How capitalists think

[Revolution starts with U]

>"Why on earth should they be required to purchase what was just stolen from them? " ~lowly captalist forum member discussing land ownership and state theft of property in context of land redistribution
"Because, outside of restitution, it is the best way to improve their standard of living." ~ Forum moderator in defense of capitalism

[RGacky3]

Could you expand on what you mean?

[Revolution starts with U]

I just found this quote while browsing a misesian forum. They were discussing land ownership and statist theft of land. The first guy asked why the people should have to pay rent to owners on land that should rightfully be in their family line (only in their thought experiment it was land that was just stolen).
The second quote was from a moderator of the forum in response.

Edited for clarity, thx Gak

[RGacky3]

hahahahahah, I just don't get these guys, I honestly think their ideology comes from a deep seated personality flaw.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's okay that we stole from and now charge you for what was once free. We're helping you :cool:

Sometimes I wish I could just justify things like that... and then I want to punch myself in the nuts

[Skooma Addict]

I don't understand the point here

[Robert]

Line forms at the rear.

But I think the point is that all property is theft in the first place, so the property "owner" has no standing to complain when the state, after the revolution, reclaims the stolen property in the name of the People.

Looks good on paper, doesn't it?

[danyboy27]

Line forms at the rear.

But I think the point is that all property is theft in the first place, so the property "owner" has no standing to complain when the state, after the revolution, reclaims the stolen property in the name of the People.

Looks good on paper, doesn't it?

well robert, the property on wich you live right now isnt even yours.

why do you think you pay property taxes? the governement allow you a relative amount of freedom of what you can do with it, and in return, you must give back money to your state/town.

some stuff would change under communism but nothing would stop you to ''own'' your house and land on different terms.

the only real way to own 100% your piece of land and home would be to live in the wilderness somewhere where there is no human life , no electricity provided by a third party or running water, no sewers system and no foodstore nearby, no local community or neighbor, nothing but rattle snake, jungle and plants.

then you could consider yourself being 100% owner of your land and house.

[RGacky3]

the only real way to own 100% your piece of land and home would be to live in the wilderness somewhere where there is no human life , no electricity provided by a third party or running water, no sewers system and no foodstore nearby, no local community or neighbor, nothing but rattle snake, jungle and plants.

then you could consider yourself being 100% owner of your land and house.

I would'nt even say even that, because then theres just no one around, its not "owning" anything except for in your head.

Capitalist property is a state entitlement.

[danyboy27]

I would'nt even say even that, because then theres just no one around, its not "owning" anything except for in your head.

Capitalist property is a state entitlement.

the ''owner'' of territory is then free to make his natural right heard and start shooting anyone coming nearby, but in return, it would just be logical that his opponent do the same until one of the protagonist stand down or die.

a state is a multiple layer of classes, administred by a governement.
Capitalism is only a way of choosing the elites among other.

[Robert]

well robert, the property on wich you live right now isnt even yours.
Well, in a sense I agree, no one really owns anything. (Don't ever buy a boat.) That's a philosophical and semantic point ... impossible to agree or disagree.

But I think my house is "mine" in the sense of this: I have a key, not you or Bud. I claim and enjoy the right of peaceable possession. I decide who comes in and out, and the police back me up on this. Yeah, I gotta pay the cops via taxation, if that's what you mean, but that's okay. I like cops, and no man is an island. (I'm not a Libertarian, you know!) Moreover, the government is very restricted in its power to kick me out if I am paying my taxes. They can kick me out if they need to build a dam there or re-route a river through my living room in the name of public safety, but I have the right to challenge this. I respect the decision of judges on this point if they are not corrupt, and I do not think that they are corrupt where I live.


why do you think you pay property taxes? the governement allow you a relative amount of freedom of what you can do with it, and in return, you must give back money to your state/town.
Because I expect the government to provide services in exchange, like police protection (from unelected revolutionaries ;)), repair of roads leading to and from the house. It's true that I cannot opt out of this quid pro quo, but hey, we vote democratically on tax rates. The majority says I should pay something, and I don't disagree. So ...


some stuff would change under communism but nothing would stop you to ''own'' your house and land on different terms.Sure, I understand that. But it makes me nervous when you all cannot clearly identify those terms. If the majority votes in favor of communism (though no one seems to know what it will look like, which is why no communist can get elected in the USA), I will respect that.


The only real way to own 100% your piece of land and home would be to live in the wilderness somewhere where there is no human life , no electricity provided by a third party or running water, no sewers system and no foodstore nearby, no local community or neighbor, nothing but rattle snake, jungle and plants.Yeah, baby! We are getting into a semantical argument about the meaning of "ownership." I think it would be an abuse of my right to "own" the house with no regard whatsoever for services provided to me and all my neighbors. So my conceding the right of government to tax does not conflict with my concept of "ownership."


then you could consider yourself being 100% owner of your land and house. No, then I would call myself an unconditional owner with no responsibilities to my community. But again, that's not what I claim and not what I want.

Good points though!

[Tommy4ever]

Yeah.

I have a friend whose grandparents used to be bourgeiosie in China (apparently they owned an extensive wine producing company in the South), needless to say when Mao came along they fled and lost that property.

Now he hates all communists as he feels that Mao stole his family's rightful property. He got pretty angry when I had this Mao watch (it was a comedy thing with Mao waving in step with the second hand).

[RGacky3]

the ''owner'' of territory is then free to make his natural right heard and start shooting anyone coming nearby, but in return, it would just be logical that his opponent do the same until one of the protagonist stand down or die.


I guess, but then your just a crazy guy with a gun, the whole idea of "ownership" as a right, is rediculous.


If the majority votes in favor of communism (though no one seems to know what it will look like, which is why no communist can get elected in the USA), I will respect that.



Well the majority voted for public health care ... Why did'nt we get that? Oh, yeah, elections do not determine public policy, mondey does. Learn the way AMerican democracy works Robert.

BTW, since you are basically agreeing that ownership is not a ultimate basic right, the question ism what should be the commons and what should not.

