but comunisim has already failed.
as human beings we are subject to greed and ambition, these things are in our very nature so no matter how hard we try these things will always be a part of us. Yes we can try to supress them but we can never hold back forever.

so in summary comunist regimes fail because they are cominist.

:p :sniper:

The very concept of ownership you refer to has changed. Kings owned everything because god gave it to them - they had a divine right to own it. This has changed to a monetary right to own something - totally different concept...

Actually no, you've missed the point of our original discussion (or at least, the one you were replying to). The discussion was based on the ideal that all property was theft. The argument was about whether or not land is something that any one individual could own. Not the methods by which they own it, or how the evolution of owning land has evolved from the Divine Right to monetary ownership. That has nothing to do with it.

It's simply the question; does anyone have the right to own anything?


Throughout history there have been cultures that do not believe land can be owned, but can only be used. There are still nomadic cultures at the fringes of modern existence, in parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas, that exist on the basis that land exists to be used wherever it is.

The vast majority of people in the world do not accept that property ownership is justified "because it is", they accept that it exists because the law says it is and are fearful of the consequences of defying those laws. Crime rates prove that even that doesn't necessarily do the job, many people do not respect the right to property. The regular appearance of communes through human history shows that this is an enforced, rather than a natural, state of being and can easily be overturned.

I think your claim that the "vast majority" of people do not accept property ownership is a bit of a hyperbole. If you have some numbers to back that up, I may believe you. However, I tend to think the exact opposite - in that people do believe in property ownership because they don't know any better. That's the way it has always been - someone has always owned that land, be it by divine right of kings or through "purchase" from the state.

The fact of the matter is that ownership of land is ingrained in our society and culture. In order to change this, you'd have to undo thousands of years of upbringing and thought. And you'd have to come up with a method to supply unlimited resources to make up for the natural instinct of human greed.
Until that happens, common shared wealth does not work.

You're absolutely right. It is the truth. There are people being exploited by large corporations to produce cheap labour. This in turn produces cheaper goods and those savings are passed onto the consumer. And we consumers buy these goods up wholesale - lock, stock and two smoking barrels.

If you want to change that, start buying things from non-sweatshop companeis. They do exist, because likeminded people like yourself have the freedom, in a free market, to create a company and prosper from it, while adhering to their social beliefs. I don't see this as socialism, as socialism still requries the redistribution of wealth for the supposed "common good". I see a capital free market, not necessarily a fundamentalist capitalist state.

Too many people take extremes here to make an effective debate. Human beings are not creatures of extremes. By in large, we're moderates - it just depends on which side we lean towards.
It is another good point you make.
However, I want to make one thing clear. In all this thread, I debated the rationality of communism in its purest form.
This does not apply in our world today. We are too barbaric for that at the moment I'm writing those lines.
We've just demonstrated that pure communism was more just than pure capitalism.
The goal was to undo the bourgeois propaganda which would make one think that the less social advances, the better.
How to achieve communism is a completely different matter.
In your daily life, it means that you will vote for the party that makes the most sense, try to keep what is already acquired and try to grasp anything you can grasp, and above all not fall into the ignorance propagated by the local propaganda.

Actually no, you've missed the point of our original discussion (or at least, the one you were replying to). The discussion was based on the ideal that all property was theft. The argument was about whether or not land is something that any one individual could own. Not the methods by which they own it, or how the evolution of owning land has evolved from the Divine Right to monetary ownership. That has nothing to do with it.

Proudhon was refering to government-enforced property, not all ownership.

It's simply the question; does anyone have the right to own anything?

Unless you take John Lennon's song Imagine as the absolute basis of your anarcho-communism, than yes, you can own stuff as long as you made it yourself or it was given to you without force being involved.

I think your claim that the "vast majority" of people do not accept property ownership is a bit of a hyperbole. If you have some numbers to back that up, I may believe you. However, I tend to think the exact opposite - in that people do believe in property ownership because they don't know any better. That's the way it has always been - someone has always owned that land, be it by divine right of kings or through "purchase" from the state.

The fact of the matter is that ownership of land is ingrained in our society and culture. In order to change this, you'd have to undo thousands of years of upbringing and thought. And you'd have to come up with a method to supply unlimited resources to make up for the natural instinct of human greed.
Until that happens, common shared wealth does not work.

Greed isn't a natural instinct. It's a manifestation of a society where monetary wealth is held in such high regard. If you abolished money, you'd see just how lazy the rich and hard-working the poor are and you'd have a lot more respect for the poor. Besides, I overcame thousands of years of greed in only 6 months.

this is for all you goons that think that comunisim is the way forward
(sad deluded folks) :gundge:

capitalisim may not work all that well but comunisim has already failed.
as human beings we are subject to greed and ambition, these things are in our very nature so no matter how hard we try these things will always be a part of us. Yes we can try to supress them but we can never hold back forever.

so in summary comunist regimes fail because they are cominist.

