60's Hippies Caused Current Financial Crisis

[Havet]

This is just too much funny for me to not share it.

Here's (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/woodstock-hippies-lead-financial-collapse-film/story?id=9958077) the link, i'm NOT making this up.

From what I understand, it goes something like this:

loving hippies-> ignorant yuppies-> financial irresponsability-> recession


"The people who were at Woodstock turned into the yuppies of the '80s and the junk bond traders of the '90s and the Wall Street executives of the 2000s," he says. "They went from Woodstock to driving a Jaguar."


"As a conservative, if you can trivialize what boomers have done, to create a false hippie-to-yuppie paradigm, then your goal is to trivialize all these remarkable changes to our society in the last forty years," he says. "Changes that made us a far more equal, free, inclusive, and environmentally conscious society than we've ever been before."

:lol::lol::lol:

[Havet]

Bossie says generational narcissism, as represented by the 1969 Woodstock Festival, is responsible for the excessive spending, mortgage crisis, and recklessness on Wall Street.

:laugh:

[heiss93]

I think Zizek actually argues something similar. That capitalism has been able to tame and domesticate all the dreams of 68.

[Bud Struggle]

There is no current financial crisis. Capitalism is doing fine just now.

A glitch happened last year. Maybe that's what you are talking about. :)

[IcarusAngel]

"Glitch" my ass. Capitalism is having to be reformed due to Reagan's destructive economic policies. They're attempting to make it more like it used to be again, only except this is worse because they're ensuring the large financial institutions remain in place. That means capitalism will be heavily protected regulated in such a way as to ensure that it's virtually impossible for the lower classes to participate in the system and "screw it up" and maybe lightly regulate the owners of the corps.

They call it a "recovery without jobs," or a mix of low wage jobs and joblessness. Basically there will be even less job security due to capitalism.

As for the hippies, there were conservatives in the 70s too. They tended to go into business and so on, whereas hippies went into environmental sciences. Hippies can only, maybe, be "blamed" for the global warming hype, although they are actually just taking the data from scientists and hyping it up. Whether science is wrong or not remains to be seen.

[IcarusAngel]

What happened to the "incentive" motive in free-markets? Your job security as a programmer or a pilot - not to mention your wages - are about as "safe" as a job at McDonlad's.

Why should you work your ass off in a free-market just to have your resources stolen from you?

Capitalism IS slavery.

[Bud Struggle]

They call it a "recovery without jobs," or a mix of low wage jobs and joblessness. Basically there will be even less job security due to capitalism.

All depends. If one takes the time and the opportunity to get educated properly in order to get a worthwhile job--one is doing well. On the other hand, a BA in Political Science=flipping burgers at Wendys. :D

[Dean]

This is just too much funny for me to not share it.

Here's (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/woodstock-hippies-lead-financial-collapse-film/story?id=9958077) the link, i'm NOT making this up.

From what I understand, it goes something like this:

loving hippies-> ignorant yuppies-> financial irresponsability-> recession

:lol::lol::lol:

So the "mindset of hippies" (which was by and large hedonistic anti-establishmentarianism) translated into the policies of the leaders of industry and politic, which directly contradict "hippy ethic" (if one cold even pinpoint such a thing) on nearly every major policy issue of the last 50 years?

Sure...

I'd rather focus on the interests and actions of economic and political systems the world over for my understanding of financial crises.

[Havet]

So the "mindset of hippies" (which was by and large hedonistic anti-establishmentarianism) translated into the policies of the leaders of industry and politic, which directly contradict "hippy ethic" (if one cold even pinpoint such a thing) on nearly every major policy issue of the last 50 years?

Sure...

I'd rather focus on the interests and actions of economic and political systems the world over for my understanding of financial crises.

I don't understand. Do you think I believe the link I posted? I was mocking it.

[Jazzratt]

There is no current financial crisis. Capitalism is doing fine just now.

A glitch happened last year. Maybe that's what you are talking about. :)

You go down whatever the yank equivelent is of the jobcentre and start talking about a glitch, I dare you.

=============================

As for the article itself I'm fairly sure I've seen it (or at least one with exactly the same premise) posted here before. Of course the person who posted it was a traditional conservative type and actually supported it.

[Bud Struggle]

You go down whatever the yank equivelent is of the jobcentre and start talking about a glitch, I dare you.



I agree. Those people that didn't take the time and effort to train themselves properly be to of use to the ecomony always are hurt the most when times are difficult. For a large part of these people it isn't their fault and I would have no problem if the government did some sort of workfare for them till times got better.

[danyboy27]

There is no current financial crisis. Capitalism is doing fine just now.

A glitch happened last year. Maybe that's what you are talking about. :)
a glitch that will put foward china has the no.1 superpower for the year to come.

at the end, capitalist will be always more profitable for those who use human has slaves.

[anticap]

Capitalist crises are caused by capitalists.

As to the specifics of the current crisis, Richard Wolff posits a thesis (http://www.rdwolff.com/content/capitalism-hits-fan-movie) as good as any other.

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalist crises are caused by capitalists.

As to the specifics of the current crisis, Richard Wolff posits a thesis (http://www.rdwolff.com/content/capitalism-hits-fan-movie) as good as any other.


Indeed but you may have noticed that Capitalism is ALWAYS in crisis. It always has been in crisis. It's just how the Capitalist system works--nothing bad or good about it. The last crisis was started by bad loans to people that could barely afford the mortage payments hoping that the bull market that was going on in housing would continue. There were also people out there that bet on the mortage derivative market basically selling the mortage insurance short. But that didn't cause the fall--it was the subsequent run on banks that made the market drop. And drop it did which tightened credit markets WHICH NEEDED TO BE TIGHTENED. So no harm done--except that the credit makets to small businesses was also tightened. The problem there is that it's small businesses that are the primary creator of bottom end jobs in the economy.