Ultimately the answer is what should be the commons is what directly effects the community to a large degree, that would include the banks, those (like public parks) are really entities that effect the entier community, probably energy, probably healthcare, probably agriculture, theres quite a bit that effects the public directly and is nessesary for the community, those should all be the commons.

There we go, your a social-democrat, next on your way to a socialist more logical conclusions come.

[danyboy27]

Well, in a sense I agree, no one really owns anything. (Don't ever buy a boat.) That's a philosophical and semantic point ... impossible to agree or disagree.

But I think my house is "mine" in the sense of this: I have a key, not you or Bud. I claim and enjoy the right of peaceable possession. I decide who comes in and out, and the police back me up on this. Yeah, I gotta pay the cops via taxation, if that's what you mean, but that's okay. I like cops, and no man is an island. (I'm not a Libertarian, you know!) Moreover, the government is very restricted in its power to kick me out if I am paying my taxes. They can kick me out if they need to build a dam there or re-route a river through my living room in the name of public safety, but I have the right to challenge this. I respect the decision of judges on this point if they are not corrupt, and I do not think that they are corrupt where I live.

Because I expect the government to provide services in exchange, like police protection (from unelected revolutionaries ;)), repair of roads leading to and from the house. It's true that I cannot opt out of this quid pro quo, but hey, we vote democratically on tax rates. The majority says I should pay something, and I don't disagree. So ...

Sure, I understand that. But it makes me nervous when you all cannot clearly identify those terms. If the majority votes in favor of communism (though no one seems to know what it will look like, which is why no communist can get elected in the USA), I will respect that.

Yeah, baby! We are getting into a semantical argument about the meaning of "ownership." I think it would be an abuse of my right to "own" the house with no regard whatsoever for services provided to me and all my neighbors. So my conceding the right of government to tax does not conflict with my concept of "ownership."

No, then I would call myself an unconditional owner with no responsibilities to my community. But again, that's not what I claim and not what I want.

Good points though!

new term? well, that easy, dont use your land to exploit other people, contribute to society, and you can keep your piece of land and your house.

also, i fail to see why the respect to private life would not be included in a communist society. Its not like people would go nuts and decide to suddenly erease over 300 year of laws and regulations.

of course a lot would change, but i dont see why the stuff that make sense for 100% of the people like fair trial, freedom of speech and right to privacy would.

[danyboy27]

I guess, but then your just a crazy guy with a gun, the whole idea of "ownership" as a right, is rediculous.
.
its yours if you can secure it.

its their if they can take it.

that basicly how raw right libertarianism would work.

and that why its not s substainable system.

[Robert]

also, i fail to see why the respect to private life would not be included in a communist society. Its not like people would go nuts and decide to suddenly erease over 300 year of laws and regulations.
Fine. Put communists in power with free and fair elections. I don't like it, but I'll respect the majority's will. (The majority that gets off its ass and votes, that is.)



of course a lot would change, but i dont see why the stuff that make sense for 100% of the people like fair trial, freedom of speech and right to privacy would.Don't you think the moderators here, for example, if put in power, would have a lonnnnggggg list of non-violent political ideas I would not be permitted to say out loud on a street corner?

You are, on the other hand, free right now to espouse communism or anarchy on the street corners of Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Chicago, Seattle, and so on. See the difference?

[Bud Struggle]

>"Why on earth should they be required to purchase what was just stolen from them? " ~lowly captalist forum member discussing land ownership and state theft of property in context of land redistribution
"Because, outside of restitution, it is the best way to improve their standard of living." ~ Forum moderator in defense of capitalism
Mises is to Capitalism what Marx is to Communism--each presents an interesting idea of economics that only works in theory. When put into practice their ideas turn out to be places like the United States and the Soviet Union.

[#FF0000]

Except that there were and are tons of different strands of Marxism and a lot of them don't think the USSR was great at all.

[Robert]

Except that there were and are tons of different strands of Marxism and a lot of them don't think the USSR was great at all.

The USA is great. It was, it is, and it will be.

We all agree on that, right?

[#FF0000]

depends on what you mean by great

[Robert]

The world's leader in science, industry, commerce, innovation, medicine, sports, fashion, music, agriculture, diabetes and obesity. The USA is great.


ZHAFmFsb9XM

[#FF0000]

So you mean great as in large and powerful and all that? So what. Lots of countries have been "great". It doesn't last too long.

[Robert]

Nothing is permanent, I grant you that. But great is great.

We have a constitutional framework to reach any arrangements and distributions of power and establishment of rights that the majority of voters want. It's the same basic arrangement we've had since 1787. What other country can boast that? (I have to admit the UK may be greater on that score, but they serve their beer too warm, so they're disqualified.)

And we invented pizza, I don't care what Comrademan says.

[danyboy27]

The world's leader in science, industry, commerce, innovation, medicine, sports, fashion, music, agriculture, diabetes and obesity. The USA is great.


ZHAFmFsb9XM

And the roman where kicking ass and taking names, had really awsome shit too, they eventually failed.

I find china to be a more remarkable beccause of the pace of their evolutionary growth.

what the usa took 200 year to achieve, china did it in a fews decades.

[Robert]

And the roman where kicking ass and taking names, had really awsome shit too, they eventually failed.

And they were great, too! They left a legacy in art, architecture, and law that lives on in the civilized world. They eventually exhausted themselves, of course. Nothing is forever.

How long did the USSR last?

[Kotze]

Mises is to Capitalism what Marx is to Communism--each presents an interesting idea of economics that only works in theory. When put into practice their ideas turn out to be places like the United States and the Soviet Union.Where was Marx put into practice, given that he was for replacing money with nontransferable labour vouchers in the first phase of transforming society? I also don't believe that the United States were founded by time-travelling Miseans.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't understand the point here

I found it a funny (in a very sad way) on the nature of capitalist thought. It has nothing to do with post-revolution, or socialism in anyway.

It's hyper status quo-ism... almost radical status quo-ism... if that makes sense :confused:

WHat do you think Skooma (or Rob, or Bud)?

