Question for all you Free Market Supporters out there.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Ok, so as far as I know, Adam Smith thought up the idea of Laissez-Faire as to the way Economics should be run. From my understanding this would be flawed. In a pure Laissez-Faire system if somebody lost their job what would happen then?:confused: Where would they get income and support from? There wouldn't be any government programs to help them.

[Post-Something]

charity and/or find another job.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Well that's a lame system. It's not always easy to find jobs. I took me almost a year to find another one after I quit my old one. Why did I quit? Because my boss was an asshole.

[dissipate]

Well that's a lame system. It's not always easy to find jobs. I took me almost a year to find another one after I quit my old one. Why did I quit? Because my boss was an asshole.

According to your ideology shouldn't your boss be in prison or dead? In any event, it seems odd that you worked for a criminal for that amount of time.

[LOLseph Stalin]

According to your ideology shouldn't your boss be in prison or dead? In any event, it seems odd that you worked for a criminal for that amount of time.

Damn, you're right. Let's kill him! :scared:

He took advantage of all the young people actually so I wasn't the only one. I just noticed it more because of my ideology.

[trivas7]

Ok, so as far as I know, Adam Smith thought up the idea of Laissez-Faire as to the way Economics should be run.
No, you are misinformed re this. A. Smith's The Wealth Nations was an account of the economics Smith saw around him at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. It was only socialist utopians who had the temerity to conceive of the way economies should be run hached from their perfect brains.

[Die Neue Zeit]

More Austrian crap, I see. :(

Correction: It was only mercantilists who had the temerity to blah blah blah, since they, not the Utopian Socialists, existed during Smith's time.

[Post-Something]

Well that's a lame system. It's not always easy to find jobs. I took me almost a year to find another one after I quit my old one. Why did I quit? Because my boss was an asshole.

Welcome to capitalism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

No, you are misinformed re this. A. Smith's The Wealth Nations was an account of the economics Smith saw around him at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. It was only socialist utopians who had the temerity to conceive of the way economies should be run hached from their perfect brains.

Ok, so i'm wrong about Adam Smith. So what. I was kinda hoping for a proper answer to my question. Do Laissez-Faire people just ignore the unemployed completely?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Welcome to capitalism.

Thank you. I love it already. :)

[Post-Something]

Ok, so i'm wrong about Adam Smith. So what. I was kinda hoping for a proper answer to my question. Do Laissez-Faire people just ignore the unemployed completely?

Yes, they do. If you want a Marxist explanation, well here you go:

They need unemployment to exist. You need a group of people ready to work, because that keeps wage levels down. If a worker doesn't agree to work for a capitalist for a certain wage, there isn't much they can do except for leave (and trade unions of course), since there is a whole other group of people, the unemployed, ready to take their job for that same wage.

[Dr Mindbender]

Ok, so as far as I know, Adam Smith thought up the idea of Laissez-Faire as to the way Economics should be run. From my understanding this would be flawed. In a pure Laissez-Faire system if somebody lost their job what would happen then?.

*puts on ayn rand mask*

''what happens then!? You die, thats right! I bet you paid more attention at school, you little piece of shit!''

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes, they do. If you want a Marxist explanation, well here you go:

They need unemployment to exist. You need a group of people ready to work, because that keeps wage levels down. If a worker doesn't agree to work for a capitalist for a certain wage, there isn't much they can do except for leave (and trade unions of course), since there is a whole other group of people, the unemployed, ready to take their job for that same wage.

Ok, makes sense. Which document is this from again?


*puts on ayn rand mask*

''what happens then!? You die, thats right! I bet you paid more attention at school, you little piece of shit!''

*sulks in corner*

"But mommy wouldn't let me go to school because I had to work!" *cries*

[dissipate]

Ok, so i'm wrong about Adam Smith. So what. I was kinda hoping for a proper answer to my question. Do Laissez-Faire people just ignore the unemployed completely?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Laissez-Faire people,' but suppose they did. What is the 'just' punishment for their 'crime?'

[Post-Something]

Ok, makes sense. Which document is this from again?

Das Kapital :)

Here's a quote from Chapter 25:


"capitalistic accumulation itself... constantly produces, and produces in the direct ratio of its own energy and extent, a relatively redundant population of workers, i.e., a population of greater extent than suffices for the average needs of the valorisation of capital, and therefore a surplus-population... It is the absolute interest of every capitalist to press a given quantity of labour out of a smaller, rather than a greater number of labourers, if the cost is about the same... The more extended the scale of production, the stronger this motive. Its force increases with the accumulation of capital."

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Laissez-Faire people,' but suppose they did. What is the 'just' punishment for their 'crime?'

First of all by "Laissez-Faire people" I meant the Free Market Advocates who believe in absolutely no government support. Secondly, what would we do? We could just overthrow them for their "crimes against humanity". We can throw them in jail then.

[trivas7]

Yes, they do. If you want a Marxist explanation, well here you go:

They need unemployment to exist. You need a group of people ready to work, because that keeps wage levels down. If a worker doesn't agree to work for a capitalist for a certain wage, there isn't much they can do except for leave (and trade unions of course), since there is a whole other group of people, the unemployed, ready to take their job for that same wage.
Of what is this a Marxist explanation, exactly?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Originally Posted by Karl Marx
"capitalistic accumulation itself... constantly produces, and produces in the direct ratio of its own energy and extent, a relatively redundant population of workers, i.e., a population of greater extent than suffices for the average needs of the valorisation of capital, and therefore a surplus-population... It is the absolute interest of every capitalist to press a given quantity of labour out of a smaller, rather than a greater number of labourers, if the cost is about the same... The more extended the scale of production, the stronger this motive. Its force increases with the accumulation of capital."


Ok, if I read this correctly it's saying that Capitalists want workers to be unemployed to save money(they would have less people to pay and the work would be just as effective). I have yet to read Capital. It seems difficult. D:

[dissipate]

First of all by "Laissez-Faire people" I meant the Free Market Advocates who believe in absolutely no government support. Secondly, what would we do? We could just overthrow them for their "crimes against humanity". We can throw them in jail then.

I see, and what constitutes 'ignoring?' And what constitutes 'employment?'

[Communist Theory]

Smash the State! :lol:

[Post-Something]

Of what is this a Marxist explanation, exactly?

Nothing really, other than the fact that I am a Marxist.

The thread was directed at "free market supporters", so I was offering my say as opposed to theirs.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Smash the State! http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-all-you-p1368294/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

How about Smash the Bourgeois Pigs. :rolleyes:


I see, and what constitutes 'ignoring?' And what constitutes 'employment?'

"Ignoring" would be giving the unemployed no support and "employment" would be selling your labour power for wages.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ok, so i'm wrong about Adam Smith. So what. I was kinda hoping for a proper answer to my question. Do Laissez-Faire people just ignore the unemployed completely?

Adam Smith wasn't a "capitalist." He was a classical liberal, and much like Thomas Paine, shared many views with socialists. Despite naysayers trying to point to other conclusions, socialism grew from classical liberalism. It was a criticism of what the original "economists" took for granted - namely that you could excuse some authority (slavery, sexism, landlordism).

Capitalists took the alternative route and argued that authority is acceptable. That is why you have "free market socialists" (although some users here try to discredit this movement) who are bitterly opposed to pseudo-free market capitalists.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Adam Smith wasn't a "capitalist." He was a classical liberal, and much like Thomas Paine, he shared many views with socialists. Despite naysayers trying to point to other conclusions, socialism grew from classical liberalism. It was a criticism of what the original "economists" took for granted - namely that you could excuse some authority (slavery, sexism, landlordism).

Adam Smith confuses me, but mind you my knowledge about Capitalist economics is lacking. Why learn something I have no interest or use for learning?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Adam Smith confuses me, but mind you my knowledge about Capitalist economics is lacking. Why learn something I have no interest or use for learning?

Everything is useful for learning purposes. It is only my opinion, but I think the most intellectually-honest and important leftists are well rehearsed in every facet of opposing arguments.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Everything is useful for learning purposes. It is only my opinion, but I think the most intellectually-honest and important leftists are well rehearsed in every facet of opposing arguments.

Damn! I should probably learn this stuff then. I pretty much only know the basics of Capitalist Economics. Epic fail. D:

[trivas7]

Adam Smith wasn't a "capitalist." He was a classical liberal, and much like Thomas Paine, shared many views with socialists.

By that logic neither was Marx a "socialist". He was a classical liberal, and much like Adam Smith shared many views with capitalists. :lol:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

In a pure Laissez-Faire system if somebody lost their job what would happen then?

They get a new job.

If they are unable to, they may need to develop new skill sets (and/or education) in order to fill a need for employment the market has.



Where would they get income and support from? There wouldn't be any government programs to help them.Hopefully they understand that they live in a free-market economy and have prepared for periods of lost pay, either through savings or investments, before they lose employment.

I am not laissez-fairer myself, btw.

[Dejavu]

By that logic neither was Marx a "socialist". He was a classical liberal, and much like Adam Smith shared many views with capitalists. :lol:


He does have a slight point. Not all laissez fare capitalists were classical liberals though the vast majority of both was the other.

I consider Adam Smith a laissez fare classical liberal for the most part. His theory of value was wrong but we can't really chastise him for that since that was the prevailing theory of the time (Classical School).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

By that logic neither was Marx a "socialist". He was a classical liberal, and much like Adam Smith shared many views with capitalists. :lol:

No, in fact - not at all.

[Communist Theory]

How about Smash the Bourgeois Pigs.
State, Bourgeois, same thing.

[MMIKEYJ]

Ok, so as far as I know, Adam Smith thought up the idea of Laissez-Faire as to the way Economics should be run. From my understanding this would be flawed. In a pure Laissez-Faire system if somebody lost their job what would happen then?:confused: Where would they get income and support from? There wouldn't be any government programs to help them.
Government doesnt have any money to help somebody. In order for them to give money to someone, they have to take from somebody else, and the process is inefficient at best.

Ie: 20 years ago the avg welfare recipient received $15,000 worth of benefits from the system. However the government needed to collect $40,000 from the economy to hand out the $15,000.

[trivas7]

Government doesnt have any money to help somebody. In order for them to give money to someone, they have to take from somebody else, and the process is inefficient at best.

Incorrect. The Obama administration's latest bill just created billions of dollars out of thin air.

[MMIKEYJ]

Incorrect. The Obama administration's latest bill just created billions of dollars out of thin air.
Yes, but in order to do that, they had to steal value from the money that people already had. So they took wealth from everybody.

With bailouts like this only a small group benefits, but the people as a whole suffer.

[RGacky3]

By that logic neither was Marx a "socialist". He was a classical liberal

Explain.

[Dejavu]

Incorrect. The Obama administration's latest bill just created billions of dollars out of thin air.

:laugh:

Touche, love the sarcasm.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

Ok, so as far as I know, Adam Smith thought up the idea of Laissez-Faire as to the way Economics should be run. From my understanding this would be flawed. In a pure Laissez-Faire system if somebody lost their job what would happen then?:confused: Where would they get income and support from? There wouldn't be any government programs to help them.

First of all, Adam Smith didn't use the term "Laissez faire" Which means to let it be or let be. Adam Smith coined the term "Invisible Hand" which means that humans distribute resources through market forces. You don't need a central government or know it all leader. The market with its incentives and disincentives will provide all the necessary information.

So what happens to someone who is unemployed? Well their are many people that are unemployed and don't rely on any government money to get by. I wonder how they get by? They get by through with insurance, savings, and not consuming as much. Just as you would now. In a complete laissez faire economy with a small limited government, unemployment is going to be relatively low. The economy would naturally be growing, some companies will grow faster then others. The person who is unemployed will simply find another job and for a firm that has the means to employ him. That means a firm will hire him if the firm values his labor for the amount he is willing to get paid for.

If you wanted a $10 an hour job and was offered $9 an hour would you work there? No, but you might say what if I need to pay the rent or bills? Getting a job for below what I value is "unfair." Well, next time you might work a little harder not to have lost your last job, next time you might save a little so you can look longer for a better job. Hell, you might even start your own business and work for yourself, become a "capitalist."

The point is, that government is not needed for support in most cases of unemployment. I'm sure their are situations where their could be and I won't try to list them, but unemployment would be very low.

[коровьев]

hmmm

[RebelDog]

Adam Smith is lost in capitalism. One thing he definitely wanted was equality of outcome and that is utterly unachievable in capitalism or whatever its called. The father of capitalism my arse. He seen past all that shite.

[IcarusAngel]

It would be interesting to see "dejavu," who claims he studies philosophy, to point out all these "laissez-faire" classical liberals because I think he's making them up.

William von Humboldt was a classical liberal who questioned the worker-manager relationship, saying that the best work is created out of freedom of labor and not under the "arbitrary" authority of some manager:

"...man never regards what he posses as so much his own, as what he does; and the labourer who tends a garden is perhaps in a truer sense of its owner, than the listless voluptuary who enjoys its fruits... In view of this consideration, it seems as if all peasants and craftsmen might be elevated into artists; that is, men who love their labour for its own sake, improve it by their own plastic genius and inventive skill, and thereby cultivate their intellect, ennoble their character, and exalt and refine their pleasures. And so humanity would be ennobled by the very things which now, though beautiful in themselves, so often serve to degrade it... But, still, freedom is undoubtedly the indispensable condition, without which even the pursuits most congenial to individual human nature, can never succeed in producing such salutary influences. Whatever does not spring from a man's free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very being, but remains alien to his true nature; he does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness." -- von Humboldt

Marx himself could have written this, noting that people who are forced to work, say by a capitalist class, are not truly in charge of their labor and do not enjoy their work. This is almost similar to a passage in the communist manifesto. People should be in charge of their labor, not the

Rousseau was a classical-liberal who opposed private property.

Here are some quotes from Smith:

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.
Adam Smith

It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased.
Adam Smith



Here is a site that talks about Locke's Libertarian-Socialist tendencies:
http://www.luvnpeas.org/glib/locke.html

(Although, in Locke's case I think he can more easily be made into a capitalist than others.)

And let's not forget that Liberals like TH Green and JSM came to support more regulations on capitalism, and the latter even considered himself a socialist.

Find one "classical-liberal" who ever actually admitted to being a "laissez-faire" capitalist.

And of course, anarchists, including individualist anarchist, oppose capitalism:

"
The tradition of individualist anarchism that originated in the 1800's is opposed to profit-making, and hence, capitalism as it is commonly defined today.
"

"Other individualist anarchists, like Larry Gambone, believe that anarchism itself is incompatible with capitalism. Gambone states, "for anarchists, capitalism is the result of the development of the state and therefore, all capitalism is in one sense, state capitalism."

This is because capitalism is the bad kind of collectivism, where certain people by their very selfish interests get to construct society, based on appealing to the masses greed and selfishness, rather than to their reason. Furthermore, the law, the state, rather, insures that this continues

Dejavu is full of lies.

[коровьев]

Find one "classical-liberal" who ever actually admitted to being a "laissez-faire" capitalist.ungh Bastiat?

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

A classical liberal can not be against private property. lol

[IcarusAngel]

A classical liberal can not be against private property. lol

Oh, I forgot, you're the dictator of what people can and can't believe.

Notice how Libertarians like our friend here are just like totalitarians: telling people what they can and can't believe, revising history texts (like Adam Smith's) to remove any criticism of property and the state (like the Chicago school does), revising history to their favor, proclaiming a "one-party state" where only the Libertarian party gets to decide what is right and what is wrong.

It's amazing what these fascists and motherfuckers get away with on the internet.

[коровьев]

Notice how Libertarians like our friend here are just like totalitarians:

Libertarians do not care what you believe in as long as you do not agress and violate the rights of others.


proclaiming a "one-party state" where only the Libertarian party gets to decide what is right and what is wrong.

lol what

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Libertarians do not care what you believe in as long as you do not agress and violate the rights of others.

Rights? What rights? Please elaborate.

[коровьев]

What rights? Please elaborate.
Natural rights. The right to control your own body and property.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Natural rights. The right to control your own body and property.

But even right-libertarians like David Friedman argue that natural rights is crock. Was your statement just a generalization?

[коровьев]

But even right-libertarians like David Friedman argue that natural rights is crockwell I am not familiar with his David Friedman's argument on natural rights, but libertarianism is based entirely on respect for the natural rights of others.


Was your statement just a generalization? no

[Kassad]

Libertarians have wet dreams of a society (speaking from an American perspective, and by 'Libertarian', I don't mean a small-government Libertarian who advocates people's rights. I am referring to the insanely right-wing market advocates in the United States.) where states decide everything. Basically, by this perspective, if the state of Ohio decided that a grown man having sex with a newborn was 'his right to privacy and sexual freedom', as they advocate so much, then that'd be perfectly fine. These are the ignorant types who ignore the complete and total ignorance in this ridiculous ideology. Basically, slavery might still be legal today, since I highly doubt southern states that supported the Confederacy during the mid-1800's would have ever considered outlawing slavery without some sort of moral activism.

'Legalization of murder?' Coming to a state near you! 'Legalization of rape?' It's all about state's rights! 'What if I want to kick my wife's ass?' Hey, that's your right to privacy, because the Constitution doesn't say you can't do it!

Throughout the course of human development, we have attempted to preserve rights, along with the progression of morality in society. I don't like the term, frankly, because it has a very negative stigma which can lead to the 'holier-than-thou' religious types who talk about forgiving their neighbors, but are still quite adamant in their support for the death penalty. Regardless, though society often interprets morality wrongly, such as the current ban on gay marriage and such, it is still our duty as revolutionaries (this applies to the socialists, because you laissez-faire types are nothing but reactionary maniacs who only care about how fat your wallet is.) to develop a sense of morality.

Oh, and does this mean I can have sex with my cat? It's my natural right as a human being and the Constitution doesn't say I can't do it.

[коровьев]

Kassad, libertarians support people's natural rights. They would always oppose harming little children, slavery, rape, murder, violating privacy...etc. They also always support decentralization as much as possible, thus they believe that the states should make the laws and not the government.

[Kassad]

The problem is that, while rejecting authority and the centralization of moral dictation, you are commiting the moral fallacy of making yourself the authority figure by assuming what natural rights are! Basically, by rejecting authority figures in the sense of government and bureacracy, you are becoming the authority, which is a total fallacy. Also, you can't claim to be totally omniscient when it comes to morals and rights, as there is almost no consensus on this. A perfect example would be private property. Since you're a laissez-faire capitalist, I assume you're for private property, which means you advocate exploitation of land and in general, you allow houses to sit empty while people sleep on the streets. Regardless, I believe the land is not something that can be bought and sold, as it is the land of the working class that should be used for everyone. Resources should be managed reasonably, not exploited. You claim it is a right, whereas I disagree. In your worship of the Constitution, you realize that it is diametrically opposed to anything besides what is listed in the first eight amendments being dictated by the federal government. That means everything. Sorry, but that's how strict constitutionalists, especially Congressman Ron Paul claim to view it. If you claim that there are exceptions for things like rape, murder and the like, then I can claim there are exceptions to multiple other things. It's all or nothing, so you either totally embrace it or you realize its innate flaws.

[коровьев]

The problem is that, while rejecting authority and the centralization of moral dictation, you are commiting the moral fallacy of making yourself the authority figure by assuming what natural rights are! Basically, by rejecting authority figures in the sense of government and bureacracy, you are becoming the authority, which is a total fallacy. Also, you can't claim to be totally omniscient when it comes to morals and rights, as there is almost no consensus on this.I am not assuming what they are. They are very simple, easy to understand and logically deduct. I am not rejecting all authority; I am not rejecting the people's right to organize and form bureaucracies. I do not believe authority is a bad thing. If people want to be led by an authority or form bureaucracies, that is their prerogative and their own business. As long as there is voluntary consent behind this relationship, I do not see anything wrong with it.



. A perfect example would be private property. Since you're a laissez-faire capitalist, I assume you're for private property, which means you advocate exploitation of land and in general, you allow houses to sit empty while people sleep on the streets. Regardless, I believe the land is not something that can be bought and sold, as it is the land of the working class that should be used for everyone. Resources should be managed reasonably, not exploited.Well I do not see any reason why people should not be able to own land. It seems just like anything else that could be owned and people owned land for a long time. You and your communist friends are welcome to have as much communal ownership of your land in a free market society as you wish. If others do not wish to join you and want to remain alone, there is no reason why you should force them to conform. Exploitation of resources generally happens when resources belong to no one or the government. When resources are owned by a private individual, instead of being exploited, they are transformed into valuable things, which will satisfy the desires of consumer's and make the owner a profit.


You claim it is a right, whereas I disagree. and someone else might disagree with your claim that you have a right to live


In your worship of the Constitution, . Libertarians do not "worship" the constitution. They support strict interpretation of the constitution, because anything else leads to expansion of federal power.


In your worship of the Constitution, you realize that it is diametrically opposed to anything besides what is listed in the first eight amendments being dictated by the federal government. That means everything. Sorry, but that's how strict constitutionalists, especially Congressman Ron Paul claim to view it. If you claim that there are exceptions for things like rape, murder and the like, then I can claim there are exceptions to multiple other things. It's all or nothing, so you either totally embrace it or you realize its innate flaws.ti do not care about constitution much, it is a very flawed document and I do not understand the rest of your argument.

[Self-Owner]

Oh, I forgot, you're the dictator of what people can and can't believe.

Notice how Libertarians like our friend here are just like totalitarians: telling people what they can and can't believe, revising history texts (like Adam Smith's) to remove any criticism of property and the state (like the Chicago school does), revising history to their favor, proclaiming a "one-party state" where only the Libertarian party gets to decide what is right and what is wrong.

It's amazing what these fascists and motherfuckers get away with on the internet.

I hope you realize how ridiculous your arguments are, and how bad they make you look. All he's saying is that it is part of the definition of the term 'classical liberal' that they believe in private property. He's not trying to force anyone to believe anything, rather just making a terminological claim. I also can't believe you don't realize this, which shows how intellectually dishonest you are. It seems to go a bit like this:

Me: There is no such thing as a female bachelor.

Icarus: What do you mean there is no such thing as a female bachelor?! Who are you to tell bachelors what sex they can or cannot be? I must have forgot that you're the dictator of sexuality. You're just trying to rewrite history and eradicate any examples of female bachelors, aren't you. I bet what you really want is a one party state so you can enforce your fascist ideas of gender and where you can tell bachelors what sex they're allowed to be. Just like the Nazis. It's amazing what you fascists and motherfuckers... etc etc etc.