Hence the unemployment. Once the credit market opens up a little more--you'll see the jobs come back. Bada bing.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Indeed but you may have noticed that Capitalism is ALWAYS in crisis. It always has been in crisis. It's just how the Capitalist system works--nothing bad or good about it. The last crisis was started by bad loans to people that could barely afford the mortage payments hoping that the bull market that was going on in housing would continue. There were also people out there that bet on the mortage derivative market basically selling the mortage insurance short. But that didn't cause the fall--it was the subsequent run on banks that made the market drop. And drop it did which tightened credit markets WHICH NEEDED TO BE TIGHTENED. So no harm done--except that the credit makets to small businesses was also tightened. The problem there is that it's small businesses that are the primary creator of bottom end jobs in the economy.

Hence the unemployment. Once the credit market opens up a little more--you'll see the jobs come back. Bada bing.
That is incorrect. Another problem is people who mortgaged overpriced houses now
a) having their houses repossessed and
b) living in negative equity.

Those things didn't need to happen. It would be better for all involved if those houses didn't need to be repossessed and those people weren't living in negative equity. I know that's hard to care about when you are financially secure yourself but for those counting the economic and human cost the problem is very clear.

Bubbles ARE a problem, even once they correct themselves (ie markets nosedive) because people (and businesses and governments) rearrange their affairs on the basis of a bull market which aggravates matters when the markets turn bearish.

[Havet]

Why should that be funny to a person who thinks collectivism caused the crisis? Like a good little Randroid you think everything that goes wrong with capitalism can be blamed on collectivism.

Are you fucking stupid or just plain ignorant?

Where the hell did you get the impression that I was supporting the article?

Yeesh you guys are thirsty for blood.

Fuck you, idiot.

[Wolf Larson]

Are you fucking stupid or just plain ignorant?

Where the hell did you get the impression that I was supporting the article?

Yeesh you guys are thirsty for blood.

Fuck you, idiot.

I'm an idiot? Who's the one trying to claim the libertarian left while worshiping at the alter of Ayn Rand? You're a reactionary fool suffering from psychopathy. Go to the Mises forums where you belong. Circle jerk around pictures of John Galt while blaming all of capitalism's problems on collectivism. Under revolutionary conditions people like you would be forming fascist little armies of so called resistance. With the weight of the world on your shoulders. I've been debating with your kind for over 10 years now and I know your philosophy better than you do which ends up 99.9% of the time in threats of violence being lobbed my way so I have learned to hold nothing but disdain for you people. Your world view is a mental illness and with the proper treatment you can probably be cured. You're sick. Disturbed. Sad thing is the things you believe in are normal in a capitalist society. Our society is sick and Randroids are simply an exaggerated caricature of the overall problem of social psychopathy and base materialism found in western civilization. Socialism is the cure for your mental disease. To the plague your spreading like a rabid rat. An invisible dark cloud [hand] of abject selfishness has overtaken humanity. You should be quite happy with the current reality. Just skip out on paying your taxes and you're in objectivist heaven.

Why would a Neo McCaurthyite be posting on socialist forums and expect to be treated kindly? If you want to know who's thirsty for blood I will post, with sources, hundreds of threats, racist rants and vile propaganda straight from the mouths of your fellow Randroids. Everything from threats of rape, violence and hate crimes against underage kids [coming from adults] to the abject social psychopathy found in the economic polices you call free market capitalism. I don't dislike Randroids for no reason. Do I need to post links to the insanity I've witnessed online coming from the MAJORITY of your comrades? Endless racism, hatred, ignorance and apathy cloaked in the subjective veil of "objectivisjm". You people are disturbed. Here's amessage I got from one of your Randrod comrades the day before yesterday:

"
http://i2.ytimg.com/i/ygQZhOIlk0s5X2M7pvc3vQ/1.jpg?v=8d951c (http://www.youtube.com/user/SmileAznStyle)


SmileAznStyle (3 days ago)
Remove (http://www.youtube.com/user/crud4#) | Block User (http://www.youtube.com/user/crud4#) | Spam (http://www.youtube.com/user/crud4#) Marked as spam
See? This is why fat, nigger, cock sucking faggots like you shouldn't be talking about politics on YouTube, because you people, incidentally, like to pull shit out of their ass and throw it at every fucking thing you come across, like monkeys. You're probably one of those radical left, nigger loving, syndicalist/socialist/communis*t retarded-assed fucktards who believe that spending more than what you have will get you out of debt, for the sole fact that you morons think that money is infinite. Remember the saying: "He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot reason is a fool; he who dares not reason is a slave". And: "Wise men speak because they have something to say; foolish people speak because they have to say something." Well, guess what? You're a fool, a bigot, a slave, and a retarded fool"

One of 1,000 I have in various mail boxes and forums. The same thing over and over from hundreds of various capitalists like teh ones below:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D3eglpglKg


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D3eglpglKg)

[Havet]

I'm an idiot? Who's the one trying to claim the libertarian left while worshiping at the alter of Ayn Rand?

Wrong: I do not worship Ayn Rand


You're a reactionary fool suffering from psychopathy.

Psychopathy (pronounced /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct, masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.

I don't know where you have seen this behaviour.


Go to the Mises forums where you belong. Circle jerk around pictures of John Galt while blaming all of capitalism's problems on collectivism.

Wrong, for several reasons:

1st, I never went to mises forums. 2nd, I don't blame all of capitalism's problems on objectivism. In fact, I blame it on greed. Take that, you condescending piece of shit.


