NationStates Jolt Archive

Amongst libertarians and socialists there seems to be a bit of a difference in opinion over what capitalism actually is. Some say we are currently living in it, some say it has yet to be achieved, so how do you define capitalism?

capitalism.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.



An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

Here are the stock-standard classic examples I give to everyone in semi-pratical terms.

Capitalism:
Person A owns a block of land. They* divide that block of land into four sections. They lease these Sections to Persons B, C & D who work the land and pay portion of profit from the land to Person A.

Communism:
The State owns a block of land. Persons A, B, C & D all work the land and eqaully share in the profit.



*Incase any confusion is caused, I have used they as a gender-neutral term and not as a plural -for the purpose of illustrative consistency.

Capitalism is selling your mother to buy a new iPod.

i'm coming to think of it as a method of actualizing short/immediate term contracts between economic agents (along with private property yadda yadda...)

its also where one group of people are able to successfully, and lawfully, exploit another group, and take a greater than equal share of the fruits of the latter's labour.

it is where externalities are exogenous.

it is where human happiness is exogenous.

i'm coming to think of it as a method of actualizing short/immediate term contracts between economic agents (along with private property yadda yadda...)

its also where one group of people are able to successfully, and lawfully, exploit another group, and take a greater than equal share of the fruits of the latter's labour.

it is where externalities are exogenous.

it is where human happiness is exogenous.

Really? I thought you were just going to say something like ... "evil incarnated as an idealogy."

Really? I thought you were just going to say something like ... "evil incarnated as an idealogy."
haha no its a decent system, but it has flaws (which i suppose you could call 'evil' if one was being sensationalist), and i believe other systems to be better.
i think people don't see that because generally we are blinkered and brought up/indoctrinated to believe capitalism is the only system that works, consumerism means we are all stuck in a trap of self-perpetuating the system while grinding the invidual down, and the measures by which we measure the success of capitalism are not necessarily the right measures in general (see my point about happiness), but also these qualifiers are not those that would/should be used for other systems (like communism). hence, if you look through the looking glass of capitalism, any other system seems bad; but if you step away from there, think outside your indocrtination and look at other indicators/qualifiers, and see other things like happiness or the environmentas being more important than profit and growth, then you can start to believe other systems are plausable indeed.
the problem is getting to those systems (eg: the ussr was never communist but was on its way there. problem is, their method of getting there was horrific)

-snip-[/SIZE]
I have to admit, I was a socialist and nearly an anarcho-communist, but then I changed my views and came to capitalism. I suppose I am an exception to your theory. Myrth.

Communism:
The State owns a block of land. Persons A, B, C & D all work the land and eqaully share in the profit.

Communism in Real Life.

Persons A, B, C, and D each own a plot of land.

Persons E, F, G, and H kill A and B, and put C and D into re-education camps. The "State" takes the land. Since E began the revolution, he appoints F to run the land as will best benefit the "State", G is forced to become a farmer, and H is shot for being counter-revolutionary because he doesn't want to be a farmer.

Capitalism is the unrestricted buying and selling of goods, property, and labour by individuals.

I have to admit, I was a socialist and nearly an anarcho-communist, but then I changed my views and came to capitalism. I suppose I am an exception to your theory. Myrth.
no problems changing your mind cos you could see beyond your capitalistic upbringing/"indoctrination"
most people don't seem to see beyond that and just accept capitalism blindly. kudos on actually thinking about and positively accepting capitalism then :)

Communism in Real Life.

Persons A, B, C, and D each own a plot of land.

Persons E, F, G, and H kill A and B, and put C and D into re-education camps. The "State" takes the land. Since E began the revolution, he appoints F to run the land as will best benefit the "State", G is forced to become a farmer, and H is shot for being counter-revolutionary because he doesn't want to be a farmer.

Capitalism in Real Life

Persons A, B, C, and D each own a plot of land. A, B, and C borrow money from E, F, G, and H in order to improve their business. A and B succeed, but C fails and D also fails for lack of investment. E, F, G, and G buy out C and D, and form a company run by E. C and D become wage slaves while A and B pay back the loans they took out.

Communism in Real Life.

Persons A, B, C, and D each own a plot of land.

Persons E, F, G, and H kill A and B, and put C and D into re-education camps. The "State" takes the land. Since E began the revolution, he appoints F to run the land as will best benefit the "State", G is forced to become a farmer, and H is shot for being counter-revolutionary because he doesn't want to be a farmer.

I would choose capitalism any day loking at that. Utopia my ass. Is the big bully thieving everyone and then giving the lunch money to his friends, and beating those who disagree. That is why I would never live in a communist State, the free will to decide what you want to become is gone. Bah Communism suxx, damn them fools and lazy poor people who support it :p

Capitalism:

The economic system that protects an individuals rights to property (and by the definition of Locke and the like, all other rights) by allowing the means of production to rest in private hands and for them to be changed at the consent of the owner.

A system that allows inequality but is continually ragged on for failing to resolve it, despite the fact human beings are not inherently equal in their creative or management capabilities.

Communism:

Act III of Russian Nutcase Theatre with shows still playing in North Korea and various other failed states.

no problems changing your mind cos you could see beyond your capitalistic upbringing/"indoctrination"
most people don't seem to see beyond that and just accept capitalism blindly. kudos on actually thinking about and positively accepting capitalism then :)
Thank you. It never hurts to study beyond what you accept.

Well, I would give my definition of capitalism, but it would probably be too flamy.

For some reason, I feel oddly compelled to sit this one out.

Cybach']I would choose capitalism any day loking at that.

You determine your political alignment based on a semi-humourous post on the internet by some guy you don't know?

Cybach']Utopia my ass.

Your ass is Utopia?

Cybach']Is the big bully thieving everyone and then giving the lunch money to his friends, and beating those who disagree.

Isn't that fascism?

Cybach']That is why I would never live in a communist State, the free will to decide what you want to become is gone.

Yes, damn that free education that allows everyone to atain their potential. Try actually learning about Marxism before you start hurling abuse.

Cybach']Bah Communism suxx,

Wow, Communism withers in response to your astute and erudite political analysis.

Cybach']damn them fools

I'm currently at college studying 5 AS levels and I'm predicted A in all of them (most people who go on to college only do 4 AS levels). Also, judging by the spelling in your post you're in no position to call anyone a fool.

Cybach']and lazy

Did I mention that I'm studying those 5 subjects in the time it takes most people to do 4.5? It's damn hard work.

Cybach']poor people who support it

My family isn't rich but we're certainly not poor.

Cybach']:p

:rolleyes:

For some reason, I feel oddly compelled to sit this one out.
Maybe it's been beaten to death on NS, eh?

Erm, Isn't a political system best measured by what it has actually done in a real-world situation rather than the intelligence (or the lack thereof) of those who advocate it? I mean, I'm a capitalist and saying a system is stupid just because 'lazy poor people' support it doesn't mean its a bunk system. There are poor people who support capitalism and lazy people who support capitalism, but that shouldn't have any bearing on the actual merits of a political system.

You determine your political alignment based on a semi-humourous post on the internet by some guy you don't know?

Yes, damn that free education that allows everyone to atain their potential. Try actually learning about Marxism before you start hurling abuse.

Wow, Communism withers in response to your astute and erudite political analysis.

I'm currently at college studying 5 AS levels and I'm predicted A in all of them (most people who go on to college only do 4 AS levels). Also, judging by the spelling in your post you're in no position to call anyone a fool.

Did I mention that I'm studying those 5 subjects in the time it takes most people to do 4.5? It's damn hard work.

My family isn't rich but we're certainly not poor.


Hmmm, you really should get that superiority complex seen to. There are thousands of people doing 5 AS levels, and getting As in all of them isn't particularly hard (thanks to the module system) if you're willing to apply yourself. You also presumably chose to do 5, so please don't harp on about hard work. Besides, since when is academic achievement the be all and end all to life? Do you know how to take a car engine apart? Can you play an instrument to a decent standard? Are you good at sports?

Marlow's First Law:

Academic Ability and Common Sense have a negative correlation (as one goes up, the other goes down).

Communism is like all overarching ideologies: it seems wonderful that one set of beliefs can be used to run an entire political system, but in the real world you always run into real-life problems that can't be solved with ideological perfection.

Down with ideology!

Marlow's First Law:

Academic Ability and Common Sense have a negative correlation (as one goes up, the other goes down).


The recent classic demonstration of this principle was the CIA agents in Italy who were observed doing their rendition thing by Italian agents.

CIA agents are nearly all very bright college grads, selected for their ability with languages - and not much else.

The reason they were observed so easily and all of them spotted and nearly all of them named is because they were all using cell phones - and some of them called the US Embassy as many as six times during the operation and spoke openly of what they were doing on the phone.

While one may argue that they should have learned better tradecraft, I think that the distinct lack of common sense was predictable.

Marlow's First Law:

Academic Ability and Common Sense have a negative correlation (as one goes up, the other goes down).


The recent classic demonstration of this principle was the CIA agents in Italy who were observed doing their rendition thing by Italian agents.

CIA agents are nearly all very bright college grads, selected for their ability with languages - and not much else.

The reason they were observed so easily and all of them spotted and nearly all of them named is because they were all using cell phones - and some of them called the US Embassy as many as six times during the operation and spoke openly of what they were doing on the phone.

While one may argue that they should have learned better tradecraft, I think that the distinct lack of common sense was predictable.

Marlow's First Law:

Academic Ability and Common Sense have a negative correlation (as one goes up, the other goes down).


The recent classic demonstration of this principle was the CIA agents in Italy who were observed doing their rendition thing by Italian agents.

CIA agents are nearly all very bright college grads, selected for their ability with languages - and not much else.

The reason they were observed so easily and all of them spotted and nearly all of them named is because they were all using cell phones - and some of them called the US Embassy as many as six times during the operation and spoke openly of what they were doing on the phone.