[RGacky3]

When put into practice their ideas turn out to be places like the United States and the Soviet Union.

The US is faaaarrrrr from misis, and the Soviet union was faaarrrr from Marx. Misis would be more in favor of Somalia, Marx was in favor of the Paris commune.


Fine. Put communists in power with free and fair elections. I don't like it, but I'll respect the majority's will. (The majority that gets off its ass and votes, that is.)


This has been shot down over and over again, its like saying "If the russians wanted freedom they just should have voted for it."


Don't you think the moderators here, for example, if put in power, would have a lonnnnggggg list of non-violent political ideas I would not be permitted to say out loud on a street corner?

You are, on the other hand, free right now to espouse communism or anarchy on the street corners of Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Chicago, Seattle, and so on. See the difference?

No one is advocating putting anyone in power.


The world's leader in science, industry, commerce, innovation, medicine, sports, fashion, music, agriculture, diabetes and obesity. The USA is great.


Well, Science, I don't know, innovation, maybe, but not really, medicine, nope, sports? Nope, fashion? Nope, music? Maybe. Commerce? Sure, but thats just corporations, not really "America."

Child mortality? Yes, People with out access to healthcare? Yes, deaths from preventable desiese? Yes, First world Malnutrition? Yes, extreme poverty? Yes, poverty? Yes, class divide? Yes, gun deaths? Yes, unemployment? Yes.

Look I'm not shitting on America, every country has problems, but this rediculous patriotism we're #1 crap is idiotic.


We have a constitutional framework to reach any arrangements and distributions of power and establishment of rights that the majority of voters want. It's the same basic arrangement we've had since 1787. What other country can boast that? (I have to admit the UK may be greater on that score, but they serve their beer too warm, so they're disqualified.)


Except for what about women, blacks, landless and so on, as far as the rights that the majoirty wants, thats not how American "Democracy" works, its a bought and paid for system, voting does not establish public policy. You should open your eyes except for spouting this blind patriotism.

[Amphictyonis]

hahahahahah, I just don't get these guys, I honestly think their ideology comes from a deep seated personality flaw.
Most all of them aren't even capitalists/business owners so it's not a personality flaw it's Stockholm Syndrome :)

[RGacky3]

I've said this before, but I think it has to do with deep seated personality flaws that have to do with power relationships, if you look at how they think its total sociopathic.

They have a disdain for poor people, beyond logic, as if they are subhuman, they feel as if these people DESERVE every suffering they get, then you look at how they view the rich, its such adoration and love, they want oh so badly to be one of them, its like the teachers pet thats a bully in the yard.

They always talk about how charity will take care of the poor, yet they are also the ones that say that welfare will make people lazy, the are the least likely to be charitable.

I think that stuff comes from, I believe, a self-esteem issue, they feel they don't have value unless they are above other people, they always want to look down on people, always want to be superior, and thus have a total lack of empathy. This is only matched by their authoritarian streak, i.e. adoration of those in power.

If your ever around these guys, they are the first to suck up to anyone in a position of prominance, and the first to kick dirt at a homeless person. Thats a sociopath and thats a deep personality flaw.

Its not just economics, the same type are the religious people that make a HUGE deal out of homosexuality, even though in the bible its not really a huge deal, why? Because it allows them to show disdain to others, it allows them to look down on people and thus raise them self above them in percieved value. Yet, the much bigger deal of non-violence they ignore ... Why? Bceause things like war make them seam tough (i.e. sending other peoples kids to die killing helpless peoples, yeah ... real tough).

Its the same personality flaw that makes bullies.

[psgchisolm]

And the roman where kicking ass and taking names, had really awsome shit too, they eventually failed.

I find china to be a more remarkable beccause of the pace of their evolutionary growth.

what the usa took 200 year to achieve, china did it in a fews decades.
of course china had the benefit of years research that was already done.

[RGacky3]

of course china had the benefit of years research that was already done.

As well as decades of imperial rule over them, having an empire centuries in the past is'nt gonna help you really.

[psgchisolm]

As well as decades of imperial rule over them, having an empire centuries in the past is'nt gonna help you really.
just saying. If other people had not have done the research it would have taken china 200 years aswell.

[danyboy27]

And they were great, too! They left a legacy in art, architecture, and law that lives on in the civilized world. They eventually exhausted themselves, of course. Nothing is forever.

How long did the USSR last?

and they where able to do all that beccause their system where stable enough to last over 500 year(please comrademan help me out on this one).

the united states wasnt thriving until the last century or so and its already crumbling like a chocolate chip cookie.

Why? beccause the economic system on wich it was originally funded is inherently unstable and no step where taken to stabilize it. On the contrary, deregulation and privatisation weakened it pretty bad.

why do you think the brittish, french and german are still relatively(its capitalism after all) stable at the moment?

beccause they always took the necessary measures to keep a certain grip on their economy.

Look, i dont like capitalism, its unstable and doomed to fail, but force to admit certain societies fail harder than other under that system.

[ComradeMan]

and they where able to do all that beccause their system where stable enough to last over 500 year(please comrademan help me out on this one).....

The Roman Empire.... ah.... you badmouthing my ancestors? :lol: LOL!!!

Seriously, I think you have to look at things in a different way- nothing lasts forever. The Roman civilisation was not static and was not homogenous throughout the 1000 years of recorded Roman history (from Brutus the end of the Western Empire)- with a continuation into the 15th century with Constantinople. It passed on so to speak. Perhaps the Etruscans (weird bunch of people) were right, they predicted their own doom and the doom of Rome and gave 10-11 centuries to each civilisation to rise and fall.

[Robert]

the united states wasnt thriving until the last century or so and its already crumbling like a chocolate chip cookie.

Well, I fear the same thing, but for different reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the USA is great. I never claimed it would last forever. And we thought it was crumbling in the 70's too.

We'll know soon enough.

Back to China ... Do you credit China's "pace of evolutionary growth," as you say, to capitalism or to communism?