I've been debating with your kind for over 10 years now and I know your philosophy better than you do which ends up 99.9% of the time in threats of violence being lobbed my way so I have learned to hold nothing but disdain for you people.

I have never threatened violence. I only called you the characteristics you chose to display. I'm sorry I am being dammned for being honest.


Our society is sick and Randroids are simply an exaggerated caricature of the overall problem of social psychopathy and base materialism found in western civilization.

Do you think that if you keep calling me a Randroid, that I will become one? Because I am not a Randroid, and I stopped being an objectivist even before I joined revleft.


If you want to know who's thirsty for blood I will post, with sources, hundreds of threats, racist rants and vile propaganda straight from the mouths of your fellow Randroids.

Ah, here's the problem, I don't have any fellow randroids. Sorry to inform you.


Do I need to post links to the insanity I've witnessed online coming from the MAJORITY of your comrades?

Randroids are definitely not my comrades. Even if they were, you are generalizing the argument through a fallacy by assuming that just because a lot of people do something X while believing in something Y, then all Y believers also will do that something X.

[anticap]

You're probably one of those radical left, nigger loving, syndicalist/socialist/communis*t retarded-assed fucktards who believe that spending more than what you have will get you out of debt, for the sole fact that you morons think that money is infinite.

The claim being made here is perhaps even more infuriating than the language being used, given that the current economic crisis was caused by this person's capitalist heroes opting to offer workers* loans in lieu of wages.

*Most likely including her, judging by her listed occupation and status as a university student. Yet another ignorant self-loather in need of ideological rescue. :(

[Wolf Larson]

HayenMill: If it's not Rand then it's Rothbard which is even worse. The Radndrois intellectually cross breed with the so called anarcho capitalists all the time. Randroids eventually see the state [in their eyes] as a collectivists weapon against capitalism and adopt the Rothbardian doublethink. You know Rothbard advocated a private state do you not? He was also a subjective revisionist. The entire anarcho capitalist platform is built on lies and distortions.The New Libertarian Manifesto [Konkin] is intellectual quackery. Capitalism [as in] property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury cannot exist without a state. Rothbard knew this which is why he advocated a private Pinkerton state in order to subjugate workers under the complete control of capitalists with NO CHANCE of workers using a public state against capitalists. You advocate abject tyranny. Your world would be a dystopia of unimaginable proportions. Liberty for the capitalist- the complete subjugation of labor to capital. Rand advocated a state openly and chose not to obfuscate the issue of the state as Rothbard did. As Rothbard has done to anarchism in general. Rothbardian revisionism = the intentional confusion of anarchist principles. It's quackery.

If you can refrain from threats of violence, racism and the usual idiocy I encounter when debating your ilk I'll gladly have a conversation with you concerning every aspect of your erroneous position. Where shall we start? Perhaps concerning the question of the state. If you are in fact a Rothbardian capitalist why do you oppose the public state? What is your reason for opposing the state? I also want to know when, in the history of man, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury were voluntary or free association. I'd also like to know your perception/version of primitive accumulation and how capitalism developed. I want to know why you think capitalism and the state are two separate entities. I want to hear your version describing the rise of both capitalism and the MODERN state as separate entities.

[Havet]

HayenMill: If it's not Rand then it's Rothbard which is even worse. The Radndrois intellectually cross breed with the so called anarcho capitalists all the time. Randroids eventually see the state [in their eyes] as a collectivists weapon against capitalism and adopt the Rothbardian doublethink. You know Rothbard advocated a private state do you not? He was also a subjective revisionist. The entire anarcho capitalist platform is built on lies and distortions.The New Libertarian Manifesto [Konkin] is intellectual quackery. Capitalism [as in] property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury cannot exist without a state. Rothbard knew this which is why he advocated a private Pinkerton state in order to subjugate workers under the complete control of capitalists with NO CHANCE of workers using a public state against capitalists. You advocate abject tyranny. Your world would be a dystopia of unimaginable proportions. Liberty for the capitalist- the complete subjugation of labor to capital. Rand advocated a state openly and chose not to obfuscate the issue of the state as Rothbard did. As Rothbard has done to anarchism in general. Rothbardian revisionism = the intentional confusion of anarchist principles. It's quackery.

Dude, I'm not a rothbardian either. I've never even read anything by rothbard, nor did I ever call myself a rothbardian. Will you stop assuming things about me?


If you can refrain from threats of violence, racism and the usual idiocy I encounter when debating your ilk I'll gladly have a conversation with you concerning every aspect of your erroneous position.

I never engage in threats of violence or racism.


Where shall we start? Perhaps concerning the question of the state. If you are in fact a Rothbardian capitalist why do you oppose the public state? What is your reason for opposing the state?

I oppose the State because it is an inefficient hierarchical monopoly organization based on force, which prevents cooperation and free association, and grants privilege to a restricted few.


I also want to know when, in the history of man, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury were voluntary or free association.

All those things had momentarily appeared in little pockets somewhere around the world in a voluntary fashion, but for the most part of history, they were enforced by a state protecting private property.


I'd also like to know your perception/version of primitive accumulation and how capitalism developed. I want to know why you think capitalism and the state are two separate entities.

I don't think the State and capitalism are two separate entities. Read my sig.


I want to hear your version describing the rise of both capitalism and the MODERN state as separate entities.

I don't hold such version. Sorry to let you down.

[IcarusAngel]

You don't actually have to read authors to be a fellow traveler.

[Wolf Larson]

Just two weeks ago you had free market crap coming out of your ears and yes I have in fact seen you refer to Rothbard and Rand as influences. Do I need to track down all of your posts?

[IcarusAngel]

Yep, Miseans believe in races and a "race war." Apparently Ludwig von Mises himself was a racist who believed that your life will be guided by the color of your skin. Notice how that asian chick reads Rothbard and other kooks. It really shows how deluded some people can be when they start advocating their own segregation.