:p :sniper:Communism has not already failed because it has not already been implemented.
Capitalism has been implemented and failed in the 19th century. All the social advances we have today make it less heavy but we are far from something sustainable.

Unless you take John Lennon's song Imagine as the absolute basis of your anarcho-communism, than yes, you can own stuff as long as you made it yourself or it was given to you without force being involved.

And what happens the moment someone else wants it?

Greed isn't a natural instinct. It's a manifestation of a society where monetary wealth is held in such high regard. If you abolished money, you'd see just how lazy the rich and hard-working the poor are and you'd have a lot more respect for the poor. Besides, I overcame thousands of years of greed in only 6 months.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAH!!!!!
You need to think more and talk less. Greed is a natural instinct because of limited resources. Greed does not necessarily indicate monetary wealth. The simple fact that there is a limited amount of everything with which we need to survive will create human greed. As soon as we human beings realize the limitation of available resources, we become greedy for that limited resource. This is natural.

You assume greed to mean only in the monetary sense. I'm referring to greed on the sheer basis that we want to horde and gather what we can for our own good, because it's better knowing that you have it than not having it at all.

Money is just a system of barter. You could be greedy for pure water and food. You could be greedy over beautiful women or precious minerals. It doesn't matter what it is, but so long as humans exist, there will be greed for limited resources, whatever those resources happen to be.

We've just demonstrated that pure communism was more just than pure capitalism.

That depends on your concept of justice. In my concept of justice, those most fitting to survive will survive, no matter what the cost. A communist state does not allow for those. One person who is simply more capable, better and faster and stronger does not survive better. He survives at exactly the same state as everyone else, earning no more or less than his "equal" neighbours. That, to me, is unjust.

Someone who is better should survive better. That is how humans evolve. We don't evolve by forcing the strong to become the weak, because the weak are in the majority.

That depends on your concept of justice. In my concept of justice, those most fitting to survive will survive, no matter what the cost. A communist state does not allow for those. One person who is simply more capable, better and faster and stronger does not survive better. He survives at exactly the same state as everyone else, earning no more or less than his "equal" neighbours. That, to me, is unjust.

Someone who is better should survive better. That is how humans evolve. We don't evolve by forcing the strong to become the weak, because the weak are in the majority.Indeed, but should a person who is weak survive because he has the capital? And should a person who is strong die because he has nothing?

And what happens the moment someone else wants it?

I suspect they would ask a third party to help them decide, either that or get into a fight. It really depends on how smart they are.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAH!!!!!
You need to think more and talk less. Greed is a natural instinct because of limited resources. Greed does not necessarily indicate monetary wealth. The simple fact that there is a limited amount of everything with which we need to survive will create human greed. As soon as we human beings realize the limitation of available resources, we become greedy for that limited resource. This is natural.

But there are enough resources. Otherwise we'd be starving.

That depends on your concept of justice. In my concept of justice, those most fitting to survive will survive, no matter what the cost. A communist state does not allow for those. One person who is simply more capable, better and faster and stronger does not survive better. He survives at exactly the same state as everyone else, earning no more or less than his "equal" neighbours. That, to me, is unjust.

Someone who is better should survive better. That is how humans evolve. We don't evolve by forcing the strong to become the weak, because the weak are in the majority.

Where I'm from, that's what's known as "evil". We are humans with emotional needs. These needs overide élitist BS. Your Nietzsche-style power-based morality is virtually the definition of evil.

That's the way it has always been - someone has always owned that land, be it by divine right of kings or through "purchase" from the state.

explain the commons then.

That depends on your concept of justice. In my concept of justice, those most fitting to survive will survive, no matter what the cost. A communist state does not allow for those. One person who is simply more capable, better and faster and stronger does not survive better. He survives at exactly the same state as everyone else, earning no more or less than his "equal" neighbours. That, to me, is unjust.

Someone who is better should survive better. That is how humans evolve. We don't evolve by forcing the strong to become the weak, because the weak are in the majority.Actually I've re-read and you didn't describe communism here. Communism is not about earning an equal wage. It is about having equal rights at birth.

Indeed, but should a person who is weak survive because he has the capital? And should a person who is strong die because he has nothing?

If a person was strong, they'd find a way to survive. That doesn't necessarily mean killing the weak in order to live, it just means they won't let themselves die out. Whileas the weak who have capital will exist without ever doing anything of note or importance, and in the end, die achiving nothing.

