Socialism vs. Communism vs. Anarchism in the Pretentiousness Contest

[lostandclowned]

You’re not angry at capitalism. No corporate CEO thinks of himself as a member of the bourgeoisie nor does he think of the average janitor as a member of the proletariat. Some of us are white, some of us are black, some are wealthy, some aren’t but we’re all people; class divisions exist but class struggle isn’t the story of history. People rise and fall in every society but no other economic system can provide the vast amount of wealth that capitalism does. You’re just angry that capitalism’s framework can’t provide for everyone. No system can and no system will do better.

Critiques on the morality of business and corporations are irrelevant because economics isn’t a moral science. Corporations do undermine democracy but they aren’t made to function democratically so it isn’t fair to criticize them because of that. Their purpose is to make money and the record store and dry-cleaners down the street are the same way. And there is nothing fundamentally wrong (or right) with making a profit by selling records or cleaning clothes.

What’s frustrating about capitalism today is that it’s slowly made us forget that we’re workers and citizens in addition to consumers and investors. But the profit motive can work both ways. Change may be slow and incremental but democracy is capable of leveling capitalism. Fight for that. The revolution will always be televised so make it work for you.


Human nature is too complex to make judgments on but we have always and will always naturally stratify ourselves regardless of economic circumstances. Work with it.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

lol.

[#FF0000]

lol.

.

[Thug Lessons]

This thread should have been about old school hiphop instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk32pMED-UQ

[turquino]

The idea of one timeless universal human nature is part of bourgeois thought. It’s not surprising the corporate executive sees the current order of the world as rational and reflecting humanity’s true nature. Hitherto every class order has claimed its rule to be natural.

In the executive’s mind, private property, money profit, and its accompanying claim on the product of other peoples’ work are morally just. But for those on the other side it’s a different reality.

[ContrarianLemming]

You’re just angry that capitalism’s framework can’t provide for everyone.

This doesn't bother you?



Corporations do undermine democracy but they aren’t made to function democratically so it isn’t fair to criticize them because of that.

you stupid sock :lol:



Human nature is too complex to make judgments on but we have always and will always naturally stratify ourselves regardless of economic circumstances.

I see a judgement up there :p
I'd also point out the first serious counter point of the thread: For almost all of human history we existed without economic stratification.

you're a ball of fun comrade, but seriously, you can't possibly expect real responses.

[AK]

you're a ball of fun comrade, but seriously, you can't possibly expect real responses.
I've got this strange idea that - instead of being stubborn little commie shits - we should give our comrade here real answers so as to change his or her perception of the current social order.


You’re not angry at capitalism. No corporate CEO thinks of himself as a member of the bourgeoisie nor does he think of the average janitor as a member of the proletariat.
Well, I wouldn't think that the average CEO uses that term exactly, but he/she does recognise that they are in a privileged position of power within society. They are able to direct the flow of capital and control production as well as the distribution of goods. They also recognise that they have a more important voice than a janitor.

So on the other end of the scale, you have the janitor. They probably don't think that they are members of the class which can abolish the current mode of social production - but through their low-paid and disrespected job, they can also see that their voice in the running of society is absolutely minimal. All the janitors, accountants, telemarketers, textiles workers, farm labourers, retail workers, etc. need to do is act on their social position.


Some of us are white, some of us are black, some are wealthy, some aren’t but we’re all people; class divisions exist but class struggle isn’t the story of history. People rise and fall in every society but no other economic system can provide the vast amount of wealth that capitalism does. You’re just angry that capitalism’s framework can’t provide for everyone. No system can and no system will do better.
I'd like to hear sources and proof for that. We have identified the cause and effect relationships that determine the distribution of wealth and social power through material factors - all that remains is for the working class to emancipate itself by altering those material factors.

Also, what is your class analysis? If you believe that wealth alone gives you social power, you are utterly mistaken - and that explains why you think class struggle is non-existent; because you are dealing with your own class distinctions that have no relation to how society operates at all.