[Kassad]

This is the key reason why your ideal society and your ideology will never be applied to anything. There is no general consensus of unity and organization, as it is almost like every man for himself. I support a working class revolution, emancipated by revolutionary socialism, but you support a laissez-faire system of deregulation. Let us agree to disagree and move on? No, that's ridiculous. That's what allows the ruling elite and the corporate oligarchy to remain in control, as your types are so worried about majority consent that you don't fathom any real revolutionary change. Sometimes it takes an awakening of consciousness to realize and comprehend society and your system has no means of organization or education. It is just a sprawling mass of ideology that will never compose itself.

Your 'private land' schemes are already in action right now and they are reponsible for the millions of people without proper shelter. Landlords and property owners place profits over people and due to a defunct and corrupt system, they manipulate the housing market for profit. We have enough housing units for everyone in the United States, but an immense amount are empty. The common demominator is capitalism and the price tag it places on basic necessities, allowing the privileged to gain access to them and those who cannot afford it are forced to sleep on the street. Instead of maintaining it for profit, why not manage our resources so everyone can have shelter? Why not tax corporations with billions in surplus value to help cover the economic crisis they cause? Why do we spend trillions on weapons and nuclear arms while people starve? It's all because of profit.

Anyway, you totally ignored what I was attempting to say and just brought up the 'right to life' argument. I'm sure people might say it isn't my right to live, but here's where you lose control of the argument. It is a right for every human being to have their necessities properly met. Food, shelter, the right to life, healthcare, education and other assorted things. Those are basic necessities. After that, we branch out into individual rights, such as marriage, abortion and gun rights. If we allow one group of human beings to marry, all should be allowed to marry. If we deny this, that is a breach of human rights in favor of elitism. Thus, no one could rake my right to life, as it is a basic necessity of mine. Much like I cannot take their rights and give them to myself exclusively, as that is exploitative and oppressive.

We're talking about American libertarians who, by taking a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, proclaim that it is a perfect document. Sorry, but nothing should be followed 100% to the letter. Any claim to the contrary is assuming that something is perfect and cannot be better understood and comprehended throughout the development of time. Libertarians cling to ridiculous fantasies about rights and liberties, while still depriving human beings of the very things they need to live. It's totally contradictory, but then again, so is capitalism.

[Self-Owner]

But even right-libertarians like David Friedman argue that natural rights is crock. Was your statement just a generalization?


Even some right-libertarians like David Friedman argue that natural rights don't exist, yeah. Having read some of your other posts, I can't believe that you're not aware of the fact that there is at least a modicum of disagreement between different libertarians, and that it's inevitably going to be misleading if you try and present them as a group of people with homogeneous beliefs. And having personally met and talked to David Friedman myself, I think he'd probably agree with the broad sentiment, even if he does disagree that the moral grounding is in natural rights.

[Self-Owner]

Sorry, but nothing should be followed 100% to the letter. Any claim to the contrary is assuming that something is perfect and cannot be better understood and comprehended throughout the development of time.

The pedantic philosopher in me can't help but point out that this is self-contradictory. Should the claim that "nothing should be followed 100% to the letter" be followed 100% to the letter? ;)

[Kassad]

The term 'laissez-faire' libertarian and, in fact, any attempt to combine the term 'libertarian' with anything capitalist, market or profit related is totally contradictory, as capitalism and the monetary-based profit system inevitable lead to wealth inequality, social manipulation through wealth and the inevitable formulation of a monetary hierarchy. Thus, their claims of 'small government' are totally contradictory, as the ruling elite only get wealthier while the proletariat are forced into shambles by the tyranny of the market. The only true concept of libertarianism comes through revolutionary socialism and the liberation that comes through class struggle.


The pedantic philosopher in me can't help but point out that this is self-contradictory. Should the claim that "nothing should be followed 100% to the letter" be followed 100% to the letter? ;)

I meant to say nothing should be followed 100% to the letter, unless I say it. My mistake. :D

[Self-Owner]

The term 'laissez-faire' libertarian and, in fact, any attempt to combine the term 'libertarian' with anything capitalist, market or profit related is totally contradictory, as capitalism and the monetary-based profit system inevitable lead to wealth inequality, social manipulation through wealth and the inevitable formulation of a monetary hierarchy. Thus, their claims of 'small government' are totally contradictory, as the ruling elite only get wealthier while the proletariat are forced into shambles by the tyranny of the market. The only true concept of libertarianism comes through revolutionary socialism and the liberation that comes through class struggle.

FFS, I'm not sure if you intentionally try to misunderstand what libertarians argue for or if you're being purposefully obtuse. Either way, here are a few points:

1) Usually when you claim that some concept is contradictory, it is considered good form to actually explain where the contradiction is found, rather than just asserting it. For instance, if you check the threads I've started, you'll see an argument about how Marxism is self-contradictory because of its twin allegiance to the principle of 'from each according to his ability...' and to the principle that capitalism is unjust because it confiscates the fruits of the labour of workers without fully compensating them. You haven't explained why inequality is somehow contradictory to libertarianism, and I don't expect you can do so. I'm interested to see you try, though.

2) When you say "their claims of 'small government' are totally contradictory" I think you mean that our claims are actually false, rather than contradictory (there is a difference.) At any rate, I think this shows your confusion. If you're saying that we claim that there is, currently, in the real world, small government, then you're incorrect. Libertarians are well aware that there isn't - that's why they're trying to ensure that there is! If you're saying that we are advocating small government, you're right, but there is absolutely no contradiction there whatsoever (a contradiction between what?).

[коровьев]

This is the key reason why your ideal society and your ideology will never be applied to anything. There is no general consensus of unity and organization, as it is almost like every man for himself. I support a working class revolution, emancipated by revolutionary socialism, but you support a laissez-faire system of deregulation. Let us agree to disagree and move on? No, that's ridiculous. That's what allows the ruling elite and the corporate oligarchy to remain in control, as your types are so worried about majority consent that you don't fathom any real revolutionary change. Sometimes it takes an awakening of consciousness to realize and comprehend society and your system has no means of organization or education. It is just a sprawling mass of ideology that will never compose itself.

Every man for himself, is a good way to describe what I believe in. Libertarians are not worried about majority consent, we just do not believe in revolutionary change. All the change in the society must come gradually, and originate from the educated and knowledgeable populace. I do not see what systems of education or organization have to do with anything, but I am pretty sure libertarians like to organize just like everyone else.


Your 'private land' schemes are already in action right now and they are reponsible for the millions of people without proper shelter. Landlords and property owners place profits over people and due to a defunct and corrupt system, they manipulate the housing market for profit. We have enough housing units for everyone in the United States, but an immense amount are empty. The common demominator is capitalism and the price tag it places on basic necessities, allowing the privileged to gain access to them and those who cannot afford it are forced to sleep on the street. Instead of maintaining it for profit, why not manage our resources so everyone can have shelter? Why not tax corporations with billions in surplus value to help cover the economic crisis they cause? Why do we spend trillions on weapons and nuclear arms while people starve? It's all because of profit.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit. Your post is confusing, you are saying people can not afford proper shelter because there is some sort of corrupt system and not because they are poor? It is impossible to manage our resources so that everyone could have a shelter. Only a god or a supercomputer could do that. Human planning would result in much less efficiency than market forces. Taxing productive corporations which do no harm is foolish and stealing, those who do harm should be simply punished. Spending trillions on weapons and nuclear arms seems very wasteful indeed.

I'm sure people might say it isn't my right to live, but here's where you lose control of the argument.


I am not even sure what is the argument we are having, but ok.



It is a right for every human being to have their necessities properly met. Food, shelter, the right to life, healthcare, education and other assorted things. Those are basic necessities.
How can something be a right, if it requires that others provide you good or services?



e're talking about American libertarians who, by taking a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United State, proclaim that it is a perfect document.
Do you see many American libertarians making such ridiculous statements?

[Kassad]

I did explain the contradiction. The ideology of reduced government and individual freedom is completely contradictory to the wealth hierarchy formulated by capitalism. Reading comprehension: not just for winners anymore. The ideology of decentralization, reduced collectivization and other anti-working class measures is what the laissez-faire libertarian right advocate, as well as free trade and other delusional economic fantasies. The only way government can be truly done away with and minimalized is through workers organization and the proletariat itself performing the duties that do not need to be performed by millionares, executives and bureaucrats. I mean, I'm not saying that inequality is contradictory to libertarianism, but I'm referring to Anarcho-Capitalism (:laugh:) more than anything, which is the direct core of Austrian Economics (:laugh: x2), which is where the Libertarian Party of the United States obtains its core ideology. So, therefore, inequality is contradictory, as there is no real anarchist community, as there is a form of hierarchy. Thanks for playing.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

I did explain the contradiction. The ideology of reduced government and individual freedom is completely contradictory to the wealth hierarchy formulated by capitalism. Reading comprehension: not just for winners anymore. The ideology of decentralization, reduced collectivization and other anti-working class measures is what the laissez-faire libertarian right advocate, as well as free trade and other delusional economic fantasies. The only way government can be truly done away with and minimalized is through workers organization and the proletariat itself performing the duties that do not need to be performed by millionares, executives and bureaucrats. I mean, I'm not saying that inequality is contradictory to libertarianism, but I'm referring to Anarcho-Capitalism (:laugh:) more than anything, which is the direct core of Austrian Economics (:laugh: x2), which is where the Libertarian Party of the United States obtains its core ideology. So, therefore, inequality is contradictory, as there is no real anarchist community, as there is a form of hierarchy. Thanks for playing.

So how does the proletariat figure out the jobs that the millionaires, executives, and bureaucrats are doing? Why can't they replace them right now?

[synthesis]

Incorrect. The Obama administration's latest bill just created billions of dollars out of thin air.

How is that different from the debts incurred in Iraq?


libertarians support people's natural rights.

From whence do natural rights come?

[Kassad]

So how does the proletariat figure out the jobs that the millionaires, executives, and bureaucrats are doing? Why can't they replace them right now?

Generally because of conditioning and privilege. I mean, I wish I had an accurate statistic of how much more likely a white male is to obtain a high-paying job of high esteem, because I guarantee that the scales tilt in their (our, I'm a white male.) favor. It's no secret that minorites are underpriveleged in American society and all you have to do is look at their roots. Protestant, white males had a very established base in this country for hundreds of years before immigrants and African Americans were able to gain the same (I shouldn't even say that, since they don't have the same rights. "Voter irregularities" in 2000? Totally plausible, right?) So look at it that way. White males had a massive foothold and were already in control, whereas immigrants and minorites had to gain a foothold in the predominantly white system.

So where are we today? What is the ratio of white executives to black executives; hispanic executives; arabic executives? Basically, these bourgeoisie elitists have been privileged with inheritance and prosperous bloodlines for decades, if not longer, so they have more opportunities to gain positions of esteem. On the other hand, a young black man in an impoverished community is going to have trouble without proper funds to pay for decent food and shelter, let alone a proper education.

In a system controlled by bourgeoisie elitists, it is often impossible to gain a foothold. It is pure ignorance to ignore the racist factors in the capitalist system, as well as the xenophobic, sexist and exploitative factors that consistently allow those in privilege to gain positions of esteem, when in all honesty, someone could do the job just as well if they just had the means. Socialism provides those means.

Workers emancipation revokes this corrupt and indecent system of oppression that fuels racism, war and class struggle. With resources properly managed, anyone can manage the positions that are current held by those who often did not earn their position, but instead, were handed that position due to their social status.

As I say consistently, racism and exploitation are symptoms of a capitalist disease, in which revolution is the only remedy.

[RGacky3]

So how does the proletariat figure out the jobs that the millionaires, executives, and bureaucrats are doing? Why can't they replace them right now?

I'm sorry but there is no other way to describe that quesion other than utterly idiotic.

Thats like asking why don't peasents figure out what kings are doing and replace them. Capitalism is a power structure, its not just different jobs, money is power.

Also for you libertarians, since we have some new ones, where does land rights come from, i.e. why can one person claim a piece of land, and restrict other peoples claim to that land? What makes the landowners claim valid?

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

So do you really think that you could run a company like Apple or Microsoft? Or that anyone working at McDonalds could actually run the company? The truth of the matter is that most people have the sucky job they have because they haven't learned the skills required for a better paying job.

Now I agree with you that blacks and other minorities don't have the same advantages as whites and that this is partly due to racism and slavery. But the fact is, that just giving them executive or management jobs isn't going to help them or anyone. All you are going to do is put more incompetent people in jobs they don't deserve.

If you want to help the minorities, stop rewarding them for being poor and not having a job. Reform the public school system by giving parents the choice of where to send their kid, like school vouchers. End the Drug War. Decrease the amount of unwanted pregnancies by encouraging the use of contraceptives, and encourage positive family values like marriage and fathership, which I think is their number 1 problem.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

I'm sorry but there is no other way to describe that quesion other than utterly idiotic.

Thats like asking why don't peasents figure out what kings are doing and replace them. Capitalism is a power structure, its not just different jobs, money is power.

Also for you libertarians, since we have some new ones, where does land rights come from, i.e. why can one person claim a piece of land, and restrict other peoples claim to that land? What makes the landowners claim valid?

Their is a reason why their is a power structure. The ones at the top usually have the skills, knowledge, and experience to better run the firm or organization. The ones are better usually rise to the top.

We made them up. I assume this came naturally over time as modern man evolved. By assigning ownership to objects, humans made up a system where resources could be used efficiently. This is my spear and I made it with my labor so it is mine. If someone tried to use it, they should compensate me for it because I created it. He should pay me for the labor I used to create the spear.

The way we let people claim land nowadays is if you are the first person to claim/use land. The reason we let people claim property by first uses is because their isn't a better way to redistribute the hand. Once they have the land, it makes no difference. As soon as someone wants the land and values it more then the first possessor, he will buy it from him.

[Kassad]

Me? Not at the current time, because I am not privileged to that extent. I haven't been properly trained in the field, but you're totally missing my point. With the proper distribution of resources, anyone can receive the proper education and training to perform requirements in technological, softward and computer sciences. Unfortunately, under capitalism, few are given that privilege, due to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the monetary oligarchy.

You're approaching revolutionary socialism with a lot of stereotypes right now, but that's understandable. That's what capitalist conditioning does. But stick with me for a second. I'm not saying we should pick a random African American off the streets, stick him in a fancy business suit and tell him to formulate new software for my iPod. No, that's outrageous. What I am encouraging is the idea of promoting education for all, which we can afford if we manage our resources properly. If everyone receives priority and proper education, anyone can contribute to society in ways that were once thought unfeasible.

Under capitalism, a tiny minority are able to perform these advanced occupational requirements, but under socialism, we can manage our resources and wealth so there is no longer a need for manipulation in the form of surplus value and exploitation.

[Decolonize The Left]

So do you really think that you could run a company like Apple or Microsoft? Or that anyone working at McDonalds could actually run the company? The truth of the matter is that most people have the sucky job they have because they haven't learned the skills required for a better paying job.

This is total and utter nonsense. Not only is it totally unjustified, but it's also plain wrong. You spout the rhetoric of capitalists who have long since been proven wrong...


Now I agree with you that blacks and other minorities don't have the same advantages as whites and that this is partly due to racism and slavery. But the fact is, that just giving them executive or management jobs isn't going to help them or anyone. All you are going to do is put more incompetent people in jobs they don't deserve.

Your racist comments are not welcome here. You openly equate "blacks and other minorities" to "incompetent people."


If you want to help the minorities, stop rewarding them for being poor and not having a job.

What?

- August

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

By having a job that you do not have the skills for, you are incompetent at that job. That is not meant to be racist in any way. I am hispanic FWIW.

Welfare and other social programs give to much money to people who quite frankly haven't earned it. Yes, their are some people who truly need a helping hand, but a lot of people are just leaching off of the system. A system that redistributes wealth from the ones who produce it and give it to ones that do not.

Kassad, you say things can work better if they are redistributed correctly. How do you distribute jobs, money, and capital in an more efficient manner? A manner more efficient then the market system.

Why not give parents vouchers so that they can decide for themselves and for their own kids which schools they want them to go to? This way schools that do better will be rewarded while schools that constantly fail our children will be punished. Eventually schools would compete and provide better services.

[Plagueround]

A system that redistributes wealth from the ones who produce it and give it to ones that do not.

It is indeed an unfair system. That's why I became an anti-capitalist.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

It is indeed an unfair system. That's why I became an anti-capitalist.

So how do you reward those who produce more then others?

[Kassad]

It's becoming more and more apparent that you either are not reading what I am saying or you have absolutelty no reading comprehension abilities. The reason that such a tiny elite group of people get these high-esteem jobs is because they are privileged in society with monetary wealth, privilege and access to quality resources because of it. Capitalism allows a small group of people to rise to the top in the system, through manipulation as we know, and they become part of the bourgeoise oligarchy. Sounds great for them, since they're driving a nice Mercedes in their four-story house, but I guess... I mean, it's not a big deal, but there's people who die because of malnutrition and starvation every day, but hey, it's fine.

The problem is that this clinging to welfare and this "unearned" money, as you put it, is totally unnecessary. People shouldn't have to work two jobs and struggle to pay for food, shelted and healthcare for their families. In a nation that could feed every single person on earth with one year of the military budget, I'd say something is very wrong. How is it even remotely feasible that people starve to death while people spend millions redecorating their corporate offices? Welfare, social security and charity are all incredibly bourgeoisie, as they are just bandages on the wounded, bleeding and dying capitalist system. They hardly manage to keep some people afloat, while that tiny oligarchy who controls the means of production is living in luxury. You're acting like I advocate reformist capitalism, which is what economic crackpots advocate, as it still leaves people to die when they could just as easy stand beside me in luxury.

Welfare? Vouchers? Stamps? These are all just things to stabilize a failing system. You know all that money we spend on nuclear arms every year? Trillions of dollars? What if we, instead, spent that money and all the money we spend on petty reforms clothing, feeding and giving shelter to the millions of those living impoverished in the world, which it would pay for, many times over, not one person excluded? Why reform when we have the resources at this very moment? Because the elite bourgeoisie are in control and they will manipulate whoever, whenever to maintain their iron grip on the world's resources. Your reformism and your system will not fix capitalism, for it is nothing short of economic slavery.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Nicely said, Kassad.

We're having big problems here especially in my province(i'm in Canada) because of the funding for the 2010 Olympic Games. They're clearly Bourgeois. Who benefits? The large companies that fund them. This means they get millions more out of it. Even our governments are helping to pay. This is total bullshit because this clearly shows that our governments don't care that there's poverty, crime, and homelessness. These funds being used for the Olympics could be used to help improve these problems in society. Also, this event is clearly NOT for everybody to watch and enjoy because the ticket prices are high.

[Decolonize The Left]

So how do you reward those who produce more then others?

We don't. Communism is not a functioning economic system in the present-day world economy.

But, if communism were to be enacted, it would theoretically operate upon the principle: 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.'

Capitalism is an economic system which pits worker against worker in competition while the bourgeoisie reap the benefits (profit). Communism is an economic system in which workers work together for the benefit of all.

- August

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

It's becoming more and more apparent that you either are not reading what I am saying or you have absolutelty no reading comprehension abilities. The reason that such a tiny elite group of people get these high-esteem jobs is because they are privileged in society with monetary wealth, privilege and access to quality resources because of it. Capitalism allows a small group of people to rise to the top in the system, through manipulation as we know, and they become part of the bourgeoise oligarchy. Sounds great for them, since they're driving a nice Mercedes in their four-story house, but I guess... I mean, it's not a big deal, but there's people who die because of malnutrition and starvation every day, but hey, it's fine.

The problem is that this clinging to welfare and this "unearned" money, as you put it, is totally unnecessary. People shouldn't have to work two jobs and struggle to pay for food, shelted and healthcare for their families. In a nation that could feed every single person on earth with one year of the military budget, I'd say something is very wrong. How is it even remotely feasible that people starve to death while people spend millions redecorating their corporate offices? Welfare, social security and charity are all incredibly bourgeoisie, as they are just bandages on the wounded, bleeding and dying capitalist system. They hardly manage to keep some people afloat, while that tiny oligarchy who controls the means of production is living in luxury. You're acting like I advocate reformist capitalism, which is what economic crackpots advocate, as it still leaves people to die when they could just as easy stand beside me in luxury.

Welfare? Vouchers? Stamps? These are all just things to stabilize a failing system. You know all that money we spend on nuclear arms every year? Trillions of dollars? What if we, instead, spent that money and all the money we spend on petty reforms clothing, feeding and giving shelter to the millions of those living impoverished in the world, which it would pay for, many times over, not one person excluded? Why reform when we have the resources at this very moment? Because the elite bourgeoisie are in control and they will manipulate whoever, whenever to maintain their iron grip on the world's resources. Your reformism and your system will not fix capitalism, for it is nothing short of economic slavery.

I am reading what you are writing very carefully. I'm sorry that I assumed that you support welfare. I see that you have assumed some things that I disagree with also. I believe the government should be radically smaller and that our foreign policy should not be nearly as militaristic. Our military does spend a lot on a lot of unnecessary stuff, but we shouldn't have taxed the people for the money in the first place. Taxation rates are way too high.

Do people at the top prefer to give jobs to other high class people? Oh yeah, of course, that part of the game, its not what you know but who you know. But getting to know people is part of what makes someone more productive and more valuable. However, this country does not just reward the well connected. If you are good at what you do, you will make more money and get rewarded for it. This country is filled with stories of people having little to no money and becoming wealthy through hard work and providing people a good or service that they want.

You make it sound like solving the problem of world hunger is as easy as changing where you spend the money. The problem isn't nearly that simple. The problem is that you have many countries with no rule of law, corrupt government, and negative consequences as a result of colonization by western powers.

Because their is a lack of the rule of law, their is no efficient market, no place where people can efficiently exchange goods and services for other goods and services. Because of this people in Africa go hungry. Sending thousands of tons of grain to feed those who are starving is not solving the underlying problem although it may be a necessary action to save human life. Give a man a fish and feed him for one day, but teach a man to fish and you feed him for his life.

We need to help these countries form efficient market places. Increase public infrastructure which helps get those who have the means to grow and distribute food to those who want the food that they are producing.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

We don't. Communism is not a functioning economic system in the present-day world economy.

Why do you think that is? Maybe because people don't want to participate in a system where the labor that someone puts in is leached off by someone who not as productive as them.