While one may argue that they should have learned better tradecraft, I think that the distinct lack of common sense was predictable.

Isn't capitalism a system in which capital is controlled, spent and produced by private interests, and those interests determine the value of capital through competition on a free market?

You determine your political alignment based on a semi-humourous post on the internet by some guy you don't know?



Your ass is Utopia?



Isn't that fascism?



Yes, damn that free education that allows everyone to atain their potential. Try actually learning about Marxism before you start hurling abuse.



Wow, Communism withers in response to your astute and erudite political analysis.



I'm currently at college studying 5 AS levels and I'm predicted A in all of them (most people who go on to college only do 4 AS levels). Also, judging by the spelling in your post you're in no position to call anyone a fool.



Did I mention that I'm studying those 5 subjects in the time it takes most people to do 4.5? It's damn hard work.



My family isn't rich but we're certainly not poor.



:rolleyes:


Ok to start it off. You try typing a paragraph in little under a minute, I suppose you can avoid more grammar mistakes mr amazing? Also no my opinion about communism does not come from the humorous post, I merely made a sarcastic remark, in saying looking at that (even humorously put, capitalism beats communism) I would choose such.


No my ass is not Utopia. There is a phrase in the english language which goes "my ass ****", it is meant to denigrate usually and add sarcasm. I take it english is not your first language? Mine neither.

Oddly enough no that is not Fascism. That is communism. In a communist country all the hard earning people who spent there whole life earning and working there way to success have it all taken away and given to some lazy bums who had neither the talent or the ambition to work as far, which is the equivalent of an idealogy of theft.
For example in a communist country if your father was a doctor and went to university, you as his/her child were forbidden to go to university under the guise of trying to prevent an elite class from forming. How does not allowing one to follow his/her talents and obstructively blocking them equal a great idealogy?
In capitalism you are free to follow whatever career you wish, the government does not interfere. If you are poor and wish to be a doctor you get a student loan and pay it of with your future salary. In communism if the State decides you are needed as a farmer, you either become a farmer or get shot.
Yes I really see that communism is great :rolleyes:



Just be glad that you live in a democratic government otherwise you may have already been shipped of to the gulag camps, or forced to pursue a profession you hate for the good of the State. Indeed wouldn't you love that.

Also if the whole world would beome communistic, say goodbye to technological advancement. Without the promise of money inventions and gadgets will stagnate. The only reason the USSR did not stay in a perpetual state of time-frame is that it had to keep up with its capitalistic counterparts. But once communism is universal, we will no longer space travel, and just sit and die until we become extinct.

Communism in short is pretty much the suicide of human advancement. And interestingly enough every country where communism has been tried has hordes of poor people, third world conditions, etc.. Or do you think that North Korea is the land of happiness and utopia?
And what more, the country with the least poor people, and the biggest middle class, is the United States of America. So why should the US become communistic and make everyone poor? Communism just takes the money away from those who have it and gives it to the poor people, but without the rich making more money one day there is no more money for the poor people and everyone is dirt poor, as we saw in all East-bloc countries.


Also yes I read Karl Marx. In fact since I am a german, I read it in original which is quite different in its forms then bad translations I read. The translations may not be bad, but then in German it is way better. But there is an inherent flaw in his writing, he as one can see reading his writing, hates and refused to even see one bit of good in capitalism. There are various aspects of Socialism which can workably be brought into capitalism, but Marx was too jealous or spiteful of any capitalistic idea and hence the big flaw. He thought more about his ego then the actual validity of what he was saying, so he proposed a flawed thesis. Hate twisted what might have become a workable model. But the communism as we know it is impossible to implement. But countries such as Sweden or Germany take the best of both capitalism and socialism. Going neither extreme is always the best.

Yes amazing grades. Too bad they don't help you that much in real life. In real life it is more then grades which count, your success is not predetermined from your scholastic abilities. No doubt they help in life but always remember they are not everything or you may have a rude awakenning and all your puppy arrogance will turn to bitterness.

Capitalism: The system by which property and services are only traded by the free consent of all parties involved. So no there is'nt a pure capitalism anywhere. But the closer you get the freer a society you end up with.

Cybach'] But countries such as Sweden or Germany take the best of both capitalism and socialism. Going neither extreme is always the best.


Sure, just leave out Denmark, like the rest of you... Damn you Swedes! You take all our reputation, you dirty mountainapes!

Cybach']

But countries such as Sweden or Germany take the best of both capitalism and socialism. Going neither extreme is always the best.



Let's see if Germany's economy recovers some time before 2050 before passing judgement :P

Let's see if Germany's economy recovers some time before 2050 before passing judgement :P

Germany's economy is recovering, but only because they're reforming the welfare system and liberalizing their economy...surprise there. Germany's got hope for sustainable growth, but France is pretty much hopeless.

im sorry i just cant help posting on this one....
first off i just need to object to the use of the word 'capitalism' as it was first brought into popular circulation by karl marx, and what we now know as capital was called 'stock' back in the day, but for this post, i will use the term.
when i say 'capitalism' i will refer to the economic model described by the school of austrian economics (see rothbard, mises, etc).

capitalsim: democary DOES NOT mean capitalist. its important to get this straight, USA is not a capitalist country, although there is a fair amount of freedom in their marketplaces (means of production are no completely controlled by the government), there is a great deal of government influence. subsidies, interventionist foreign policies, trade barriers (softwood lumber from canada), regulation on things like healthcare (my father runs a school in california and for office staff only hires people for under 16 hrs a week, because otherwise by law he has to provide them with health benefits which would double the cost of their employement). None of these happen in free markets, and are all remnaint of socialist idealogies.
also capitalism does not have 'slave wages' they have 'fair wages', where an employer agrees to a price with an employee, and where no one is forced to do anything... if the employee can find a better price for his labour elsewhere, hes welcome to.
a few other quick points:
-capitalism is good for the environment: private ownership of lands=protection of land etc. now i agree air is communal and regulations should be in place on that, however if you wanna talk about deforestation, in north america it occurs only on public lands leased to private companies (a facsist system which shares it economic axioms with communism), whereas private forestry has used selective cutting for centuries.
-there is NO exploitation in true capitalism: in capitalism everything is traded, there are no forced exchanges. in trades people only trade up, hense everyone gets wealthier to me. if someone trades 6 eggs for 1 loaf of bread than the eggs are worth more to the bread to the first person and vice versa to the other. this is the inherent problem with keynesian/socialist economics, in that they require measurement of value of object, which cannot actually be achieved (theory of money and credit, by ludwig von mises probably a good place to start).
alright i could probably go on forever but ill just move on over to socialism.

socialism: well at the bottom of socialism , and all totalitarian doctrines for that matter (yes socialists must be totalitarian), "lies the belief that the rulers are wiser and more loftier than their subject, and that they therefore know better what benefits those ruled than they themselves" (rise of total state, mises). if you agree that were all dumb and someone or everyone has the ability to elect or nominate a dictator/ ruler, who is superior to the people....than maybe you should be a socialist. however if you dont believe that the government is omniscient, well things wont work out. as i said earlier, socialism relies on the ability to measure the immeasurable, including things like GDP, and how much bread they need(if you want further explanation ask). this is also one of the major problems with us policy for almost a century now.
a few quick things about socialism:
-to exist socialist states must always be in either a state of war, crises (ummmm lets say starvation or w.e), or autarky. in general all of the 3 lead to poverty, although autarky can be a special case, im not going to get into it, thats another essay.
-again socialism assumes daddy knows best. whoever said happiness isnt important in capitalism has his facts mixed up, its the other way around. in socialism the states is all important, in capitalism the individual, if i want to strive for happiness, awesome i have the right to do that. if i was a socialist, id be digging ditches and filling them all day, just to improve our gdp.

alright i guess thats enough for now, this ones for puremetal, i dont know what your talking about capitalist indoctrination. ive gone to private and public schools in the usa as well as public and homeschooling in canada (as well as a short furraw into university, that left me incredulous to the state of education (hmm probably subsidies), i thought i might learn something there but meh...), and ive had no capitalist indoctrination whatsoever, but a great deal of socialist indoctrination. only through my own studies of mostly economics did i become 'capitalist', or as id prefer it 'classical liberal'.
and lastly

[QUOTE='[NS]Cybach'] He thought more about his ego then the actual validity of what he was saying, so he proposed a flawed thesis. Hate twisted what might have become a workable model. But the communism as we know it is impossible to implement. But countries such as Sweden or Germany take the best of both capitalism and socialism. Going neither extreme is always the best.
QUOTE]
dont make me laugh

G

Germany's economy is recovering, but only because they're reforming the welfare system and liberalizing their economy...surprise there. Germany's got hope for sustainable growth, but France is pretty much hopeless.

No nation is beyond help! But France does seem to need more help than anybody else...

I agree. Germany's economy is far too regulated, and it isn't even in the interest of the nation anymore. German regulatory policies drove its debt over the 3% margin the EU wants, and its economy is pretty slow.

Sooner or later Germany's gonna get blown away by globalization if it doesn't start dealing with labor regulations. It's at 10% unemployment already and more and more Germans are retiring. Chances are its going to screw with Germany's economy even more.

No nation is beyond help! But France does seem to need more help than anybody else...

True, they could rebound but they're weighing themselves down with subsidies and inefficent (not unnecessary, just inefficent) social programs.

In response to the OP -

Capitalism is, as some people have pointed out, the free exchange of goods and services between consenting individuals.

I'm an advocate of capitalism, but I don't deny that it sometimes does bad.

Before on these forums I've rubbished anti-capitalist arguments pretty universally, but I've come to realise an important thing.
It doesn't really matter whether "The Man" is the government or the combined efforts of big business if they're in total control of our lives. I agree now that wage slavery sucks.

However, I still believe that the rough application of capitalist principles is less likely to yield a life of mass servitude and misery than the application of statist principles.