[danyboy27]

Well, I fear the same thing, but for different reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the USA is great. I never claimed it would last forever. And we thought it was crumbling in the 70's too.
We'll know soon enough.

beccause the 70s was when corporation started growing and exporting their manpower beccause of increasing deregulation, it affected the wage and living condition of the common worker greatly. the solution to fix the problem back then was doing more hours and extensively use credit.



Well, I fear the same thing, but for different reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the USA is great. I never claimed it would last forever. And we thought it was crumbling in the 70's too.

We'll know soon enough.

Back to China ... Do you credit China's "pace of evolutionary growth," as you say, to capitalism or to communism?

Partially to capitalism, and majoritarly to the elite and the structure of the chinese governement.

they (the elites) could have sold the country for a handful of american dollars and lives like king the rest of their live like most of the asian and south asian countries but they didnt.

that quite exceptionnal.

look at the current picture; Hue Jintao, the president of the people republic of china is INVITED in the us, the president and vice president are litteraly BEGGING for job and money to him and in the meanwhile, our good friend Hue quietly discuss about how his project to replace the us dollars with the yuan is going well.

hey, i am not saying the chinese governement is all nice and fancy. I am just saying that their model is bound to generate a more stable result under capitalism.

[Robert]

But Danny, I didn't see the word communism anywhere in your post. And I agree with all of it. So are you moving in my direction or vice versa?:lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

It's just reasoning. Reasoning tends to breed empathy. Empathy is a trait far more inherent to the left, than the right.
We're all people first. Socialism is just a label. :thumbup:

[Robert]

Alrighty then!

That is definitely a point of view, Starts With U. (That rhymes.) Actually two or three of them.

[Revolution starts with U]

Like, I agree completely with your quote... at the least the second half. I've just always held a philosphy that people... real life individuals are what's holding us back*. Hence the name "Revolution starts with YOU" :thumbup:

(* I think what causes the mass of problems with people is alienation and political subjugation... traits I find to be inherent in capitalism)

[Bud Struggle]

Like, I agree completely with your quote... at the least the second half. I've just always held a philosphy that people... real life individuals are what's holding us back*. Hence the name "Revolution starts with YOU" :thumbup:


The other side applies too--we still have Bourgeois Capitalism because of you too.

[Revolution starts with U]

Correct. I take full responsiblity for the state of the world. I encourage you to as well.

On another note: from the same forum in response to an article about errant bank employees publishing records that his bosses weren't paying their taxes

The errant employee on the other hand is a disgrace, and a reminder of the rot in today's civilization that we can't keep our secrets, obey the one who pays our paychecks, and have some sense of obliging a commitment that we make when signing our employment contracts. By disclosing the confidential details of holders of bank accounts, he is hurting the future of his fellow colleagues and harassing the customers who pay for his services
Not that I agree with such methods. But I certainly wouldn't call it "a disgrace and reminder of the rot in today's society."

[Bud Struggle]

Correct. I take full responsiblity for the state of the world. I encourage you to as well.

On another note: from the same forum in response to an article about errant bank employees publishing records that his bosses weren't paying their taxes

Not that I agree with such methods. But I certainly wouldn't call it "a disgrace and reminder of the rot in today's society."

Agreed there. Whovever wrote that quote is the real rot in society. And I do take responsibility for the state of the world. I just take a different view of how it could be make better.

[danyboy27]

But Danny, I didn't see the word communism anywhere in your post. And I agree with all of it. So are you moving in my direction or vice versa?:lol:

China is not communist but it does prove something : Free market capitalism is less stable and functionnal than a controlled economy.

Its also demonstrate that the only way to make capitalism ''work'' is to supress a big chunk of individual freedom and right of the working class.

You have a verry simple choice, do you want freedom or capitalism?

You can have a stable, functionnal society based on freedom and human rights, or you can have a stable functionnal society based on economic growth and centralised governance.

wich one do you prefers?

[RGacky3]

And I do take responsibility for the state of the world.

No you don't Bud, your whole motto is "There are winners and loosers, thats the way it is, and my property leave it alone."


Its also demonstrate that the only way to make capitalism ''work'' is to supress a big chunk of individual freedom and right of the working class.


In a way CHina has made the perfect Capitalist society, totally controlled, and thus huge profits available.


You have a verry simple choice, do you want freedom or capitalism?

You can have a stable, functionnal society based on freedom and human rights, or you can have a stable functionnal society based on economic growth and centralised governance.

wich one do you prefers?

Thats honestly the choice, you put it very well.

[PhoenixAsh]

its yours if you can secure it.

its their if they can take it.

that basicly how raw right libertarianism would work.

and that why its not s substainable system.

Exactly.

Capitalism within a law society provides the necessary frame work defining an protecting property. That is how it may seem to be...however it also stipulats how you can loose property when there is conflicting interest with a more wealthy or influential competitor.

In Anarchy there are some who state that land can not be owned by any individual. Instead you lease it from the community...and it is yours to use so long as you pay your lease.

[PhoenixAsh]

Nothing is permanent, I grant you that. But great is great.

We have a constitutional framework to reach any arrangements and distributions of power and establishment of rights that the majority of voters want. It's the same basic arrangement we've had since 1787. What other country can boast that? (I have to admit the UK may be greater on that score, but they serve their beer too warm, so they're disqualified.)

And we invented pizza, I don't care what Comrademan says.


Well..is it what they want or is it that there is no alternative to choose from?

Remember the whole concept of how you get to choose and who you get to choose and who gets to choose and mostly what is chosen is basically determined by the fact that you live in a capitalist republic.



****
O...and to bring your Americanism a bit down: our national lottery is older than your country. ;-) We ruled the world as one of the most powerful nations long before the US even existed...in fact...we help start it, payed for your independence war and were the first to recognize you as a country. You were saluting the Dutch flag long, long before you even had one ;-)
*****

[PhoenixAsh]

You are, on the other hand, free right now to espouse communism or anarchy on the street corners of Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Chicago, Seattle, and so on. See the difference?