But, if communism were to be enacted, it would theoretically operate upon the principle: 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.'

Capitalism is an economic system which pits worker against worker in competition while the bourgeoisie reap the benefits (profit). Communism is an economic system in which workers work together for the benefit of all.

- August

So what is stopping the workers from becoming part of the bourgeoisie? Their are a lot of people that start their own businesses and work for themselves. My dad for example came to this country with not a lot of money. He eventually started his own business which continues to this day. He even hired his own workers and you want to know why my dad deserved to make more money then the people working for him? Because he is doing the most productive work. He is investing his time and money and providing goods to those who want them. If it weren't for my dad, the workers he employs wouldn't have a job.

[Decolonize The Left]

Why do you think that is? Maybe because people don't want to participate in a system where the labor that someone puts in is leached off by someone who not as productive as them.

Communism doesn't just sit next to capitalism and people get to freely choose between them... what world do you live in?

We are conditioned from birth to believe that capitalism is the primary form of economic freedom and that it only brings progress and wealth. Don't believe me? See your all-too-familiar success story post below.


So what is stopping the workers from becoming part of the bourgeoisie? Their are a lot of people that start their own businesses and work for themselves. My dad for example came to this country with not a lot of money. He eventually started his own business which continues to this day. He even hired his own workers and you want to know why my dad deserved to make more money then the people working for him? Because he is doing the most productive work. He is investing his time and money and providing goods to those who want them. If it weren't for my dad, the workers he employs wouldn't have a job.

That's touching. If I was a capitalist businessman, I would do my best to screw your dad out of his little bit of success for profit.

Your story is too familiar as it is the primary form of rhetoric thrown out by the capitalist class and propaganda machine whenever challenged. You know the line:
"You don't like capitalism? Well just talk to John the Immigrant over here who came to this country with only one shoe! Now look at him! Two shoes! And a business of his own! See? It works great!"

What your story, my satirical analogy, and your entire point ignore is reality. Capitalism is not defined by the 0.01% of successes, but by the continued and open exploitation of the working class.

- August

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

Communism doesn't just sit next to capitalism and people get to freely choose between them... what world do you live in?


People have made the choice time and again and continue to do so. Was it East Germany or West Germany which had to build a wall with men armed with guns to stop people from leaving? Is it Cuba or Florida that people leave in boats that can barely float for a chance at economic freedom? Why do you think North Korea is a complete failure and South Korea is modern country.




We are conditioned from birth to believe that capitalism is the primary form of economic freedom and that it only brings progress and wealth. Don't believe me? See your all-too-familiar success story post below.

That's touching. If I was a capitalist businessman, I would do my best to screw your dad out of his little bit of success for profit.

Your story is too familiar as it is the primary form of rhetoric thrown out by the capitalist class and propaganda machine whenever challenged. You know the line:
"You don't like capitalism? Well just talk to John the Immigrant over here who came to this country with only one shoe! Now look at him! Two shoes! And a business of his own! See? It works great!"

What your story, my satirical analogy, and your entire point ignore is reality. Capitalism is not defined by the 0.01% of successes, but by the continued and open exploitation of the working class.

- August

Well other businessman have tried to screw him out of his profit but he took most of them on well and he actively competes with other firms right now. By competing with the other company, the consumer is getting the best possible deal.

I don't care if you believe it or not but it's the truth.

[Decolonize The Left]

People have made the choice time and again and continue to do so. Was it East Germany or West Germany which had to build a wall with men armed with guns to stop people from leaving? Is it Cuba or Florida that people leave in boats that can barely float for a chance at economic freedom? Why do you think North Korea is a complete failure and South Korea is modern country.

None of those countries were/are communist...


Well other businessman have tried to screw him out of his profit but he took most of them on well and he actively competes with other firms right now. By competing with the other company, the consumer is getting the best possible deal.

I don't care if you believe it or not but it's the truth.

Why are you talking about your father? The whole point of my analogy was to show you how silly your little rant was in the first place.

So your dad did well? Ok. That's great.

I'm talking about exploitation of an entire class.
I'm talking about imperialism in order to further this exploitation.
I'm talking about disenfranchising entire groups of people from birth.

What I'm talking about is a reality to billions. What you're talking about is your dad... you see the difference?

- August

[Plagueround]

Obviously those billions are just lazy August. Duh.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

So how do you reward those who produce more then others?

How do you measure how much someone produces?
For say farmers that's easy, but say bill gates that's hard. Much of bill gates "production" stems only from rent collection, he now produces little even in the management sense. In effect all he does is be a giant ball of wealth which attracts more wealth to it.
Consider also the amount people produce that will never be rewarded by capitalism, charity, being someones friend, being a mother(which has an estimated fair labor value of 500,000 a year.).

Someones production is impossible to measure, and no one produces enough to be worth 10x the average person. It is then a simpler solution merely to assume everyone is valuable and not let people suffer because they don't do the activities the capitalist economy favors.


So what is stopping the workers from becoming part of the bourgeoisie?

Opportunity, it costs a lot of money to build ones own business. Money these people don't have merely because they don't have a business. There also are not enough slots for everyone to be a business owner, who after all need workers.

Also lack of skills is an important part, business ownership favors political skills instead of more productive skills. And developing skills takes a lot of time(10,000 hours on average.) many working class people simply lack the leisure time to further develop themselves.

The libertarian ideal is fundamentally stuck in the concept of an agrian world, where "going off to your own acre with a mule" is in any way a meaningful choice. We exist within a post industrial society, the agrian age is dead, and it's world view needs to die along with it so that we can properly work within the new framework of the world.

[Kassad]

Taxation rates are not 'too high.' They are not progressive. The Bush tax cuts succeeded in doing exactly what the wealth oligarchy hoped. Those who are already wealthy made significantly more, while those who had no money in the first place are still sitting at the bottom, due to the destruction of social reforms and necessities. If we taxed things properly and managed resources so that overproduction did not occur, these recessions would never happen. These recessions are caused by capitalist pursuit of profit, which makes more products in the hopes of makine more profit. Unfortunately, at some point, too much of a product is made and it over-extends past the level required, thus a recession or depression knocks production back to the stable levels. This is why automobile industries are being hit so hard. Because they overproduce consistently.

The problem with the profit and monetary system is that it doesn't 'produce incentive through competition.' If anything, it produces significantly less quality because those making money want to spend as little as possible to make a product they can market. Again, we look at the automobile industry. They have the means and resources to promote alternative energy and more efficient gas mileage in their vehicles, so why don't they? Because it's too expensive and it means less profit. In the end, profit means less quality, as corporations will consistently cut corners and make mediocre profits because spending less means fatter paychecks. If a doctor needs to pay off a new car or a house payment, what's to stop him from saying that someone needs a new liver or some sort of surgery? Why do we have all these systems that are basic human rights being used to make a profit? Stop putting a dollar sign on food and healthcare that people need to survive because there will always be people who are unable to manage it. That's what capitalism does. There's no hiding the exploitation in the system

The idea that solving the hunger crisis is totally unfeasible is a total farce. We can spend money sending food, weapons and supplies to our soldiers occupying the multitude of countries who's sovereignty we are currently infringing upon, so why can't we use those same means to send food, supplies and materials to impoverished nations of the world? Why can't military helicopters carry food, supplies and medicine to nations of the world, as opposed to turrets, explosives and soldiers? Such a complex issue quickly becomes so simple, as with the imperialist nature of capitalism being done away with, much of the world's ails simply fade from existence.

We don't need to formulate marketplaces for these people. We need to eliminate the imperialist and colonialist factors that create this poverty and manipulation of resources in the first place. Instead of formulating marketplaces, which have many innate characteristics such as exploitation, low quality and imperialism, why don't we establish an international community that collaborates and manages resources so that everyone can live in the luxury that such a tiny elite does? Honestly, with the elimination of the surplus value that corporate giants such as Wal-Mart, Exxon and McDonald's make, we could afford luxury healthcare, housing and education for every person on earth. Not one man excluded. Not one. Your marketplaces will leave many behind because capitalism inherently gives an immense amount of people the short end of the stick, whereas socialism promotes responsible management. No one needs to be left behind anymore.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

How do you measure how much someone produces?
For say farmers that's easy, but say bill gates that's hard. Much of bill gates "production" stems only from rent collection, he now produces little even in the management sense. In effect all he does is be a giant ball of wealth which attracts more wealth to it.
Consider also the amount people produce that will never be rewarded by capitalism, charity, being someones friend, being a mother(which has an estimated fair labor value of 500,000 a year.).



Bill Gates owns a company which provides a good and service to millions of people around the world. He gets paid for these goods and services because the people that use them value them at the price Bill Gates is selling it for. You may not think that he deserves a lot of that wealth but the people who spend their own money have decided. Most computers in the world use his companies software and you wonder why he is so wealthy? He out competed everyone else for it. People are free to choose to buy his products or not and yet they keep buying them. Bill Gates may not write the code anymore but he manages the firm that provides this service. He invests his time and capital into continuing to bring a product to the market place. If his product was no longer needed, then the market place would stop buying it.



Someones production is impossible to measure, and no one produces enough to be worth 10x the average person. It is then a simpler solution merely to assume everyone is valuable and not let people suffer because they don't do the activities the capitalist economy favors.


Of course someone's labor can be worth more 10x the average, that's preposterous. Let's take actors and musicians for example. Let's say I work at McDonalds, and I make hamburgers for the people that come in. In total my labor will have contributed to have made maybe 200 cheeseburgers and this is valued by 100 people. A musician or actor can have labor that is value by thousands and millions of people. His labor is worth way more then mine because people are willing to pay more for his labor.



Opportunity, it costs a lot of money to build ones own business. Money these people don't have merely because they don't have a business. There also are not enough slots for everyone to be a business owner, who after all need workers.

Also lack of skills is an important part, business ownership favors political skills instead of more productive skills. And developing skills takes a lot of time(10,000 hours on average.) many working class people simply lack the leisure time to further develop themselves.

First of all the need for workers will not create a supply of workers. I may need someone to do my laundry, no one is going to do it for me. Businessmen want people to work for them. If less people are willing to do the job, businessmen will have to pay them more to do it.



The libertarian ideal is fundamentally stuck in the concept of an agrian world, where "going off to your own acre with a mule" is in any way a meaningful choice. We exist within a post industrial society, the agrian age is dead, and it's world view needs to die along with it so that we can properly work within the new framework of the world.

I don't give a shit about agriculture, all I care about is that their be marketplace where I can exchange my labor in the form of money to get something I want, which may or may not be food. The people who are good at producing food will know that their are people willing to pay them for their labor. When I give them my money I am transferring my labor in the form of money in exchange for food. He can now use that money to get something he wants.

You guys think that just because someone works, just because they do labor, that they are deserving of something. They aren't. I can build ugly sandcastles for the rest of my life, I am not producing anything, I don't deserve anything for my labor. All work is not equal. Working with a computer is more efficient then using a typewriter. Someone put a lot of labor, money, time, and risk in creating a product that would make me more efficient with the computer then the typewriter. Should they not be rewarded for their contribution to society?

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

None of those countries were/are communist...

Well please explain what they were then, they called themselves communist but calling yourself something doesn't make it true. Just because Chavez calls himself a democrat, doesn't make it true either.



Why are you talking about your father? The whole point of my analogy was to show you how silly your little rant was in the first place.


The whole point of telling you my father's story was to show you a microcosm of our entire economy and history. My father's story is that same as many others. They prove that an entire class is not being exploited. They prove that the class you are in depends on the value of what you produce. It's up to you to make that more productive.



So your dad did well? Ok. That's great.

As have most capitalism.



I'm talking about exploitation of an entire class.
I'm talking about imperialism in order to further this exploitation.
I'm talking about disenfranchising entire groups of people from birth.

What I'm talking about is a reality to billions. What you're talking about is your dad... you see the difference?


The best way for people to not be exploited is to have free-market capitalism with a small state. Then people will exchange value for value, in the form of money, production will be encouraged, and hopefully be non-violent. I agree that imperialism is wrong, but you can have capitalism without imperialism.

You may think I'm just talking about my dad but we are talking about the same thing.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

Taxation rates are not 'too high.' They are not progressive. The Bush tax cuts succeeded in doing exactly what the wealth oligarchy hoped. Those who are already wealthy made significantly more, while those who had no money in the first place are still sitting at the bottom, due to the destruction of social reforms and necessities. If we taxed things properly and managed resources so that overproduction did not occur, these recessions would never happen. These recessions are caused by capitalist pursuit of profit, which makes more products in the hopes of makine more profit. Unfortunately, at some point, too much of a product is made and it over-extends past the level required, thus a recession or depression knocks production back to the stable levels. This is why automobile industries are being hit so hard. Because they overproduce consistently.

Through competition and the pursuit of profit, people have made the resources that other people wanted. That's what you just said. You just admitted we had a system that manages to provide to the people the stuff it wanted. Why wouldn't you want that system. If people produce to much, they sell it for even lower prices and people get the stuff they wanted for an even cheaper price.



The problem with the profit and monetary system is that it doesn't 'produce incentive through competition.' If anything, it produces significantly less quality because those making money want to spend as little as possible to make a product they can market. Again, we look at the automobile industry. They have the means and resources to promote alternative energy and more efficient gas mileage in their vehicles, so why don't they? Because it's too expensive and it means less profit. In the end, profit means less quality, as corporations will consistently cut corners and make mediocre profits because spending less means fatter paychecks. If a doctor needs to pay off a new car or a house payment, what's to stop him from saying that someone needs a new liver or some sort of surgery? Why do we have all these systems that are basic human rights being used to make a profit? Stop putting a dollar sign on food and healthcare that people need to survive because there will always be people who are unable to manage it. That's what capitalism does. There's no hiding the exploitation in the system


I would argue that the reason the Big 3 are in trouble is because they didn't innovate and compete with their competitors who did provide cleaner cars. Toyota's Prius was a huge success and led to more of the car companies making hybrids.




The idea that solving the hunger crisis is totally unfeasible is a total farce. We can spend money sending food, weapons and supplies to our soldiers occupying the multitude of countries who's sovereignty we are currently infringing upon, so why can't we use those same means to send food, supplies and materials to impoverished nations of the world? Why can't military helicopters carry food, supplies and medicine to nations of the world, as opposed to turrets, explosives and soldiers? Such a complex issue quickly becomes so simple, as with the imperialist nature of capitalism being done away with, much of the world's ails simply fade from existence.

I never said it was unfeasible, quite the contrary. But having all the developed countries just develop a system where the starving people can just depend on us, is not a long term solution.

And I have been very careful to read everything you say, I would expect the same from you. I would not encourage this country to send troops to another just to establish a marketplace. I would just encourage this country to trade with that one as much as possible with as little restriction as possible. That way we can exchange our money with their money, our labor with their labor, that way we will both benefit and be made wealthier.



We don't need to formulate marketplaces for these people. We need to eliminate the imperialist and colonialist factors that create this poverty and manipulation of resources in the first place. Instead of formulating marketplaces, which have many innate characteristics such as exploitation, low quality and imperialism, why don't we establish an international community that collaborates and manages resources so that everyone can live in the luxury that such a tiny elite does? Honestly, with the elimination of the surplus value that corporate giants such as Wal-Mart, Exxon and McDonald's make, we could afford luxury healthcare, housing and education for every person on earth. Not one man excluded. Not one. Your marketplaces will leave many behind because capitalism inherently gives an immense amount of people the short end of the stick, whereas socialism promotes responsible management. No one needs to be left behind anymore.

How else do you advocate redistributing resources? Because I am not willing to justify the use of force to give someone something he did not produce. The marketplace allows for this to happen through voluntary exchange.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Bill Gates owns a company which provides a good and service to millions of people around the world. He gets paid for these goods and services because the people that use them value them at the price Bill Gates is selling it for.

And bill gates fundamental contribution in the modern world is his wealth. While not downplay his place in building his empire, he now sits on top of it and you could cut him out and nothing would change as long as his money stayed.


A musician or actor can have labor that is value by thousands and millions of people. His labor is worth way more then mine because people are willing to pay more for his labor.Actually the cold and hard reality of an artists labor? Nothing, not one scrap of production. They do not produce, they create something wonderful and beautiful, but what they create through there labor is not a commodity.
It's information, and information is free.


Businessmen want people to work for them. If less people are willing to do the job, businessmen will have to pay them more to do it.Then why is mcdonalds counter guy and janitor not highly paid? If the freemarket were applied to wages you know how much CEOs would get paid? Zilp, Zero, Nadda. Someone would be willing to take the job just for the power.


I don't give a shit about agricultureI said agrian ideal, libertarianism is stuck in the ideas of a largely agrian economy. Not a modern post industrial economy. And most certainly not the economies that technology will enable as time goes on.

Remember your talking about the value of artists? Now artists work is infinitely reproducable with no loss to the artist. Or to summerize, art is a post scarcity economy and the only scarcity is artificially created. It's like burning food to keep food prices up.


You guys think that just because someone works, just because they do labor, that they are deserving of something. They aren't.Actually i think most of us want to abolish work altogether in the sense of drugery and upkeep maintance and that you deserve things merely because you exist.


Should they not be rewarded for their contribution to society?What one does should always be a labor of love, done because you want to do it. Not for the mere sake of mere survival, and not to score points. But because it will make you and other people happy.


How else do you advocate redistributing resources? Because I am not willing to justify the use of force to give someone something he did not produce.
How do they intend to protect there property without force? Property requires force to protect, and if force is illegitimate as so many libertarians claim there is no way to keep property as anyone can just walk up and take it. Unless your willing to shoot them of course.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

And bill gates fundamental contribution in the modern world is his wealth. While not downplay his place in building his empire, he now sits on top of it and you could cut him out and nothing would change as long as his money stayed.

His money stays their because he is efficiently allocating his resources. If this money no longer belonged to him, the money would be spent in a way that Bill Gates would not find efficient. And instead of just consuming everything in sight, which Bill Gates could do. He is giving a large part of it to charity, because he gets value out of it.



Actually the cold and hard reality of an artists labor? Nothing, not one scrap of production. They do not produce, they create something wonderful and beautiful, but what they create through there labor is not a commodity.
It's information, and information is free.


They produce information, information which you and I put a price on. Information can be free and easily transferred. Doesn't mean it has to be.



Then why is mcdonalds counter guy and janitor not highly paid? If the freemarket were applied to wages you know how much CEOs would get paid? Zilp, Zero, Nadda. Someone would be willing to take the job just for the power.


What are you talking about? The free market does decide CEO's wages. The supply of people wanting to be CEO is quite large. But who do they give the job too? The guy they think has the most skill and can best lead the company. Very few people can do this and this is why they get the big bucks.



I said agrian ideal, libertarianism is stuck in the ideas of a largely agrian economy. Not a modern post industrial economy. And most certainly not the economies that technology will enable as time goes on.

Capitalism exists to solve the knowledge problem of distribution of resources. This includes information. The transfer of information is not free. It doesn't matter how much technology their is capitalism can exist and function well.



Remember your talking about the value of artists? Now artists work is infinitely reproducable with no loss to the artist. Or to summerize, art is a post scarcity economy and the only scarcity is artificially created. It's like burning food to keep food prices up.

Actually i think most of us want to abolish work altogether in the sense of drugery and upkeep maintance and that you deserve things merely because you exist.


I don't think I deserve anything except the right to not be violently coerced by anyone else. I want stuff and I am willing to pay for it. Don't bother me and I won't bother you.



What one does should always be a labor of love, done because you want to do it. Not for the mere sake of mere survival, and not to score points. But because it will make you and other people happy.

Their is nothing stopping people from doing jobs they like in a capitalist system. They just have to find it.




How do they intend to protect there property without force? Property requires force to protect, and if force is illegitimate as so many libertarians claim there is no way to keep property as anyone can just walk up and take it. Unless your willing to shoot them of course.

Property requires the threat of force, not the action of force. Force is "just" when it is used only for self-defense of self and property. A society with rules on the threat of force can be made non-violent. The only just war is a defensive one. The only "just" transfer of private property is a voluntary one.

Most libertarians believe you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as that does not hurt or coerce someone else.

[Decolonize The Left]

Most libertarians believe you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as that does not hurt or coerce someone else.

Then "most libertarians" can't be capitalists... :lol:

- August

[Dejavu]

Then "most libertarians" can't be capitalists... :lol:

- August


Explain.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Why do you think that is? Maybe because people don't want to participate in a system where the labor that someone puts in is leached off by someone who not as productive as them.
I'm sorry, but this is what capitalism is about: the labor is put in by the workers. While the capitalist (business owner) does nothing but sit on his ass all day, still he pockets the profits made after paying the raw materials and a pittance for the labor of the worker.


So what is stopping the workers from becoming part of the bourgeoisie?The system is biased against the workers. There is no point in a system where slaves becoming slave owners, is there? In my view, capitalism is a slave society with workers as wage slaves and bourgeoisie as wage slave-owners. The entire system of "markets" which causes this unfair division among human beings needs to be abolished.


Their are a lot of people that start their own businesses and work for themselves.In Colonial Brazil, chattel slaves could buy their way out of slavery and become slave owners themselves.


you want to know why my dad deserved to make more money then the people working for him? Because he is doing the most productive work. He is investing his time and money and providing goods to those who want them. Depends on what you mean by productive:
1) Sitting on their ass in an air-conditioned office all day, practically doing no work, which is what bourgeoisie do.
2) Toiling all day in an office or factory only to see the profits from their labor going into the pockets of the lazy boss/es, which is what proletarians do.


If it weren't for my dad, the workers he employs wouldn't have a jobActually, if it wasn't for your dad, there would have been some other rich capitalist around to recruit wage slaves and work them for the sake of his own profit. Also, your statement assumes that the workers need to work. In other words, the workers have no choice but to work. The only other "option" they have is starvation. That is the free choice free market in action for you.

[PRC-UTE]

No, you are misinformed re this. A. Smith's The Wealth Nations was an account of the economics Smith saw around him at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. It was only socialist utopians who had the temerity to conceive of the way economies should be run hached from their perfect brains.

of course, workers never came together to improve their conditions, or even form cooperatives or mutual aid to meet their needs outside the market economy, so socialists didn't just imagine that. they did point out the line of march, however.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Capitalism exists to solve the knowledge problem of distribution of resources. This includes information.

Information is not scarce. There is no distribution problem with it thanks to the internet.