Critiques on the morality of business and corporations are irrelevant because economics isn’t a moral science. Corporations do undermine democracy but they aren’t made to function democratically so it isn’t fair to criticize them because of that. Their purpose is to make money and the record store and dry-cleaners down the street are the same way. And there is nothing fundamentally wrong (or right) with making a profit by selling records or cleaning clothes.
So because it is an inescapable consequence of hierarchy within the workplace and this whole economic system, we shouldn't critisise it? If anything, my job is to critisise it and abolish the current way in which society is structured so we never get such an unfair system ever again.


What’s frustrating about capitalism today is that it’s slowly made us forget that we’re workers and citizens in addition to consumers and investors. But the profit motive can work both ways. Change may be slow and incremental but democracy is capable of leveling capitalism. Fight for that. The revolution will always be televised so make it work for you.
If the working class wins democracy, it will not level capitalism - rather, it will destroy it. An economic system based on an unequal concentration of social power is completely incompatible with democracy. And that's the kind of system that capitalism is; capital (ownership or control of which is a source of social power) is concentrated into the hands of a small minority of the world's population.


Human nature is too complex to make judgments on but we have always and will always naturally stratify ourselves regardless of economic circumstances. Work with it.
Human nature? By simply being an anarcho-communist I have destroyed your concept of it - because, as a human, I should follow human nature; and wanting to abolish the status quo goes against that. I went against "mainstream" human nature, ultimately destroying it in my particular scenario - and so did all the other thousands of members of this board and millions of Marxists and anarchists around the world.

[Kayser_Soso]

You’re not angry at capitalism.

No, not really no.



No corporate CEO thinks of himself as a member of the bourgeoisie nor does he think of the average janitor as a member of the proletariat.


And if people don't think of themselves as things, then they aren't. For example, if someone doesn't think they are a human as opposed to a badger, well who are we to tell him otherwise. (CONGRATULATIONS: That line alone just bagged you 200 Dumbass points. You're on an express train to the high score!)



Some of us are white, some of us are black, some are wealthy, some aren’t but we’re all people; class divisions exist but class struggle isn’t the story of history.

Oh do regale us with your long spiritual journey to discover this esoteric truth.



People rise and fall in every society but no other economic system can provide the vast amount of wealth that capitalism does.

Except a system better than capitalism.



You’re just angry that capitalism’s framework can’t provide for everyone. No system can and no system will do better.

Actually it can- this is why socialist countries modernized areas that otherwise wouldn't have been so.



Critiques on the morality of business and corporations are irrelevant because economics isn’t a moral science. Corporations do undermine democracy but they aren’t made to function democratically so it isn’t fair to criticize them because of that.

By democracy you must be referring to the liberal democratic state. In which case the corporations you speak of undermine the democracy(by your own admission) of something outside of themselves. Ergo, this is still a negative thing.



Their purpose is to make money and the record store and dry-cleaners down the street are the same way. And there is nothing fundamentally wrong (or right) with making a profit by selling records or cleaning clothes.

The goal of capitalist enterprises is to make profit? HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!! You're a genius!! You must be some kind of CEO with so much free time on his hands you are coming over here to enlighten us, like Vishnu or Jesus- only on the internet!!!



What’s frustrating about capitalism today is that it’s slowly made us forget that we’re workers and citizens in addition to consumers and investors. But the profit motive can work both ways. Change may be slow and incremental but democracy is capable of leveling capitalism. Fight for that. The revolution will always be televised so make it work for you.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...No. Sorry but investors aren't "workers". This gibberish isn't going to change a damned thing.



Human nature is too complex to make judgments on but we have always and will always naturally stratify ourselves regardless of economic circumstances. Work with it.

Human nature is so complex that it never stays the same and changes over time, ergo there is no point in talking about human nature.


DUMBASS POINTS COLLECTED: 200
"SPOUTING OFF WITH AN INCREDIBLY IGNORANT RANT BEFORE DOING ANY RESEARCH ON THE TOPIC BONUS: 1500pts!!!"