Are you? I can not even get into your country because I was a member of the CP. So how exactly are you free? Are you even aware of the immense amount of restrictions that were placed on Amercian Communists in the last decades? Any idea that you could lose everything you had if you even thought about going to Russia for instance?

[PhoenixAsh]

Well, I fear the same thing, but for different reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the USA is great. I never claimed it would last forever. And we thought it was crumbling in the 70's too.

We'll know soon enough.

Back to China ... Do you credit China's "pace of evolutionary growth," as you say, to capitalism or to communism?


Ok. Here is why you do not have real power. China owns more of your dollars than the US owns. If China decides today that it realy, realy, realy wants the US gone tomorrow...they will dump all their dollars back on the market. And poof...the US is bankrupt within several hours. This will namely force your dollar to plumeth in the depths of the abyss faster than the Drachme, Roebel or Lire ever could have....basically making everything worthless.

Sure...the rest of the world would suffer a huge loss. That would probably be crippeling. But the US would change into a third world nation overnight. And everything in it will be dirt cheap...bought immediately by every other capitalist out there.

Now...this would never happen...because the status quo is so much more profittable in the here and now...but when they really really want to...it can be done.

[Revolution starts with U]

I like this guy ^ :tt1:

[Robert]

Well, you will just have to trust me that you are free to make pro anarchy speeches in the USA. Today is not 50 years ago. There are meetings of communists all the time. It's not my fault thatattendance is pitiful. Sorry you cannot get in to the USA. You sound like a bright guy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Seriously Rob. I have heard that exact same thing said plenty of times on this sight (probably have even said it). People revolt for material reasons.... I'm not sure there are many of us that aren't well aware of that.
It's not my fault your reading comprehension is pitiful ;) (it's just a joke, jeez)

[PhoenixAsh]

Well, you will just have to trust me that you are free to make pro anarchy speeches in the USA. Today is not 50 years ago. There are meetings of communists all the time. It's not my fault thatattendance is pitiful. Sorry you cannot get in to the USA. You sound like a bright guy.

Thanx.

I am tempted to ask how many of the attendants are CIA and FBI? The point is when you make a pro-capitalist speech you are considered a good boy. When you make a anarchist speech or a communist one you are filed in the databse of any capitalist security agency. How do you think the FBI got my file?

I must sent you mine sometimes when I find it again and get the chance to digitalise it. It includes foto's from me on a bike, in the supernmarket, closing curtains in my home, on a date and (blackened out) all the names of friends, people I have met and people how sometimes call me. I apparently even met someone working for the AIVD and had a lengthy discussion in a bar...which is litterally written down in the file which has more than 206 pages. It has bank statements, Creditcard info, info on how I voted in the CP and what activities I went to and most disturving off all some telephone conversation transcripts. I can not get a job that involves any form of security clearance...not even in debt collecting (which I do not want...or at a bank) and when I worked on a project that involved a government congtract I was suddenly reassigned after we had someone come over to interview us as to our background.There is shit in there I forgot I even did. Hell one time a non political highschool friend of mine I hadn't seen in years even called me to ask what the hell i did because someone came by his house asking questions about me and what I was like in highschool (the reason why i was tipped of I was being followed and enabled me to request my files which took three years to get...and are mostly blackened out)


The point is...it is not real freedom when what you say is considered as a threat and you are followed by the security service....and if it has consequences.

Sure...you can say what you want...then again...you must be prepared
to make a real conscious decision that you will because of this be limited in your posibilities.

[Joe Payne]

Have you ever been to a gathering of anarchists, or even just an IWW speech making gathering? It's packed to the brim with cops. One such incident the police arrived to a peaceful gathering with buses to en masse arrest the whole crowd if need be. That was in 2007. Can you justify the FBI raids made on anti-war activists? Or the infiltration of police and even army agents in anarchist circles? Or the fact that today peaceful individuals with barely radical ideas (just run-of-the-mill social democrats) are also watched by the FBI and have enormous files on them?

I think you should also note us anarchists weren't allowed to speak openly in the Soviet Union either, nor China, nor Cuba, nor North Korea. So I have no identification with those State Capitalist nations or any other.

Anarchists have been arrested for speaking publicly on corners. For disturbing the peace, loitering, not having a speaking permit or any other bogus reason a police officer can find to silence a legitimate idea that threatens Capital.

Or shit, just ask Oscar Grant how "free" we are.

[danyboy27]

Well, you will just have to trust me that you are free to make pro anarchy speeches in the USA. Today is not 50 years ago. There are meetings of communists all the time. It's not my fault thatattendance is pitiful. Sorry you cannot get in to the USA. You sound like a bright guy.

Communists cannot get into the us beccause their have neither the ressources or the means to influence the american opinion.

there is no pro socialist/communist tv stations in the us, no massively published communist newspaper, no communist marketing agency, no communist lobby group or front groups, nothing.


in order to be able to be toes to toes with the actual mass media, billion of dollars would be needed, and who have access to wealth in the us? yea, that right, the capitalist.

Last time i checked, the only way to gather that much money would mean exploiting the working class.

so..for communism to succede in the us the fair way, communist would have to exploit worker so they could use the surplus to inflience the media and society to finally bring down capitalism.

prety retarded eh?

[Revolution starts with U]

"The people, united, will never be divided." That's one way.

Or you could start a co-op and/or economically democratic business. We'll never make as much money as them, but you have to start somewhere. And efforts such as this have probably had an inumerable impact on socialist-ic movements in the US.

[Robert]

I'm the first to admit that cops, being ordinary guys, violate people's rights. We have laws (google sectin 1983 and civil rights and read the cases) against that which protect all. But notice that the poster above says the demos are crawling with cops. That's not the same as arresting everyone who has peacably assembled to call for change, which is exactly what would happen in NK, China and Cuba. Be honest, guys..