The transfer of information is not free.Google and wikipedia freely offer information. Wikipedia is an entirely communist system as it's all done by volenteer work. Google and wikipedia are the two most valuable information resources in the world.
And you forgot file sharing, i can freely transfer 1s and 0s without any loss of my own 1s and 0s.


It doesn't matter how much technology their is capitalism can exist and function well.Diamond age or post scarcity.
It barely functions in the modern age as is, or have you not noticied homeless bums or that people still work for there upkeep even though it is unnessasary for the majority of people to work while still giving them reasonable standards of living.
Or the whole issue that it can't cope with internet file sharing.


Property requires the threat of force, not the action of force. Force is "just" when it is used only for self-defense of self and property.Why does protection of stuff you aren't even using the only legitimate time to iniatite force? If you believe all coercion and force are unjust that's fine but why is there this little asteric next to that saying "except your stuff".


Most libertarians believe you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as that does not hurt or coerce someone else.Threat of starvation is coercion.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Google and wikipedia freely offer information. Wikipedia is an entirely communist system as it's all done by volenteer work. Google and wikipedia are the two most valuable information resources in the world.
And you forgot file sharing, i can freely transfer 1s and 0s without any loss of my own 1s and 0s.


Actually, I have friends who won't even use Wikipedia because they say it's false infomation that can't be trusted. With that being said, I don't think Wikipedia could be considered valuable. This whole "false infomation" thing seems to be a problem with Wikipedia for alot of people.

[Plagueround]

Google and wikipedia freely offer information. Wikipedia is an entirely communist system as it's all done by volenteer work. Google and wikipedia are the two most valuable information resources in the world.
And you forgot file sharing, i can freely transfer 1s and 0s without any loss of my own 1s and 0s.


I hate to say it, but this is not entirely true. The information itself is free, but the storage is not. I work in two facilities, one that houses 16,000 machines and another with over 90,000 servers, just to deal with a tiny fraction of the searches the company I work for provides. The computing power needed to store and transfer this information is tremendous. It doesn't invalidate everything you say because you're talking about the transfer of the information and not the data, but it is something to consider when talking about computers making things free because there are still costs to be considered somewhere. You don't lose your 1s and 0s, but it does take quite a bit in the long run to move them all around.

Of course, it also doesn't mean we couldn't figure out a much better and more efficient way of doing so, nor does it invalidate your original point, and it doesn't lock us into capitalism, especially if we knocked out the useless machines that store all that annoying advertising programming.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Google and wikipedia freely offer information. Wikipedia is an entirely communist system as it's all done by volenteer work. Google and wikipedia are the two most valuable information resources in the world.
Just as an off-topic comment, while Google is a huge corporation run for the sake of profit, wikipedia is a non-profit corporation. All the information held in common by the people in the erstwhile information superhighway is slowly being taken over by corporations, something similar to the corporatization of TV, radio and other mass media in the past.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Actually, I have friends who won't even use Wikipedia because they say it's false infomation that can't be trusted. With that being said, I don't think Wikipedia could be considered valuable. This whole "false infomation" thing seems to be a problem with Wikipedia for alot of people.

Wikipedia is as accurate as any other encyclopedia. There is no false information problem except in the heads of people who aren't thinking.


I hate to say it, but this is not entirely true. The information itself is free, but the storage is not.

Oh most definitely true. It's as "free" in the physical sense as my thoughts are. But that's just upkeep and is a tiny fraction of the use of those systems, Shall i say information abundance than post scarcity? As it's a closer aproximation to the reality but doesn't have the largly emotional impact of saying post scarcity.
It still doesn't change my point, that capitilism can't adapt to information abundance or abundance period while communism(and technocracy) are designed with abundance in mind. and that a commune(wikipedia) is providing services massively better than the free market alternative could.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Wikipedia is as accurate as any other encyclopedia. There is no false information problem except in the heads of people who aren't thinking.


Of course my friends aren't thinking. They're Conservatives.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

I'm sorry, but this is what capitalism is about: the labor is put in by the workers. While the capitalist (business owner) does nothing but sit on his ass all day, still he pockets the profits made after paying the raw materials and a pittance for the labor of the worker.

Most capitalists do not sit on their ass all day, they make sure the workers are doing their job, they constantly evaluate what their customers want and how to better meet those expectations. He invests time and money to make sure that customers get what they want.



The system is biased against the workers. There is no point in a system where slaves becoming slave owners, is there? In my view, capitalism is a slave society with workers as wage slaves and bourgeoisie as wage slave-owners. The entire system of "markets" which causes this unfair division among human beings needs to be abolished.

The system is not biased against anyone. It encourages the creation of wealth and value. If you create value and wealth, you get rewarded. If you don't you don't.



In Colonial Brazil, chattel slaves could buy their way out of slavery and become slave owners themselves.

No one is being forced to work, no one is putting a gun to anyones head. If people don't want to work, then they don't have to work. You say they are forced to because if they didn't they would starve. Tell me if you were stranded on an island. If you didn't work, wouldn't you die of starvation? Of course if you don't work you die, that's the whole point of life. In order to keep surviving you have to get food, getting food requires labor.

In a capitalist system or communist system, if people don't work, they starve.




Depends on what you mean by productive:
1) Sitting on their ass in an air-conditioned office all day, practically doing no work, which is what bourgeoisie do.
2) Toiling all day in an office or factory only to see the profits from their labor going into the pockets of the lazy boss/es, which is what proletarians do.

You clearly know nothing about what it takes to run a business. I guess all that work my dad does is just for show right?



Actually, if it wasn't for your dad, there would have been some other rich capitalist around to recruit wage slaves and work them for the sake of his own profit. Also, your statement assumes that the workers need to work. In other words, the workers have no choice but to work. The only other "option" they have is starvation. That is the free choice free market in action for you.
That's probably true, but if it wasn't for my dad competing to get labor the cheapest price he could, the wages of those workers might be a little less.

When workers labor for too low a price, more capitalists will come into the market and employ them.

Again your starvation argument means nothing. That is the game of life.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

Why does protection of stuff you aren't even using the only legitimate time to iniatite force? If you believe all coercion and force are unjust that's fine but why is there this little asteric next to that saying "except your stuff".

Morality, if everyone leaves everyone else and their property alone. Their would be no violence and you could still have an efficient distribution system. Obviously humans can never be completely non violent and non-coercive.




Threat of starvation is coercion.

Then you should get angry with mother nature then. This has nothing to do with capitalism. If you don't labor to get food, you will die no matter what system you are in. You could receive food from someone else and not do anything, but this just puts more labor on someone else. Why should they have to labor for them?

[GracchusBabeuf]

Most capitalists do not sit on their ass all day, they make sure the workers are doing their job, they constantly evaluate what their customers want and how to better meet those expectations. He invests time and money to make sure that customers get what they want. Ok. But do they actually take part in the production of goods or services? Whose money does he invest? Could there have been any money if there were no workers to produce the goods? Also, you apparently missed my point that the fruits of the labor of the workers who are the real producers is going into the pockets of their bosses.


The system is not biased against anyone. It encourages the creation of wealth and value. If you create value and wealth, you get rewarded. If you don't you don't.Then why isn't everyone a millionaire now under capitalism? Oh wait. I guess thats because not everyone is "competent" enough. Clearly the story that everyone can become a millionaire if "they work hard enough" is a huge myth. If you read A Peoples History of the United States, you will see that this myth has been propagated from the earliest days of US capitalism in the 1800's to keep the workers for rebelling.


No one is being forced to work, no one is putting a gun to anyones head.Say that to the sweatshop workers in Third World countries who are locked in their factories for periods of more than 12 hours by the factory bosses to produce goods for their US clients.


If people don't want to work, then they don't have to work. You say they are forced to because if they didn't they would starve. Tell me if you were stranded on an island. If you didn't work, wouldn't you die of starvation? Of course if you don't work you die, that's the whole point of life. In order to keep surviving you have to get food, getting food requires labor.
So you think all those who starve in the US and other capitalist systems do so just because they are lazy or because they like to starve and die?


In a capitalist system or communist system, if people don't work, they starve. Thats true. But as far as I am concerned, the communist systems we have seen so far are examples of "state capitalism", where the wealth and state power is concentrated in the hands of a few bureaucrats. This is a sister-system of free-market capitalism where the wealth and state power is concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists.


You clearly know nothing about what it takes to run a business. I guess all that work my dad does is just for show right? Actually I have seen my share of businessmen. I have seen that the more ruthless they are and the harder they make their workers work, the more "rewarded" they are by the "great capitalist system". Also some slave-owners also did work hard and ensured some "decent quality of life" for their slaves. Some apologists used this argument to justify the slave-system in the US South.


That's probably true, but if it wasn't for my dad competing to get labor the cheapest price he could, the wages of those workers might be a little less.Aren't you contradicting yourself there? If there were no competition to find the "cheapest workers" and make the most profits, why would the workers' wages be so low?


When workers labor for too low a price, more capitalists will come into the market and employ them. Thats the inherent flaw in the system. The US has been seeing real wages for workers declining or remaining stagnant for the past 30 odd years, in the meanwhile the productivity has been going up like anything. Thus we see a gap between what is being produced by the worker and what is being got for that work. Where do you think this "surplus" money is going?


Again your starvation argument means nothing. That is the game of life.The rules of this "game of life" unfortunately are made by the capitalist bosses. It is always the workers who suffer. In the case of an economic crisis, workers who are laboring and have done nothing wrong will lose their jobs and face starvation and death. In the meanwhile, the capitalist bosses will gladly pocket more and more profit as well as the state bailouts.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

Ok. But do they actually take part in the production of goods or services? Whose money does he invest? Could there have been any money if there were no workers to produce the goods? Also, you apparently missed my point that the fruits of the labor of the workers who are the real producers is going into the pockets of their bosses.

Yes, they are manging the workers in way so that they can produce the things they want to trade. He may invest his money of the money of others. When he does this with his money or the money of others, he is taking the risk that he might not get it back. Every investment is not successful one, and many investments that were once profitable no longer are. When this happens investment is diverted from resources that were once profitable into new ones that may or may not be.





Then why isn't everyone a millionaire now under capitalism? Oh wait. I guess thats because not everyone is "competent" enough. Clearly the story that everyone can become a millionaire if "they work hard enough" is a huge myth. If you read A Peoples History of the United States, you will see that this myth has been propagated from the earliest days of US capitalism in the 1800's to keep the workers for rebelling.

Why is 1 million the magical number for success? Capitalism may not make everyone a million dollars. But it will give those who want it the ability acquire goods that they want in a voluntary fashion. This leads to great wealth creation.


The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:


Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.


If their was no system where people could specialize their labor and trade for value, people would work hard all day just to keep up substinence living. The average poor person today in the United States is much better off then many in the world.




Say that to the sweatshop workers in Third World countries who are locked in their factories for periods of more than 12 hours by the factory bosses to produce goods for their US clients.

This is not a true capitalist system. A capitalist system depends on voluntary trade. Obviously someone is being coerced and this is not considered capitalist or moral.




So you think all those who starve in the US and other capitalist systems do so just because they are lazy or because they like to starve and die?

If they can think for themselves and have little to no physical handicap. Then yeah, their are many, many, charities for people in this country to feed the homeless, also plenty of people are willing to feed a homeless person when asked. Many people give them money when they beg.




Thats true. But as far as I am concerned, the communist systems we have seen so far are examples of "state capitalism", where the wealth and state power is concentrated in the hands of a few bureaucrats. This is a sister-system of free-market capitalism where the wealth and state power is concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists.

Ok, remove the State and you still have to labor to get the food you want to not starve. The State has nothing to do with that.



Actually I have seen my share of businessmen. I have seen that the more ruthless they are and the harder they make their workers work, the more "rewarded" they are by the "great capitalist system". Also some slave-owners also did work hard and ensured some "decent quality of life" for their slaves. Some apologists used this argument to justify the slave-system in the US South.


Quit comparing labor in modern America to slavery. They are completely different. One is voluntary and the other is not. One uses violent coercion with the use of a gun and whip while the other uses money. Just because you are "ruthless" to your workers does not mean that that is the only successful business model. Many companies like to make the people that work for them as happy as they can. Look at companies like Google and Sam Adams.



Aren't you contradicting yourself there? If there were no competition to find the "cheapest workers" and make the most profits, why would the workers' wages be so low?

No, by competing to pay the cheapest price, my dad has to compete with other firms hiring people for the cheapest price, the higher the demand for labor, the higher the wage will be. Inversely, if the demand for labor goes down, so do wages.



Thats the inherent flaw in the system. The US has been seeing real wages for workers declining or remaining stagnant for the past 30 odd years, in the meanwhile the productivity has been going up like anything. Thus we see a gap between what is being produced by the worker and what is being got for that work. Where do you think this "surplus" money is going?

Do you have link to some data to support this?




The rules of this "game of life" unfortunately are made by the capitalist bosses. It is always the workers who suffer. In the case of an economic crisis, workers who are laboring and have done nothing wrong will lose their jobs and face starvation and death. In the meanwhile, the capitalist bosses will gladly pocket more and more profit as well as the state bailouts.

In a true capitalist system the State does not bail out anyone. Why? Because companies that fail in tough economic times are being just as unproductive. When these companies fail, the capitalists are the ones that hurt the most because they lose their money and capital. In essence when a company has failed, wealth has transferred from that company to more productive endevours.

[BlackCapital]

I was on the Sean Hannity forums yesterday telling them about their views on outsourcing. Unfortunately I only saved one of my several posts and was shortly after perma-banned. They deleted all my posts, even the ones where people had quoted and responded.

" LOL...Don't you guys understand that outsourcing is just another excellent tactic in capitalism today? Our heroic leaders constantly compete with each other through profits for dominance in the market, to keep the U.S.A the greatest country on Earth! It is so much cheaper for them to move their businesses to third-world countries and get impoverished peasants or children to work for a fraction of the wage!

If we wan't to fix our economy we need to let the glory of the free market loose once again on American soil!!! We don't need any government to tell our businesses what the minimum they should be paying us is!

The fact that some of you have lost your jobs is sad, but God will help you out! God knows capitalism is a good thing and that it requires things like unemployment to keep its wages low! People losing their jobs just couldn't make the cut; they should ask to work for less and receive less benefits so their employers could make more money, and wouldn't have to fire them!

FREE MARKET FOREVER!!!!!!!!"- Former HANNNITYLOVER2008 :laugh:

The reality of their beliefs even startled some of them. My only regret is I got banned before I could post my argument for why public bathrooms should be privatized and charge fees.

[MMIKEYJ]

I was on the Sean Hannity forums yesterday telling them about their views on outsourcing. Unfortunately I only saved one of my several posts and was shortly after perma-banned. They deleted all my posts, even the ones where people had quoted and responded.

" LOL...Don't you guys understand that outsourcing is just another excellent tactic in capitalism today? Our heroic leaders constantly compete with each other through profits for dominance in the market, to keep the U.S.A the greatest country on Earth! It is so much cheaper for them to move their businesses to third-world countries and get impoverished peasants or children to work for a fraction of the wage!

If we wan't to fix our economy we need to let the glory of the free market loose once again on American soil!!! We don't need any government to tell our businesses what the minimum they should be paying us is!

The fact that some of you have lost your jobs is sad, but God will help you out! God knows capitalism is a good thing and that it requires things like unemployment to keep its wages low! People losing their jobs just couldn't make the cut; they should ask to work for less and receive less benefits so their employers could make more money, and wouldn't have to fire them!

FREE MARKET FOREVER!!!!!!!!"- Former HANNNITYLOVER2008 :laugh:

The reality of their beliefs even startled some of them. My only regret is I got banned before I could post my argument for why public bathrooms should be privatized and charge fees.

Some of the hannity people arent too tolerant - or bright for that matter. Im surprised they banned you.. I thought they only banned Ron Paul people like myself.

Its sounds like theyre half right from some of those posts, but the problem is most of them wouldnt know why they were half right or half wrong.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

Again, the capitalists do not produce diddlysquat. Everything from the factory buildings, machinery and the products are produced by the toiling workers. All the bosses have to do is to mooch off the workers' labor and live it up!;)

Without the capitalist the factory, the machinery, and the products the workers make do not exist. The workers make a wage and thats it. If the product fails and doesn't sell (which happens a lot ) the workers still get paid (at least for a while). This is because the capitalist is taking most of the risk. The worker gets his same wage no matter how hard he works or how much he produces. He has little risk if the products of his labor sell or not.



You have been repeating the same dogmatic myths over and over. Can you please respond to my specific points please?
I've been trying too, and I haven't called any of your beliefs "dogmatic myths."




You are assuming that there is some boss (who may be a capitalist or a bureaucrat) who manages the production of these workers. If there was no boss, wouldn't the workers be able to directly get the value of the goods/services they produce?
How so? Do you really think all the workers could get together and make the same decisions the boss was making. Maybe some of the workers have the ability and knowledge to do it, but most of them don't have a clue how to get the product they put work into and distribute it in a profitable manner.



Oh yeah! Thanks to trickle-down economics even the poor in this country have started becoming fat! Oh wait, or is that because of the $1 McDonalds burgers that they live off?:D

First of all what is wrong with $1 Hamburgers. My friends and I get McDonalds all the time and that's because the have the cheapest and best $1 Hamburgers. I don't advocate trickle-down economics. I think everyone should pay the same percentage of income except the very poor. Do you really think it is fair to take more money from someone percentage wise with the use of force simply because that person had a higher income.



Even in a true capitalist system (toward which the Randians seem to be working hard at, in their minds at least), workers are still are under the threat of starvation.
So it would be under Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, Anarcho-Socialism. IT DOESNT MATTER!!!! The state has nothing to do with the fact that you may starve if you don't work. That is a fact of life. Look at animals, if they don't work, they starve. The State has nothing to do with that, capitalism has nothing to do with that. It's like you guys aren't reading what I'm writing, I have answered this question 3 times now and have yet to hear a sufficient reply.



So its a case of blame the victim with you. The poor, destitute and hungry are themselves to blame then for their condition? If you had the slightest common sense, wouldn't you think that those people do not want to starve and die? Apparently, Rand didn't think so and neither do you.
What I said applied to this country. Because this country is one of the closest to a true capitalist system. At least in this country, if you don't to starve and die, you can pretty much be guaranteed you won't starve and die. If you lose your high paying job and just need to get by, you can get a shitty one until you get a better one.

In other countries where people are starving. They are starving for multiple reasons. Their country obviously has not provided the services required of a State. The state has somehow hindered the ability of someone who can make food and deliver it, maybe the money the country prints is worthless. Maybe the State hasn't provided basic public services like roads or clean water. Whatever the problem is, it is not because of capitalism. In capitalism, the person who wants food represents the ability to make a profit. As long as the state allows the market place to do what it does best (distribute resources to acquire a profit) the people who are starving wouldn't starve.




Also just charity isn't going to work. In spite of there being capitalism in almost all countries of this world, why is 1/3rd of humanity in poverty? Do you think there isn't enough charity to go around in this world? For example, in India, there are 54 billionaires. 27.5% of the people live in poverty. If charity could solve poverty, why hasn't it been solved already?
First of all I never said that charity would solve poverty. But taking all the money and giving it to poor people wouldn't solve the problem either. Their will always be poor people. But in a true capitalist society, the poor (like in the U.S) have all the basic needs and many luxuries.



Neither do the corporations. What we want to do is to remove both the state and the corporations to give workers direct access to the ends of their labor as well as the means of production.
Well it doesn't work, as all the countries that have tried communism can show you. When you take the means of production and make it public, society falters and does not advance and keep up with capitalist systems. The U.S.S.R, East Germany, Cuba, North Korea, and pretty soon Venezuela. China realized this and moved to a more private sector economy and has benefited greatly since Mao left.

All these countries had leaders that professed to be communist and be for the people? What happened? Were they all not really communist? Why couldn't they figure out how to put the means of produtions with the workers. Didn't they all want that? How about all those who died of starvation in Soviet Union and China. How is it that people are starving less in the so called capitalist countries?




Labor in all capitalist systems is wage slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery). Not just America. Ironically, taking US as an example, capitalists were able to gain foothold here because of the gun, the whip and the smallpox, which they used against the native Americans.

Just because something has a wikipedia article, doesn't make it true. If you are working for someone voluntarily, you are not a slave. I have already mentioned that I am against any coercive action which is not employed in self-defense. So why do you bring up Native Americans and smallpox? It seems your only argument against the United States and capitalism is that in our past we did some morally reprehensible things. That somehow these are the result of capitalism and voluntary trade. They aren't.




That is just corporate propaganda. Even some slave-owners claimed the same thing that their respective slaves were relatively happy.

So, essentially, the wages of the workers for the same labor depends on some whims of the capitalist bosses eh? The bosses can also fire any worker at will in your system, I assume.

So, I guess the reason that Google is one of the most wanted places to work is just a result of corporate propaganda. No, the wages of the worker depend on how much the worker values his own work and how much the boss values his work. When the boss values the worker's work as much as the
worker does himself, he will work.



This (http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+(1964-2004)) and this (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/opt/dipts/ipr.aiin.txt).

Well, I will just say that the numbers in that graph look worse then what they really are. Let me explain why. In 1982, the United States was getting out of a recession and interest rates were around 18%. The value of a dollar in 1982 was much higher then usual. Comparing wages from 1960-2009 and having 1982 as the base year does not give you a realistic view of real wages. If you had taken the year 1985 for example, the data would look a lot different. Also, in your second link, most of those sectors had increasing real wages when compared to 1997.




So you don't mind millions of workers losing jobs and facing starvation starvation and death as long as capitalists "don't hurt" as much? When companies fail, capitalists lose just a portion of their vast accumulated wealth, while all the workers working under that capitalist face joblessness and starvation. The magic of the market in action!

Do you really think that if we let the the Big 3 automakers people in Michigan would starve and die. Honestly? Those companies would either be bought up by someone else and their employment could continue, or they would be sold off piece by piece and the workers would have to move in order to find their desired labor. But this happens all the time. Business rise and fall and when one goes down, another one comes in its place. Workers will find new work and life will go on.

[Green Dragon]

They need unemployment to exist. You need a group of people ready to work, because that keeps wage levels down.

It actually creates a pool of people ready to work in a more efficient and optimal way.


If a worker doesn't agree to work for a capitalist for a certain wage, there isn't much they can do except for leave

It will always remain a mystery the different choices a worker faces in the socialist community, when the majority of his fellow workers democratically decide not to offer the compensation he otherwise wants.