ENTER YOUR INITIALS:

[Dean]

You’re not angry at capitalism. No corporate CEO thinks of himself as a member of the bourgeoisie nor does he think of the average janitor as a member of the proletariat. Some of us are white, some of us are black, some are wealthy, some aren’t but we’re all people; class divisions exist but class struggle isn’t the story of history. People rise and fall in every society but no other economic system can provide the vast amount of wealth that capitalism does. You’re just angry that capitalism’s framework can’t provide for everyone. No system can and no system will do better.
Which was exactly how it seemed to be under feudalism, mercantalism and the like. Very pioneering theory there.


What’s frustrating about capitalism today is that it’s slowly made us forget that we’re workers and citizens in addition to consumers and investors. But the profit motive can work both ways. Change may be slow and incremental but democracy is capable of leveling capitalism. Fight for that. The revolution will always be televised so make it work for you.
No, the profit motive is today tied to unproductive finance capital. Production is no longer a sufficiently profitable system. Furthermore, the profit motive acts towards the interests of a minority - so it won't ever represent the broader population.


Human nature is too complex to make judgments on but we have always and will always naturally stratify ourselves regardless of economic circumstances. Work with it.
By reframing "the captialists maintain stratification" as "all of society maintains stratification" you really do some revolutionary stuff there, chief. Let me dig in my bag for a cookie, you deserve it.

[Bud Struggle]

Human nature is too complex to make judgments on but we have always and will always naturally stratify ourselves regardless of economic circumstances. Work with it.

Human beings are by nature hierarchical. I learned that from the Tarnsman of Gor and I believe it. :D

[RGacky3]

Human beings are by nature hierarchical. I learned that from the Tarnsman of Gor and I believe it.

Wait, so your saying some people are naturally rulers and some are naturally rulees?

hmmm, sounds a lot like the slavery argument.


No corporate CEO thinks of himself as a member of the bourgeoisie nor does he think of the average janitor as a member of the proletariat. Some of us are white, some of us are black, some are wealthy, some aren’t but we’re all people; class divisions exist but class struggle isn’t the story of history.

Wait you know this how? So a CEO thinks of himself as equal to a janitor? Really? How many CEOs do you know?

Yeah were all people .... Kings and peasants are both people so that.

Class struggle is a large part of the story of history, if you looked at history, you'd realize that.


You’re just angry that capitalism’s framework can’t provide for everyone. No system can and no system will do better.


Everyone can be provided for, thats a fact, based on what is possible to prodice. Capitalism does'nt because its not concerned with that, its a profit system and a hiarchal system.

But yeah, othere systems can do better, and theres empirical evidnace of that.


Corporations do undermine democracy but they aren’t made to function democratically so it isn’t fair to criticize them because of that. Their purpose is to make money and the record store and dry-cleaners down the street are the same way. And there is nothing fundamentally wrong (or right) with making a profit by selling records or cleaning clothes.

If it undermines democracy and exploits other people yeah there is.

And yeah, they don't function democratically, thats the problem.

You just said "yeah your arguments are right, but the system is'nt supposed to be democratic and its supposed to be exploitative, so it works." Well if thats what its supposed to be then its a bad system.


What’s frustrating about capitalism today is that it’s slowly made us forget that we’re workers and citizens in addition to consumers and investors. But the profit motive can work both ways. Change may be slow and incremental but democracy is capable of leveling capitalism. Fight for that. The revolution will always be televised so make it work for you.

Well most of us are barely consumers, and mostly workers. A very select few are hugely investors and consumeres and barely workers.

The profit motive CAN'T work both ways, because people without any dispensibly income can only survive of their labor.

Also history has shown us that capitalism always wins over democracy because capitalism is anti-democratic, the only way democracy will win over capitalism is if it directly opposes it.