[Havet]

Just two weeks ago you had free market crap coming out of your ears and yes I have in fact seen you refer to Rothbard and Rand as influences. Do I need to track down all of your posts?

Yeah, you do. i've never denied rand as an influence - in the beginning. But the only thing I like about her now is her writting style, pretty much everything else vanished.

I don't remmember referring to Rothbard, so perhaps you could show proof of what you are claiming?

[Skooma Addict]

Randroids eventually see the state [in their eyes] as a collectivists weapon against capitalism and adopt the Rothbardian doublethink.

Rand stressed the importance of the State. Have you actually read Rand or Rothbard?


Yep, Miseans believe in races and a "race war." Apparently Ludwig von Mises himself was a racist who believed that your life will be guided by the color of your skin.


Umm...what?

[vyborg]

Capitalism is still in its worse crisis since the WW2.
To silly people pretending that market system works I just ask: to whom I have to ask back the 14 trillion $ public finance, that is workers. wage, have been used to save big banks?

There is an indicator that shows how capitalism is more and more rotten, that is the financial leverage. most of economic growth in the advanced economies now is made out of debt. it is simply time buying...but time is running out anyway

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalism is still in its worse crisis since the WW2.
To silly people pretending that market system works I just ask: to whom I have to ask back the 14 trillion $ public finance, that is workers. wage, have been used to save big banks?

There is an indicator that shows how capitalism is more and more rotten, that is the financial leverage. most of economic growth in the advanced economies now is made out of debt. it is simply time buying...but time is running out anyway

Here's a quote from The Paranoid Style in America Politics by Richard Hofstadter. I think it nails down pretty well the tone I see in a lot of Communist posts as well as in the rantings of Glen Beck (the radio one) and Stormfronters, etc. Each sees a different danger and a different fall--but the tone and style are pretty similar.


The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization... he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

[Wolf Larson]

Rand stressed the importance of the State. Have you actually read Rand or Rothbard?



Umm...what?

What do you think I meant when I said Randroids eventually see the state as evil and adopt Rothbardian doublethink? I meant the objectivists, over time, leave Rand behind and adhere to Rothbard out of their hatred for the state but in the long run they are only fooling themselves because as with Rand Rothbard also advocated a state. A private state hidden behind all manner of euphemism and slight of hand doublethinking semantics.

[Wolf Larson]

Yeah, you do. i've never denied rand as an influence - in the beginning. But the only thing I like about her now is her writting style, pretty much everything else vanished.

I don't remmember referring to Rothbard, so perhaps you could show proof of what you are claiming?

You consider yourself a mutualist now correct? Who do you think influenced both Konkin and Carson? They've kept Rothbards subjective revisionism alive by twisting Proudhon, Tucker, Stirner and Spooner. Even Goldman was warped by Hess. It's quackery mostly all rooted in Rothbars cherry picking technique. In the end mutuaists, the ones like you, end up condoning property [a doublethinking propignadized version] wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. You try to paint some picture where capitalism is voluntary or free association. It's a lie. You advocate a lie and this lie is in fact based on Rothbardian doublethink. Also, Karl Hess was no anarchist either. All of you are simply trying to make capitalism fluffy and nice. It's a joke. I laugh at you.

[Havet]

You consider yourself a mutualist now correct? Who do you think influenced both Konkin and Carson? They've kept Rothbards subjective revisionism alive by twisting Proudhon, Tucker, Stirner and Spooner. Even Goldman was warped by Hess. It's quackery mostly all rooted in Rothbars cherry picking technique. In the end mutuaists, the ones like you, end up condoning property [a doublethinking propignadized version] wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. You try to paint some picture where capitalism is voluntary or free association. It's a lie. You advocate a lie and this lie is in fact based on Rothbardian doublethink. Also, Karl Hess was no anarchist either. All of you are simply trying to make capitalism fluffy and nice. It's a joke. I laugh at you.



I don't try to paint any picture of capitalism. I treat it as it actually exists, nothing else. Also, what is wrong with interest and usury?

When you actually start providing proof of the arguments you claim, come back. Otherwise, you are just wasting forum space. Your little rants add nothing to the discussion. But, contrary to what you like doing, I will not laugh at you.

EDIT: How do you even define "rothbard's subjective revisionism"?

[vyborg]

Here's a quote from The Paranoid Style in America Politics by Richard Hofstadter. I think it nails down pretty well the tone I see in a lot of Communist posts as well as in the rantings of Glen Beck (the radio one) and Stormfronters, etc. Each sees a different danger and a different fall--but the tone and style are pretty similar.


Thisquotation is a useless bla bla us. But I will restate the main point so even you can understand. To save big banks, the g7 governments spent trillions of dollars of public money that is part of workers' wage. As the capitalists pretend to be in favour of free market, I'm sure they will pay us back with the interests...

[Bud Struggle]

Thisquotation is a useless bla bla us. But I will restate the main point so even you can understand. To save big banks, the g7 governments spent trillions of dollars of public money that is part of workers' wage. As the capitalists pretend to be in favour of free market, I'm sure they will pay us back with the interests...

You misunderstand Capitalism as it's practiced in the 21st centruy.

[Wolf Larson]

I don't try to paint any picture of capitalism. I treat it as it actually exists, nothing else. Also, what is wrong with interest and usury?

When you actually start providing proof of the arguments you claim, come back. Otherwise, you are just wasting forum space. Your little rants add nothing to the discussion. But, contrary to what you like doing, I will not laugh at you.

EDIT: How do you even define "rothbard's subjective revisionism"?