[Green Dragon]

With resources properly managed,

Which is really the trick, eh??

[Green Dragon]

[

quote=WhitemageofDOOM;1370742]How do you measure how much someone produces?
For say farmers that's easy,


No, its hard also. Its not simply production, bt the value of the production which has to be factored.



Someones production is impossible to measure, and no one produces enough to be worth 10x the average person. It is then a simpler solution merely to assume everyone is valuable and not let people suffer because they don't do the activities the capitalist economy favors.


If your community is unable to measure the value of work to the community, then how can the community possibly expect to get the goods it wants and needs?




There also are not enough slots for everyone to be a business owner, who after all need workers.


The reason there are not enough "slots" is because there is not enough demand.

[Green Dragon]

If we taxed things properly and managed resources so that overproduction did not occur, these recessions would never happen. These recessions are caused by capitalist pursuit of profit, which makes more products in the hopes of makine more profit. Unfortunately, at some point, too much of a product is made and it over-extends past the level required, thus a recession or depression knocks production back to the stable levels. This is why automobile industries are being hit so hard. Because they overproduce consistently.

It would be more accurate to say that these "recessions" happen because nobody can see the future. Even socialists can't.
BTW, the American auto industry was slaughtered because it produced the types of vehicles which American auto consumers wanted- SUV's. It got nailed when the gas price spikes hit and suddenly Americans did not want SUV's. A competent socialist community, properly managing resources (and don't forget "democratically") would have doing the same thing and would have faced the same challenges.


The problem with the profit and monetary system is that it doesn't 'produce incentive through competition.' If anything, it produces significantly less quality because those making money want to spend as little as possible to make a product they can market.

But why would a socialist community wish to spend more money (or use more resources) to produce the same amount of goods? It seems incredibly wasteful to use more resources than needed to produce the same product.


Again, we look at the automobile industry. They have the means and resources to promote alternative energy and more efficient gas mileage in their vehicles, so why don't they?

1. Because auto companies are not energy companies.


Because it's too expensive and it means less profit.

Because auto consumers will not pay for the more expensive vehicles.


In the end, profit means less quality, as corporations will consistently cut corners and make mediocre profits because spending less means fatter paychecks.

This assumes spending less means cheaper or shoddier goods. Yet prices and costs of production on major items have been declining for years, while their quality has improved.


If a doctor needs to pay off a new car or a house payment, what's to stop him from saying that someone needs a new liver or some sort of surgery?

Professional ethics.


Why do we have all these systems that are basic human rights being used to make a profit?

A profit is nothing more than the value of a finished good being greater than the sum of its parts. It measures the value of production to the community.




The idea that solving the hunger crisis is totally unfeasible is a total farce. We can spend money sending food, weapons and supplies to our soldiers occupying the multitude of countries who's sovereignty we are currently infringing upon, so why can't we use those same means to send food, supplies and materials to impoverished nations of the world? Why can't military helicopters carry food, supplies and medicine to nations of the world, as opposed to turrets, explosives and soldiers? Such a complex issue quickly becomes so simple, as with the imperialist nature of capitalism being done away with, much of the world's ails simply fade from existence.


The problem is that the food ect. being produced presently occurs within the confines of the capitalist system. You simply assume that output will more or less continue as before once capitalism is done away with.

[Green Dragon]

If there were no competition to find the "cheapest workers" and make the most profits, why would the workers' wages be so low?

Thats the inherent flaw in the system.


Why would a socialist community seek to consume more resources than neccessary to produce needed goods and services?

[GracchusBabeuf]

Without the capitalist the factory, the machinery, and the products the workers make do not exist. The workers make a wage and thats it. If the product fails and doesn't sell (which happens a lot ) the workers still get paid (at least for a while). This is because the capitalist is taking most of the risk. The worker gets his same wage no matter how hard he works or how much he produces. He has little risk if the products of his labor sell or not. On the other hand, they can exist and they do exist in the form of co-operatives. These are "companies" which are owned by those who work in it. Your perspective is so skewed towards the single biggest parasite (the boss) that you cannot see things from the perspective of the worker. Please let me know if the factory/office your father has could have been built by him alone? Or if a single boss can make the products and sell them all by himself? Why are you so blind towards the contribution of the workers?


I've been trying too, and I haven't called any of your beliefs "dogmatic myths." I appreciate that.


How so? Do you really think all the workers could get together and make the same decisions the boss was making. Maybe some of the workers have the ability and knowledge to do it, but most of them don't have a clue how to get the product they put work into and distribute it in a profitable manner. How do you know that? Objectivism creates the myth of the "uber-mensch" capitalist who does everything. This speaks aganst reality and the experience of anyone who has ever worked for a living.


First of all what is wrong with $1 Hamburgers. My friends and I get McDonalds all the time and that's because the have the cheapest and best $1 Hamburgers. There's nothing wrong with them except that they create poor fat people. ;)


I think everyone should pay the same percentage of income except the very poor. Do you really think it is fair to take more money from someone percentage wise with the use of force simply because that person had a higher incomeSo you do accept that the poor can pay less income tax? If you cannot understand where the money for the capitalist class is coming from, you cannot understand the concept of progressive tax. Money does not grow on trees. Wealth is created by the labor of the working class. This wealth is expropriated by the capitalist class in the form of profit.


Look at animals, if they don't work, they starve. Ah! I am interested to know the latest work schedules for your pet dog.:D Just kidding. Animals do not work anywhere buddy.


What I said applied to this country. Because this country is one of the closest to a true capitalist system. At least in this country, if you don't to starve and die, you can pretty much be guaranteed you won't starve and die. Have you ever seen homeless people before? Do you think they have chosen that lifestyle out of their whim?


If you lose your high paying job and just need to get by, you can get a shitty one until you get a better one. You are again forgetting that the majority of people who do the actual work are in "shitty jobs". If they lose their "shitty jobs" the only option for them is to starve.


In other countries where people are starving. They are starving for multiple reasons. Their country obviously has not provided the services required of a State. So you think that the state has to make sure that people do not starve?


The state has somehow hindered the ability of someone who can make food and deliver it, maybe the money the country prints is worthless. Maybe the State hasn't provided basic public services like roads or clean water. Whatever the problem is, it is not because of capitalism. In capitalism, the person who wants food represents the ability to make a profit. As long as the state allows the market place to do what it does best (distribute resources to acquire a profit) the people who are starving wouldn't starve. Actually, the state in those countries that I mentioned does allow the market to function as it wants. There are no regulations or oversight by the state. This is thanks to the IMF and World Bank policy of implementation of free market in exchange for loans. All these poor countries have thus taken the loan and implemented free market policies.

Can you consider the possibility that the state in those countries, by allowing businesses to make profits without any oversight, has allowed these businesses (which are mostly foreign) to loot the countries of their wealth and thus make a majority of the population poor?


First of all I never said that charity would solve poverty. But taking all the money and giving it to poor people wouldn't solve the problem either.
How will there be poor people if they have money?


Their will always be poor people. But in a true capitalist society, the poor (like in the U.S) have all the basic needs and many luxuries.Again, you apparently are not living in the US. Because in the US, I see homeless and poor people everywhere. Would you say a homeless person has "all the basic needs and many luxuries"? Isn't having a home a basic necessity?


The U.S.S.R, East Germany, Cuba, North Korea, and pretty soon Venezuela. China realized this and moved to a more private sector economy and has benefited greatly since Mao left. In all those countries, do you know if any of the means of production were owned directly by the worker? The answer is no. All these countries had state bureaucrats controlling their economies and have now moved to market economies where the capitalist class in control over the economy.


All these countries had leaders that professed to be communist and be for the people? What happened? Were they all not really communist? Why couldn't they figure out how to put the means of produtions with the workers. Didn't they all want that? How about all those who died of starvation in Soviet Union and China. How is it that people are starving less in the so called capitalist countries?Again, there is a difference between:
1) Market capitalist economy (we are seeing now)
2) State capitalist economy (saw in former communist countries)
3) Worker controlled economy (advocated by me)


Just because something has a wikipedia article, doesn't make it true. If you are working for someone voluntarily, you are not a slave. :rolleyes: Did you bother to read the article?


I have already mentioned that I am against any coercive action which is not employed in self-defense. So why do you bring up Native Americans and smallpox? Because you have been trumpeting the US as the only "true" capitalist country. I am just pointing out the gory history behind the present day US capitalism.


It seems your only argument against the United States and capitalism is that in our past we did some morally reprehensible things. That somehow these are the result of capitalism and voluntary trade. They aren't.
On the other hand, the morally reprehensible things (mass murder of native populations) are the force behind all capitalist countries. Not the other way around.


So, I guess the reason that Google is one of the most wanted places to work is just a result of corporate propaganda.
Yes.


No, the wages of the worker depend on how much the worker values his own work and how much the boss values his work. When the boss values the worker's work as much as the worker does himself, he will work.
So you agree that workers should have some say in how much pay they get?


Well, I will just say that the numbers in that graph look worse then what they really are. Let me explain why. In 1982, the United States was getting out of a recession and interest rates were around 18%. The value of a dollar in 1982 was much higher then usual. Comparing wages from 1960-2009 and having 1982 as the base year does not give you a realistic view of real wages. If you had taken the year 1985 for example, the data would look a lot different. Also, in your second link, most of those sectors had increasing real wages when compared to 1997. Your point being? You still didn't say where the surplus profits from the productivity of the labor are going, if not into the ever-growing pockets of the capitalist class.


Do you really think that if we let the the Big 3 automakers people in Michigan would starve and die. Honestly? I guess the above sentence is incomplete.


Those companies would either be bought up by someone else and their employment could continue, or they would be sold off piece by piece and the workers would have to move in order to find their desired labor. But this happens all the time. Business rise and fall and when one goes down, another one comes in its place. Workers will find new work and life will go on.
Yes. Thats all fine and dandy for the capitalist class, but it means the constant threat of poverty and starvation for the working class.

[Green Dragon]

How do you know that? Objectivism creates the myth of the "uber-mensch" capitalist who does everything. This speaks aganst reality and the experience of anyone who has ever worked for a living.


It reflects the reality that it can take years to be skilled and trained in particular skills and tasks. And that the best economy is one which uses those talents.
Does the skilled forklift operator not understand the intricacies of running a warehouse? Not neccessarilly. But it doesn't confer that knowledge by fiat, anymore so than the owner of the warehouse is a skilled forlkift operator simply because he employs forlkift operators. One would be hardpressed to defend the notion that it would make no difference to the operations of the firm if it should use unskilled forklift operators.










How will there be poor people if they have money?


Because as you said earlier "Money does not grow on trees."





Again, there is a difference between:
1) Market capitalist economy (we are seeing now)
2) State capitalist economy (saw in former communist countries)
3) Worker controlled economy (advocated by me)


Why should the workers control the economy? After all, who really cares what the workers want?
Should not the consumers be the ones controlling the economy? After all, is not the satisfacying their needs and wants the entire justification for the workers... working?





So you agree that workers should have some say in how much pay they get?


They do it all the time in a capitalist community. "Mr. Jones, this job pays $X per hour (or year)."Mr Jones can say "okay" or can say "Mr Greedy Businessman, I wil work for $Y per hour (or year)." Mr. Greedy Business man can say "no, I do not believe the job is worth that much compensation. Sorry" or he could say "ok."
The real question is how this scenario would be substanially different in the socialist community.




Yes. Thats all fine and dandy for the capitalist class, but it means the constant threat of poverty and starvation for the working class.
[/QUOTE]

Well, no. What this is is the reflection of a constantly changing, constantly adjusting community. The constant threat of poverty is a more realistic outcoming in a static community, where nothing changes, where no prgress is made.

[synthesis]

It reflects the reality that it can take years to be skilled and trained in particular skills and tasks.

Not the point. It doesn't take years to learn how to own factories and sweatshops, or anything else for that matter.

I don't think anyone here thinks that specialization is a bad thing, and we all have ideas as to how it could be encouraged in communism. But if your specialization is "owning things", we can do just fine without you.

[Lord Testicles]

Because as you said earlier "Money does not grow on trees."


No, you have missed the point, people are being robbed of the wealth that they create by a lazy, parasitic capitalist class. Without capitalists taking a lions share of the wealth that workers have created people will be able to have more money/goods/banana bread.

[Green Dragon]

I don't think anyone here thinks that specialization is a bad thing, and we all have ideas as to how it could be encouraged in communism.

The advantages of specialisation, is not, as you say, a bad thing. It is not created by capitalism, rather that capitalism reacts to the natural need and advantages thereof. That communism needs to have "ideas" within its own system to encourage the advantages of "specialisation" implies the weakness of communism as against capitalism in this regard.

[Green Dragon]

No, you have missed the point, people are being robbed of the wealth that they create by a lazy, parasitic capitalist class. Without capitalists taking a lions share of the wealth that workers have created people will be able to have more money/goods/banana bread.


No. The point is that such an analysis as above is wrong.

[synthesis]

The advantages of specialisation, is not, as you say, a bad thing. It is not created by capitalism, rather that capitalism reacts to the natural need and advantages thereof. That communism needs to have "ideas" within its own system to encourage the advantages of "specialisation" implies the weakness of communism as against capitalism in this regard.

Capitalism encourages specialization with incentives and also by promising a life of complete servitude and powerlessness to workers who do not specialize. We want to get rid of the negative incentives; we debate as to what exactly the positive incentives should be.

In reality, your second sentence is functionally meaningless. First off, communism doesn't "need" anything, it's a theory. Therefore, it should properly read:

'communists need to have "ideas" within their own system to encourage the advantages of "specialisation" [which] implies the weakness of communism as against capitalism in this regard.'

And this is obviously where your argument fails completely, as communism is hypothetical, and therefore hypothetical methods of distribution are to be expected.

[RGacky3]

It is not created by capitalism, rather that capitalism reacts to the natural need and advantages thereof. That communism needs to have "ideas" within its own system to encourage the advantages of "specialisation" implies the weakness of communism as against capitalism in this regard.

What needs and advantages? For who? Capitalism works for Capitalists, not for society, THATS the difference. Which is why, there is'nt much specialization for preventing perfectly curable sicknesses in Africa that kill millions, but there is a lot for Plastic Surgery in California. Why? Because it follows the money.

[Green Dragon]

What needs and advantages? For who? Capitalism works for Capitalists, not for society, THATS the difference. Which is why, there is'nt much specialization for preventing perfectly curable sicknesses in Africa that kill millions, but there is a lot for Plastic Surgery in California. Why? Because it follows the money.


No. The difference is that the above analysis is incorrect.

[Green Dragon]

Capitalism encourages specialization with incentives and also by promising a life of complete servitude and powerlessness to workers who do not specialize. We want to get rid of the negative incentives; we debate as to what exactly the positive incentives should be.

Actually, "unspecialised" workers in a communist community would be powerless and live in servitude, whatever that means, as well. And that is because the communist community will face the same problem that skilled labor is better than unskilled labor.





And this is obviously where your argument fails completely, as communism is hypothetical, and therefore hypothetical methods of distribution are to be expected.


It is to be assumed that the revlefters hereabouts do not wish their theories to be hypothetical for all time. Rather than letting such people dodge their own ideas, I generally like to see people try to explain and defend their own theories on its own terms.

[GracchusBabeuf]

It reflects the reality that it can take years to be skilled and trained in particular skills and tasks. And that the best economy is one which uses those talents.I think that all that you and other Randians are saying was said earlier by socialists and Rand just exchanged "worker" with "capitalist", which was a mean-spirited thing to do.


Because as you said earlier "Money does not grow on trees."
No. If the workers directly get the profits from their labor, the capitalist class will be eliminated.


Why should the workers control the economy? After all, who really cares what the workers want?
Should not the consumers be the ones controlling the economy?
I am amazed at your not seeing that consumers don't grow on trees. They are the workers themselves.


The real question is how this scenario would be substanially different in the socialist community.
It would be different because the meddlesome and parasitic boss would be eliminated and forced to become an ordinary worker receiving wages according to what the workers decide to pay themselves.


Well, no. What this is is the reflection of a constantly changing, constantly adjusting community. The constant threat of poverty is a more realistic outcoming in a static community, where nothing changes, where no prgress is made.You seem to contradict yourself there and I'm not sure what you are talking about. The laboring class is under threat of poverty and starvation in a capitalist society while the capitalist class (because of their vast accumulated wealth) has no such threat.

[synthesis]

Actually, "unspecialised" workers in a communist community would be powerless and live in servitude, whatever that means, as well.

Well, no, they wouldn't, because the whole point of communism is to keep that from happening.


And that is because the communist community will face the same problem that skilled labor is better than unskilled labor.


It is to be assumed that the revlefters hereabouts do not wish their theories to be hypothetical for all time. Rather than letting such people dodge their own ideas, I generally like to see people try to explain and defend their own theories on its own terms.

OK. You still haven't explained why hypothetical incentives demonstrate "weakness" in a hypothetical political/economic system, but here's how I see it.

A communist society would divide all socially necessary labor among the population on the basis of qualified sortition, like jury duty.

At the same time, communism relies upon the automation of labor in order to ensure a reasonable standard of living, and that requires technology. The more we rely on technology, the more we need specialization in order to build, operate, and maintain that technology.

And I am not personally opposed to rewarding people with the patience to sit through a few years of engineering school with a sort of credit system which you can then use to procure luxury items or top-shelf weed or whatever. The people who produce luxury items would themselves receive credits, as they would have to be specialized themselves.

And if you aren't specialized, you're not powerless or servile because of it. You don't have to make your kids eat Top Ramen every day because you went straight to work at 7/11 (ironically, to feed your kids) instead of studying to become an astronaut like you always wanted.

All you'd have to do is put in a few hours a week for the public good, and you'd reap the same rewards as you would putting in 40 hours a week now - food, clothing, medicine, and shelter. If you want to focus on something bigger, like becoming a teacher or an inventor, the door's always open for you.

That sounds pretty good to me. What are your objections?

[RGacky3]

No. The difference is that the above analysis is incorrect.

How so?

[revolution inaction]

And I am not personally opposed to rewarding people with the patience to sit through a few years of engineering school with a sort of credit system which you can then use to procure luxury items or top-shelf weed or whatever. The people who produce luxury items would themselves receive credits, as they would have to be specialized themselves.


I doubt a reward would be needed to encourage people to study engineering or whatever, I did physics at uni and the only problem with it for me was that I was poor compared with if I'd had a job instead (other people said the same thing too it not just me), which wouldn't be an issue in a communist society.

[synthesis]

I doubt a reward would be needed to encourage people to study engineering or whatever, I did physics at uni and the only problem with it for me was that I was poor compared with if I'd had a job instead (other people said the same thing too it not just me), which wouldn't be an issue in a communist society.

We can't base an entire system on that, though. Not everyone is like you and me.

Studying a subject is entirely different from devoting your life to applying it for the benefit of society. That's the meaning of "specialization."

[Green Dragon]

No. If the workers directly get the profits from their labor, the capitalist class will be eliminated.


No, since after all there is no guarantee of any profit from any labor.



I am amazed at your not seeing that consumers don't grow on trees. They are the workers themselves.


Workers producing a particular item, statistically probably consume 0% of what they produce.

[Green Dragon]

A communist society would divide all socially necessary labor among the population on the basis of qualified sortition, like jury duty.

At the same time, communism relies upon the automation of labor in order to ensure a reasonable standard of living, and that requires technology. The more we rely on technology, the more we need specialization in order to build, operate, and maintain that technology.

And I am not personally opposed to rewarding people with the patience to sit through a few years of engineering school with a sort of credit system which you can then use to procure luxury items or top-shelf weed or whatever. The people who produce luxury items would themselves receive credits, as they would have to be specialized themselves.


Why would he communist community, seeking to end hunger and despair, see the production of luxury items as socially neccessary? To bribe to engineers?



And if you aren't specialized, you're not powerless or servile because of it. You don't have to make your kids eat Top Ramen every day because you went straight to work at 7/11 (ironically, to feed your kids) instead of studying to become an astronaut like you always wanted.

All you'd have to do is put in a few hours a week for the public good, and you'd reap the same rewards as you would putting in 40 hours a week now - food, clothing, medicine, and shelter. If you want to focus on something bigger, like becoming a teacher or an inventor, the door's always open for you.


The objection here is that your community is then not distinguishing between labor within the community. You recognise such a circumstance is untenable (hence the additional credits for engineers and the like). But in crafting yur solution, nothing has been solved.

[Plagueround]

Workers producing a particular item, statistically probably consume 0% of what they produce.

I think this demonstrates the rather linear and literally thinking of most of our pro-capitalist posters. If someone works at a toothpaste factory, we're not saying under communism they would FINALLY GET TO EAT ALL THAT TOOTHPASTE THEY MADE SINCE THEY PRODUCED IT!

The workers, collectively, are the main consumers of society's products as a whole because they are the majority. The exception being of course, luxury items that most workers could never afford.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The workers, collectively, are the main consumers of society's products as a whole because they are the majority. The exception being of course, luxury items that most workers could never afford.

We could always get those Bourgeoisie pigs to produce luxury items for the workers. Show them what it feels like to be slaves! Grrr! :mad:

[Plagueround]

We could always get those Bourgeoisie pigs to produce luxury items for the workers. Show them what it feels like to be slaves! Grrr! :mad:

I would never lower myself to their level in such a fashion. :glare:

[LOLseph Stalin]

I would never lower myself to their level in such a fashion. http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-all-you-p1374516/revleft/smilies2/glare.gif

True, true. We need to punish them somehow. Well I guess we could just overthrow them and seize their property and give it to the workers! :D

[RGacky3]

No, since after all there is no guarantee of any profit from any labor.

Under communism the idea of 'profit' goes out the window. The work is'nt profit driven its need/want driven.


Workers producing a particular item, statistically probably consume 0% of what they produce.

EVERYONE CONSUMES, what does it matter if they consume exactly what they are producing, what does that have anything to do with anything?


Why would he communist community, seeking to end hunger and despair, see the production of luxury items as socially neccessary? To bribe to engineers?


Well once the people in the community have enough to eat and have a roof over their head, they might decide they would like some luxury items too and focus more on that.


The objection here is that your community is then not distinguishing between labor within the community. You recognise such a circumstance is untenable (hence the additional credits for engineers and the like). But in crafting yur solution, nothing has been solved.