What we fight for is abolishing capitalism, because it is an un-democratic system, and an exploitative one, as you pretty much said yourself. So .... why keep it? I'll make you a deal, if you are really really attached to the idea of Capitalism, we can keep it in the same way European nations keep the monarchy :).

[Bud Struggle]

Wait, so your saying some people are naturally rulers and some are naturally rulees?

hmmm, sounds a lot like the slavery argument.


The Tarnsman of Gor is a lot like the Conan the Barbarian books. :)

[RGacky3]

did'nt read any of them, whats your argument?

[Bud Struggle]

did'nt read any of them, whats your argument?A joke. I didn't think this is a "real" thread.

[#FF0000]

did'nt read any of them, whats your argument?

Think he means he was joking. In fact I'm sure of it because Bud's too well adjusted to take "Gorean" philosophy seriously.

Oh god that stuff.

[Skooma Addict]

Except a system better than capitalism.Such as?


No, the profit motive is today tied to unproductive finance capital. Production is no longer a sufficiently profitable system. Furthermore, the profit motive acts towards the interests of a minority - so it won't ever represent the broader population.
The profit motive (in terms of money) doesn't represent the interests of anyone. It is part of the extended order which arose spontaneously without the oversight of any single authority, and it is part of what allows for social cohesion in the macro-order, even though instinctual feelings which are more fit for the micro-order cause some to detest it. Nonetheless, without the profit motive (or finance capital), the worlds present population could not be sustained, and it would plummet.

The profit motive is what allows for the "invisible hand" to work. People do not need to be altruistic in order to raise general living standards thanks to the profit motive.


Everyone can be provided for, thats a fact, based on what is possible to prodice. Capitalism does'nt because its not concerned with that, its a profit system and a hiarchal system. You are assuming that what is possible to produce now would still be possible to produce under socialism. However, that is not the case due to the fact that our knowledge is widely dispersed, relegated to knowledge of time and place, and often times tacit.

[Jazzratt]

I'm torn on closing/trashing this. On the one hand the OP is hilariously thick on the other hand one of our slightly less unhinged OIers (in the form of Skooma) is replying to posts so it may become as worthhile as any of the other threads in OI.

Regardless I better get on with the tedious task of restricting another moron.

[Ele'ill]

You’re not angry at capitalism.

No I'm furious.




No corporate CEO thinks of himself as a member of the bourgeoisie nor does he think of the average janitor as a member of the proletariat. Some of us are white, some of us are black, some are wealthy, some aren’t but we’re all people;

Some are exploited by others- in specific positions- usually based on a concentration of wealth- and then there's the ones that protect them.





class divisions exist but class struggle isn’t the story of history. People rise and fall in every society

Yeah, we're tired of that- no more individuals rising and falling- also- class causes the majority of the issues we're faced with today. I'm having a hard time thinking of an exclusion.




but no other economic system can provide the vast amount of wealth that capitalism does.

That wealth is concentrated in a very small top percentage.




You’re just angry that capitalism’s framework can’t provide for everyone.

There's sort of billions of people adversely affected by capitalism.






Critiques on the morality of business and corporations are irrelevant because economics isn’t a moral science. Corporations do undermine democracy but they aren’t made to function democratically so it isn’t fair to criticize them because of that.

The lack of democratic process doesn't end with the corporation- there's no democratic process with the IMF/WB and WTO.





Their purpose is to make money and the record store and dry-cleaners down the street are the same way. And there is nothing fundamentally wrong (or right) with making a profit by selling records or cleaning clothes.

It's the manner in which the business operates.



What’s frustrating about capitalism today is that it’s slowly made us forget that we’re workers and citizens in addition to consumers and investors. But the profit motive can work both ways. Change may be slow and incremental but democracy is capable of leveling capitalism. Fight for that. The revolution will always be televised so make it work for you.

I thought you said we can't complain about a lack of democratic process regarding our economy and how those involved in our economy harm or help other people in other countries.

[Bud Struggle]

OK let me take a crack at it.