Besides, if we were going to be ruled by some sort of evil slave-driving organisation, I'd rather they provided me with fast food, nice clothes and sports cars than health food, government overalls (or whatever) and a bicycle. In other words, though the government may know what's best for us, but what's best for us is no fun.

Amongst libertarians and socialists there seems to be a bit of a difference in opinion over what capitalism actually is. Some say we are currently living in it, some say it has yet to be achieved, so how do you define capitalism?
Of course if you ask people who are extremely against capitalism you'll get biased answers. You'll also get bullshit if you ask the people who treat it as a religion.

Private ownership of capital, business. Almost all western nations are capitalistic. The policies of wealth redistribution amongst western nations do not have socialistic goals of creating economic equality and undermining business and property rights, they just provide safety nets.

Is it possible to seperate the capitalism from a free-market? The richest countries are relitively close to a free-market and when combined with capitalism the system works well, but many nations in the developing world don't have a free-market turn into hell holes whether they are capitalist or socialist.

China for example is very capitalistic, but it is certainly not free-market.

Is it possible to seperate the capitalism from a free-market? The richest countries are relitively close to a free-market and when combined with capitalism the system works well, but many nations in the developing world don't have a free-market turn into hell holes whether they are capitalist or socialist.

China for example is very capitalistic, but it is certainly not free-market.

I'd like to try clear up your question if I may.

In the west, as opposed to Developing nations, We have property owership laws which allow us to use our homes, and the land they sit on as equity, or, in other words, borrow money from a bank against the value of the property. if the loan defaults, the bank can claim the property.

Likewise, if i can come up with say, 5 000, 10 000 or some larger amount of money, i can go to a bank and say, i'd like to buy that house thats for sale at 7010 MacDonald street. The owner and I have agreed on a price of.... 140 000 dollars. The bank then checks my ability to make a monthly payment of 1200 and some dollars, notes that i have 10 000 down, and loans me 130 000 more. Government involvement is near zero. the seller pays a real estate agent(a land broker), a commision. Of course, they may save that by selling it themselves.

Now in a third world country, you cant exactly do this. You have to get permits to buy, permits to exchange/develop the land, pay to change the name on the title, proof that the seller actually owns it.. It takes years in some countries, and costs tons of cash, and in the end, you have to pay the full purchase price right then and there. THis all assumes that private ownership of land is even permitted at all.

(If someone from a third world country could speak more on their end of it, I would be delighted to know more myself.)

Now the biggest benefit in the west is that after a number of years paying for my house, I make make use of the value.

If my wife makes hot little miniskirts and sells them on ebay, and she needs to hire some seamstresses and buy equipment to keep up with the demand, i can go to the bank and say, "i'd like to borrow more money against the value I hold in my home", and if they agree that i am a low risk, i can take that money and my wife and I can use it to start a business.

Here is my working definition of capitalism. The use of equity to permit the generation of more equity. or... the use of property as a lever to purchase more property.

In these cases, it might not be land. It could be an idea, such as a screen play for a movie, or a famous song.

So all the brilliant, hard working people in 3rd world countries are not getting screwed by western capitalists, they are getting screwed by their own goverments which dont permit them clear title to their own property.

If you have some miracle idea that will change the world, and you only need a little money, nobody will lend it to you if you cannot provide them with some means of securing a loan. You cant use your car, or your computer, because these things can be moved or hidden, or the whole deal denied.

So that, in a nutshell, is why capitalism works in the west, but not anywhere else.

Capitalism is, as some people have pointed out, the free exchange of goods and services between consenting individuals.

no. that's trade and/or gifting and/or redistribution, not capitalism.

For some reason, I feel oddly compelled to sit this one out.

You're not alone, man. :p

Capitalism:

Industries, businesses, and stores run and owned by private citizens; free market economy; many ruling parties; supply and demand.

Communism:

Industries, businesses and stores run and owned by the state government; command economy; equality among economic policies; elimination of class; one ruling party

Communism:

Industries, businesses and stores run and owned by the state government; command economy; equality among economic policies; elimination of class; one ruling party

Er, that's Marxism. Communism in its true form is absence of the state itself; everything is run by the people, for the people.

Marxism is what we call "perverted Communism", or "bad Communism". It's not a good thing no matter what you call it.

Capitalism has yet to be achieved, as true capitalism is when everything is privately owned, and the state has nothing. Also with a free market.

no. that's trade and/or gifting and/or redistribution, not capitalism.

You're wrong. A gift economy doesn't involve conventional exchange in the sense that as far as I understand it, you're not supposed to attach value to a specific good or service and demand that much in return, you're expected to just give whatever and hope you get it back.

Correct me if I'm wrong. If I am wrong, laissez-faire capitalism is a form of gift economy, which I'm fairly sure is not the case.

Capitalism has yet to be achieved, as true capitalism is when everything is privately owned, and the state has nothing. Also with a free market.

Total economic anarchy isn't "true" capitalism, it's just extreme capitalism (Strictly speaking, your definition doesn't ensure against violent or fraudulent activity, so it's not really capitalism as most people understand it). Besides, the principle of the government leaving the economy alone can be applied in moderation and still be capitalism.

You're wrong. A gift economy doesn't involve conventional exchange in the sense that as far as I understand it, you're not supposed to attach value to a specific good or service and demand that much in return, you're expected to just give whatever and hope you get it back.

it's not a market exchange, it still involves an exchange nonetheless. as mauss had it, the giving of a gift creates an obligation to return. and in systems of generalized reciprocity, the item exchanged isn't the actual goods or services (though those things are being distributed through the system), but rather social bonds between the givers.

Er, that's Marxism. Communism in its true form is absence of the state itself; everything is run by the people, for the people.

Marxism is what we call "perverted Communism", or "bad Communism". It's not a good thing no matter what you call it.
If you're going to discuss Marx at least read him first. It was Marx who first used the phrase "the withering away of the state". You're thinking of Stalin.

no. that's trade and/or gifting and/or redistribution, not capitalism.

Yes trade and capitalism are neerly synonomous. Using capital rather thqan direct exchange changes little.

Gifting is not an exchange. A gift is given not exchanged for other goods or services.

Redistribution is the inverse of individuals exchanging goods and services of their own free will. Redistribution is the looting of goods and services by a group from an individual regardless of wether or not they consent in exchange for not doing violence upon him.

In response to the OP -

Capitalism is, as some people have pointed out, the free exchange of goods and services between consenting individuals.


That definition is a touch too general: in a post-revolutionary Marxist state, you would also see free exchange of goods and services between consenting individuals.

The kicker that needs to be included is the method of distribution. Something like this:

Capitalism (n.) A theory of economics noted for the view that the optimal distribution of goods in a society occurs when 1) supplies of a good are regulated by the demand imposed by an open market for goods, 2) all actors involved are rational and freely consenting in their actions, and 3) all parties act out of a sense of rational self-interest, using their power within the market to create more wealth for themselves. Historically, capitalism is noted primarily for its vast increase of production, due to specialization and mechanization of labor, over the earlier feudal system of wealth distribution.

It was 3) that you were missing most, as while Marxist states might follow 1) and 2), they would never follow 3).

Yes trade and capitalism are neerly synonomous.

no, they really really aren't. there has always been trade - at least as long as their have been modern humans, anyway. capitalism, on the other hand, first showed up quite recently.

Gifting is not an exchange. A gift is given not exchanged for other goods or services.

yes it is. people exchange gifts. in gift economies, people give with the expectation that their gift has created a social bond; an expectation which materially results in the social group also giving to you. gifts are all about reciprocity.

Redistribution is the inverse of individuals exchanging goods and services of their own free will. Redistribution is the looting of goods and services by a group from an individual regardless of wether or not they consent in exchange for not doing violence upon him.

not in traditional redistribution-based economies it isn't. at least, not necessarily. ever heard of the potlatch system?

So that, in a nutshell, is why capitalism works in the west, but not anywhere else.
ill agree to most of this post (see page 3) however your claim that the west have little/no intervention in private property is simply not true (although yes much less than other nations). in principle when your buy property in the 'western world' what your actually doing is purchasing the right to rent the land from a municipality or administrative region (see property taxes). also virtually every exchange is taxed, the amount in the west is simply less than the third world.

no, they really really aren't. there has always been trade - at least as long as their have been modern humans, anyway. capitalism, on the other hand, first showed up quite recently.

Currency as a means of exchange first appeared among the Phoenecians I beleive several millenia ago. Are you talking about the more recent observation of it by Smith? Smith was a Natural Philosopher like Newton. He did not 'invent'a system any more than one can 'invent' physics. He made observations on a pre-existing phenomena...

yes it is. people exchange gifts. in gift economies, people give with the expectation that their gift has created a social bond; an expectation which materially results in the social group also giving to you. gifts are all about reciprocity.

A micro-economy within and sustained by another economy hardly qualifies as relevant. I was responding to the word 'goft' in the sense that almoos tthe entire planet does. If you actually applied a gift economy as a stand alone system then the greediest would swiftly become the wealthiest OR you would eventually evolve into a barter economy.

not in traditional redistribution-based economies it isn't. at least, not necessarily. ever heard of the potlatch system?

Once again a micro-economy that cannot and does not exist outside of a real economy to sustain it. Say we have a little debate like this. I'll say zebras have stripes and you say well no silly there's this one albino zebra......

cannibalism

Currency as a means of exchange first appeared among the Phoenecians I beleive several millenia ago. Are you talking about the more recent observation of it by Smith? Smith was a Natural Philosopher like Newton. He did not 'invent'a system any more than one can 'invent' physics. He made observations on a pre-existing phenomena...

ok, it seems to me that you have missed some really basic things about capitalism and it's origins.

A micro-economy within and sustained by another economy hardly qualifies as relevant. I was responding to the word 'goft' in the sense that almoos tthe entire planet does. If you actually applied a gift economy as a stand alone system then the greediest would swiftly become the wealthiest OR you would eventually evolve into a barter economy.