There is no distingtion between teh community and labor under communism, under communism the point is that work is part of life, part of enriching your own life and those around you. Unlike now, where work is seperate from life, where its either a rat race or a matter of survival.


No. The difference is that the above analysis is incorrect.

How so?

[GracchusBabeuf]

No, since after all there is no guarantee of any profit from any labor.As the others have pointed out, in socialism, there is no concept of profit. Profit in capitalism is the reward for the bourgeoisie class for the work they don't do. So if the workers manage themselves democratically and directly get all the money earned by the products they produce, there would be no need for a boss at all.


Workers producing a particular item, statistically probably consume 0% of what they produce.Consumers are workers. They may produce different stuff and get different salaries, but they are all workers.

[Dejavu]

Under communism the idea of 'profit' goes out the window. The work is'nt profit driven its need/want driven.I would think that in any rational theory of economics that the needs of people would be an automatic motivation to work. It probably doesn't matter if you live in a primitive tribal socialism or an advanced democracy, if you want to live , you must consume resources to do so. If you want to consume resources , you must do some kind of work to acquire those resources.

The rest of this, I think, demands a little more explanation. Really, it depends on how you define profit. If profit means just monetary gain and no money would exist under communism, then yes, profit using this meaning would have no relevance. However, if you expand your definition of profit being the satisfaction of a want, or the fulfillment of of an expected benefit, then I don't know how this wouldn't factor in to normal human action ( work , leisure , or otherwise).

Wants are really only obtainable with surplus resources. Since you have a scarce amount of surplus, you have to rank your wants according to you from most important to least important. This is relative to how much surplus you have to absorb these wants. How people spend their surplus is actually an important factor of how they are distinguished from others in society. Some people can continue to save and consume less with their surplus because the expected benefit might be starting up a business of their own that produces resources or something like that. Other will consume more now and save less for later.



Well once the people in the community have enough to eat and have a roof over their head, they might decide they would like some luxury items too and focus more on that.Exactly. Its called surplus.


There is no distingtion between teh community and labor under communism, under communism the point is that work is part of life, part of enriching your own life and those around you. Unlike now, where work is seperate from life, where its either a rat race or a matter of survival.Can you explain in more detail what this ideal is of indistinguishable labor and community? I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't understand enough of what you are saying here.

What do you mean by work being separate from life now? Most people live their lives having to work and that work sustains their lives. Are you talking in a less materialistic sense? Perhaps that you feel far too many people work jobs they do not enjoy simply because they need to make money in order to survive?

[Dejavu]

As the others have pointed out, in socialism, there is no concept of profit. Profit in capitalism is the reward for the bourgeoisie class for the work they don't do. So if the workers manage themselves democratically and directly get all the money earned by the products they produce, there would be no need for a boss at all.

Consumers are workers. They may produce different stuff and get different salaries, but they are all workers.

Who is the bourgeoisie class in this example? Who are the workers?

What makes you think that just because a product is produced that it will make any money? Products don't earn any money, people do.

And if consumers are workers, and the only difference is the stuff they produce and the salaries they earn, then you cannot have a bourgeoisie and proletariat class. By this definition , since bourgeoisie are consumers, they are also producers.

Its probably not what you meant to say, though but it can be easily interpreted this way since you make certain claims that warrant a lot more clarification.

I would say that all workers are consumers but not all consumers are workers.

If we define worker as that person which produces something of value, a creation of wealth, not the destruction of it, then there is no way we can say all consumers are workers.

One merely has to ponder of the politician's role in society and we quickly see that he doesn't actually produce anything. He, along with the military, social services, GSOs, and anything funded by the forceful extraction of wealth from producers ( workers) , are net consumers and either non producers or actually destroyers of produced wealth ( the worker's property).

[RGacky3]

However, if you expand your definition of profit being the satisfaction of a want, or the fulfillment of of an expected benefit, then I don't know how this wouldn't factor in to normal human action ( work , leisure , or otherwise).

Profit can really only be measured in monitary gain. Getting more back from your work than you put in is not the same as profit. Profit is a concept that really only exists in Capitalism and (maybe) in other forms of class society.


Exactly. Its called surplus.

Yeah ... whats the point?


Can you explain in more detail what this ideal is of indistinguishable labor and community? I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't understand enough of what you are saying here.

What do you mean by work being separate from life now? Most people live their lives having to work and that work sustains their lives. Are you talking in a less materialistic sense? Perhaps that you feel far too many people work jobs they do not enjoy simply because they need to make money in order to survive?

I'll give you an example, there are 2 guys, both are carpenters.

1 works for a big time Company as a wage slave, his work is almost entirely for the enrichment of the Company, he clocks in, does what he is told, clocks out, recieves a paycheck at the end of the month that has no corrilation to the value of his actual work, only his hours. His work may be only framework for months, then for a couple months he might be doing the same table over and over again.

The other is his own boss, an indepenant contractor, he works at his leasure (obviously keeping his monitary needs and the market in mind). He can charge his clients based on the value of his work and the product he makes, he makes tables that he thinks are good quailty and that he enjoys making.

Now chances are the latter is giong to have a lot more pride in his work, and going to consider it a part of who he is as a person. Whereas the first one is just doing a job. However the latter is still working under Capitalism, and thus still has a profit motive. Under Communism, essencially everyone works for themselves, however they are doing it in conjunction with the rest of the community.

Marx called it alienation of labor.

[Dejavu]

Profit can really only be measured in monitary gain. Getting more back from your work than you put in is not the same as profit. Profit is a concept that really only exists in Capitalism and (maybe) in other forms of class society.

Not exactly. Thats a very narrow definition of profit. Profit can be any satisfaction or fulfillment of an expected benefit, does not have to be money related.

Here is an example. I have a computer and I want an upgrade, lets say a graphics card. I have a certain amount of money. ( Bare with me , its elementary economics but it actually helps define what profit actually is)
I have enough for a graphics card but that has costs. What are the costs?

OK, first step in any trade is cost/benefit analysis. The cost of choosing to buy the graphics card isn't the price tag, it isn't even really my money. Its everything else I could potentially buy with my money instead of the graphics card.

The benefit is the expected gratification of using the graphics card to achieve my end ( perhaps better experience playing a certain game, etc). I can't determine whether it was really beneficial a priori.

Think of it this way -

Cost/Benefit analysis = a priori
Loss/Profit = a posteriori


The 'profit' then is determined after I trade for the item I expect to gain from ( perceived benefit) only after I experience the use of the item.

If the item ( graphics card) lives up to my expectations and it increases my overall utility after experience, then I have profited. If the item doesn't live up to my expectations , then I have basically wasted resources and end up with no further utility, but less money now. I have incurred a loss.

Its not only the graphics card manufacturer that makes a profit by me buying his product. I also make a profit by increasing my utility (which was more important to me than holding on to the $100 or spending it on something else)

Money is an objective abstract measurement of value. This is true. However money itself doesn't have any objective value and is a commodity that is compared to others based on people's subjective preferences.

Money is useful , if anything. It is perfectly legitimate to barter but horribly inefficient in large scale economies. Money is a way producers take a general gauge , an objective measurement, of consumers' subjectivity in the marketplace.

Profit means consumers, in general , are digging the new IPOD or whatever, a loss says that consumers kinda don't like it ( like the bombing sales of subsequent New Kids on the Block albums)

And my laptop is almost out of power. I'll reply to your example later.

[RGacky3]

Not exactly. Thats a very narrow definition of profit. Profit can be any satisfaction or fulfillment of an expected benefit, does not have to be money related.

Arguing about definitions is pointless, thats the definition I am talking about. If your implying that there is profit under communism, and your proving it by using a wider definition of profit than what I"m using then you really hav'nt proved anything.


Money is a way producers take a general gauge , an objective measurement, of consumers' subjectivity in the marketplace.

Profit means consumers, in general , are digging the new IPOD or whatever, a loss says that consumers kinda don't like it ( like the bombing sales of subsequent New Kids on the Block albums)

Heres where I disagree.

Producers are not interested in what the consumer needs, producers are interested in profits, meaning, they are going to produce what will gain them the most money. Consumers in general are not digging the new Ipod, the few that can afford one are, however thats not the concern of the producer (better said: Capitalist) because his motive is profit, thats why the notion that all Consumers are not made equal is extreamly important. Its not the Capitalists concern if 90% of the population starve, if he's making profit selling Premier dog food to the wealth 10% so their dogs can be healthy. So its not the "Consumer in general" there is no "Consumer in general" theres the few rich, the relatively few middle class and the vast poor.

That is why value in a Capitalist system is so distorted.

[synthesis]

Why would he communist community, seeking to end hunger and despair, see the production of luxury items as socially neccessary? To bribe to engineers?

I can't say that they would. You could argue that it would be socially necessary simply because people would expect it. But if they don't see it as socially necessary, good for them. I'd rather see human energy and intelligence go into curing disease and automating labor than into televisions and Call of Duty.


The objection here is that your community is then not distinguishing between labor within the community. You recognise such a circumstance is untenable (hence the additional credits for engineers and the like). But in crafting yur solution, nothing has been solved.

Explain this further.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Who is the bourgeoisie class in this example? Who are the workers? In a capitalist system, workers are always wage slaves of the bourgeoisie.


What makes you think that just because a product is produced that it will make any money? Products don't earn any money, people do.
I agree. People make money out of these products. In a capitalist system, the non-working bosses take a chunk of the money made by the labor of the workers.


And if consumers are workers, and the only difference is the stuff they produce and the salaries they earn, then you cannot have a bourgeoisie and proletariat class. By this definition , since bourgeoisie are consumers, they are also producers. Its probably not what you meant to say, though but it can be easily interpreted this way since you make certain claims that warrant a lot more clarification. Bourgeois and proletariat are not defined by whether they consume or not. That bourgeois may consume is trivial IMO because all human beings consume. That does not make them laborers and as you point out, thats not what I meant.


I would say that all workers are consumers but not all [I]consumers are workers.
My point was that though the working class are the ones that produce the products, the same products are sold back to them by the business class to make profits in a capitalist system.


One merely has to ponder of the politician's role in society and we quickly see that he doesn't actually produce anything. He, along with the military, social services, GSOs, and anything funded by the forceful extraction of wealth from producers ( workers) , are net consumers and either non producers or actually destroyers of produced wealth ( the worker's property).I agree and if one seeks to make any sense, one has to apply the same analysis to the capitalist class.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=RGacky3;1374975]Under communism the idea of 'profit' goes out the window. The work is'nt profit driven its need/want driven.


My comment was in response to the person who said that under communism all profit goes to the workers.
You may of course dissagree that "profit" will be an objective/idea under communism. But since profit measures whether the product is benefiting the community, your society will need a substitute way of making those determinations. Saying "general consensus" or "democracy" is the substitute, is far too vague. Such terms do not describe the information used to form a "general consensus."




EVERYONE CONSUMES, what does it matter if they consume exactly what they are producing, what does that have anything to do with anything?



So in other words, why does it matter if people consume items which are being produced?

It doesn't matter if the fellow working in the soda factory consumes soda.
What matters is that there is somebody who does, somewhere. His job exists not to keep him busy, or so he can have a roof over his head ect. It exists to provide that other person with soda.







Well once the people in the community have enough to eat and have a roof over their head, they might decide they would like some luxury items too and focus more on that.


Yes. Its called trying to produce a profit, so that at the ed of the day the wood cut down, or the stone quarried, is turned into a house.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=socialist;1375192]As the others have pointed out, in socialism, there is no concept of profit. Profit in capitalism is the reward for the bourgeoisie class for the work they don't do. So if the workers manage themselves democratically and directly get all the money earned by the products they produce, there would be no need for a boss at all.


ALL the the money earned is called a profit. Otherwise, the workers are just getting back the money they put in. And perhaps not that, since there is no guarantee consumers will be willing to consume that product at the cost (the money the producers consumed) in making the product.

[Green Dragon]

Producers are not interested in what the consumer needs, producers are interested in profits, meaning, they are going to produce what will gain them the most money.

Profits cannot be made without satisfying consumer needs.


Consumers in general are not digging the new Ipod, the few that can afford one are, however thats not the concern of the producer (better said: Capitalist) because his motive is profit, thats why the notion that all Consumers are not made equal is extreamly important.

Well, if people who can afford an IPOD do not like it, they won't buy it, and Apple will stop producing it. I am puzzled why you think a socialist community would produce IPODS which nobody wanted.


Its not the Capitalists concern if 90% of the population starve, if he's making profit selling Premier dog food to the wealth 10% so their dogs can be healthy.

Well, aside from the melodrama...

Its true that the dog food producers will not be concerned with the problems of the canned vegetable producers.The dog foof producers after all have their own problems to resolve.
But you need to explain why that would be any different in the socialist community. Particularly considered the dog food producers are supposed the ones determining the production processess of dog food, and not the canned vegetable folks.

But to directly respond to the drama presented- If 90% of the people are starving, the dogfood people can make more money by adjusting their production to make food for humans, then by continuing selling it to dogs.
It should be observed that one of the complaints by socialists of capitalism is that it does not pay attention to goods and services that small numbers may need or want. Yet in your scenario, the complaint is that they do exactly that.

[Dejavu]

Arguing about definitions is pointless, thats the definition I am talking about. If your implying that there is profit under communism, and your proving it by using a wider definition of profit than what I"m using then you really hav'nt proved anything.

Actually its not pointless. Because if we are discussing the subject of profit then it is essential that we have a common understanding of the terms in use. If your talking about a very narrow definition of profit in terms of only monetary gain then you would be correct. However, profit can be easily demonstrated to be applicable to more than just monetary gain. People in communism would work for profit, even if it was not monetary, this is assuming we are using a more universal definition of profit. Even Leftist agitators have a certain profit motive. They do a cost-benefit analysis of socialism vis-a-vis capitalism and believe that the expected benefits outweigh the relevant losses. Thus the rally for a more socialist based society. Once or if this society is obtained, then they can weigh the empirical results to expected gratifications and if it does meet this criteria, those people have profited in terms of betterment of society and probably their own personal lives. If it does not meet up to their expectations, it is a loss.




Heres where I disagree.

Producers are not interested in what the consumer needs, producers are interested in profits, meaning, they are going to produce what will gain them the most money. Consumers in general are not digging the new Ipod, the few that can afford one are, however thats not the concern of the producer (better said: Capitalist) because his motive is profit, thats why the notion that all Consumers are not made equal is extreamly important. Its not the Capitalists concern if 90% of the population starve, if he's making profit selling Premier dog food to the wealth 10% so their dogs can be healthy. So its not the "Consumer in general" there is no "Consumer in general" theres the few rich, the relatively few middle class and the vast poor.

That is why value in a Capitalist system is so distorted.
Profits are generated by paying consumers, at least in free market theory. It is important not to conflate current neo-liberal capitalism with the free market, even Naomi Klein recognizes the distinction. In the current system there is another avenue from which capitalists can profit and that is through the political option rather than the market option. In the political scenario it certainly is true that the consumers are not necessarily the basis of profit but rather using government power to attack other producers or potential producers is a way of stiffing competition and having monopolistic or oligarchical power over price formation.

As for the rest of your comment I don't think its necessarily the case. The work or starve dynamic did not arise out of capitalism. This is a biological imperative that we must exhume human energy to acquire resources for survival. It was true for prehistoric man, it is true now. What we think of as typically advanced or expensive products tend to decrease in price as more supply is produced to meet consumer demand. Again, high prices are not necessarily dictated by producers ( unless they are using a political avenue) but rather by supply and demand.

The first line of IPODs or new technology, particular in software, might be expensive but that isn't a static condition. The more people that have the money are willing to consume these brand new products the profits indicate to the producer that it is a successful product and the producer will produce a greater supply. If there are no statist barriers to entry or if they are low , competition will jump in and increase the supply further, therefore , lowering the price of these same goods on the market. This is why average or even some low-income people can afford commodities such as computers and software, something once only dreamed of by earlier generations.


I will reply to some of the others at a later time. Unfortunately I must get going. Keep up the good comments.

[GracchusBabeuf]

ALL the the money earned is called a profit. Otherwise, the workers are just getting back the money they put in. And perhaps not that, since there is no guarantee consumers will be willing to consume that product at the cost (the money the producers consumed) in making the product.It does not matter what you call it. The fact is that the workers produced the product by their labor and the "extra" money obtained by selling the product is because of the labor of the workers. So, for any product, we have the cost for raw materials etc + the cost of labor.


It is important not to conflate current neo-liberal capitalism with the free market, even Naomi Klein recognizes the distinction.
Also it does not matter if she recognizes it. She is a liberal.

In a free market system as propounded by some of the Austrian school, the state is completely privatized. Thus instead of having public defenses, public roads etc, there would be private defenses, private roads etc. Of course, such a theory does not take into account the extreme dominance that can be exercised by the capitalist class because of the contract system. Also it does not take into account the fact that private power is equally bad as any other form of exploitative hierarchy and thus should be opposed.

Such a system would of course self destruct the moment it comes into being because of its inherent contradictions. See the anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF2.html) for a discussion of this.

One of the interesting developments in this "free market theory" is the support of slavery by some of its proponents, including Robert Nozick and Walter Block. Not to mention the "free child market" of Murray Rothbard and the crazy theories of Hoppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Criticisms). Child labor is supported nearly unanimously by all free marketeers from neo-liberals to Austrians. This I think goes to shows what "the free market" leads to when taken to its logical conclusion.

[commyrebel]

Well that's a lame system. It's not always easy to find jobs. I took me almost a year to find another one after I quit my old one. Why did I quit? Because my boss was an asshole. there would be no formal bosses just a head person that works just like you and is there to keep it from chaos in the place

[RGacky3]

If your talking about a very narrow definition of profit in terms of only monetary gain then you would be correct. However, profit can be easily demonstrated to be applicable to more than just monetary gain. People in communism would work for profit, even if it was not monetary, this is assuming we are using a more universal definition of profit.

Well I"m using the definition of profit that everyone else in the world uses. When you build a Garden and grow beautiful flowers and maybe some fruit, you don't talk about gaining profit. Most people use profit in the Capitalist term, which is how I"m using it.

If you expand the definition of profit to include anything where the work is worth the effort, then I'll change my word usage to "Monitary Capitalist profit resulting in economic power", I'll copy and paste it everytime so we don't have any confusion.


In the current system there is another avenue from which capitalists can profit and that is through the political option rather than the market option. In the political scenario it certainly is true that the consumers are not necessarily the basis of profit but rather using government power to attack other producers or potential producers is a way of stiffing competition and having monopolistic or oligarchical power over price formation.


Most of the Capitalist usage of the State is'nt attacking other producers, its protecting their property and their economic power from the workers and the poor, its defending the class system which allows them to operate. When the class system is threatened you'd be suprised the amount of class consiousness Capitalists have, just look at Venezuela. Your example is just one small example of the Capitalists usage of the state, class warfare is much more previlent.


The work or starve dynamic did not arise out of capitalism. This is a biological imperative that we must exhume human energy to acquire resources for survival. It was true for prehistoric man, it is true now. What we think of as typically advanced or expensive products tend to decrease in price as more supply is produced to meet consumer demand. Again, high prices are not necessarily dictated by producers ( unless they are using a political avenue) but rather by supply and demand.


I agree, but the work FOR a boss or starve arose out of Capitalism (or better said class society).

High prices are dictated by prodecers AND (relatively) wealthy consumers, Consumers are made up of the few rich, the relatively few middle class and the vast poor, and the rich have all the consumer "votes" (and are generally also the controlers of the production).


The first line of IPODs or new technology, particular in software, might be expensive but that isn't a static condition. The more people that have the money are willing to consume these brand new products the profits indicate to the producer that it is a successful product and the producer will produce a greater supply. If there are no statist barriers to entry or if they are low , competition will jump in and increase the supply further, therefore , lowering the price of these same goods on the market. This is why average or even some low-income people can afford commodities such as computers and software, something once only dreamed of by earlier generations.


My point with the Ipod was not that the prices are always high, its that while the vast majority of "consumers" would prefer cheap groceries and affordable housing, the consuemrs that matter (the rich), want better ipods. The fact that they may get cheaper does'nt matter.

BTW, the vast vast majority of hte people STILL don't even think about owning an Ipod :P.


Profits cannot be made without satisfying consumer needs.

Yes they can, :), people still starve in America, but the rich have their Ipods. but hte people starving don't have money to give the producers profits, the rich do. :)


Well, if people who can afford an IPOD do not like it, they won't buy it, and Apple will stop producing it. I am puzzled why you think a socialist community would produce IPODS which nobody wanted.


They would'nt ...


But you need to explain why that would be any different in the socialist community. Particularly considered the dog food producers are supposed the ones determining the production processess of dog food, and not the canned vegetable folks.

Yeah, but its the market, people invest in waht will make money, unfortunately, for hte most part, poor peoples needs don't make as much money as rich peoples wants.


If 90% of the people are starving, the dogfood people can make more money by adjusting their production to make food for humans, then by continuing selling it to dogs.

No they could'nt, because those 90% of the people don't have money, btw, why is'nt that happening now? People starve.


It should be observed that one of the complaints by socialists of capitalism is that it does not pay attention to goods and services that small numbers may need or want.

They pay attention to the rich, or whatever they can make the mony money out of. BTW, the poor are not smallin number, look around.

I don't consider starvation to be "melodrama" niether do I consider people dying from very curable desieses to be "melodrama" I don't consider the plight of poor people to be melodrama. Maybe thats the responce stalinists should give when people mention the gulags and killing "aside from the melodrama".

[Green Dragon]

[quote=socialist;1376372]It does not matter what you call it. The fact is that the workers produced the product by their labor and the "extra" money obtained by selling the product is because of the labor of the workers.


This is by no means clear as fact. The "extra" money can also come about by the manner by which labor is deployed to work.

[Green Dragon]

there would be no formal bosses just a head person that works just like you and is there to keep it from chaos in the place


A couple of observations:
1. The only way the "head person" can keep "chaos" from the job site is to be invested by somebody, or some structure, with authority to compel obedience to him from his fellow workers. This is commonly known as something the "boss" does.

2. If the "head person" works exactly the same as his fellow workers, he must:
a. Be given extra compensation since he is responsible for the success or failure of the unit.
b. Must have some sort of special training or skills to know the entire job, not merely the part he may be toiling in.
c. Nust have special knowledge and skills in motivating, leading, developing, people, all of which are challenging in and of itself.