You’re not angry at capitalism. I disagree there--trust me on this--these people are ANGRY!



No corporate CEO thinks of himself as a member of the bourgeoisie nor does he think of the average janitor as a member of the proletariat. Completely true.


Some of us are white, some of us are black, some are wealthy, some aren’t but we’re all people; class divisions exist but class struggle isn’t the story of history. Also true.


People rise and fall in every society but no other economic system can provide the vast amount of wealth that capitalism does. That's an opinion--but I hold that opinion also.


You’re just angry that capitalism’s framework can’t provide for everyone. No system can and no system will do better. But that's not to say that Capitalism couldn't do better at providing for everyone. Capitalism needs to be tempered by the voice of the citizen--and that's Social Democracy.


Critiques on the morality of business and corporations are irrelevant because economics isn’t a moral science. True--that's why Ayn Rand and the Objectivists are problematic.


Corporations do undermine democracy but they aren’t made to function democratically so it isn’t fair to criticize them because of that. Their purpose is to make money and the record store and dry-cleaners down the street are the same way. And there is nothing fundamentally wrong (or right) with making a profit by selling records or cleaning clothes. True again--but there has to be an outside force, government, that makes sure that companies not only make a profit--but also work in the public interest.


What’s frustrating about capitalism today is that it’s slowly made us forget that we’re workers and citizens in addition to consumers and investors. An astute criticism.


But the profit motive can work both ways. Change may be slow and incremental but democracy is capable of leveling capitalism. Fight for that. The revolution will always be televised so make it work for you. Yea!


Human nature is too complex to make judgments on but we have always and will always naturally stratify ourselves regardless of economic circumstances. Work with it. I think this post overall was a pretty realistic look at how Capitalism actually works.

[Ele'ill]

:rolleyes:


We'll see if the original poster comes back

[Bud Struggle]

:rolleyes:


We'll see if the original poster comes back I think he's some sort of paleoCapitalist. (I was one before I came to RevLeft and was informed of the beauties and fairness of Communism.)

[Adi Shankara]

:rolleyes:


We'll see if the original poster comes back

apparently, he last was seen before this prior post in August--of last year.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well that didnt seem to work... haha, noob... l
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_GDPZpRmTg0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_GDPZpRmTg0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Revolution starts with U]

screw it, I dont know how to embed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6atujSF-SMw&feature=fvst
So just go there. Its a better song anyway :D

[#FF0000]

[ youtube ] and [ / youtube ], silly.

[Skooma Addict]

one of our slightly less unhinged OIers (in the form of Skooma)This comment reminds me of that one insane OIer who posted here for a while. He had some kind of picture of the joker on his profile page, and he favored what he called "genuine anarchy," which was simply economic and social chaos. He would often times post "Hehehe" or "Hahaha" after his posts, as if he were trying to imitate the joker or something. I can't remember what his username was however.

Edit: Does anyone know who I am talking about?

[Dean]

The profit motive (in terms of money) doesn't represent the interests of anyone. It is part of the extended order which arose spontaneously without the oversight of any single authority, and it is part of what allows for social cohesion in the macro-order, even though instinctual feelings which are more fit for the micro-order cause some to detest it.
The material function of the profit motive is indeed to support the interests of a minority. The fact that abstracting the term disassociates the capitalist order from its real-world manifestation bears no consequence to the fact that for-profit economic systems do, in fact, serve the interests of a narrow minority.


Nonetheless, without the profit motive (or finance capital), the worlds present population could not be sustained, and it would plummet.
Why is that?


The profit motive is what allows for the "invisible hand" to work. People do not need to be altruistic in order to raise general living standards thanks to the profit motive.

No, the profit motive doesn't allow for the "invisible hand." In fact, the profit motive is in direct competition with charitable functions in society. They are two completely different modes of economic investment which serve polar interests.

[Hit The North]

I think he's some sort of paleoCapitalist. (I was one before I came to RevLeft and was informed of the beauties and fairness of Communism.)