So in essence, it works out.

Look, people assume that I'm talking about automatic success. That's not what I'm talking about. Nor am I talking about letting the weak die. I'm talking about now trying to staunch the strong in order to create some form of equalization that does not (and should not) exist.

Where I'm from, that's what's known as "evil". We are humans with emotional needs. These needs overide élitist BS. Your Nietzsche-style power-based morality is virtually the definition of evil.

Err, well fine. Then I'm evil. Come get me.

God, you are so extremist and naive. Just because I believe the strong should survive does not mean I believe that the weak should be killed off. Don't just sit there in your hypocritical little world and shout slogans of good and evil at me.

staunch the strong in order to create some form of equalization that does not (and should not) exist.How does communism do that?

Actually I've re-read and you didn't describe communism here. Communism is not about earning an equal wage. It is about having equal rights at birth.

And these equal rights evolve into a totalitarian equality amongst all people. Because if you have equal rights as me at birth, and those rights are inherit and absolute, then that means you should have equal right to anything I can produce. No one should have more than anyone else, because if they do, then that creates a class system where inequality becomes the norm.

You can't have equal rights at birth and not force everyone to be the same. It doesn't work. Someone weaker than you could then claim by their rights of birth anything you have, because there's no reason you should have more than they do. All they have to say is that you have what they need to survive.

Err, well fine. Then I'm evil. Come get me.

God, you are so extremist and naive. Just because I believe the strong should survive does not mean I believe that the weak should be killed off. Don't just sit there in your hypocritical little world and shout slogans of good and evil at me.

Your morality is based on power rather than compassion. By my standards, that is immoral. I suppose you regard yourself as a member of the élite who is fit. That's usually the case with your sort.

And these equal rights evolve into a totalitarian equality amongst all people. Because if you have equal rights as me at birth, and those rights are inherit and absolute, then that means you should have equal right to anything I can produce. No one should have more than anyone else, because if they do, then that creates a class system where inequality becomes the norm.

You can't have equal rights at birth and not force everyone to be the same. It doesn't work. Someone weaker than you could then claim by their rights of birth anything you have, because there's no reason you should have more than they do. All they have to say is that you have what they need to survive.Yes, there is a reason why I should have more then they do. This reason is that I worked to have it.

Envious, socialist, panzies! If you could only see the world you would create.

Your morality is based on power rather than compassion. By my standards, that is immoral. I suppose you regard yourself as a member of the élite who is fit. That's usually the case with your sort.

And your sort are usually naive and hypocritical. I'd rather stand for my beliefs and adhere to them. I don't condemn others for their choices while not being able to live up to my own. Don't you wish you could say the same? It's OK, others here have already admitted their hypocrisy. Your sort tend to do that a lot.

Yes, there is a reason why I should have more then they do. This reason is that I worked to have it.

And by doing so, you have created a class for yourself, a class that is simply better than someone else.

How would that work in a classless society? If we're all equal, we're all of the same class - no one should have more than anyone else, lest they be of a higher class, regardless of how they achieved it. It doesn't work, does it?

And these equal rights evolve into a totalitarian equality amongst all people. Because if you have equal rights as me at birth, and those rights are inherit and absolute, then that means you should have equal right to anything I can produce. No one should have more than anyone else, because if they do, then that creates a class system where inequality becomes the norm.

You can't have equal rights at birth and not force everyone to be the same. It doesn't work. Someone weaker than you could then claim by their rights of birth anything you have, because there's no reason you should have more than they do. All they have to say is that you have what they need to survive.

Hardly. Equal rights means equal opportunity. I think even you can agree everyone should start at the same point.

Envious, socialist, panzies! If you could only see the world you would create.
But we can't see it. Can you see it?

And your sort are usually naive and hypocritical. I'd rather stand for my beliefs and adhere to them. I don't condemn others for their choices while not being able to live up to my own. Don't you wish you could say the same? It's OK, others here have already admitted their hypocrisy. Your sort tend to do that a lot.I did not admit my hypocrisy. I think I'm doing what's right. I value democracy above communism. I'm not going to bomb the HQ of some big corporate pigs.
My actions are voting and discussing, in other words, using democracy. Three is nothing hipocrite about it.

I did not admit my hypocrisy. I think I'm doing what's right. I value democracy above communism. I'm not going to bomb the HQ of some big corporate pigs.
My actions are voting and discussing, in other words, using democracy. Three is nothing hipocrite about it.

I wasn't talking about you, although you have already admitted that you find it hard to live up to the very ideals you profess to believe in. ;) I don't hold that against you, because you at least are here to discuss and debate, not condemn and judge as Letila does with every one of her asinine posts.