[Green Dragon]

Yeah, but its the market, people invest in waht will make money, unfortunately, for hte most part, poor peoples needs don't make as much money as rich peoples wants.


Truly??? Have you never heard of Wal-Mart? Fellow by the name of Sam Walton became mighty rich selling goods to poor people.

[Jazzratt]

Truly??? Have you never heard of Wal-Mart? Fellow by the name of Sam Walton became mighty rich selling goods to poor people.

Yeah but he only made this possible by cutting the fuck out of production costs by, for example, getting all the work done abroad where you can shoot trade unionists.

[RGacky3]

Truly??? Have you never heard of Wal-Mart? Fellow by the name of Sam Walton became mighty rich selling goods to poor people.

First of all what Jazzrat said, Walmart is hardly benefiting poor people overall. Second of all what I said was a generalization, explaining why poor people starve during Capitalism while the Capitalist says the market will take care of everything, and refuting this notion that Capitalism is a "consumer democracy".

[Green Dragon]

Yeah but he only made this possible by cutting the fuck out of production costs by, for example, getting all the work done abroad where you can shoot trade unionists.



Ok. But why a socialist community not be interested in cutting production costs?

[Jazzratt]

Ok. But why a socialist community not be interested in cutting production costs?

It's not a lack of interest in reducing production costs. It's a lack of interest in brutalising human beings. What kind of emotional and mental cripple are you, anyway, that you see a policy of paying starvation wages, shooting dissenters and making substandard products as a sane way of cutting production costs?

[XieJinyuan]

It's not a lack of interest in reducing production costs. It's a lack of interest in brutalising human beings. What kind of emotional and mental cripple are you, anyway, that you see a policy of paying starvation wages, shooting dissenters and making substandard products as a sane way of cutting production costs?

That's kind of a straw man of a market economy.

Regardless, what's the alternative? Its easy to criticize, but how else will you allocate resources?

[GracchusBabeuf]

Regardless, what's the alternative? Its easy to criticize, but how else will you allocate resources?The "resources" have been unjustly appropriated by a select few in a capitalist economy. These resources are produced by none other than the working class and it is the capitalist class that live off the hard work of this working class. There have been lots of alternatives proposed and one definitely has to look into them.

[XieJinyuan]

The "resources" have been unjustly appropriated by a select few in a capitalist economy. These resources are produced by none other than the working class and it is the capitalist class that live off the hard work of this working class. There have been lots of alternatives proposed and one definitely has to look into them.

Proposed, yes ... in the same sense that free-energy machines and faster-than-light travel have been proposed.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Proposed, yes ... in the same sense that free-energy machines and faster-than-light travel have been proposed.Not necessarily. Such scientific proposals are very much way off in the future. Socialism has been implemented in some places in the past with interesting results.

[trivas7]

Socialism has been implemented in some places in the past with interesting results.
Where exactly?

[XieJinyuan]

"Interesting results" depends on your definition of 'interesting'

[GracchusBabeuf]

Where exactly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

"Interesting results" depends on your definition of 'interesting'Interesting from the perspective of the working classes.

[XieJinyuan]

Interesting from the perspective of the now deceased working classes

Did I tell you about how the Cultural Revolution is now called "ten year disaster"?

[XieJinyuan]

Not all free markets have been instances of neo-conservatism

[GracchusBabeuf]

Not all free markets have been instances of neo-conservatismI could keep saying that they are if I wanted to act like you. But I don't.

[XieJinyuan]

Name one successful, non-repressive Marxist-Leninist regime

[GracchusBabeuf]

Name one successful, non-repressive Marxist-Leninist regimeLike I have told you already, Leninism is by nature authoritarian. So there is no such thing. Thats the final time I'm addressing that strawman. If you don't have any real arguments and continue to troll here, this is my last reply to you.

[XieJinyuan]

Even the leftists can't agree on a consistent ideology; I'm being told, for example, that Cuba has a, quote, "real democracy", so forgive my confusion.

[GracchusBabeuf]

http://blogs.setonhill.edu/DenamarieErcolani/troll.jpg
Obvious troll is obvious.

[XieJinyuan]

Are you disputing that I was told that Cuba is a, quote, "real democracy"?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Are you disputing that I was told that Cuba is a, quote, "real democracy"?

I just had to butt in for a minute and point out that Cuba is not democratic. They do however follow a Socialist path, and are probably one of the closest things to Communism in the world today. Just thought I would also point out that they have some of the best social programs in the world. And to go back to the non-democratic thing, that is one of the flaws of Communist ideology. It is easily corruptable while in the transition stage. None of the attempts so far have ever worked successfully so I guess you could almost say that Cubans are giving up political freedom in order to have a higher standard of living; they get free education and health care.

[XieJinyuan]

Their system is slowly but surely eroding in favor of liberalization.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Their system is slowly but surely eroding in favor of liberalization.

Yes, unfortunately under Raul Cuba is changing. Somewhere like Venezuela could possible replace Cuba as a Socialist state.

[XieJinyuan]

...until that oil revenue runs out.

Then they'll be fucked.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Are you disputing that I was told that Cuba is a, quote, "real democracy"?No I am disputing your claim that you are not a troll.;)

[XieJinyuan]

What claim

[GracchusBabeuf]

So you admit you are a troll here and have no intention of any discussion or debate?

[LOLseph Stalin]

He must be something. He's restricted.

[XieJinyuan]

So you admit you are a troll here and have no intention of any discussion or debate?

I'm here to point out the fruitlessness of the efforts of wannabe Communist white kids from middle-class neighborhoods

[GracchusBabeuf]

I'm here to point out the fruitlessness of the efforts of wannabe Communist white kids from middle-class neighborhoodsSo if we are not white kids not from middle-class, its fine and dandy for us to be commies, eh?:laugh: I am neither white, middle-class nor a commie, BTW.;)

[LOLseph Stalin]

So if we are not white kids not from middle-class, its fine and dandy for us to be commies, eh?http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-all-you-p1385544/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif I am neither white, middle-class nor a commie, BTW.http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-all-you-p1385544/revleft/smilies/wink.gif

I am! Does that mean I can't be commie? :(

[XieJinyuan]

You are, however, probably still a hypocrite

[LOLseph Stalin]

You are, however, probably still a hypocrite

Me? Name one reason why i'm a hypocrite. :)

[GracchusBabeuf]

I am! Does that mean I can't be commie? :(:laugh:

[XieJinyuan]

@ InsertNameHere

Easy:
It has been numerous times that I have been screwed over by a so called "perfect" system known as Capitalism. Is it just me or is it difficult to get even the simplest of jobs? I remember getting my first job back in 2007 simply because my sister worked at the same place. I then worked there for awhile, the managers/owners were friendly and helpful. I didn't mind it until they sold the damn place! The new guy came in and started being oppressive. He yelled at me for making pizzas too slow and various other things. I was then going to quit, but he laid me off instead(march 2008). I then went in search for another job. This took nearly a year! How is it other people my age can get jobs on their first try while it takes me almost a whole year? I finally got a new job in december. Everything went good there until today. I walked in to go pick up my pay-checks when one of the managers called me over to chat. He gave me my pay-checks and then told me the news: he was letting me go! By this point I was pissed and my dad added to the burn by commenting in a way I won't repeat here. There you go, I have been screwed over by Capitalism several times. It's funny how my friends also manage to not see anything wrong with the corrupted system.If you were a such a screw-up in the Soviet Union or Cultural Revolution-era China, they probably would have made you kneel in a field and blown your brains out already. A hypocrite says one thing and does another: you are living in a relatively decent, peaceable social democracy, no doubt reaping substantial benefits from it, and yet saying that you are living in some kind of oligarchic banana republic which screws over everyone but those at the very tippy top.

Actually, on second thought, that's not so much hypocrisy as it is unjustified whining. Become less incompetent and the 'system' might treat you better.

[LOLseph Stalin]

If you were a such a screw-up in the Soviet Union or Cultural Revolution-era China, they probably would have made you kneel in a field and blown your brains out already.

Erm...you're quite incorrect actually. The Soviet Union and China aren't Communist.

[XieJinyuan]

They're Marxist-Leninist ('was' in the case of the SU)

And don't talk to me about pure Communism, because any pure Communist state would promptly fill up with the kind of incompetent, pimply-faced teenagers that make most of this board's readership, and turn to shit in a hurry.

Like, no one in it would be older than 19. Everyone 20 years or older would have found a job or academic career by then and moved out.

[Jack]

When debate fails, go for insults!:laugh:

[XieJinyuan]

There's not much to debate, per se, when the essence of your opponent's argument is "Wah wah, I can't hold a job because I'm incompetent, down with crapitali$m!"

How do you expect me to come up with a logical rebuttal to someone whose opposition to capitalism stems from a personal gripe? Believe it or not, I'm not some unoriginal drone who can't come up with good arguments just because you happen to disagree with me. But there's no point in trying to be reasonable with someone who seems to believe that all the pizza shop owners in Canada meet in smoke-filled rooms with government officials and collude to screw over the oppressed teenage proletariat working class.

(When you're in your mid-twenties, InsertNameHere, things will have gotten better.)

[Plagueround]

(When you're in your mid-twenties, InsertNameHere, things will have gotten better.)

I'm about to turn 26 tomorrow. I'm also starting a fantastic new job doing IT work for a college the following week after several years in telecom industry. However, this does not do much to impact my view that capitalism is a flawed, contradictory system that rewards people for turning against each other and will only actually reward hard work so long as someone figures out how to turn a profit on it. Nor does this do anything to change the outright fact that the gains and living standards the first world, including myself, has achieved are the result of brutal subjugation and war throughout the existence of "liberal democracy". Just because I'm doing well doesn't mean I can ignore how badly others are suffering. I suppose I could come up with half assed reasons on how it's their fault, but that would probably require me to take all that sociology I've been studying and pretend it doesn't exist.

The alternatives proposed by most on this site have absolutely nothing to do with Marxist-Leninism or any of the "socialist states" you can rattle off against us. If you are truly capable of coming up with an informed and "thinking" opinion as you claim, surely you can come up with a better response and not have to resort to "mountain of skulls" logic, especially when so many first world countries have just as many skeletons in their closets. If you are incapable of doing so, as many of our OIers have been able to, then I would suggest leaving now.

[Jazzratt]

There's not much to debate, per se, when the essence of your opponent's argument is "Wah wah, I can't hold a job because I'm incompetent, down with crapitali$m!"

Hahahaha. If you weren't bundled away in some academic bubble shielded from the vagaries of the real world by mummy and daddy's big fat chequebook I doubt you would be so quick to gloat over another person's struggle to find a job. Then again, as I imagine you've never had reason to find work in your life and, therefore, don't actually know what you're talking about.

[XieJinyuan]

I'm about to turn 26 tomorrow. I'm also starting a fantastic new job doing IT work for a college the following week after several years in telecom industry. However, this does not do much to impact my view that capitalism is a flawed, contradictory system that rewards people for turning against each other and will only actually reward hard work so long as someone figures out how to turn a profit on it.

Capitalism does not reward hard work at all. All that Horatio Alger shit about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is almost 100% baloney.

In truth, for the most part, capitalism rewards (relatively) scarce abilities, at least as far as individual laborers are concerned. There are relatively less people who can be mathematicians, economists, linguists, translators, database administrators, etc. than actual demand and so they have higher wages and working conditions than garbage men, custodians, fast food workers and the like.

I mean duh

At the national level, it's a bit more problematic since international economic policy and corporate policy in the first world does indeed tend to box developing countries into exporting primary products, their area of initial comparative advantage, but it's certainly possible to address that concern, if desirable, without turning to Communism.

At any rate, if there's anything America doesn't need right now, it's more rewards for being a dumb-ass. So let's not pretend that everyone is 100% equal.


Nor does this do anything to change the outright fact that the gains and living standards the first world, including myself, has achieved are the result of brutal subjugation and war throughout the existence of "liberal democracy".

Bogus. Taiwan is basically a first world country. Who did they subjugate recently? Norway is most certainly a first world country. In fact, it's a prime example of a first world country. Who are they subjugating? The only fault I can find with Norwegian policy is their agricultural tariffs. Otherwise they're pretty much angels in every respect. How about Japan? The only ones they're brutalizing are the Goddamn whales!


Just because I'm doing well doesn't mean I can ignore how badly others are suffering.

What are you doing besides whining on an Internet forum?

Yeah I thought so

Unless you're posting from an Oxfam site in sub-Saharan Africa, stfu



The alternatives proposed by most on this site have absolutely nothing to do with Marxist-Leninism or any of the "socialist states" you can rattle off against us.

They're worse. Half-baked, untested theories which have never been implemented successfully at any level higher than municipality.


especially when so many first world countries have just as many skeletons in their closets.

Pretty much all countries have skeletons in their closets. Digging up what Whitey did years ago is not much of an argument ... hey maybe Britain should pay reparations to Denmark for the genocide which happened hundreds of years ago!


Hahahaha. If you weren't bundled away in some academic bubble shielded from the vagaries of the real world by mummy and daddy's big fat chequebook I doubt you would be so quick to gloat over another person's struggle to find a job. Then again, as I imagine you've never had reason to find work in your life and, therefore, don't actually know what you're talking about.

I used to be a dishwasher. Everyone liked the job I did except for my boss, who was a red-nosed, ex-alcoholic douchefag whose glial fat depletion prevented him from thinking straight, so eventually I quit and moved on to work that fit my skill set better. I did not turn to Communism because of a personal gripe. Instead I moved on to library technical support and ESL tutoring.

Stop ASSuming things

Also I spend very little money; as far as finance is concerned, I'm a pretty traditional East Asian

Believe it or not, I'm not an ivory tower prick just because I refuse to play the World's Smallest Violin for someone who can't hold down a pizza shop job in a country with a reasonably good safety net.

[LOLseph Stalin]

They're Marxist-Leninist ('was' in the case of the SU)

And don't talk to me about pure Communism, because any pure Communist state would promptly fill up with the kind of incompetent, pimply-faced teenagers that make most of this board's readership, and turn to shit in a hurry.

Like, no one in it would be older than 19. Everyone 20 years or older would have found a job or academic career by then and moved out.

I can see now why you're restricted. Also, i'm not Commie due to my personal experiences. I'm Commie because i'm sick and tired of seeing unneccessary poverty and suffering in this world. I have three words for you: Fuck off, troll!

[Jazzratt]

I used to be a dishwasher.

Woah! You got off your arse and did something for a living? Have a medal.


Everyone liked the job I did except for my boss, who was an ex-alcoholic douchefag,

The word "douchefag", as well as presenting you as someone with the wit of a puddle of tramp semen, is prejudiced language. Consider this the administrative equivelent of a big fat fuck you, you homophobic piece of shit.


so eventually I quit and moved on to work that fit my skill set better. I did not turn to Communism because of a personal gripe. Instead I moved on to library technical support and ESL tutoring.

Fascinating. I dare say that library technical support staff and ESL tutors count more than a few communists in their number though, so it's not exactly mutually exclusive is it you prick.


Stop ASSuming things

Considering your introduction indicated you to be a university student in america I would say my assumption that you're an economic leach with no life experience was well founded. Also, "ASSuming"? "Douchefag"? Did your maturity level plateau at the age of 14 and decline from there?


Also I spend very little money, as far as finance is concerned, I'm a pretty traditional East Asian

And I spend little money, as far as anything is concerned, I'm a pretty traditional unemployed briton. What the fuck are you trying to prove?

[XieJinyuan]

Woah! You got off your arse and did something for a living? Have a medal.

Way to weasel out of your initial accusation


The word "douchefag", as well as presenting you as someone with the wit of a puddle of tramp semen, is prejudiced language. Consider this the administrative equivelent of a big fat fuck you, you homophobic piece of shit.

This guy was married. The meanings of words change over time: 'nitty-gritty' once referred to the filth on black slaves ('nigger grit'); now it refers to the fine details of something. 'Fag' was once a derogatory term for homosexuals; now it seems to be shifting towards a more general insult. Language evolves. You cannot control that process. Get over it.



Fascinating. I dare say that library technical support staff and ESL tutors count more than a few communists in their number though, so it's not exactly mutually exclusive is it you prick.


Irrelevant.


Considering your introduction indicated you to be a university student in america

Wah wah wah whine about America, we work longer hours here

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/Yearly_working_time.jpg



And I spend little money, as far as anything is concerned, I'm a pretty traditional unemployed briton. What the fuck are you trying to prove?

Ugly and poor at once. Sucks to be you.

BTW ... nice job trying to get us all hooked on opium.

[Plagueround]

Bogus. Taiwan is basically a first world country. Who did they subjugate recently? Norway is most certainly a first world country. In fact, it's a prime example of a first world country. Who are they subjugating? The only fault I can find with Norwegian policy is their agricultural tariffs. Otherwise they're pretty much angels in every respect. How about Japan? The only ones they're brutalizing are the Goddamn whales!

The first world exploits people from the third world everyday. Don't be so dense.


What are you doing besides whining on an Internet forum?

Yeah I thought so

Unless you're posting from an Oxfam site in sub-Saharan Africa, stfu

I love this kind of response where you've made gross assumptions about my own life and then affirm it all in your own head without any response, as if you've won by talking into a mirror.

If you must know, while I lived here I helped get supplies and food together for striking truck drivers, but wasn't able to do much else. When I get back to my hometown, I'll be rejoining the organization I worked with in getting food for the homeless. If I someday have the resources, I would love to help out in third-world countries, but unfortunately I too am restricted by little green pieces of paper.


They're worse. Half-baked, untested theories which have never been implemented successfully at any level higher than municipality.

And yet you've made no effort to actually debate them, instead resorting to callous and rude statements.


Pretty much all countries have skeletons in their closets. Digging up what Whitey did years ago is not much of an argument ... hey maybe Britain should pay reparations to Denmark for the genocide which happened hundreds of years ago!

First off, I'm not sure you realize how recent some of these things were. Second, I started doing a count the other day and within 20 minutes came up with a subtotal of 13 million civilians the united states has killed worldwide since ww2. I didn't even come close to finishing and already the numbers were astonishing. I'll let you know what I find out.

Now, would you like to attempt to contribute to our site in a less hostile manner, or are you just here to be rude?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Ugly and poor at once. Sucks to be you.

If you're going to argue at least argue in a civil and constructive manner rather than with lame grade school insults.

[XieJinyuan]

The first world exploits people from the third world everyday. Don't be so dense.

I'll bet your desire to have a high standard of living outweighs the righteousness of living in a (literal) shit hut.

Also you forgot that many developing countries are slowly becoming more powerful than decadent and lazy first-world countries.


If you must know, while I lived here I helped get supplies and food together for striking truck drivers, but wasn't able to do much else. When I get back to my hometown, I'll be rejoining the organization I worked with in getting food for the homeless. If I someday have the resources, I would love to help out in third-world countries, but unfortunately I too am restricted by little green pieces of paper.

Whoa, how much money do you need to join the Peace Corps?

Even the efforts you have made are still inconsistent with being a pure radical Kommunist.



First off, I'm not sure you realize how recent some of these things were. Second, I started doing a count the other day and within 20 minutes came up with a subtotal of 13 million civilians the united states has killed worldwide since ww2. I didn't even come close to finishing and already the numbers were astonishing. I'll let you know what I find out.

That's a complaint about the US specifically.


If you're going to argue at least argue in a civil and constructive manner rather than with lame grade school insults.

Britons are hardcore mingers, dude, especially compared against the sons and daughters of Han. I have no idea how a bunch of Celts, Germans, Scandinavians and French got together and made such an ugly ethnic group. No wonder they marry out so much. Look at all the Brit guys with American women, or trying to chase some young Thai ass.

Oh and WAH WAH WAH I CAN'T HOLD DOWN A JOB IN A PIZZA SHOP

[Plagueround]

I'll bet your desire to have a high standard of living outweighs the righteousness of living in a (literal) shit hut.

Also you forgot that many developing countries are slowly becoming more powerful than decadent and lazy first-world countries.

Damn right I do, which is why I work toward a system that can raise living standards for all.


Whoa, how much money do you need to join the Peace Corps?The peace corps is a U.S. government organization. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.


Even the efforts you have made are still inconsistent with being a pure radical Kommunist.I work 45-50 hours a week and have a 2 and a half month old son. The efforts I've made are within the framework of what I can do at this time with what I have. I've also been working on some more "radical" organization, but it does take some time when one lives in the mini neo-con state that is Eastern Washington. You'll also probably understand if we don't post EVERYTHING we do here...or, perhaps you won't. I'm sorry I don't fit your stereotype of what communists are supposed to be doing, but unlike yourself I'm not content to being a cardboard cut out of any kind.


That's a complaint about the US specifically.I figure once I'm done with that I could start delving into the other countries. It's a bit harder though...for some reason big scary demonized articles about how many people capitalism and neo-liberalism have killed throughout the years tend to get swept under the rug.

[Plagueround]

Britons are hardcore mingers, dude, especially compared against the sons and daughters of Han. I have no idea how a bunch of Celts, Germans, Scandinavians and French got together and made such an ugly ethnic group. No wonder they marry out so much. Look at all the Brit guys with American women, or trying to chase some young Thai ass.

Oh and WAH WAH WAH I CAN'T HOLD DOWN A JOB IN A PIZZA SHOP

Bye.

[XieJinyuan]

Damn right I do, which is why I work toward a system that can raise living standards for all.

If everyone had first world living standards, we'd need more than one Earth.



The peace corps is a U.S. government organization. I'm sure you can figure it out from there.


I've heard horror stories.

[Jazzratt]

This guy was married.

So? If I called you, for the sake of argument, "douchenigger" and defended my choice of words on the basis that you're not black I doubt you'd still have any confusion over the concept of prejudiced language.


The meanings of words change over time: 'nitty-gritty' once referred to the filth on black slaves ('nigger grit'); now it refers to the fine details of something. 'Fag' was once a derogatory term for homosexuals; now it seems to be shifting towards a more general insult. Language evolves. You cannot control that process. Get over it.

I'm sorry but this is just another example of your complete fucking detachment from the real world, or at least the part of it that contains homosexuals who are still routinely abused as "fags". Just because you and your buddies on X-Box Live (or at the pub or wherever the fuck it is you come up with this kind of stupid shit.) think that "fag" is an insult devoid of connotation doesn't actually make that the case. Your idiotic, heterosexist values are showing. ****.


Irrelevant.