[danyboy27]

I'm the first to admit that cops, being ordinary guys, violate people's rights. We have laws (google sectin 1983 and civil rights and read the cases) against that which protect all. But notice that the poster above says the demos are crawling with cops. That's not the same as arresting everyone who has peacably assembled to call for change, which is exactly what would happen in NK, China and Cuba. Be honest, guys..

china dosnt put every human right advocate in jail, just the important one.

all they really have to do is to intimidate them with a shitload of cops (like in the us) and order the tv not to talk about them (not quite like the u.s).

In the case of the U.S, there is really no need of censorship, those who are in control of the media industry know what to do in order to keep their sponsors and please their investors.

[Robert]

I can not even get into your country because I was a member of the CP. So how exactly are you free?I can't believe I missed this ... you are barred from entering this country, but no one is free in the USA. Not even me, as a bourgeois. You as a communist/anarchist/whateverist will be under even greater scrutiny, by "the security police", than the average person.

Why exactly would you want to enter this totalitarian hellhole?

[Robert]

Yes, I agree that China is "not quite" like the USA.

Seriously, dany, are you joking? The media was all over the G20 summit of 2009 in Pittsburgh. Here are excerpts of coverage by the biggest and most evil corporate bogey man of the left, Fox News. I purposefully picked this outlet because presumably it would be first to obey the commands of "those in control of the media industry."

PITTSBURGH – Police fired canisters of pepper spray and smoke and rubber bullets at marchers protesting the Group of 20 summit Thursday after anarchists responded to calls to disperse by rolling trash bins, throwing rocks and breaking windows.

[Notice that they LEAD with the story of aggressive reaction by the cops]
....


The marchers included small groups of self-described anarchists, some wearing dark clothes and bandanas and carrying black flags. Others wore helmets and safety goggles.
One banner read, "No borders, no banks," another, "No hope in capitalism." A few minutes into the march, protesters unfurled a large banner reading "NO BAILOUT NO CAPITALISM" with an encircled "A," a recognized sign of anarchists.
The marchers did not have a permit and, after a few blocks, police declared it an unlawful assembly. They played an announcement over a loudspeaker ordering people to leave and then police in riot gear moved in to break it up.


[Notice they do not say "included small groups of hooligans ....]



Officers fired canisters of pepper spray and smoke at the protesters, set off a flash-bang grenade and fired rubber bullets. Some of those exposed to the pepper spray coughed and complained that their eyes were watering and stinging.


"You're actively suppressing us. I know you want to move," Boatwright yelled, to applause from the protesters gathered around him.
Protesters complained that the march had been peaceful and that police were trampling on their right to assemble.
"We were barely even protesting," said T.J. Amick, 22, of Pittsburgh. "Then all of a sudden, they come up and tell us we're gathered illegally and start using force, start banging their shields, start telling us we're going to be arrested and tear gassed. ... We haven't broken any laws."


"Tell me what a police state looks like. This is what a police state looks like!" the protesters chanted as several hundred riot police blocked them from getting any closer.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/09/24/g-protesters-police-clash-arrested#ixzz1BW5Vejqq


This sounds almost word for word what I read here every day. You call this censorship by corporate masters?

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm the first to admit that cops, being ordinary guys, violate people's rights. We have laws (google sectin 1983 and civil rights and read the cases) against that which protect all. But notice that the poster above says the demos are crawling with cops. That's not the same as arresting everyone who has peacably assembled to call for change, which is exactly what would happen in NK, China and Cuba. Be honest, guys..

The tactics are exactly the same. Russia for example...capitalist as can be...the recent mass arrests are a perfect example. Mass arrests at the anti-globalization protests...happened for the most part in every country the summit is held.

I do recall that the ever present footage of the anti war protests in the US police were beating peaceful demonstrators when they set a single foot of the sidewalk. This wasn't because they are bad cops...this was because this was what was instructed and how they were trained.

demo's crawlig with cops, extensive files composed of personal information, this info being used, always be the first to be suspected and the first to be arrested...that is what the so called freedom of expression brings.

Now...I don't see that happening with people who hold a capitalist speech.

[PhoenixAsh]

I can't believe I missed this ... you are barred from entering this country, but no one is free in the USA. Not even me, as a bourgeois. You as a communist/anarchist/whateverist will be under even greater scrutiny, by "the security police", than the average person.

Why exactly would you want to enter this totalitarian hellhole?

Because I have friends in the US, because I want to see the world, and because I have some people there that I need to have a good long overdue talk with.

[Robert]

Okay.

[danyboy27]

i didnt say there was censorship robert.

what i said was, the way the current system work favor certain news over other, it dosnt mean every single leftist issues are left aside.

it just mean the priority goes to news that dosnt put the shareholder and contributor of the media outlet in trouble.

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI&feature=related

[Robert]

i didnt say there was censorship robert.

I know you didn't, dany.

I just think the Fox Report was very balanced, and completely at odds with your theory. The quotes they gave of the anarchists sounded exactly like what I hear from the anarchists here ... word for word.

Now try to imagine me saying what I say in the public square of Tiananmen or Pyong Yang or Havana. Do you think the media coverage of me would be as fair as the Fox coverage of the anarchists? And remember Fox is the most right wing of the networks.

Obviously Fox won't have a regular segment called "anarchist developments du jour", but that's because their viewers just aren't very interested in what a small sliver of angry students thinks about government. If you want a progressive perspective, go to MSNBC.

But ... Have you seen the ratings for MSNBC compared to Fox?

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/19/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-january-17-2011-piers-morgan-tonight-premiere/79413

[danyboy27]

I know you didn't, dany.

I just think the Fox Report was very balanced, and completely at odds with your theory. The quotes they gave of the anarchists sounded exactly like what I hear from the anarchists here ... word for word.

Now try to imagine me saying what I say in the public square of Tiananmen or Pyong Yang or Havana. Do you think the media coverage of me would be as fair as the Fox coverage of the anarchists? And remember Fox is the most right wing of the networks.

Obviously Fox won't have a regular segment called "anarchist developments du jour", but that's because their viewers just aren't very interested in what a small sliver of angry students thinks about government. If you want a progressive perspective, go to MSNBC.