Once again a micro-economy that cannot and does not exist outside of a real economy to sustain it.

um, this stuff is fairly basic economic anthropology. there is no shame in not being aware of it, but you should probably at least read up on it before dismissing it out of hand.

ok, it seems to me that you have missed some really basic things about capitalism and it's origins.

Not a bit of it. I simply do not take your (unstated but I could make a good guess you're pretty obvious) definition of the word capitalism.

Capitalism is taking an expensive restaurant with your lover, without paying restaurant tax. Buying expensive wine, without buying it at state liquor store. Getting crazy in the hotel room, without some perverted group of police offers watching you via cams.

And getting up the next day, in love, but moreso with a hangover. Get fired from your work, smile about it.

And nobody cares. Well they do, but they don't always show it, because nobody is forced to pay so many taxes in a way of a "smile" to profiteers who are sitting in groups praying how our society should hold each other's arms, even though someone is different (has smelly armpits).

Not a bit of it. I simply do not take your (unstated but I could make a good guess you're pretty obvious) definition of the word capitalism.

that's fine, but the only definitions you've offered are stupid to the point of being ridiculous. currency? trade?!


what do you think my definition of it is?

that's fine, but the only definitions you've offered are stupid to the point of being ridiculous. currency? trade?!


what do you think my definition of it is?

I did'nt mention currency or trade in my definition. Before you offer lessons or critiques learn to read.

Yes trade and capitalism are neerly synonomous. Using capital rather thqan direct exchange changes little.

Trade is a result of personal property/possessions, and every economic system in history has allowed for personal property, so trade exists with all economies.

Where capitalism is different than the other economies, is that it allows private individuals the ability to own those things that go into personal property/possessions.

So trade and capitalism are not synonymous, capitalism only expands the realm of legal trade.

Trade is a result of personal property/possessions, and every economic system in history has allowed for personal property, so trade exists with all economies.

Where capitalism is different than the other economies, is that it allows private individuals the ability to own those things that go into personal property/possessions.

So trade and capitalism are not synonymous, capitalism only expands the realm of legal trade.

I did say nearly. My origional definition is on page 2 I think post #47?

Nope sorry #27

Capitalism is when a dollar from a billionaire has the same value of a dollar from a group of starving children. :gundge:

Capitalism is when a dollar from a billionaire has the same value of a dollar from a group of starving children. :gundge:

I like that definition. Very insightful.

The point of capitalism is, specifically, to de-humanize trade.

Free trade, meaning uncoerced trade, is the mechanism by which capitalism
best operates.

Money, the score-card of capitalism, should be a neutral (natural) commodity
that has no interest in where it shouold flow, like water or gold.

Once money is misused by being directed by coersive force in any direction
(toward the wealthy or toward the poor) then it is being used as a weapon.

Money should not be a weapon, it should buy weapons. But weapons used
only to resist coercive force in trade, aka for reedom. "Freedom" is defined as
freedom from the coercive use of force in trade relationships.

-Iakeo

I like that definition. Very insightful.
The point of capitalism is, specifically, to de-humanize trade.
Free trade, meaning uncoerced trade, is the mechanism by which capitalism
best operates.
Money, the score-card of capitalism, should be a neutral (natural) commodity
that has no interest in where it shouold flow, like water or gold.
Best operates? Letting the rich get richer and the poor poorer? It does nothing but let nature follow its (cruel) flow. It's nice to be called "sheepish" (see other threads by this fool) by someone who doesn't even stand up against the non-will of nature.

Once money is misused by being directed by coersive force in any direction (toward the wealthy or toward the poor) then it is being used as a weapon.
Money should not be a weapon, it should buy weapons. But weapons used
only to resist coercive force in trade, aka for reedom. "Freedom" is defined as
freedom from the coercive use of force in trade relationships.-Iakeo
Yeah, there is no natural law by which we could observe that money tends to flow, if let free, toward the top... :rolleyes: Are you implying that we should fight this coercive force with capitalism? Or that you didn't know about it?

Communism:

Act III of Russian Nutcase Theatre with shows still playing in North Korea and various other failed states.

You do know that communism was arround long before Marx, and that Marxism is just one variant of the system? It failed not because it was communalist, but because it was statist. I'd argue that all statist systsms will end up the way the USSR did, no matter what economic model they fallow.

Libertarian Communism has worked in several examples, providing both the means to survival and growth, as well as great personal freedoms to the people living under it.

Paris Commune
Spanish Revolution
Ukraine after the fall of the Czar and before the rise of Stalin
Kronstant under the same time frame
Those Israeli olive picking commune thingies


Cybach']I would choose capitalism any day loking at that. Utopia my ass. Is the big bully thieving everyone and then giving the lunch money to his friends, and beating those who disagree. That is why I would never live in a communist State, the free will to decide what you want to become is gone. Bah Communism suxx, damn them fools and lazy poor people who support it :p

You are talking about statism, not communism.

I am neither a fool, nor a lazy poor person. Please try to stick the merits and flaws of the systems disgussed, not just baseless attacks, false assertions, and stupid assumtions about those that support the system you you have been indoctrinated to hate.

Saying communism is not possible because Stalin was a murderer is the same as saying capitalism is not possible because Ossama Ben Laden is a murderer or that vegetarism is not possible because Hitler was a murderer.

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
I like that definition. Very insightful.
The point of capitalism is, specifically, to de-humanize trade.
Free trade, meaning uncoerced trade, is the mechanism by which capitalism
best operates.
Money, the score-card of capitalism, should be a neutral (natural) commodity
that has no interest in where it shouold flow, like water or gold.

Best operates? Letting the rich get richer and the poor poorer? It does nothing but let nature follow its (cruel) flow. It's nice to be called "sheepish" (see other threads by this fool) by someone who doesn't even stand up against the non-will of nature.

Hell yes..! "The Rich" are those who are effective in creating wealth (which
results in prosperity for all). They should be rewarded.

"The Poor" are those who are not effective in creating wealth (which results
in crime and degradation of all). They should be punished, and their
punishment is the non-personal punishment of BEING POOR.

The flow of nature is simply "the flow of nature". It is not cruel. Cruelness
exists only if intention to harm exists, and that is a function of humans.

People are quite capable of helping as well as harming each other.

A life-form's (human's) job is to use the forces of nature to create a more
prosperous environment for itself and it's progeny.

I "stand up" to gravity every day, but I try to work WITH it, instead of railing
to the GODS that such a cruel inconvenience should be fought until
conquered..!



Originally Posted by Deiakeos
Once money is misused by being directed by coersive force in any direction (toward the wealthy or toward the poor) then it is being used as a weapon.
Money should not be a weapon, it should buy weapons. But weapons used
only to resist coercive force in trade, aka for reedom. "Freedom" is defined as
freedom from the coercive use of force in trade relationships.-Iakeo

Yeah, there is no natural law by which we could observe that money tends to flow, if let free, toward the top... Are you implying that we should fight this coercive force with capitalism? Or that you didn't know about it?

Are you better off than your great-great-great grandparents?

That is an illustration of the increase in wealth and the flow of money.

Capitalism does not "fight" anything. It is simply allowing trading partners to
trade for mutual benefit without coersion from any quarter.

Capitalism is simply free and fair (as described by the trading partners) trade.

The fact that those good at trading and creating wealth are rewarded for
their efforts is no comment on anything but the nature of wealth and work.


-Iakeo

Hell yes..! "The Rich" are those who are effective in creating wealth (which results in prosperity for all). They should be rewarded.
"The Poor" are those who are not effective in creating wealth (which results
in crime and degradation of all). They should be punished, and their
punishment is the non-personal punishment of BEING POOR.
Opportunity for all or closed castes... let me think about this one... :rolleyes:

The flow of nature is simply "the flow of nature". It is not cruel. Cruelness exists only if intention to harm exists, and that is a function of humans. People are quite capable of helping as well as harming each other.
A life-form's (human's) job is to use the forces of nature to create a more
prosperous environment for itself and it's progeny..
Cruel because you can beg it but it won't stop, cruel because you need to work to win it, and (in your words) "people are generally lazy about doing their work". Why do you want to take the word I've used out of context? I was explicitly referring to the nature of capitalism which is totally controlled by (wicked) humans.

I "stand up" to gravity every day, but I try to work WITH it, instead of railing to the GODS that such a cruel inconvenience should be fought until conquered..!.
Sheep. I've trained so hard until I could dunk (basketball) when I was still 17 years old, and I'm 6 feet tall (184cm). You think I'm railing by the gods? Where did you get that impression?

Are you better off than your great-great-great grandparents? That is an illustration of the increase in wealth and the flow of money..
..in a mixed economy guilty of so many crimes I don't care to enumerate.

Capitalism does not "fight" anything. It is simply allowing trading partners to trade for mutual benefit without coersion from any quarter.
Capitalism is simply free and fair (as described by the trading partners) trade.
The fact that those good at trading and creating wealth are rewarded for
their efforts is no comment on anything but the nature of wealth and work.
Without coersion? Are you deaf?

For some reason, I feel oddly compelled to sit this one out.

I have an unsatisfied urge to reply to the uneducated, insulting comments instead... but i think the above is smarter...

Capitalism Redux, as illustrated by DHomme
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/barcelona/capitalism.jpg

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
Hell yes..! "The Rich" are those who are effective in creating wealth (which results in prosperity for all). They should be rewarded.
"The Poor" are those who are not effective in creating wealth (which results
in crime and degradation of all). They should be punished, and their
punishment is the non-personal punishment of BEING POOR.

Opportunity for all or closed castes... let me think about this one...

The only alternative to capitalism is human directed control of wealth. I
simply prefer to NOT promote the human directioning of wealth, because
humans are too whimsical in their choices.

No system can be constructed that has any input from humans that is "free"
from human directing (obviously), but the least obnoxious is to allow value to
flow to where it is most appreciated.

"The poor" either stagnate (inpoverty) and become an issue for those who
don't like seeing it (much as a valve that needs replacing begs to be
replaced) who somehow try to "fix the problem", or they are allowed the
resources to "fix the problem" themselves through education and the
employ/support of those who can use what they have to offer in trade.

I personally think the bet way to fix the problem is through free education
and easy loaning practices for anyone with a good business plan.



Originally Posted by Deiakeos
The flow of nature is simply "the flow of nature". It is not cruel. Cruelness exists only if intention to harm exists, and that is a function of humans. People are quite capable of helping as well as harming each other.
A life-form's (human's) job is to use the forces of nature to create a more
prosperous environment for itself and it's progeny..

Cruel because you can beg it but it won't stop, cruel because you need to work to win it, and (in your words) "people are generally lazy about doing their work". Why do you want to take the word I've used out of context? I was explicitly referring to the nature of capitalism which is totally controlled by (wicked) humans.

Capitalism, as actual capitalism and not your perverse definition of it, is
simply the ability to trade with another in uncoerced value-for-value fashion.
Period.

If "work" is definitionally "cruel" then the universe is ubiquitously cruel to all
anti-entropic things (life) because that is what life not only has to deal with,
but has USED in constructive ways to create it's diversity and flourishing.

Life "FEEDS" off of your "cruelty" (which I define as "work") because without
it there would be no life. Life is the universe's reacion to entropy.

Life (us) must work (exploit the inequality gradients of the universe) to
continue to exist and create wealth (the diversity of forms and extent).
Capitalism (the exchange of value between to places of things that results in
both of them achieving a benefit) IS what nature does.

Natures mode of operation IS capitalistic. It's when the whims of humans (or
other "sentient beings") introduce coersion into the trade system
that "cruelty" is created.

Life CREATES wealth,.. it doens't merely redistribute it.



Originally Posted by Deiakeos
I "stand up" to gravity every day, but I try to work WITH it, instead of railing to the GODS that such a cruel inconvenience should be fought until conquered..!.

Sheep. I've trained so hard until I could dunk (basketball) when I was still 17 years old, and I'm 6 feet tall (184cm). You think I'm railing by the gods? Where did you get that impression?

If you complain about the cruelty of capitalism, try non-capitalism for a while
(or vastly lesser capitalism, as PURE capitalism is a near impossibility).

You "rail at the gods" by calling having to work, cruelty and unfair.

[quote]
[Quote]
Originally Posted by Deiakeos
Are you better off than your great-great-great grandparents? That is an illustration of the increase in wealth and the flow of money..

..in a mixed economy guilty of so many crimes I don't care to enumerate.

Oh yeah. I agree with you on the nastiness of a "mixed" economy, where
coersion is used,.. but that is it's distinction from actual capitalism.

If, on the whole, wealth is created and the majority of people are benefitted,
(ie progress) then however "impure" the system, it had a good measure of
wise utility.

And "economies" are not guilty of crimes, any more than "species" are guilty
of crimes. Crimes are commited by individuals as coercive trades
(transactions).



Originally Posted by Deiakeos
Capitalism does not "fight" anything. It is simply allowing trading partners to trade for mutual benefit without coersion from any quarter.
Capitalism is simply free and fair (as described by the trading partners) trade.
The fact that those good at trading and creating wealth are rewarded for
their efforts is no comment on anything but the nature of wealth and work.

Without coersion? Are you deaf?


Am I deaf about what?

Coersion is NOT a part of capitalism. It a part of thuggery.

I condemn thuggery.



And thuggery (as opposed to correct use of force to punish violators of the
free trade principle [capitalism]) is ALWAYS the method of choice of the anti-
capitalist,.. simply because they have no choice as it's the only choice left to
them of the two choices: persuasion or violence.

You can not convince someone who engages in free uncoerced trade
(capitalism) that their trade is bad. And the anti-capitalist's real goal is
always to get more value from a trade than their trading partner is willing to
give them,.. which invariably means violence must be used.


-Iakeo

Capitalism Redux, as illustrated by DHomme
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/barcelona/capitalism.jpg

That's not capitalism.

That's thugism (feudalism, etc).

If you insist on calling that capitalism, I would suggest you proclaim it loudly
and as descriptively as possible so people know that that thing is indeed evil.

But you'd be surprised with how many people both agree with your
assessment that it's evil AND disagree with your calling that thing capitalism.

Condemn things for what they are in their behavior, not in their label.

(..I'd REALLY like to add "..you moronic leftist stooge juvenile dipshit!" to the
end of that last sentence,.. but that would be a silly unnecessary
provocation and quite probably not very accurate.)


-Iakeo :)

That's not capitalism.

That's thugism (feudalism, etc).

If you insist on calling that capitalism, I would suggest you proclaim it loudly
and as descriptively as possible so people know that that thing is indeed evil.

But you'd be surprised with how many people both agree with your
assessment that it's evil AND disagree with your calling that thing capitalism.

Condemn things for what they are in their behavior, not in their label.

(..I'd REALLY like to add "..you moronic leftist stooge juvenile dipshit!" to the
end of that last sentence,.. but that would be a silly unnecessary
provocation and quite probably not very accurate.)


-Iakeo :)

Oh, I don't believe it's capitalism. But to people like DHomme, it most certainly is.

Oh, I don't believe it's capitalism. But to people like DHomme, it most certainly is.

Well there you go. A good test for irrationally held and furvently acted upon
stupidity, then, has been discovered.

Perhaps this test should be used to marginalize this idiotic contingent, so
that we can get on with the work of making the world a better place through
more rational thinking.

Those who would say that feudalism is capitalism have the goal of using the
masses (their enthralled sheep) to get more from the world than they
deserve by respectful and fair trade with it.

What does that actually identify them as?


-Iakeo

I have a question for you free market folk:

How does a free market prevent a situation like the one in the US back in the day, with widespread abuse of workers and the like? How do you stop capitalism from turning into thugery?

You say that that situation was not capitalism, then what non-capitalist factors lead it to arise?



By the way, fedualism is the system of kings, lords, and knights trading land in exchange for fealty. So really, that doesn't describe the pyrimid at all.

Here are the stock-standard classic examples I give to everyone in semi-pratical terms.

Capitalism:
Person A owns a block of land. They* divide that block of land into four sections. They lease these Sections to Persons B, C & D who work the land and pay portion of profit from the land to Person A.

Communism:
The State owns a block of land. Persons A, B, C & D all work the land and eqaully share in the profit.

.

Anarchism:
You can't like, OWN a block of land, man.:)

The only alternative to capitalism is human directed control of wealth. I simply prefer to NOT promote the human directioning of wealth, because humans are too whimsical in their choices.
No system can be constructed that has any input from humans that is "free"
from human directing (obviously), but the least obnoxious is to allow value to
flow to where it is most appreciated.
Human should direct their wealth however they want, but you prefer to NOT promote the human directioning of wealth? Is that what you're saying? :rolleyes:
Where do you think that one dollar is most appreciated?

"The poor" either stagnate (inpoverty) and become an issue for those who don't like seeing it (much as a valve that needs replacing begs to be replaced) who somehow try to "fix the problem", or they are allowed the resources to "fix the problem" themselves through education and the employ/support of those who can use what they have to offer in trade.
I personally think the best way to fix the problem is through free education
and easy loaning practices for anyone with a good business plan.
Free education meaning what? That you'd pay taxes on trades? If that's the case I'm all for capitalism.

Capitalism, as actual capitalism and not your perverse definition of it, is simply the ability to trade with another in uncoerced value-for-value fashion. Period.
Doh! How do you plan to pay for free education then?

You "rail at the gods" by calling having to work, cruelty and unfair.
Yeah, working under capitalism without a chance to improve your position out of wage slavery is unfair, but I rail at humans more often.

I have a question for you free market folk:

How does a free market prevent a situation like the one in the US back in the day, with widespread abuse of workers and the like? How do you stop capitalism from turning into thugery?

Laws. And an agency to enforce punishment for ANY coercive trade.

The trade (transaction) between a slave worker (coerced and maltreated)
and a slaver boss (coercive and maltreating) is NOT a capitalist transaction
(trade).

It is simply thuggery.

The way that thuggery is checked is to make it more uncomfortable for the
thug to be a thug than to be a capitalist boss, who comes to an agreement
with a worker that is maximally beneficial to BOTH parties.

That is done by the enforcement of laws that heavily punish such coersive
behavior.


You say that that situation was not capitalism, then what non-capitalist factors lead it to arise?

The anti-capitalistic notion of "getting more out of a trade than your partner
is willing to give you" (which translates to more than you deserve).

It's not a factor of capitalism,.. it's a factor of human nature. Laziness
and "not wanting to work for it" are part of human nature.

The problem is that that particular part is not useful in developing a working
society, and while you can't CHANGE human nature, you can account for it
(treat it as a reality) and put counter-incentives (non-coercive and coercive)
in place to minimize it's effects.

This is also the way to combat terrorism, as terrorism is nothng more than
thuggery.


By the way, fedualism is the system of kings, lords, and knights trading land in exchange for fealty. So really, that doesn't describe the pyrimid at all.

Hmmm,.. what I saw in that graphic:

*) Rulers (Kings)
*) Politicians (Nobles)
*) Soldiers (Knights)
*) The Rich (Landowners/Church)
*) Serfs (workers) (Peasants: those who actually feed everyone)

You don't see feudalism in that?


-Iakeo

As i'm new... I'm trying to keep out of raging battles - but this is one that interests me a lot.

Firstly: A Teaspoon award goes to all trolls who've been stirring trouble with insulting (even if comical remarks). That means you're a nuisance - but rather insignificant. Hence you have been awarded a teaspoon - as opposed to a ladle (which is bigger - and stirs more).

Secondly: To counteract my extreme boredom i read through the entire topic - quite a feat. And from the intelligent posters, and my own thoughts i seem to gather the following ideas:

"Capitalism" in its true, raw form is the consentual exchange of property between parties. Where each item of property is considered more, or equally valuable to their respectful new owners.

For example - the money I pay for shoes at a shoe store is more valuable to the store - as they have many, but the shoes are equally as valuable to me (because i want them) as the money i paid in exchange.

In terms of employment my hours of labour are equally valuable to the money I am paid (if not - it is technically slave labour or unconsentual). The money i am paid is less valuable to the employer when compared to my labour.

However, when capitalism is personified, or adopted by humans - the system is taken to extremes, or perverted. Whereby, a party looking for more than their fair share exploits the system in place - by driving their "price" higher, and monopolising, and/or the other party requires their "item" more. Thus my money is more valuable than shoes - but i still want them. The problem is i have no other method of obtaining those shoes.

The same problem occurs in employment, where my hours of labour are worth more than my wage (or i am simply looking for a pay rise).

This is where the idea of a free market, and as some people believe, another aspect of the capitalist ideal comes into play - where a 3rd party can sell me the shoes, or the employer can hire someone else who is willing to work for less.

This produces competition - which is healthy for us as consumers. - but not as healthy for a producer (including the employee) - It is healthy for the 3rd shoe store, and for the new employee - who recieves a wage - but unhealthy for the 1st store as it's business is halved, and unhealthy for me as i loose my job.

"Communism" also in it's true, unperverted form, means that all parties concerned - 1st, 2nd and 3rd would be recieving an equal amount of pay for their property.

The flaws are that us, as humans, have a "selfish" attitude (perhaps through a natural process) - that means we strive only for ourselves. As a species this can be seen through out parasitic effect on the earth, and as individuals, or groups through corporations exploiting workers, or corrupt officials.

Communism would only work when each, and every person WANTS, and is MOTIVATED to strive for the greater good of society as a whole - and also feels a sense of complete equality. Doctors feel that their labour is just as important as the janitors, and that the engineer who built his car is just as important as the person who washes it.

We desire recognition - and superiority - and so we feel by acheiving academic success or applying ourselves to "skilled" jobs we deserve acknowledgement and higher pay. This same principle applies to companies. If shoe store 2 stood to gain the same amount as shoe store 1 - why would it bother setting one up at all? The owner of the shoe store would much rather type a few letters a month if he would gain nothing from the extra effort of running the second store.

This lack of incentive or motivation isn't necessarily a flaw in the Communist Ideal, but in the human psyche - it could be argued. But the only reason for an Ideal is to create a Utopia for Humans - so it can also be argued it is a flaw in Communism. It is also the reason we have seen state-run communist countries or communist dictatorships. To enforce the idea of communism, and thrive as a country without allowing for a lack of motivation.

This has led to the global defamation of Communist ideals - and corrupt rulers - such as Stalin. The need to ensure all goes well also creates a lack of freedom - such as the freedom to choose what you become, or who you vote for. If everyone got a choice to become Doctors, or Bankers, how would the state get it's sewers cleaned, or its borders defended? How would a communist state turn communist if it allowed a selection of different governments every X years?

This is the second flaw, brought on by the first - which both together have led to the fall of the communist states - simply because they couldn't apply true communism - whether it is because of power hungry rulers, low morale or the peoples attitudes. These "flaws" are also the reason that capitalist-based societies exist.

For both ideas to work in their true form - they would require no external presence.

IE: Only "traders" should be present in a capitalist system, for it to be truely fair. Hence a government should not prosper from the trade (though regulations would have to be in place to ensure that the system is not perverted.

Only a community should be present in a true communist society, where the people are all equal and there is an equal reperesentation - each allowed to have an input. There would be no heirarchy, no government, no dictator.

I am Anarcho-Communist - with extremely strong personal views - however I can see where the limitations are. I hope they can be overcome - as i'm also an idealist.

Thankyou for your time.

Hmmm,.. what I saw in that graphic:

*) Rulers (Kings)
*) Politicians (Nobles)
*) Soldiers (Knights)
*) The Rich (Landowners/Church)
*) Serfs (workers) (Peasants: those who actually feed everyone)

You don't see feudalism in that?


-Iakeo

You saw things analogous to kings, nobles, et cetera, but the relationship isn't based on land. Like I said, it is somewhat analogous to feudalism, but not the same thing. Feudalism is a very specific term.

But we're just argueing semantics here.

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
The only alternative to capitalism is human directed control of wealth. I simply prefer to NOT promote the human directioning of wealth, because humans are too whimsical in their choices.
No system can be constructed that has any input from humans that is "free"
from human directing (obviously), but the least obnoxious is to allow value to
flow to where it is most appreciated.

Human should direct their wealth however they want, but you prefer to NOT promote the human directioning of wealth? Is that what you're saying?
Where do you think that one dollar is most appreciated?

Economies should NOT be directed by humans.

Money can ONLY be directed by humans.

See the difference?

Money is merely a measure of the ability to DO so something. It is an enabler
of action.

Those who CREATE more money have proved that they can create wealth (in
terms of useful stuff) for the people that they trade with.

The ability of a PERSON to create money is ATTRACTIVE to others who would
like to have some of that money, as well as those who would like to find out
how that PERSON created that money.

The poor "eat" their money. The rich "grow" their money. Who has excess
created money to trade with others?

Only the rich. Who appreciates ("makes more of") their money?

The rich, by definition.



Originally Posted by Deiakeos
"The poor" either stagnate (in poverty) and become an issue for those who don't like seeing it (much as a valve that needs replacing begs to be replaced) who somehow try to "fix the problem", or they are allowed the resources to "fix the problem" themselves through education and the employ/support of those who can use what they have to offer in trade.
I personally think the best way to fix the problem is through free education
and easy loaning practices for anyone with a good business plan.

Free education meaning what? That you'd pay taxes on trades? If that's the case I'm all for capitalism.

Exactly, actually. Taxes are to be used ONLY in minimizing coercive trades,
and if education would make it easier for people to trade non-coercively (as
educated knowers of the wisdom of doing so) instead of trading coercively
(crime) then education would of necessity be payed for by taxes.

But taxation MUST be kept as low as possible to keep the money where it
needs to be (moving between traders) as opposed to spilled on the floor and
allowed to spoil (in service to non-traders, ie the government).

The opportunity to make money (create wealth) by educating others would
soon send more money to into education than the taxes collected for that
purpose, and the government could then get out of the education biz all
together (which it would be MANDATED to do, as ANY taxation money that
can be replaced with private money must be so done).



Originally Posted by Deiakeos
Capitalism, as actual capitalism and not your perverse definition of it, is simply the ability to trade with another in uncoerced value-for-value fashion. Period.

Doh! How do you plan to pay for free education then?

Taxes, and through the self interest of those who see the wisdom (which is
blindingly obvious) that educating people and then recouping your investment
in them with a margin of profit such that BOTH parties are happy with the
deal is a good idea!



Originally Posted by Deiakeos
You "rail at the gods" by calling having to work, cruelty and unfair.

Yeah, working under capitalism without a chance to improve your position out of wage slavery is unfair, but I rail at humans more often.

There you go..!!

In a capitalist society there can be no real "wage slavery" other than what
you accept. You CHOOSE to be a slave in a capitalist society.

You have that choice. But in no other society do you have the choice NOT to
be a slave.

Glad to have you on our side, comrad..!! :)


-Iakeo

That's not capitalism.

That's thugism (feudalism, etc).

no, it's capitalism, at least in one form. it certainly isn't feudalism.

-Iakeo

Judging by your reply - you're Anarchist-Capitalist. Or atleast your theory behind capitalism is. Am i right?

That in a true capitalist system - only traders should be present.

Hmmm,.. what I saw in that graphic:

*) Rulers (Kings)
*) Politicians (Nobles)
*) Soldiers (Knights)
*) The Rich (Landowners/Church)
*) Serfs (workers) (Peasants: those who actually feed everyone)

You don't see feudalism in that?

firstly, you didn't actually see what was in the picture if you listed politicians seperate from rulers.

secondly, if you see 'feudalism' in that, then you have to see 'feudalism' in any class society. such as the one you currently live in.

This produces competition - which is healthy for us as consumers. - but not as healthy for a producer (including the employee) - It is healthy for the 3rd shoe store, and for the new employee - who recieves a wage - but unhealthy for the 1st store as it's business is halved, and unhealthy for me as i loose my job.
Until Micro$oft eventually also buys the 3rd shoe store and the competition is gone... Then we'll achieve true communism, yay!

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
Hmmm,.. what I saw in that graphic:

*) Rulers (Kings)
*) Politicians (Nobles)
*) Soldiers (Knights)
*) The Rich (Landowners/Church)
*) Serfs (workers) (Peasants: those who actually feed everyone)

You don't see feudalism in that?

-Iakeo

You saw things analogous to kings, nobles, et cetera, but the relationship isn't based on land. Like I said, it is somewhat analogous to feudalism, but not the same thing. Feudalism is a very specific term.

But we're just argueing semantics here.

The relationship is based on a "thing of value", be it land or gold.

I COULD argue that since the "people of the land" (the workers and
agricultural folk in the graphic) are what generate the actual "stuff" of which
everyone else is trading (in the form of money), that the graphic still holds
as "feudalism" because the "higher" classes are still trading the products of
the land, just as the "real" feudal folks traded, not the dirt and dung, but the
produce.

Actually, I would contend that that graphic is REALLY a 19th century image
of actual feudalism applied to the class categories of the time.

Yes,.. we are arguing semantics,.. but when presented by the
semantic "weirdness" of this old graphic as a representation of something this
it obviously is not,.. and yet people STILL can't see how obviously wrong
that equation is, DEMANDS that we discuss the semantics of what we each
seem to percieve in the graphic so we can reconcile those different
perceptions.

So,.. yeah,.. it's semantics,.. but it's also a fundamental reason why some
people can unjustifiably hurl stones at a great concept like capitalism. They
purposefully or not purposefully convince people to throw stones at the
wrong thing.

-Iakeo

no, it's capitalism, at least in one form. it certainly isn't feudalism.

You I shall ignore.

Do keep talking though, as fools do a much better job of showing their
foolishness than I every could.


-Iakeo

Until Micro$oft eventually also buys the 3rd shoe store and the competition is gone... Then we'll achieve true communism, yay!

Yes... I guess! Only Microsoft would be made up of the entire country/community... and not Bill Gates.

-Iakeo

Judging by your reply - you're Anarchist-Capitalist. Or atleast your theory behind capitalism is. Am i right?

That in a true capitalist system - only traders should be present.

Only traders EXIST, because we all must live from our trades.

We are all by definition traders. There simply is NO other "class". Period.

Anarchism is an illusion. I am simply a free market capitalist, period.
Government's role is one simple rule: "Punish and de-incentivize all non-free
trades, and find a way to minimize taxes for the enforcement of this rule.


-Iakeo

Yes... I guess! Only Microsoft would be made up of the entire country/community... and not Bill Gates.
Comrade Joseph Gates would not be the magnificent CEO of our corporation? You aren't planning a coup, are you? :p

it's not feudalism, because feudalism has a spacific definition, which is not that.

In feudalism, a king owns everything, but he gives away peices of land in exchange for fealty and military service. The dude who gets land from the king then does the same with peices of his land. And so forth untill someone decides he doesn't have enough land to give away.

Economies should NOT be directed by humans.
Money can ONLY be directed by humans.
See the difference?
As in: cars should NOT be directed by humans.
Steering wheels can ONLY be directed by humans.
Yeah I see the difference, I also see one big leap in logic coming...

Exactly, actually. Taxes are to be used ONLY in minimizing coercive trades, and if education would make it easier for people to trade non-coercively (as educated knowers of the wisdom of doing so) instead of trading coercively (crime) then education would of necessity be payed for by taxes.(snip)
Would it also justify welfare?

There you go..!! In a capitalist society there can be no real "wage slavery" other than what you accept. You CHOOSE to be a slave in a capitalist society. You have that choice. But in no other society do you have the choice NOT to be a slave. Glad to have you on our side, comrad..!! :)
I'll take you endorse welfare after this.
And economic regulations such as work hours, anti-trust and minimum wage.
What else am I missing?

it's not feudalism, because feudalism has a spacific definition, which is not that.

In feudalism, a king owns everything, but he gives away peices of land in exchange for fealty and military service. The dude who gets land from the king then does the same with peices of his land. And so forth untill someone decides he doesn't have enough land to give away.

I did goof on the graphic in that the second tier is the clergy. Oops. :)

The graphic is a tiered arrangement of "classes" who are oppressive over the next lower level.

You are probably right about the specific non-feudalism of the graphic.

What I'm concerned with is the tiered oppression aspect of the
representation. And that was my point. NOT that that picture was feudalism,
but that it wasn't capitalism.

It's a picture of thuggism, which I think we can all agree on.

Thanks for making that clear to me! :)


-Iakeo

Aye, we agree that the graphic is thugism, and of tiered opression.

We are in agreement, hazza!

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
Economies should NOT be directed by humans.
Money can ONLY be directed by humans.
See the difference?

As in: cars should NOT be directed by humans.
Steering wheels can ONLY be directed by humans.
Yeah I see the difference, I also see one big leap in logic coming...

No. Your analogy is ill fitting.



Originally Posted by Deiakeos
Exactly, actually. Taxes are to be used ONLY in minimizing coercive trades, and if education would make it easier for people to trade non-coercively (as educated knowers of the wisdom of doing so) instead of trading coercively (crime) then education would of necessity be payed for by taxes.(snip)

Would it also justify welfare?

If "welfare" makes people more likely to trade as opposed to steal.

But once people are capable of trading, they have no further need for "welfare", and the flow of money is eliminated.



Originally Posted by Deiakeos
There you go..!! In a capitalist society there can be no real "wage slavery" other than what you accept. You CHOOSE to be a slave in a capitalist society. You have that choice. But in no other society do you have the choice NOT to be a slave. Glad to have you on our side, comrad..!!

I'll take you endorse welfare after this.
And economic regulations such as work hours, anti-trust and minimum wage.
What else am I missing?

Why?

Once again,.. the ONLY rule governement is to follow is to punish and de-incentivize coercive trade.

Work hours shuold be satisfactory to both employer and employee.
Wage should be likewise.

NO TRADE should be allowed to include any coersion.

How do you enforce this?

STRONG POLICE.

Yes,.. I'm for a free trade police state, where the police have a single mission: to stomp on coercive traders everywhere within the "state".

(( And, in fact, anywhere that anyone trades WITH the "state". ))

-Iakeo

It's amazing how many people seem to think capitalism is a system of government.

And you know, feudalism sounds to me like a lot more like communism. In communism, the state (or 'the people' or 'the workers' or whatever) owns all theoretically, and parcels bits and pieces out to people, supposedly as much as they deserve. In feudalism, the state (the monarch or lord) owns all theoretically, and parcels bits and pieces out to people, supposedly as much as they deserve.

Communism just replaces the aristocracy with the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and multiplies the amount of self-righteousness by about ten.

It's amazing how many people seem to think capitalism is a system of government.

And you know, feudalism sounds to me like a lot more like communism. In communism, the state (or 'the people' or 'the workers' or whatever) owns all theoretically, and parcels bits and pieces out to people, supposedly as much as they deserve. In feudalism, the state (the monarch or lord) owns all theoretically, and parcels bits and pieces out to people, supposedly as much as they deserve.

Communism just replaces the aristocracy with the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and multiplies the amount of self-righteousness by about ten.

You point out how people mistake capitalism for a system of government, but then make the same mistake with communism.

Your discription was of state communism. Spacifically, Marxism.

In feudalism, the king doesn't parcel out land based on how much poeple deserve. He trades with them, how much service can I get from this guy for how much land?

The graphic is a tiered arrangement of "classes" who are oppressive over the next lower level.

incorrect. in the picture every tier above the bottom one is supported by pillars. only on the bottom do people themselves bear the load.

You point out how people mistake capitalism for a system of government, but then make the same mistake with communism.

Your discription was of state communism. Spacifically, Marxism.

"State communism" is communism. I wasn't being erroneous, unless you're one of those purists who insists the only kind of communism is the purely utopian ideal.

But you're right, communism isn't just a form of government. It's an economic system, a social system, a philosophy and religion all at once.

In feudalism, the king doesn't parcel out land based on how much poeple deserve. He trades with them, how much service can I get from this guy for how much land?

Eh. Not really. The King might have a useless brother but he'll name him Duke anyway. Because being related to him, he 'deserves' it. That's what "deserves" mean, it means what the person in power - the state, the communists, or the king - estimates it to mean.

It's amazing how many people seem to think capitalism is a system of government.

and who would that be?

me thinks you mistake the argument that capitalism is a particular state instituted and backed system for an argument that capitalism is a system of government.

"State communism" is communism.

dolphins are mammals
humans are mammals
therefore dolphins are humans

and who would that be?

me thinks you mistake the argument that capitalism is a particular state instituted and backed system for an argument that capitalism is a system of government.

No, I've seen people describe it as a form of government or political structure, to be directly compared with "democracy" or "monarchy" etc. I'd be surprised if you haven't.

"State communism" is communism. I wasn't being erroneous, unless you're one of those purists who insists the only kind of communism is the purely utopian ideal.

dolphins are mammals
humans are mammals
therefore dolphins are humans

Exactly

Yes, state communism is communism, as in ararcho-communism, or libertarian communism. You decry those who say that only libertarian communism is communism, I decry those who say only state communism is communism. Both groups are wrong, because both forms of communism are still communism. Are we in agreement on this?



Eh. Not really. The King might have a useless brother but he'll name him Duke anyway. Because being related to him, he 'deserves' it. That's what "deserves" mean, it means what the person in power - the state, the communists, or the king - estimates it to mean.

I see now what you mean by "deserves." Personally, I'd term it "what can the king get from it" or "according to the king's whims," but we're talking about the same thing. Who the king thinks "deserves" it.

I often wonder if capitalism is really that useful of a term. If you ask me (and plenty of other socialists), the state "socialism" of the USSR had more in common with capitalism than with real socialism.

Exactly

Yes, state communism is communism, as in ararcho-communism, or libertarian communism. You decry those who say that only libertarian communism is communism, I decry those who say only state communism is communism. Both groups are wrong, because both forms of communism are still communism. Are we in agreement on this?

Yeah, any type of communism is communism.

Though generally when I talk of it, I mean those forms of communism which came about or were implemented by communist parties in major nations of the 20th century.


I see now what you mean by "deserves." Personally, I'd term it "what can the king get from it" or "according to the king's whims," but we're talking about the same thing. Who the king thinks "deserves" it.

Yeah, we can all be skeptical about whether who the King thinks 'deserves' land or rank really does deserve it... I just happen also to be skeptical regarding anti-capitalists when they start talking about who 'deserves' what.

No, I've seen people describe it as a form of government or political structure, to be directly compared with "democracy" or "monarchy" etc. I'd be surprised if you haven't.

well, i've seen it as a rightwing gloss - when some people say 'democracy' they mean 'capitalism' - but i don't know that i've seen listed as a seperate form of government.

well, i've seen it as a rightwing gloss - when some people say 'democracy' they mean 'capitalism' - but i don't know that i've seen listed as a seperate form of government.

Ayn Rand classifies it as one.

If "welfare" makes people more likely to trade as opposed to steal.
But once people are capable of trading, they have no further need for "welfare", and the flow of money is eliminated.
In your dreams, but hey, good one.

Why? Once again,.. the ONLY rule governement is to follow is to punish and de-incentivize coercive trade. Work hours shuold be satisfactory to both employer and employee. Wage should be likewise. NO TRADE should be allowed to include any coersion. How do you enforce this? STRONG POLICE.
Yes,.. I'm for a free trade police state, where the police have a single mission: to stomp on coercive traders everywhere within the "state".
((And, in fact, anywhere that anyone trades WITH the "state".))
I see good stuff here, nothing to object.

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
The graphic is a tiered arrangement of "classes" who are oppressive over the next lower level.

incorrect. in the picture every tier above the bottom one is supported by pillars. only on the bottom do people themselves bear the load.

You're correct of course.

I must apologize for my addleheadedness, as I think I was having a low-
bloodsugar reaction at the time.

The picture is irrelevent, though, to me as a representation of capitalism, per
se, as it is a view of mixed-economy-pseudocapitalism by someone who
doesn't like "capitalism" (the simple fair-trade non-coercive transaction model
which he's never experienced) because he's only seen "capitalism" (the mixed-
economy coercive model that he has experienced).

So we really have no argument. Unless substituting "bad" capitalism
for "good" capitalism is what you wish to do, which is in my view an evil thing
to do.

(( Much as communists/socialists would insist the substituting "bad" socialism
for "good" socialism" is an evil. ))

-Iakeo

Boy Ayn Rand is popular today eh?


_____________________

I think the United States has acheived the pinacle of capitalism. (But I also beleive they've just started a decline which will result in the third great dark age of western civilisation.... so what do I know?)

If "welfare" makes people more likely to trade as opposed to steal.
But once people are capable of trading, they have no further need for "welfare", and the flow of money is eliminated.

In your dreams, but hey, good one.

The idea is that the state should have as it's basic/singular "social
manipulation" practice to: "TEACH PEOPLE TO FISH, NOT GIVE THEM FISH".

When it is made obvious that helping people to "learn fishing" is a profitable
enterprise, then the state gets out of the business immediately. Period.



Why? Once again,.. the ONLY rule governement is to follow is to punish and de-incentivize coercive trade. Work hours shuold be satisfactory to both employer and employee. Wage should be likewise. NO TRADE should be allowed to include any coersion. How do you enforce this? STRONG POLICE.
Yes,.. I'm for a free trade police state, where the police have a single mission: to stomp on coercive traders everywhere within the "state".
((And, in fact, anywhere that anyone trades WITH the "state".))

I see good stuff here, nothing to object.


Thanks. Just common sense really. It is quite startling how the simple use of
the word "police" will rile up some people though.

Although, it didn't seem to do that much in this thread, which I find VERY
interesting!

Is NS becoming more right (correct) wing these days..!?


-Iakeo

Originally Posted by Free Soviets
well, i've seen it as a rightwing gloss - when some people say 'democracy' they mean 'capitalism' - but i don't know that i've seen listed as a seperate form of government.

Ayn Rand classifies it as one.

Really!? Are you sure of that?

Capitalism is merely a form of human transaction, not a "governing" method or
principle.

What is "governed" in capitalism?

Who "governs" in capitalism?

Enlighten me, please.


-Iakeo

Really!? Are you sure of that?

Capitalism is merely a form of human transaction, not a "governing" method or
principle.

What is "governed" in capitalism?

Who "governs" in capitalism?

Enlighten me, please.


-Iakeo

I never said I agree, so back off with the superiority complex. It's getting old.

I realise perfictly well that capitalism is not a form of government. The person's post simply raised my memory of a time Ayn Rand summerised Objectivism in one word in each catigory, and the word under government was "capitalism."

Boy Ayn Rand is popular today eh?

Her stuff is interesting. Not her fiction, her nonfiction. Her fiction is just her non-fiction with characters, and most of the time reads like a poorly put together essay, as it is an essay structured as a novel.

Not that nessicarily agree with her views, I just find them interesting and worth study.



[QUOTE=UnogalI think the United States has acheived the pinacle of capitalism. (But I also beleive they've just started a decline which will result in the third great dark age of western civilisation.... so what do I know?)[/QUOTE]

Ha! The US achieved the pinicle of capitalism? Corperate Welfare, federal reserve, farm policy, massivly intrusive strong central government. The US is a corrupted form of government that keeps power and wealth concentrated in a ridgidly structured pyrimid, and keeps money flowing up. Adam Smith would have a few things to say about US "capitalism."

Capitalism is like a big game of Monopoly--eventually a couple people end up with all the money and everyone else is either broke or in jail.

If you look at the pyramid of capitalism upside down, reminds closely of dante's inferno. Ohh the implications...

If you look at the pyramid of capitalism upside down, reminds closely of dante's inferno. Ohh the implications...
No, there are no implicatications. You are inferring something based on your, apparent, belief that Hell is filled with people who stand on their heads, and that each layer is wider than the one below it until you reach the center: an upside down bag of money that hovers in the air for no apparent reason.

capitalism. capital = money. moneyism. ha!

well, i define it thus: it's a state of being in which there's a gadget for every single action you could possibly fathom. valentine's day consists of aisles and aisles in every store being stuffed with *crap* of every sort and dimension imaginable, starting in the stores the day after christmas. every holiday you're expected to spend your entire year's paycheck on *crap.* and that *crap* is readily available wherever you may go.. but there's also *GOOD Crap!!* capitalism means that whatever you dream, you can buy.. because chances are it exists. we all have the chance to make ourselves wealthy by tapping into the selfsame insanity. ..but we may end up losing track of the things in life that *actually* matter. :p

Vegetarianistica']capitalism. capital = money. moneyism. ha!

well, i define it thus: it's a state of being in which there's a gadget for every single action you could possibly fathom. valentine's day consists of aisles and aisles in every store being stuffed with *crap* of every sort and dimension imaginable, starting in the stores the day after christmas. every holiday you're expected to spend your entire year's paycheck on *crap.* and that *crap* is readily available wherever you may go.. but there's also *GOOD Crap!!* capitalism means that whatever you dream, you can buy.. because chances are it exists. we all have the chance to make ourselves wealthy by tapping into the selfsame insanity. ..but we may end up losing track of the things in life that *actually* matter. :p

Yes comrades! In the Socialist Republic, all of this worthless crap will be shared EQUALLY!!!!
*gesticulates forcefully and falls of soapbox*

Yes comrades! In the Socialist Republic, all of this worthless crap will be shared EQUALLY!!!!
*gesticulates forcefully and falls of soapbox*
*seizes soap box to be used for the good of the populat*
Wahoo!!

*seizes soap box to be used for the good of the populat*
Wahoo!!

*reeducates Fiddlebottoms using a hacksaw, a pair of tweezers and a small rock-hopper penguin called Derik*

*seizes soap box to be used for the good of the populat* Wahoo!!

Viva the Proles!

*reeducates Fiddlebottoms using a hacksaw, a pair of tweezers and a small rock-hopper penguin called Derik*
I am H N Fiddlebottoms VIII, and Randomlittleisland has shown me the error in my ways. It was wrong to try and exploit his weakness and celebrated, I should have exploited his weakness and ran like Hell, THEN celebrated when I was at a safe distance.

I am H N Fiddlebottoms VIII, and Randomlittleisland has shown me the error in my ways. It was wrong to try and exploit his weakness and celebrated, I should have exploited his weakness and ran like Hell, THEN celebrated when I was at a safe distance.

*sigh*

It looks like he's a stubborn one.

*unleashes a second rock-hopper penguin called Cyril*

*sigh*

It looks like he's a stubborn one.

*unleashes a second rock-hopper penguin called Cyril*
*takes advantage of Random's distraction to steal his wallet*
HACHACHA!
*runs like Hell*

*takes advantage of Random's distraction to steal his wallet*
HACHACHA!
*runs like Hell*

Well at least your reeducation has taught you something.

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
Really!? Are you sure of that?

Capitalism is merely a form of human transaction, not a "governing" method or
principle.

What is "governed" in capitalism?

Who "governs" in capitalism?

Enlighten me, please.


-Iakeo


I never said I agree, so back off with the superiority complex. It's getting old.

What superiority complex? :)

I simply asked a couple of questions. Does asking questions qualify as a
behavior that you find "getting old"? If so, naught naughty on you...!

I realize we probably agree on these issues, and don't actually have anything
to fight about, and, in fact I don't mind getting "scrappy" with you over our
little side-issue of you thinking I've got a superiority complex thing going.

I like a little "bite" from my conversation partners, if you know what I
mean. :) Just like I like mexican food. Spicy! Pass me the habanero sauce!


I realise perfictly well that capitalism is not a form of government. The person's post simply raised my memory of a time Ayn Rand summerised Objectivism in one word in each catigory, and the word under government was "capitalism."


And I agree that "real" capitalism is indeed the "Unknown Ideal".

BUT,... any group working WITHIN the bounds of even a polluted form of
capitalism is preferable to ANY group working with any form of human
transaction other than capitalism.

..which I imagine you'd buy, as it were, from the tiny amount I know about
you from your words. :)


-Iakeo

Capitalism is like a big game of Monopoly--eventually a couple people end up with all the money and everyone else is either broke or in jail.

Do you have ANY money?

If so, then "ALL THE MONEY" ending up with "a couple of people" is not
correct.

Are you in jail?

Why not?

(( Sometimes answers to simple questions can be SO informative. Please take
the time to answer my ridiculously simple questions. ))


-Iakeo

Do you have ANY money?
If so, then "ALL THE MONEY" ending up with "a couple of people" is not
correct.
Are you in jail?
Why not?
(( Sometimes answers to simple questions can be SO informative. Please take
the time to answer my ridiculously simple questions. ))

roflmao! is that ooc? :D