You brought up the idea of their mutual exclusivity when you implied you went into those professions instead of becoming a communist; as if the two things were mutually exclusive.


Wah wah wah whine about America, we work longer hours here

No. People with proper jobs work hard in america. University students over there seem, by and large, to be parentally-funded parasites whose only redeeming quality is that they may get some socially useful work later on.


Ugly and poor at once. Sucks to be you.

:lol: Did you think that up all by yourself?


BTW ... nice job trying to get us all hooked on opium.

You're delusional.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Britons are hardcore mingers, dude, especially compared against the sons and daughters of Han. I have no idea how a bunch of Celts, Germans, Scandinavians and French got together and made such an ugly ethnic group. No wonder they marry out so much. Look at all the Brit guys with American women, or trying to chase some young Thai ass.

Oh and WAH WAH WAH I CAN'T HOLD DOWN A JOB IN A PIZZA SHOP

Wow, I see you're Racist too. Guaranteed by tomorrow you'll be banned. ;)

[Jazzratt]

Wow, I see you're Racist too. Guaranteed by tomorrow you'll be banned. ;)

By tomorrow?

[LOLseph Stalin]

By tomorrow?

Ok, correction: today. That guy was a *****.

[GracchusBabeuf]

You are, however, probably still a hypocriteMe? Being a racist does not give you much of a moral ground to judge the hypocrisy of others.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Me? Being a racist does not give you much of a moral ground to judge the hypocrisy of others.

It really doesn't, but it's ok. He's gone now.

[Robert]

That guy was a *****.

A *****? Just out of curiosity, were you allowed to vote on the banning of the "racist" XieJinyuan?

[Bright Banana Beard]

A *****? Just out of curiosity, were you allowed to vote on the banning of the "racist" XieJinyuan?
Obviously he is not a CC member nor admin.

[LOLseph Stalin]

A *****? Just out of curiosity, were you allowed to vote on the banning of the "racist" XieJinyuan?

No. Only CC members have that authority.

[Jazzratt]

A *****? Just out of curiosity, were you allowed to vote on the banning of the "racist" XieJinyuan?

There was a vote imminent, but in the light of the fact he was a fucking troll I banned him instantly. If there is call for his return, that can be voted on but don't hold your breath. If you want this discussed further, do it in "unfair restrictions" - it's not quite the stated purpose but it's less off topic than this.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Obviously she is not a CC member nor admin.

Fixed it. :)

[Kronos]

In a pure Laissez-Faire system if somebody lost their job what would happen then?

You need only to understand this. In the event that the state has failed to insure the welfare of the individual worker, while simultaneously endorsing a system of free-market, and that individual worker must resort to violent and/or criminal acts to survive, the state inadvertently forfeits the judicial authority over that individual worker, because the system could not provide a legal alternative.

Of course many of you could argue that there are welfare alternatives available for the worker, and perhaps will. However, I am prepared to argue that this is not sufficient to compensate the worker for his inconvenience in trying to attain these services.

[LOLseph Stalin]

that individual worker must resort to violent and/or criminal acts to survive, the state inadvertently forfeits the judicial authority over that individual worker, because the system could not provide a legal alternative.

Exactly the reason why there's so much crime. Get rid of poverty and there would be no reason for most people to commit crimes. I'm not sure if it's just me, but you don't exactly see very many wealthy people committing crimes. Why? Because they have what they need to survive, plus more. Poor people have to use more extreme measures when the help they need isn't avaible.

[Octobox]

InsertnameHere: I disagree, but not with your sentiment (good heartedness).



Why? Because they have what they need to survive, plus more. Poor people have to use more extreme measures when the help they need isn't avaible.


In Rev-Left we can never draw a line in the sand and allow each other an "optimal" view of "opposing ideologies" -- hahaha.

I believe in "true" free-markets and a "true" free-society -- which, would be a non-coercive anarchy. However, the communist who opposes anarchy, and the minarchist both believe either that a "true" anarchy is impossible or in my case (as the minarchist) believe that there needs to be a transition.

The "heart-centered" notion of "welfare" is a beautiful thing -- the point the libertarian, free-market anarchist, anarchist, and "true" capitalist differs on is how its transferred. The Corporatist, the Communist, the Socialist, the Neo-Conservative, and the Democrat all believe that "welfare" should be coerced (taken by force) from the people -- these are not voluntary societies -- period.

It's the "individual" who has poverty because the groupist hordes power by way of lobbying (who receives his power from the banker, the senior politician, the unionist, and the corporatist) -- authority from the senior politician (voting - regulatory - taxing power) and money from the banker-unionist-corporatist -- who in turn "steals" the money by way of fiat credit / fiat currency printing, union tax, and price fixing (collusion).

These things exist in our present American society and hinge on the senior politician; specifically.

In a "truly" free-market or a "truly" free-society (completely so or at the very least where the markets for all goods are in anarchy) the individual gets his welfare from family, neighbors, church, non-profit, or community. Never by force.

Reservationism and Welfarism in America have never "advanced" a people -- it only degrades the "warrior" when he is told he can no longer "hunt." You can't feed a lion meat in a zoo and pretend that he's the same creature you met in the wild.

Society is upside down becase we are not free to fail (in a minor way) so we are left only to fail spectacularly -- protectionism gives you more of what you are trying to avoid.

Ban prostitutes and you get sex slavery and internet porn.

Subsidize abortion -- You get 1.4M abortions per year (Go Cosmetic and Stem Cell Mega Corporations!)

The more groupists and gov't meddles the more prisons are built.

[Plagueround]

I believe in "true" free-markets and a "true" free-society -- which, would be a non-coercive anarchy. However, the communist who opposes anarchy, and the minarchist both believe either that a "true" anarchy is impossible or in my case (as the minarchist) believe that there needs to be a transition.

The "heart-centered" notion of "welfare" is a beautiful thing -- the point the libertarian, free-market anarchist, anarchist, and "true" capitalist differs on is how its transferred. The Corporatist, the Communist, the Socialist, the Neo-Conservative, and the Democrat all believe that "welfare" should be coerced (taken by force) from the people -- these are not voluntary societies -- period.


Why does a free society then require a transitional minarchist government in which we must adhere to the property rights of those in charge?

Using the United States for example...do we go through the arduous task of giving back land that can be historically proven to have been taken through force and corruption like the Dawes Act (to name but one small example in a long, long list)? Do we redistribute ownership and money to reverse damage done by such an involuntary society? If so, how?

Or do we accept that the monkey is out of the bottle and it's too late, allowing those that have accumulated wealth and power to maintain it in the hopes that they will have a benevolent reversal under a new system that strips them of regulatory hindrance? How do we not make these people, which I think you agree are corrupt, retain their control of the reigns?

[Octobox]

Plaguer: I see your point



Why does a free society then require a transitional minarchist government in which we must adhere to the property rights of those in charge?



America has made many enemies. In the free-society I'm speaking of the 865 military basis costing $1T per year to maintain must all be closed. We've amassed a tremendous military arsenal and that can't be sold off or left behind. It must be brought home and distributed among the states.

The only role for central gov't in a transitionary minarchist society is to maintain the Navy and protect our costal borders / waters. Who would you give all that Naval hardware too? -- the only people that can afford it are the Corporatist and Banker Welfarists -- who are dependent on the gov't to subsidized their loses and theft (respectively).

The army and air aresenal will be distributed to the states -- so a small state gov't will be needed to over see Air and Army Guard.

We pay 93% of our income toward direct and indirect taxation.

What I'm suggesting will only cost us 7%.

As far as property go -- we've never seen property or any type of business functioning in a true or even transitionary society like I'm suggesting.

We know (or we're certain) that monopolies cannot exist in the medium or long run in a free-market because of inefficiency losses to keeping all of ones assets tied up in a single venture. This is true for businesses, currency, education, and our present topic property.

In a "free-society" or one as close to what I'm suggesting the "occilations" (where the profit is made) is in entrepreneurialism -- only in a Corporatist Society as we have now are their occilations in the medium to long run, by-way of gov't price fixing, regulatory advantages, tax breaks, and fiat credit. All used to ursurp consumers-who-purchase and consumers-who-invest will (or daily dollar vote).

Property Hording will not be how one makes a good return on investment in a free-society -- it would be a home not an investment. In the short-run, yes, the wealthy (some of them) will clamour to buy up property, and those that can't afford it will rent; which will create a surplus of rental properties without gov't to protect or fix prices a price war would ensue and drive rental prices very low -- by the medium run leasing then selling off of property will happen at below market prices.

Wise wealthy people already know that "profit" is made by investing in entreprenuerial start ups or R&D - in a free-society or even a 93% Free-Society.

[Dejavu]

InsertnameHere: I disagree, but not with your sentiment (good heartedness).



[quote]I believe in "true" free-markets and a "true" free-society -- which, would be a non-coercive anarchy. However, the communist who opposes anarchy, and the minarchist both believe either that a "true" anarchy is impossible or in my case (as the minarchist) believe that there needs to be a transition.

These kinds of statists must also admit that the ideal of the state is untainable as well. I believe some transition is also necessary but not through political action or boots on the ground revolutionary movement bur rather through the spread of reason. Freedom remains locked in peoples' minds and is therefore a psychological key. You can overthrow a state or perhaps try to use the state institutions against it ( this hardly works well), but people are likley to just reconstruct another similar state in the aftermath if they still have a psychological dependance on it.


The "heart-centered" notion of "welfare" is a beautiful thing -- the point the libertarian, free-market anarchist, anarchist, and "true" capitalist differs on is how its transferred. The Corporatist, the Communist, the Socialist, the Neo-Conservative, and the Democrat all believe that "welfare" should be coerced (taken by force) from the people -- these are not voluntary societies -- period.

Pretty good point. As an anarchist myself that supports a free market I am not against the establishment of welfare communities. I support a communal organization or body of decision making and mutual aid if it is based on voluntary association. I do not believe these egalitarian ideas are incompatable with the free market and I believe they are conducive to freedom.

Far too many free market supporters often stress the importance of the market in terms of efficacy and demolish the justification of state control over welfare and social saftey nets. But then they fill nothing in its wake. They might say ' Don't worry, the market will handle it...' but that just begs the question ' What if it doesn't?' I do not believe enough free market supporters stress the importance of social organization and I, myself , am learning to incorporate these ideas more.

I think there may be a difference on the 'Left' between anarcho-communists/syndicalists and social anarchists. The prior I find hard to distinguish from Stalinists in my experience. Their anti-anything property position leads to some strange justifications of authoritarianism that resembles state socialism. Social anarchists sound more reasonable to me as they do not exclude property completely and talk about ideas like mutual aid and are open to some sort of market structure they understand is conducive to a free society.

Like the 'Left,' , 'Propertarianism' or 'Right' seems to exhibit a growing distinguishment between anarcho-capitalists and market anarchists. The former tend to lapse into some minarchism. They focus too much on the 'capitalist' aspect and often end up sounding like apologetics for corporatism or capitalism as we know it today. Some anarcho-capitalists openly go against the state but it is sometimes questionable if they only look at the state as competition to setting up their own private tyrannies. I'm highly skeptical of ideas like 'private cities' which can be nothing more than monarchies or modern fiefdoms.The more vulgar anarcho-capitalists exlude the possibility of any commonly owned or held property so that EVERYTHING is privatized and no matter where you stand , its owned by someone. This sounds like lock down to me and I cannot in good conscious subsribe to such beliefs. Market anarchism , like social anarchism, I see as the more reasonable approach to promoting free markets in anarchism or a stateless society. I think free markets would be a natural phenomena in society if people are allowed to freely exchange goods within the limit of commonly held ethics and morality. I have noticed that the market anarchists that clearly distinguish themselves from anarcho-capitalists are open to ideas of egalitarianism and collective social decision making.

To make a long blabber shorter... I find the market anarchist and socialist anarchist approach more reasonable and I believe that ideas of free market and social egalitarianism can be RECONCILED.

Admitingly I used to be more of a staunch anarcho-capitalist but I am shying away from this label and prefer market anarchist or just anarchist instead now. I have found myself evolved in my thinking and I am now very open to reason in terms of incorporating egalitarian ideas with markets in a free society.

I think market anarchists can bring to anarchy the level-headedness and rationalism that comes with sound economic principles while social anarchists can bring the heart passion and can remind us that we are human beings and that each of us in society have some inherent value and that we are not just a means to an end.

[Dejavu]

America has made many enemies. In the free-society I'm speaking of the 865 military basis costing $1T per year to maintain must all be closed. We've amassed a tremendous military arsenal and that can't be sold off or left behind. It must be brought home and distributed among the states.

If this could work , we would've already have gone in that direction. This is suggestion that Ron Paulian ideas can actually work. We have had small govt libertarians already in government that have claimed to try to achieve this but theirs is an utter failure. 35 yrs of the small govt movement in politics and nothing to show for it except an enlarged and more imperialist state. Imperial states like ours do not shrink voluntarily or 'by the will of the people' since the people have nothing to do with the direction of the state and state sponsered corporate business.

This is like saying we need to go back to early constitutional America with the added proviso that slavery is still unjust and women have equal rights as men. Not realistic IMO. This experiment has been tried BEFORE and what started off as a small government new hope transmorphed into the largest most imperialistic power the world has ever seen in just under 200 years. We don't need reforms , we need revolution ... of the mind and we need to spread reason to break people's psychological dependence on the state which is based on quasi-mystical beliefs about social organization.



As far as property go -- we've never seen property or any type of business functioning in a true or even transitionary society like I'm suggesting.


Yes we have. This was early America but lust for power and massive hording of wealth destroyed this ideal of a minimalist state.


The only role for central gov't in a transitionary minarchist society is to maintain the Navy and protect our costal borders / waters. Who would you give all that Naval hardware too? -- the only people that can afford it are the Corporatist and Banker Welfarists -- who are dependent on the gov't to subsidized their loses and theft (respectively).


See this is the problem with suggestion ' the only role for the central govt....' Once you concede that monopolized coercive violence is just for this situation, your logic becomes shakey and the state can , once again, overtake other areas of social life. Our Navy has some of the most powerful weapons for the state to use and the people that control the state WILL use them if their power is directly threatened.


The army and air aresenal will be distributed to the states -- so a small state gov't will be needed to over see Air and Army Guard.

Ok, give these power hungary monsters all the big guns and lets pray they will do the right thing...


Wise wealthy people already know that "profit" is made by investing in entreprenuerial start ups or R&D - in a free-society or even a 93% Free-Society.

Why 93% and not 94% or 100%? See the problem is when you leave 7% or even 1% for coercion and state power, all those lustful people for power , capitalists and politicians alike, will horde into that 7% and control the other 93%. If we admit that coercive monopolistic institutions of violence are bad, then it is not illogical to propose that only the most wicked and vile people in society will try their hardest to take this power. I find it hard to see how very good people will ever run society from a very bad institution.

[bruce]

We pay 93% of our income toward direct and indirect taxation.

Cite? (I assume you're talking about the US)

[Octobox]

Bruce:



Quote: Octobox: We pay 93% of our income toward direct and indirect taxation.
Quote: Bruce: Cite? (I assume you're talking about the US)




It's easy to "see" if you know how to look, but the way I got there is to factor in the following: #1 Income Tax (approx. 24 - 30%), #2 Corporate Tax (30% - civilians pay 100% of corporate tax as all costs are rolled into pricing schemas), #3 Sales Tax (8%), #4 Inflation Tax (as the dollar erodes in value our purchasing power is drastically falling - this is an indirect tax) - as of last year the dollar is now only worth 4 cents compared to 1916, and #5 Gas Tax (in some states as much as 60 cents per gallon) -- you have to figure this cost into everything you purchase as well as your driving; remember all corporations roll all of their costs into their pricing schemas.

When you add all these taxes and all other taxes not mentioned it comes to approximately 93% Taxation on earnings per year!

Thus in America we have a 7% Anarchy -- What I'm suggesting is we move into a 93% Anarchy as a transitionary model while we (all) decide on what form of 100% Anarchy we want to live in.

Again, the transition is needed because when America becomes free we will no longer be towing over half the world by debt financing -- so, we'll still need a national sales tax of 3% to pay off foreign debt, a national sales tax of 1% to pay for Naval Oversight (the ONLY need for central gov't), and a state sales tax of 3% to pay for Air and Army Guard (controlled by each state) -- this is the ONLY function the State Gov't would have authortiy over. Zero Regulatory control in the markets and Zero Taxing Authority (cannot adjust tax rates). The temporary 3% national sales tax to pay off foreign debt will drop off when all debt is paid. Bringing us from a 93% Anarchy to a 96% -- further transitioning us toward 100% Anarchy (whether it be Anarcho-Syn, or Anarcho-Communism, or Anarcho-Capitalism, or Anarhco-Socialism).

We can do this in 4 simple steps (or three depending on how you look at it): 1) Vote-out-the-Incumbent, 2) Vote-out-the-Corporatist (by Consumer Union), and 3) Vote-out-the-Unionist (by Consumer Union).

Think about it ;)

[synthesis]

One of these loons you only listen to because they're on the Internet - great minds think alike, I guess.

Are you into "Social Credit"?

[bruce]

#2 Corporate Tax (30% - civilians pay 100% of corporate tax as all costs are rolled into pricing schemas)

Most corporations don't pay any corporate taxes at all, let alone 30%

So we have income 30% and sales 8%, various consumptions like gas I'm not sure what % assign here as it's entirely variable, inflation 4%. So we're at 42% plus consumption. Even figuring in some average among those that pay ANY corporate taxes and including some others like property tax and import tariffs, we're still a long way from 93%.

I think you need some (any?) evidence to support your claims.

[Octobox]

So we have income 30% and sales 8%, various consumptions like gas I'm not sure what % assign here as it's entirely variable, inflation 4%. So we're at 42% plus consumption. Even figuring in some average among those that pay ANY corporate taxes and including some others like property tax and import tariffs, we're still a long way from 93%.


You summation of "inflation" is way off. You are not measuring inflation by way of the CPI, M3, and MZM -- Nor are you factoring the effect of the Fed Reserve Fiat Printing $4Trillion into circulation over the last 2 years. When factor all of these, plus all the taxes I listed, plus all the taxes I didn't list you will see that we are taxed (directly and indirectly) around 93% every year.

Remember "indirect" tax is an invisible tax -- you don't see as a "theft" in nominal terms only in "real" terms or Purchasing Power.

Also, I've worked at the Director of Financial level for several Fortune 500, 200, and 100 firms -- as a contractual analyst. Every single one of them paid corporate taxes. I was also the CEO and General Manager for a medium size organic grocery store chain and we paid all of our taxes.

Corporations get tax right offs, by way of lobbying, however this is "profit" and the cost of the tax is still rolled onto the customer over/during the previous year (on day to day transactions). So, you are off on that as well.

I didn't want to waste time throwing down every single type of tax. Gas is "variable" for extremely poor and wealthy people, but most people have a very regular and steady gas cost -- yes it will fluctuate up and down over the weekends and summer months, but the work week costs are fairly "fixed." Especially for the communiting masses.

Think about it ;)

[bruce]

You summation of "inflation" is way off. You are not measuring inflation by way of the CPI, M3, and MZM -- Nor are you factoring the effect of the Fed Reserve Fiat Printing $4Trillion into circulation over the last 2 years.

Any measure using CPI is going to show 2%-4% during the past 25 years. I've seen models using homemade M3 claim as high as 10% at times during the past 10 years. What are you claiming the rate of inflation is? What are your sources?


When factor all of these, plus all the taxes I listed, plus all the taxes I didn't list you will see that we are taxed (directly and indirectly) around 93% every year.

No, you still haven't shown this. We were at 42% + consumption + ??? = 93%.


Also, I've worked at the Director of Financial level for several Fortune 500, 200, and 100 firms -- as a contractual analyst. Every single one of them paid corporate taxes. I was also the CEO and General Manager for a medium size organic grocery store chain and we paid all of our taxes.

Corporations get tax right offs, by way of lobbying, however this is "profit" and the cost of the tax is still rolled onto the customer over/during the previous year (on day to day transactions). So, you are off on that as well.

This isn't enough. Your personal experiences are not sufficient evidence to support the claims you have made.


I didn't want to waste time throwing down every single type of tax. Gas is "variable" for extremely poor and wealthy people, but most people have a very regular and steady gas cost -- yes it will fluctuate up and down over the weekends and summer months, but the work week costs are fairly "fixed." Especially for the communiting masses.

Think about it ;)

If you think it's wasting time to provide the slightest bit of data in support of your claim, then abandon this thread and move on.

You are throwing around 93% as if it's a given when clearly it's not. How did you arrive at these numbers? Are you holding back the secret formula for a reason? Do you have any support besides personal anecdotes and condescending generalizations?

[Dejavu]

Octobox,

I think I agree with bruce here. How are you coming up with these precise numbers exactly? I'm not saying you're wrong but bruce raises an excellent point concerning what empirical ( reproducible) data did you use to mathematically determine your numerical conclusions?

[Octobox]

Bruce and Dejavu: I hate you both - hahahaha. I thought it would be obvious, but then I realized you guys probably have "lives" and don't spend as much time on these subjects. To "explain" this I'm going to have to write a mini-dissertation and draw from many sources.

I'll try to get something out tonight or by tomorrow.

In the short-run let me say this. When I say 93% taxation -- My definition of "tax" is not the same as yours -- I include inflation, war, regulatory costs, et. al. The latter being part of the "indirect" taxation.

Bruce is write, as he was predominately talking about direct tax -- his numbers did not include state or local -- nor a host of other direct taxes.

A lot of the tax costs are "hidden" because we forget that "all costs" (including lobbying cost) that gov't forces on a corporation is a "tax" (indirect) the consumer pays 100% of.

When you add up all of these they come to approximately 93%.

And as I said in the transitionary society I'm talking about you'd only have to pay 7% -- this does not mean that you wouldn't have to "replace" some of the tax in the form of greater self-paid protection, etc etc; however, it would not be forced and you could chose to forestall, which you can't do in this involuntary society we live in.

We are chasing a rabbit because this was not the original discussion nor the discussion we were just having before I was asked to "prove" it -- which, I will shortly.

Ocotobox

[Dejavu]

Octobox ,

I am aware of the hidden 'unseen' taxation. I feel I have a good grasp on how the monetary system works. Of course the average amount our stuff we really have taken from us is notably higher. What I want to know is how is it that you know exact numbers as empirical fact?

I look forward to your dissertation.:D