But ... Have you seen the ratings for MSNBC compared to Fox?

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/19/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-january-17-2011-piers-morgan-tonight-premiere/79413

hey i am not saying the us media are exactly like chinese media.

[PhoenixAsh]

Have you read your report acurately and thoughtfully?

Answer me these questions...

1). Why did they not get a license?
2). Would the police have reacted the same if it were a pro-summit rally?
3). More importantly for the reporting....several hundred of demonstrators? And they focus on small groups of anarchists?
4). A peaceful demonstration was branded an unlawfull assembly...on what grounds? Was it perhaps because they were Anarchist? And if it were just for the license ...see 1

And if this is justified behaviour by the police...how can you point towards Korea (yes...exactly the same happens in the South); China and Havanna to in someway jsutify what is happening in the US? Isn't that some kind of rational fallacy? Isn't that really just another "they-are-doing-it-to" kind of argument?

No anarchist here is going to say that NK or China are any better either. Most, I believe, ML's and CPs are not going to claim these countries are socialist or communist either...perhaps rather state capitalist.

So there really isn't any argument found in pointing towards these countries and their behaviour.

Really...thta goed for the reverse to.

I am not going to argue that in Holland we do not have free healthcare like they do in Cuba and shout it is unfair...I am going to do something about it and try to make it more fair. Just as I am not going to say...our social system is better than the US so when you are unemployed, have two kids to feed and bills to pay you should just sit back and be happy you do not live in the US....I am going to strife to make it even better...and if I get the chance..I will change the system in the US to.

These arguments really just avoid the issue...

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/Media%20Censor_ProjCensor.html

some interesting facts about news media in the US.

Than read this...

http://www.freedomofthepress.net/intothebuzzsaw.htm

And definately read this...

http://www.amazon.com/Censorship-Inc-Corporate-Threat-Speech/dp/1583670661/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&qid=1295487722&sr=8-17


These books are not written from any communist or revolutionary background...perhaps it uses some liberal or lefwing ideas...but they convey the lay of the field in the US news media and corporate culture.
Two outlets who are the largest part of information gathering in society. They will show you, but not tell, how these acts will lead to a culture of self censorship in how the news is brought, what news is brought...but more importantly in how the public choses to interpret and hear the news.
Public selfcensorship...its the way we are brought up, the way we have learned to think, the information that has been and still is being fed to us on a daily basis.

[Robert]

Have you read your report acurately and thoughtfully?

Answer me these questions...

1). Why did they not get a license?
2). Would the police have reacted the same if it were a pro-summit rally?
3). More importantly for the reporting....several hundred of demonstrators? And they focus on small groups of anarchists?
4). A peaceful demonstration was branded an unlawfull assembly...on what grounds? Was it perhaps because they were Anarchist? And if it were just for the license ...see 1

Stop with your "did you read thoughtfully?" condescension. It makes you sound like an old school marm. I posted the article to show that even conservative news organs in the USA (compare the press in commie countries) present the grievances of injured anarchist protesters, not to prove that anarchists do not suffer mistreatment. That is what we are talking about.

1. I don't know. I suspect it was based on reports of how anarchists have behaved in the past. There are some violent fools among anarchist crowds. You should control these people yourself, as they are discrediting your "cause."

2. This is a bad question. Pro summiteers would not have started with the trashcans, rocks, and breaking of windows. I've circulated among some "anarchists" (the pure hooligan version) in European demonstrations. They love to provoke cops by throwing rocks at them so that they can cry like babies when the cops respond. Getting arrested is a badge of honor. You know it too. But sure, I think U.S. police will arrest any idiot throwing rocks through windows and rolling burning trash cans down the street. Though it's not usually the VFW, Boys Scouts, or the Knights of Columbus.

3. They focus on the small groups because they were the ones getting beaten and sprayed. And the covered them objectively. What do you want???

4. I am happy to agree that cops sometimes call assemblies unlawful for the wrong reasons. Happy now?

[Robert]

No anarchist here is going to say that NK or China are any better either.Perhaps, but no one on the left will say that NK or the PRC is worse. But they know perfectly well that both of them are. Which makes them dishonest.

This is why you are not taken seriously by average people.

[danyboy27]

Perhaps, but no one on the left will say that NK or the PRC is worse. But they know perfectly well that both of them are. Which makes them dishonest.

This is why you are not taken seriously by average people.

i wont argue with that, but how do you define better or wrost?

[Robert]

I'll accept your definition, dany.

[danyboy27]

I'll accept your definition, dany.

but there is just so many definitions i could come up with!

[PhoenixAsh]

Stop with your "did you read thoughtfully?" condescension. It makes you sound like an old school marm. I posted the article to show that even conservative news organs in the USA (compare the press in commie countries) present the grievances of injured anarchist protesters, not to prove that anarchists do not suffer mistreatment. That is what we are talking about.

None of the countries you named are communists...they are only considered communist by some misguided people and per extend the US and Western media.



1. I don't know. I suspect it was based on reports of how anarchists have behaved in the past. There are some violent fools among anarchist crowds. You should control these people yourself, as they are discrediting your "cause."

However...the news clearly state several hundred...only a few anarchists.



2. This is a bad question. Pro summiteers would not have started with the trashcans, rocks, and breaking of windows. I've circulated among some "anarchists" (the pure hooligan version) in European demonstrations. They love to provoke cops by throwing rocks at them so that they can cry like babies when the cops respond. Getting arrested is a badge of honor. You know it too. But sure, I think U.S. police will arrest any idiot throwing rocks through windows and rolling burning trash cans down the street. Though it's not usually the VFW, Boys Scouts, or the Knights of Columbus. again...the press article clearly state this ONLY began after the police attacked.

Nobody, safe a very few, want to get arrested. Its not fun and it prevents you from further protesting.



3. They focus on the small groups because they were the ones getting beaten and sprayed. And the covered them objectively. What do you want???THe press article states they threw gass cannisters into the crowd of several hundred protesters...a few of which were anarchists. Basically they attacked everybody.