Sweet :)

[Skooma Addict]

The material function of the profit motive is indeed to support the interests of a minority. The fact that abstracting the term disassociates the capitalist order from its real-world manifestation bears no consequence to the fact that for-profit economic systems do, in fact, serve the interests of a narrow minority.


You make it sound like some minority got together and decided to force an economic system with a profit motive on the whole population. But even if that is not what you are claiming, you are still wrong. The profit motive coordinates production among actors with widely dispersed and fragmented bits of knowledge. The fact that this knowledge cannot be captured and put to use by a single authority means that the market can make better use of the dispersed knowledge held by individuals. So far, no economic system has been provided which can coordinate and make use of our dispersed knowledge as well as the market, and in fact nobody could rationally design such an order anyways.


Why is that?

Because there is no other way to effectively coordinate production among such a large number of people for any extended period of time. If you think otherwise, spell out your plans.


No, the profit motive doesn't allow for the "invisible hand." In fact, the profit motive is in direct competition with charitable functions in society. They are two completely different modes of economic investment which serve polar interests.

The profit motive is what allows for the amount of coordination we see among people who are only acting in their individual self interest. So yes, it is what allows for the "invisible hand."

[Kayser_Soso]

Because there is no other way to effectively coordinate production among such a large number of people for any extended period of time. If you think otherwise, spell out your plans.

Incorrect.




The profit motive is what allows for the amount of coordination we see among people who are only acting in their individual self interest. So yes, it is what allows for the "invisible hand."

Yes, and how often does that break down. Remember, most of the world is capitalist, most of the world is poor. Until you guys can come up with a real solution to that, your system will always be flawed, no matter how long it has managed to survive.

[Il Medico]

You’re not angry at capitalism. No corporate CEO thinks of himself as a member of the bourgeoisie nor does he think of the average janitor as a member of the proletariat. Some of us are white, some of us are black, some are wealthy, some aren’t but we’re all people; class divisions exist but class struggle isn’t the story of history. People rise and fall in every society but no other economic system can provide the vast amount of wealth that capitalism does. You’re just angry that capitalism’s framework can’t provide for everyone. No system can and no system will do better.

Critiques on the morality of business and corporations are irrelevant because economics isn’t a moral science. Corporations do undermine democracy but they aren’t made to function democratically so it isn’t fair to criticize them because of that. Their purpose is to make money and the record store and dry-cleaners down the street are the same way. And there is nothing fundamentally wrong (or right) with making a profit by selling records or cleaning clothes.

What’s frustrating about capitalism today is that it’s slowly made us forget that we’re workers and citizens in addition to consumers and investors. But the profit motive can work both ways. Change may be slow and incremental but democracy is capable of leveling capitalism. Fight for that. The revolution will always be televised so make it work for you.


Human nature is too complex to make judgments on but we have always and will always naturally stratify ourselves regardless of economic circumstances. Work with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGTrWlzK3Ho

[Dean]

You make it sound like some minority got together and decided to force an economic system with a profit motive on the whole population.
No, I don't. As I explain in the tax debate thread, the ruling class has passed its power into its partnered power structures with each change of economic organization.


But even if that is not what you are claiming, you are still wrong. The profit motive coordinates production among actors with widely dispersed and fragmented bits of knowledge. The fact that this knowledge cannot be captured and put to use by a single authority means that the market can make better use of the dispersed knowledge held by individuals. So far, no economic system has been provided which can coordinate and make use of our dispersed knowledge as well as the market, and in fact nobody could rationally design such an order anyways.
This does not in any way, shape or form contradict my point above, specifically that which you refer to above in the emboldened portion.


Because there is no other way to effectively coordinate production among such a large number of people for any extended period of time. If you think otherwise, spell out your plans.
You stated that "without the profit motive, the world's population could not be sustained" and have yet to actually explain why this is (besides your conjecture, which I'm learning is all too fundamental a characteristic of neoclassical economists).


The profit motive is what allows for the amount of coordination we see among people who are only acting in their individual self interest. So yes, it is what allows for the "invisible hand."
No, at best, the profit motive is a party to the creation of the invisible hand, which is described as the relationship between the various forces including the state in the stabilization of market contradiction of interests and externalities:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199303--.htm
The invisible hand, he wrote, will destroy the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It will destroy community, the environment and human values generally -- and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces.

[CHEGUAVARA]

I'm an Anarchocommunist, I don't support dictators like Stalin or Mao and want a democracy, so I don't want to call myself a communist. I am also a Marxist, and sort of a socialist.

[Revolution starts with U]

Pure capitalism, without a populist uprising checking the power of the top capitalists will eat itself. And pure capitalism controlled by the majority, as opposed to the few, is really, not very distinguishable from true communism.:thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

And pure capitalism controlled by the majority, as opposed to the few, is really, not very distinguishable from true communism.:thumbup1:

Thats absolutely meaningless, because the nature of capitalism prevents it from being controlled by the majority.

[CHEGUAVARA]

Capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor poorer. Or like Tony Montana says: Getting fucked. No need to discuss about that!

[Revolution starts with U]

That is my point. The only form of capitalism that would not eat itself from the inside would be indistinguishable from anarcho-commune/syndacalism. I am using the Mises definition of capitalism; i.e. people trading things (not the true definition of private ownership of the means of production, nor the real world application called corporatism).

[PeacefulRevolution]

There is no such thing ashuman nature. The idea that "human nature is selfish" can be refuted by a short study of the American Indians. Our nature is determined by our material surroundings -- not by some divine hand.

So if we were to change our surroundings, if we could make it a system of brotherhood instead of a system of greed, then we could change our "nature."

And by the way, I grew up in a working class family, I know several working class people. I can tell you from my own experience that class struggle does exist. It is as alive and well today as it was in Marx's time.

[Volcanicity]

Pure capitalism, without a populist uprising checking the power of the top capitalists will eat itself. And pure capitalism controlled by the majority, as opposed to the few, is really, not very distinguishable from true communism.:thumbup1:
This does not make any sense.To achieve Communism ,Capitalism has to be abolished,there is no comparison at all.

[Bud Struggle]

There is no such thing ashuman nature.Sure there are no particular "natures" in nature. So dogs can be trained to be like cats and cats could fly like birds.

Listen: if every ofther animal on earth has a particular "nature" why not humans?

Unless maybe humans have a soul and other creatures don't. :D

[Ele'ill]

Sure there are no particular "natures" in nature. So dogs can be trained to be like cats and cats could fly like birds.

Listen: if every ofther animal on earth has a particular "nature" why not humans?

Unless maybe humans have a soul and other creatures don't. :D


The 'nature(s)' that people are referring to for argument's sake is not a genuine 'human nature'. I would say it's more of a learned attribute from living in an awful condition.

Some dogs are ferocious- they're this way because of the conditions of their surroundings. They become confused and disassociated.

It's better said- people become corrupted and corrupt because they are living in an identical environment that not only tolerates it but rewards that type of behavior.

[RGacky3]

Sure there are no particular "natures" in nature. So dogs can be trained to be like cats and cats could fly like birds.

Listen: if every ofther animal on earth has a particular "nature" why not humans?

Unless maybe humans have a soul and other creatures don't. :D

Humans are much more complex than cats and dogs, also humans have a physical nature (yeah we can't fly), but scientific research, unlike your everyday libertarian speculation, points that human nature is to adapt to conditions, meaning there IS no set human nature perse, it depends on their situation.

BTW, put a cat in an old ladies house, and put a cat in the wild, they act very differently, so whats cats nature???

Heres an interesting interview with someone that tried to study human nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpN8K-WIIDM

[Kayser_Soso]

Don't take the bait- he's playing with the definition of nature. You can't make a cat bark not because of its "nature" but because of its form.