I could define Rothbards subjective revisionism by posting a long drawn out detailed map of his works where he cherry picked and warped the positions of individualist anarchists to the point of formulating "anarcho" capitalism which advocates property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury just like free market mutiualists do- you advocate things none of the individualist anarchists [Stirner, Tucker, Spooner] or Proudhon supported. Rothbard was an intellectual quack as are the men who took the Rothbardian revisionist baton and ran with it to formulate agorism/ free market mutualism/ the so called new left. You people, in reality, are nothing but right wing American libertarians [this isn't an ad hominem but the truth]. You even took the term libertarian from us collectivists. Now you're trying to warp/steal the term anarchism. Words have no meaning to you people nor does actual reality/empiricism which is even stranger when you take the fact into account many of you at one point called yourselves objectivists. Also, the fact you need to ask whats wrong with interest/usury is telling. It creates concentrated wealth by giving the capitalist the ability to exponentially make money without doing any labor which is why the individualist anarchists you try to claim weer against it as was Proudhon. The ability for capital to make capital was opposed by individualist anarchists. Why do you think Proudhon tried to start up a bank for workers? You forgot to mention you also advocate the property owners so called right to facilitate rent and wage slavery. Are you trying to say you do not advocate the ability for a property owner to employ workers? To become a landlord? Why do you think the individualist anarchists you people are trying to claim as your own were against property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury? Tucker did not advocate the employer/employee relationship. One man owning the means of production and a worker only having the ability to sell his labor. That's capitalism and the individualist anarchists were anti capitalist.

You on the other hand are advocating capitalism but an insincere version which you try to say would be voluntary. It's quackery! It's exclusion from equal access to the means of life [property] which compels people to subject themselves to wage slavery, rent, interest and usury [capitalism]. And private property cannot be enforced without a state as Locke knew. The silly word games you people play with private property make it no less coercive nor does the fact you advocate a private state make it any less coercive. In fact, your private state would be ten times worse. Also, you do not advocate possession as Proudhon did. Proudhon never advocated the ability for a capitalist to use his means of production to hire employees Proudhon advocated the self employed artisans ability to remain independent - this is what he meant when he said property is theft but is also liberty. Proudhon would vomit if he saw the free market quackery you people are pushing in his name.

It was Rothbard who first came along and tried to reconcile property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury with anarchism. He tried to rhetorically spin these exploitative mechanisms into being free association which is exactly what you silly free market mutualists have done. At no point in human history has a society based on property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury been voluntary or free association for an extended amount of time - trade within the community has been, sure, but not wage slavery- not trading labor by a man with no access to the means of production for payment from a man who controls the means of production. Not rent nor interest either. Private property [manifesting as wage slavery, rent, interest/usury] became somewhat voluntary for a brief time in the colonial US and the result [as I told you before] was the introduction of 8 million chattel slaves to provide the labor force since most white Europeans in the new world chose to homestead which meant business owners had no labor force [enter chattel slavery]. Unless all forms of capitalist property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury are abolished capitalists will always coerce a large population into being their slaves as history shows us and the concentrated wealth they create manifests as concentrated power. Your naive world view is akin to Ayn Rands who assumed capitalists are benign and have so called rational self interest which will symbiotically provide for all. Greed manifests as anything but rational behavior and has not provided for all of society and this is not the fault of collectivism nor the state as in reality the state and capitalism have always been one entity springing forth together.

Wage slavery, rent, interest/usury is free association? Pfft. No one would choose to be a wage slave if they could just as easily provide sustenance without working for a boss. No one would choose to subject themselves to paying a landlord if they could just as easily provide housing without paying some thief. No one would take on interest bearing loans to provide sustenance if they could just as easily provide sustenance without doing so. You free market mutualists are not opposed to property [as in a person using the means of production to employ wage slaves, to rent/become land lords, and facilitate interest bearing loans by which capital makes more capital without doing any labor]. You are advocating capitalism but simply don't want to pay taxes.

What happened in NY when the fire department was privatized? What happened in Texas when the roads were privatized and toll booths sprang up every other mile? Whats happening with the private military forces around the globe/ What happened when capitalists used private detective agencies to "protect their property" [means of production] which is a euphemism for subjugating labor? What has depending on charity to provide for the poor shown us when that was historically the case? What you fail to see is reality. All of the government social programs you oppose actually were implemented to save capitalism. The wars you act like you oppose are waged to protect and legitimize foreign markets while containing socialism. Property, wage slavery, interest, rent, usury and profit cannot exist without a state no matter how hard you wish the opposite to be true. Forgive any typos as I'm typing very fast and don't really want to devote any more time than I have to in order to get my point across although I'm sure you're going to force my hand and demand all sorts of explanations and sources. If you want we can both start by reading Proudhon together word per word then move to Stirner then Tucker and go onto to Rothbard so you can see the revisionist quackery first hand. To simplify whats going on- all of the rhetoric is simply a futile attempt to morally salvage capitalism. That's why all of the insincere cherry picking and revisionism takes place. You free market people will do anything you can to preserve your preconceived notions of liberty. Perhaps soon you'll realize the folly of your ways and adhere to libertarian socialism. I'll be over here holding my breath.

[Havet]

I could define Rothbards subjective revisionism by posting a long drawn out detailed map of his works where he cherry picked and warped the positions of individualist anarchists to the point of formulating "anarcho" capitalism which advocates property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury just like free market mutiualists do- you advocate things none of the individualist anarchists [Stirner, Tucker, Spooner] or Proudhon supported. Rothbard was an intellectual quack as are the men who took the Rothbardian revisionist baton and ran with it to formulate agorism/ free market mutualism/ the so called new left. You people, in reality, are nothing but right wing American libertarians [this isn't an ad hominem but the truth]. You even took the term libertarian from us collectivists. Now you're trying to warp/steal the term anarchism. Words have no meaning to you people nor does actual reality/empiricism which is even stranger when you take the fact into account many of you at one point called yourselves objectivists. Also, the fact you need to ask whats wrong with interest/usury is telling. It creates concentrated wealth by giving the capitalist the ability to exponentially make money without doing any labor which is why the individualist anarchists you try to claim weer against it as was Proudhon. The ability for capital to make capital was opposed by individualist anarchists. Why do you think Proudhon tried to start up a bank for workers? You forgot to mention you also advocate the property owners so called right to facilitate rent and wage slavery. Are you trying to say you do not advocate the ability for a property owner to employ workers? To become a landlord? Why do you think the individualist anarchists you people are trying to claim as your own were against property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury? Tucker did not advocate the employer/employee relationship. One man owning the means of production and a worker only having the ability to sell his labor. That's capitalism and the individualist anarchists were anti capitalist.

Ok, I see you like ranting.

I propose mutual banks and mutual credit. I don't have any problem with rent and wages in my "system" because a person will always have a choice, given the existance of equal accesss to resources, between wages and self-employing/joining a coop/commune. Eventually wages will increase to the full product of one's labor, and rent will become obsolete.

I don't advocate workers only having the ability to sell their labor, and you would know that if you placed more attention to my posts.


You on the other hand are advocating capitalism but an insincere version which you try to say would be voluntary. It's quackery! It's exclusion from equal access to the means of life [property] which compels people to subject themselves to wage slavery, rent, interest and usury [capitalism]. And private property cannot be enforced without a state as Locke knew. The silly word games you people play with private property make it no less coercive nor does the fact you advocate a private state make it any less coercive. In fact, your private state would be ten times worse. Also, you do not advocate possession as Proudhon did. Proudhon never advocated the ability for a capitalist to use his means of production to hire employees Proudhon advocated the self employed artisans ability to remain independent - this is what he meant when he said property is theft but is also liberty. Proudhon would vomit if he saw the free market quackery you people are pushing in his name.

bla bla bla :rolleyes:


It was Rothbard who first came along and tried to reconcile property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury with anarchism. He tried to rhetorically spin these exploitative mechanisms into being free association which is exactly what you silly free market mutualists have done. At no point in human history has a society based on property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury been voluntary or free association for an extended amount of time - trade within the community has been, sure, but not wage slavery- not trading labor by a man with no access to the means of production for payment from a man who controls the means of production. Not rent nor interest either. Private property [manifesting as wage slavery, rent, interest/usury] became somewhat voluntary for a brief time in the colonial US and the result [as I told you before] was the introduction of 8 million chattel slaves to provide the labor force since most white Europeans in the new world chose to homestead which meant business owners had no labor force [enter chattel slavery]. Unless all forms of capitalist property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury are abolished capitalists will always coerce a large population into being their slaves as history shows us and the concentrated wealth they create manifests as concentrated power. Your naive world view is akin to Ayn Rands who assumed capitalists are benign and have so called rational self interest which will symbiotically provide for all. Greed manifests as anything but rational behavior and has not provided for all of society and this is not the fault of collectivism nor the state as in reality the state and capitalism have always been one entity springing forth together.

...


Wage slavery, rent, interest/usury is free association? Pfft. No one would choose to be a wage slave if they could just as easily provide sustenance without working for a boss. No one would choose to subject themselves to paying a landlord if they could just as easily provide housing without paying some thief. No one would take on interest bearing loans to provide sustenance if they could just as easily provide sustenance without doing so. You free market mutualists are not opposed to property [as in a person using the means of production to employ wage slaves, to rent/become land lords, and facilitate interest bearing loans by which capital makes more capital without doing any labor]. You are advocating capitalism but simply don't want to pay taxes.

You like to throw in empty statements a lot. Do you actually want to argue, or do you just want me to serve as a receiver so it seems like what you say is actually worthy of being read?

Tell me, why is interest illegitimate?


What happened in NY when the fire department was privatized? What happened in Texas when the roads were privatized and toll booths sprang up every other mile? Whats happening with the private military forces around the globe/ What happened when capitalists used private detective agencies to "protect their property" [means of production] which is a euphemism for subjugating labor? What has depending on charity to provide for the poor shown us when that was historically the case? What you fail to see is reality. All of the government social programs you oppose actually were implemented to save capitalism. The wars you act like you oppose are waged to protect and legitimize foreign markets while containing socialism. Property, wage slavery, interest, rent, usury and profit cannot exist without a state no matter how hard you wish the opposite to be true. Forgive any typos as I'm typing very fast and don't really want to devote any more time than I have to in order to get my point across although I'm sure you're going to force my hand and demand all sorts of explanations and sources.

Yes. I want explanations and sources. I'll wait for them. I didn't even know the NY fire department had been privatized.

I don't know why you keep insinsting that I want to save capitalism. I am anti-capitalist. I reject the exploitation of labor - the main faculty of a capitalist sociaty.


If you want we can both start by reading Proudhon together word per word then move to Stirner then Tucker and go onto to Rothbard so you can see the revisionist quackery first hand. To simplify whats going on- all of the rhetoric is simply a futile attempt to morally salvage capitalism. That's why all of the insincere cherry picking and revisionism takes place. You free market people will do anything you can to preserve your preconceived notions of liberty. Perhaps soon you'll realize the folly of your ways and adhere to libertarian socialism. I'll be over here holding my breath.

You know what? Let's do it. But promise me that you come unbiased and with a free-mind. I don't like your tone of self-rightneousness here on revleft. Or your vague statements. Get skype or something and we can both start discussing things, since you don't seem to want to discuss them here in revleft.

[Wolf Larson]

Ok, I see you like ranting.

I propose mutual banks and mutual credit. I don't have any problem with rent and wages in my "system" because a person will always have a choice, given the existance of equal accesss to resources, between wages and self-employing/joining a coop/commune. Eventually wages will increase to the full product of one's labor, and rent will become obsolete.

[QUOTE] Eventually the capitalist will pay workers the full value of their labor? You live in fantasy land. If the capitalist has the social tools to exploit people will have no choice in the matter. You cant rhetorically wish away the coercive nature of capitalism. What your trying to do is a joke. I don't advocate workers only having the ability to sell their labor, and you would know that if you placed more attention to my posts.

You advocate property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. It's that simple. You condone the tools of capitalist exploitation. Your entire ideology is nonsensical semantics meant to frame property, wage slavery, rent and interest as free association. I think everyone on RevLeft would agree with me. History has shown us the lengths capitalists will go to attain more and more. Unless their ability to exploit is taken away, unless capitalist property is completely abolished- unless wage slavery, rent, interest and usury is completely abolished concentrated wealth will always control society. You want a source/ Try reality. Try taking a look at actual history rather than living in the fantasy land Rand, Rothbard, Carson and Konkin have created for you. bla bla bla :rolleyes:



...



You like to throw in empty statements a lot. Do you actually want to argue, or do you just want me to serve as a receiver so it seems like what you say is actually worthy of being read?

Whats not worthy of being read is Carson, Konkin, Rothbard, Spangler, Mises, Rand, Menger, Hayek and the rest of the Austrian idiots you wreak of. Tell me, why is interest illegitimate?

I already did. Because it creates concentrated wealth with no labor input. Capital making capital. You don't even understand the basic position that concentrated wealth will always manifest as concentrated power Yes. I want explanations and sources. I'll wait for them. I didn't even know the NY fire department had been privatized.


No you didn't know the NY city fire department had been privatized and it was a disaster. Look it up yourself, as I said, I'm not in the mood to educate capitalists these days I just make fun of you I don't know why you keep insinsting that I want to save capitalism. I am anti-capitalist. I reject the exploitation of labor - the main faculty of a capitalist sociaty.

Bullshit. You advocate wage slavery, rent, interest/usury and try to frame it as free association. You even believe your own bullshit You know what? Let's do it. But promise me that you come unbiased and with a free-mind. I don't like your tone of self-rightneousness here on revleft. Or your vague statements. Get skype or something and we can both start discussing things, since you don't seem to want to discuss them here in revleft.


I've spent 10 years debating capitalists. I already know how it ends. Incessant denial of reality. The fact that you take Ayn Rand seriously speaks volume. Why would I subject myself to an extended correspondence with a Randroid who's trying to act like an anarchist? I made that mistake many times and have learned no matter how much time I spend deconstructing the fallacies, lies, half truths, exaggerations and insincere revisionism in the end the capitalist will only hold tighter to their erroneous position. And yes, when dealing with people like you I do in fact hold a great deal of indignation which you seem to think is self righteousness. A women who thinks empathy/altruism doesn't exist- a woman who thinks free market capitalism is tolerable and advocates wage slavery, rent, interest and usury while trying to frame it as free association is pushing quackery and I will treat you just a I would any other quack. Why would I debate a person who thought the earth was flat? It would only legitimize their idiotic position. Don't for one minute think I can't deconstruct every last foolish world view you have. Unlike you I've actually read and understand the works I oppose. Seeing you haven't read many of the socialist/anarchist/communist works debating you would be a non stop education session. A waist if time. I would rather debate one of the medical quacks who says vitamin C cures cancer. That would be more entertaining

[Havet]

Eventually the capitalist will pay workers the full value of their labor? You live in fantasy land. If the capitalist has the social tools to exploit people will have no choice in the matter. You cant rhetorically wish away the coercive nature of capitalism. What your trying to do is a joke.

But the tools will not be the monopolistic property of the capitalists. They will be available to all. Furthermore, capitalists will not be able to continue in their hierarchical position given that the privilege that supported them will be destroyed.


You advocate property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. It's that simple. You condone the tools of capitalist exploitation. Your entire ideology is nonsensical semantics meant to frame property, wage slavery, rent and interest as free association. I think everyone on RevLeft would agree with me. History has shown us the lengths capitalists will go to attain more and more. Unless their ability to exploit is taken away, unless capitalist property is completely abolished- unless wage slavery, rent, interest and usury is completely abolished concentrated wealth will always control society. You want a source/ Try reality. Try taking a look at actual history rather than living in the fantasy land Rand, Rothbard, Carson and Konkin have created for you.

Saying "look at reality" is merely a statement, not an argument, if you don't actually explain where in reality one should look it, which you haven't.


Whats not worthy of being read is Carson, Konkin, Rothbard, Spangler, Mises, Rand, Menger, Hayek and the rest of the Austrian idiots you wreak of.

Because you say so? Out of all those I only read Carson and Rand (which i've dismissed). So what's wrong with Carson?

Do you not see the idiocy in your post? What would you think if I just came here with your attitude and claimed "what's not worthy of reading is marx, engels, kropotkin, bakunin, etc" while offering no explanation, no facts, no evidence?


I already did. Because it creates concentrated wealth with no labor input. Capital making capital. You don't even understand the basic position that concentrated wealth will always manifest as concentrated power

Just because its not physical labor it doesn't count as labor? Are rocket scientists not labouring? Is thought not a critical process in all of human endeavors? If a person is able to recognize that some wish to have more money now and are able to give in return a small sum in the future, then its not labor? What's wrong with interest provided a person has a choice on other alternatives (asking for money with zero interest to friends/relatives) ?


No you didn't know the NY city fire department had been privatized and it was a disaster. Look it up yourself, as I said, I'm not in the mood to educate capitalists these days I just make fun of you

So you mean this?

http://www.cwu.edu/~tenerelt/handout%20-%20privatized%20fire%20department.htm

Why on earth would I support handing out vital services to state-granted-privileged enterprises?


Bullshit. You advocate wage slavery, rent, interest/usury and try to frame it as free association. You even believe your own bullshit

I don't advocate wage slavery, I don't mind renting, but I think it will become obsolete through equal access to land and lack of territorial monopolies and I still don't see what's wrong with interest...


I've spent 10 years debating capitalists. I already know how it ends. Incessant denial of reality. The fact that you take Ayn Rand seriously speaks volume. Why would I subject myself to an extended correspondence with a Randroid who's trying to act like an anarchist? I made that mistake many times and have learned no matter how much time I spend deconstructing the fallacies, lies, half truths, exaggerations and insincere revisionism in the end the capitalist will only hold tighter to their erroneous position. And yes, when dealing with people like you I do in fact hold a great deal of indignation which you seem to think is self righteousness. A women who thinks empathy/altruism doesn't exist- a woman who thinks free market capitalism is tolerable and advocates wage slavery, rent, interest and usury while trying to frame it as free association is pushing quackery and I will treat you just a I would any other quack. Why would I debate a person who thought the earth was flat? It would only legitimize their idiotic position. Don't for one minute think I can't deconstruct every last foolish world view you have. Unlike you I've actually read and understand the works I oppose. Seeing you haven't read many of the socialist/anarchist/communist works debating you would be a non stop education session. A waist if time. I would rather debate one of the medical quacks who says vitamin C cures cancer. That would be more entertaining

Where have I taken Ayn Rand seriously, recently?

I know what you mean when you say that there are people who can't be reasoned with. I have also been experiencing that for the last 4 years. And i've progressed a lot beyond that time.

I hold my beliefs only on the basis of science, logic and reason, and I reject authority, tradition, or any other dogma. If you provide me with science, logic and reason, I will be convinced. If not, I won't. I suggest you do the same.

You know the difference between when me and one of my friends argue with each other and you and I argue?

In the first case we both keep an open mind dedicated to the pursuit of truth independent of our beliefs, because we know that we will be able to convince one another if shown the correct evidence.

In the second case, I have to constantly stay on the defensive against pre-conceived notions that, while partially based on evidence(logic/truth, do not leave the holder the mean's to correct his beliefs, because they were taken on faith or incorrect information, initially.

[IcarusAngel]

Has anybody seen the movie "robocop?" They kind of predicted how disastrous it would be turn public resources over to private hands. The movie had some good insights as well such as the extreme superficiality of our news and the shoddy design of American products, like cars with "shitty gas milage." Life imitates art or art imitates life? Yeah, Robocop was bad ass.

But whatever. I'm not here.

[Wolf Larson]

Jesus Christ. No. The fire service was privatized in NY as far back as 1751. The people had to have a placard or "fire mark" from the private fire service they used in front of their home. If they didn't have a company sign or "fire mark"the fire men would pass the house and let it burn. There were various "fire brigades" [private fire companies] but the majority of workers couldn't afford to hire any of the private fire service's [looks like competition didn't drive down the cost] and the end result was tragedy. Half the city burned down because the private for profit fire companies refused to put out fires unless the homeowner held an insurance policy and proof of their payment [fire mark]. One home would catch fire then the for profit fire service would refuse to put it out if the person wasn't a paying customer and the fires would spread. By the time the fires would reach a paying customers home it would be too late. 10 to 15 homes would be ablaze by that time. It got to the point where thousands of homes burned, half the city....deaths, millions in damage [millions was a lot of money back then] etc and so on. I learned about this in university when I received an education and you can spend your own time looking it up. I'm not talking about anything that happened in our lifetime as your uneducated self assumed. I'm talking about the time when in fact the fire service was a private for profit capitalist enterprise in NYC. I've already told you I'm not going to debate you and this illuminates my reason for not doing so, because, as I told you before, you need tutelage/education. You're in no position to debate. If you concede the fact everyone should be entitled to equal socialized education I'll give you the socialized education you need but seeing you're a capitalist I want you to send me a tuition check before I continue.

[Havet]

Jesus Christ. No. The fire service was privatized in NY as far back as 1751. The people had to have a placard or "fire mark" from the private fire service they used in front of their home. If they didn't have a company sign or "fire mark"the fire men would pass the house and let it burn. There were various "fire brigades" [private fire companies] but the majority of workers couldn't afford to hire any of the private fire service's [looks like competition didn't drive down the cost] and the end result was tragedy. Half the city burned down because the private for profit fire companies refused to put out fires unless the homeowner held an insurance policy and proof of their payment [fire mark]. One home would catch fire then the for profit fire service would refuse to put it out if the person wasn't a paying customer and the fires would spread. By the time the fires would reach a paying customers home it would be too late. 10 to 15 homes would be ablaze by that time. It got to the point where thousands of homes burned, half the city....deaths, millions in damage [millions was a lot of money back then] etc and so on. I learned about this in university when I received an education and you can spend your own time looking it up. I'm not talking about anything that happened in our lifetime as your uneducated self assumed. I'm talking about the time when in fact the fire service was a private for profit capitalist enterprise in NYC. I've already told you I'm not going to debate you and this illuminates my reason for not doing so, because, as I told you before, you need tutelage/education. You're in no position to debate. If you concede the fact everyone should be entitled to equal socialized education I'll give you the socialized education you need but seeing you're a capitalist I want you to send me a tuition check before I continue.

What source are you basing yourself upon?