4. I am happy to agree that cops sometimes call assemblies unlawful for the wrong reasons. Happy now?
I don't think it is for the wrong reasons...I think it is because instructions they get and by they way they are trained.

[PhoenixAsh]

Perhaps, but no one on the left will say that NK or the PRC is worse. But they know perfectly well that both of them are. Which makes them dishonest.

This is why you are not taken seriously by average people.

I think you will find a whole range of anarchists who will state that the systems are capitalist in nature and that they are therefore bad...perhaps even worse. Worse is subjective. But most of us do not feel like being bated...as pointing fingers to how your situation is better than other situations is not relevant for the fact that your situation is the one pretending to have free speech, human rights and freedom of expression.

In fact...a whole lot of people will have a pretty decent argument as to why that is actually worse than not pretending all these things.

[Robert]

None of the countries you named are communists...they are only considered communist by some misguided people and per extend the US and Western media. Oh, I know. I've heard it all before: state capitalism, right? Okay.


I don't think it is for the wrong reasons...I think it is because instructions they get and by they way they are trained.
Police chiefs who do this training serve at the pleasure of mayors, who are elected by and answerable to voters, i.e., the people. Including the working class. That's whose interests you defend, right? Well, they want quiet, secure neighborhoods, not noisy protests against globalization or revolution.

[danyboy27]

Oh, I know. I've heard it all before: state capitalism, right? Okay.
.

you seem to be sceptical with this definition.

[Robert]

Skeptical?

I believe that most leftists don't want to call those countries "communist" because they are embarrassed by their human rights abuses and economic failures. I've been reading their denials and excuses for China and the USSR and Cuba and North Korea here for years. Kruschev was harder on Stalin than some of these guys! I suspect that deep down they fear that LSD was right all along. (LSD was quite the "made man" in commie circles, you know, until he "sinned" by daring to drift from the party line and say so in writing. So they purged him. In true commie fashion!)

There is the "purist" group that has a fantasy about what a stateless worker's paradise should look like, and that isn't Cuba in their worldview, but they are just ... theorists, to say it in a nice way.

[ComradeMan]

Skeptical?

I believe that most leftists don't want to call those countries "communist" because they are embarrassed by their human rights abuses and economic failures. I've been reading their denials and excuses for China and the USSR and Cuba and North Korea here for years. Kruschev was harder on Stalin than some of these guys! I suspect that deep down they fear that LSD was right all along. (LSD was quite the "made man" in commie circles, you know, until he "sinned" by daring to drift from the party line and say so in writing. So they purged him. In true commie fashion!)

There is the "purist" group that has a fantasy about what a stateless worker's paradise should look like, and that isn't Cuba in their worldview, but they are just ... theorists, to say it in a nice way.


I agree with most of what you say in the sense of your playing the Devil's Advocate.

However....

There is also that element that willfully turns a blind eye and ignores the shit that capitalism, neoliberalism and globalisation causes- now, in our time every day. It's capitalism when it's a good example of something- like higher living standards but it's not capitalism when it's a bad thing like some Third World dictator being supported by Western regimes in order to benefit their trade interests....

[RGacky3]

Oh, I know. I've heard it all before: state capitalism, right? Okay.


I've never herad an argument saying they were actually publicly controlled economies and/or worker controlled industries.


That's whose interests you defend, right? Well, they want quiet, secure neighborhoods, not noisy protests against globalization or revolution.

They also want a decent standard of living, jobs, decent housing, dignity and all the things that those protests/revolutons are for.

[PhoenixAsh]

Skeptical?

I believe that most leftists don't want to call those countries "communist" because they are embarrassed by their human rights abuses and economic failures. I've been reading their denials and excuses for China and the USSR and Cuba and North Korea here for years. Kruschev was harder on Stalin than some of these guys! I suspect that deep down they fear that LSD was right all along. (LSD was quite the "made man" in commie circles, you know, until he "sinned" by daring to drift from the party line and say so in writing. So they purged him. In true commie fashion!)

There is the "purist" group that has a fantasy about what a stateless worker's paradise should look like, and that isn't Cuba in their worldview, but they are just ... theorists, to say it in a nice way.


No...most leftist don't want to call them communist because they aren't communist. And that indeed does include human right abuses.

There is that whol inconvenient (for capitalist propagandist) baiss of definitions...and such.

Look...a car is a car because it follows a certain set of principals. If it isn't folowing those principals then it is not a car.

Example

This is what we call a car;

http://www.roadfly.com/new-cars/wp-content/uploads/gallery/2008-bmw-m3-sedan/2008-bmw-m3-sedan.jpg

And this follows some of the exact same principals but isn't a car:

http://www.artland-golfclub.de/media/Angebote/Greenfeekooperationen/Golf_Cart-2seat.jpg

[danyboy27]

Skeptical?

I believe that most leftists don't want to call those countries "communist" because they are embarrassed by their human rights abuses and economic failures. I've been reading their denials and excuses for China and the USSR and Cuba and North Korea here for years. Kruschev was harder on Stalin than some of these guys! I suspect that deep down they fear that LSD was right all along. (LSD was quite the "made man" in commie circles, you know, until he "sinned" by daring to drift from the party line and say so in writing. So they purged him. In true commie fashion!)

There is the "purist" group that has a fantasy about what a stateless worker's paradise should look like, and that isn't Cuba in their worldview, but they are just ... theorists, to say it in a nice way.

I will call those regimes communist if you can bring me a proof that at least 40% of their industries where controlled by unions and workers.

for a system to be communist, even remotely, you need to have the worker in control of an important chunk of the economy and the industry.

Nationalisation alone dosnt mean the industries belong to the worker, you have to have governement accountability at least, otherwise, the industries belong to the elite, and not to the peoples.


In the case of russia, there was a complete nationalisation of the mean of production, on the other hand, the control the worker had over the governement who controlled the actual mean of production where almost absent.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hey.. at least us theorists recognize someone shouldn't have to pay for what was stolen from them. :sneaky: