To the cappies: How many of you...

[Urban Rubble]

I think it was either Nyder or Hoppe who was asking about what Cappie literature we've read, so I ask you, have you read Wealth of Nations ? Actually, let's get a small list of some of the cappie lit you've read THEN tell us what Communist literature you've read.

A man cannot have an opinion on Capitalism vs. Communism without knowing each side intamtely, let's hear what you got.

As for me, I've read Wealth of Nations and the Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith. I've read alot of Locke, Ayn Rand (boring as fuck) Thomas Malthus (sickening). I've read Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. As well as alot of other Cappie bullshit.

As far as Socialist literature, I've read alot.

[Nyder]

I have not actually wholly read any book on capitalist or communist literature. I have read parts and excerpts of them, though. Most of my knowledge comes from reading essays, textbooks, articles and lectures.

I am well aware of the disparity between Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments. There is a lot of debate that this shows two sides to Adam Smith but basically what I think he was trying to say is that society needs to have etiquette and protocols (which by no means does he advocate to be enforced).

There are flaws to free market capitalism that I know of and I also know the possible solutions to those flaws.

As for my ideology, I just believe that people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on private contracts, or the right to people to their property and liberty. Force can only be used when this is violated.

[Urban Rubble]

As for my ideology, I just believe that people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on private contracts, or the right to people to their property and liberty. Force can only be used when this is violated.

I think that is too broad and vague to be classified. Obviously you don't believe in Capitalism because people can have their property taken at any time in various ways.


I am well aware of the disparity between Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments. There is a lot of debate that this shows two sides to Adam Smith but basically what I think he was trying to say is that society needs to have etiquette and protocols (which by no means does he advocate to be enforced).

Smith always preached morality in business but he made a mistake in creating an economic systen that vitually invites theivery and shady business practices. He makes it fairly clear that cheating is fine as long as you are not caught, it's all within your "self interests", right ? Serve your self interests and you will benefit society, this is Smith's exact words, but did he realize that monopolies and corporations are what happens when people serve their self interests in the business world ? He did not believe in any kind of benevolence when it came to the business world, which was his biggest mistake.

I don't believe Adam Smith knew the mistakes he made at the time, but by the mid 1800's, this "self interest" bullshit got way out of hand, and it has comepletely fucked the world up.

[dancingoutlaw]

Read parts of "Wealth of Nations" not really by cup of tea for enjoyment. I do enjoy Rand when taken with a grain of salt. Her characters are 2-D at best, her narrative is self serving, her ideas are extremism, but I find the whole thing fun for some reason, maybe it is the sci-fi geek in me. "Anthem" her first and most interesting book can be read in one sitting. "Road to Serfdom" is a must read. I also enjoy Thomas Sowell. His ideas are interesting but I don't believe that slavery in the U.S. would have just petered out without war as he proposes in "Race and Culture." For a good laugh try O'Rourke's "Eat the Rich" the funniest treatise on economics ever.

I have read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto." I found them as interesting as "Wealth of Nations." I understood and digested it all but I didn't enjoy it and would not have read them if it wasn't forced upon me. I have also read countless books of history regarding just about everything.

Peace

[Nyder]

One book everyone here should read is "The Black Book of Communism"; detailing the immense human destruction this ideology has caused including the deaths of over 100 million people (four times the amount from Nazism).

Excerpt from review of book:

Both systems killed people not because of what they had done but because of who they were. The Nazis killed people by race; the communists, by class. Furthermore, the authors dispel the myth that the horrors of communism were the result of good communism gone bad or some particular person betraying communism. Communism is, in and of itself, a criminal enterprise in which the modus operandi is terror, repression and homicide.

This is shown consistently in every regime from the Soviet Union to China to Vietnam to North Korea to Cuba and to other countries where communists gained a foothold. Unlike the Nazis, the communist killers benefited from the propaganda of their comrades and fellow travelers living in the democracies. And still do. These unrepentant communists are a cancer in every free country where they live.

By coincidence I recently talked with a professional woman who had the opportunity to live in Cuba with some Cuban professionals. She described herself as a liberal Democrat. She described her experience of the reality of Cuba as "horrendous." Though not a Cuban, she came back convinced that it would be a crime for the United States to force Elian Gonzalez, the little boy rescued from the sea, to return to Cuba.

"It would be exactly the same thing as returning a Jewish boy to Nazi Germany," she said. She wishes to remain anonymous to protect her Cuban hosts from reprisals. If you will read the section in the Black Book on Cuba, you will agree with her. It is a hideously criminal regime that spies on and controls every aspect of people's lives. It is fueled by hatred. It is supported by repression, censorship, propaganda and killing.

http://www.autentico.org/oa09347.html

[synthesis]

One book everyone here should read is "The Black Book of Communism"; detailing the immense human destruction this ideology has caused including the deaths of over 100 million people (four times the amount from Nazism).

Um, even if the numbers were right, isn't this logical? There have been at least a dozen Communist states but one Nazi state. Leninist Socialism started in 1917 and is still present to this day. Nazi Germany only lasted for 12 years.

Maybe I'm too used to Stormfronters. Here's a little something closer to home. Amartya Sen, a Nobel Prize-winning author who did a lot of the famous research into the numbers of China's casualties, concluded that from 1947 to 1980, 100 million Indians died due to capitalism in India. If you don't think they should "count" because starvation killed them, then you can slice that Communism - 100 million number in half then in half again because almost all of China's casualties and most of Russia's casualties died from the same thing.

In a quarter of the time, one capitalist country killed as many people as all Leninist countries combined. You could say that this is because of India's size, and then I'd remind you that China is even bigger.


Both systems killed people not because of what they had done but because of who they were. The Nazis killed people by race; the communists, by class.

Commies aren't going to kill you just for being rich. We give you the chance to convert first.

[Urban Rubble]

Dyer Maker beat me to it. That Black Book of Communism is bullshit. The numbers are probably correct, I'll give them that, but to say "communism" killed these people is just ridiculous. If you did the same thing except with Capitalism you'd get 10 times that.

[synthesis]

By coincidence I recently talked with a professional woman who had the opportunity to live in Cuba with some Cuban professionals. She described herself as a liberal Democrat. She described her experience of the reality of Cuba as "horrendous."

LOL, I just noticed this. Too funny.


By coincidence I recently talked with a professional woman who had the opportunity to live in Cuba with some Cuban professionals. She described herself as a liberal Democrat. She described her experience of the reality of Cuba as "horrendous."

Translation: Rich white housewife goes to Cuba to get a tan, can't find a decent cappuccino shop, bursts a capillary, supports embargo. I've seen it all before.

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 09:43 PM
She described her experience of the reality of Cuba as "horrendous."
Can say the same thing about any country in the world. Show me a country whose entire population is satisfied.

[Nyder]

Maybe I'm too used to Stormfronters. Here's a little something closer to home. Amartya Sen, a Nobel Prize-winning author who did a lot of the famous research into the numbers of China's casualties, concluded that from 1947 to 1980, 100 million Indians died due to capitalism in India. If you don't think they should "count" because starvation killed them, then you can slice that Communism - 100 million number in half then in half again because almost all of China's casualties and most of Russia's casualties died from the same thing.

In a quarter of the time, one capitalist country killed as many people as all Leninist countries combined. You could say that this is because of India's size, and then I'd remind you that China is even bigger.

That's a little simplistic don't you think? How has capitalism made 100 million people starve to death in India? India is still a long way from a market economy. It's problems chiefly are war, overpopulation and Government control. They also lack the necessary infrastructure to support a modern growth economy. You like to blame everything on capitalism, don't you? The truth is, if conditions there were favourable to capitalism then India would be able to pull itself out from poverty and create wealth.

Some facts on India:

India's economy encompasses traditional village farming, modern agriculture, handicrafts, a wide range of modern industries, and a multitude of support services. Overpopulation severely handicaps the economy and about a quarter of the population is too poor to be able to afford an adequate diet. Government controls have been reduced on imports and foreign investment, and privatization of domestic output has proceeded slowly. The economy has posted an excellent average growth rate of 6% since 1990, reducing poverty by about 10 percentage points. India has large numbers of well-educated people skilled in the English language; India is a major exporter of software services and software workers. The severe monsoon of mid-2002 has reduced agricultural output by perhaps 3%. The World Bank and others worry about the continuing public-sector budget deficit, running at approximately 10% of GDP in 1997-2002.


Commies aren't going to kill you just for being rich. We give you the chance to convert first.

What if I resist their coercion and tell them to fuck off and leave me alone?

[The Feral Underclass]

One book everyone here should read is "The Black Book of Communism"; detailing the immense human destruction this ideology has caused including the deaths of over 100 million people (four times the amount from Nazism).

This book was written with a bouregois bias based on the atrocities of people who are principly, practically and theoretically NOT communists.

The author of this book has absolutly no concept of what communism is. He takes Stalin, Mao etc on face failue without exploring the actual ideology and theory of communism. What the author does attempt to do is critizise socialism but even then he fails to get a grasp what it actually means.

This book benifits nobody. it is rediculas and should not be read!

[Hoppe]

I've read the Manifesto and das Kapital as well. But I am mainly interested in libertarian theory, which no communist can refute if he has noble intentions.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2003, 09:25 AM
The author of this book has absolutly no concept of what communism is. He takes Stalin, Mao etc on face failue without exploring the actual ideology and theory of communism. What the author does attempt to do is critizise socialism but even then he fails to get a grasp what it actually means.


Then tell me why every time communism is attempted it always results in dictatorship and extreme poverty?

How can you be so sure of 'pure' communism if it has no empirical basis in a modern context?

[Urban Rubble]

I've read the Manifesto and das Kapital as well. But I am mainly interested in libertarian theory, which no communist can refute if he has noble intentions.

Many could refute it. I don't. I believe it is the strongest chance the left has in the America right now, which is a bit sad.


Then tell me why every time communism is attempted it always results in dictatorship and extreme poverty?

That's ridiculous. Every country Socialism has been tried in was poor when the revolution occured, don't kid yourself. The Soviet Union improved a huge majority of the population's standard of living. Look at Cuba, sure, Havana was a glitzy town with casinos (as well as rampant mob control, prostitution and murder, by the government usually) but the rest of the country was dirt poor. There was also starvation and people without homes. The revolution comes and with 10 or 15 years time there is nobody without food and a house, they had great healthcare that they could afford, they could READ.

Socialism has been applied to places that were already starving and poor almost without exception and it has been proven to raise the standard of living for the majority of the population. Capitalism keeps the wealth in the hands of the minority, at least Socialism has been proven to solve that problem. That's not to say this is the case every single time, I am well aware of the many failures of Socialist states.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 01:40 PM
Then tell me why every time communism is attempted it always results in dictatorship and extreme poverty?
No one "attempts Communism". I take the time to write you, in detail, an introduction to non-Leninist Marxism and you don't fucking read it?


How can you be so sure of 'pure' communism if it has no empirical basis in a modern context?

Because it is the most obvious 'next step' in the development of humanity which Marxist theorists arrived at through a materialist analysis of history.

Read the intro, or are you completely averse to new ideas, Reaganite?


That's a little simplistic don't you think?

Not in the slightest. Public ownership of the means of producing food would allow everyone to at least be decently fed, even if your precious 'freedom of property' (i.e. freedom to starve people) is revoked.


How has capitalism made 100 million people starve to death in India?

How did Communism make 65 million people starve to death in China? Did you not read my post? You seem to have major issues with reading comprehension.


You like to blame everything on capitalism, don't you?

I might have a tendency to place the blame where it belongs on almost every occasion; but I can hardly be faulted for that, can I? :D


The truth is, if conditions there were favourable to capitalism then India would be able to pull itself out from poverty and create wealth.

India is a capitalist country. Answer me how consolidating the means of production into private hands allows for everyone to be fed. My answer: it can't. Private ownership is antithetical to the public welfare.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

I have read excerps from the wealth of nations,as with das kapital.one day,i will get both of them and just try'n read them both cover to cover in a few months.

[Invader Zim]

Ahh yes rev Thomas Malthus (he was a priest right), didn't he believe that Edwin Chadwicks poorhouses were a bad idea because theywere not effetive enough to stamp out those deseased poor people? Didnt he believe in having no support system for the poor, didnt he want them to starve to lower the population?

This is only what I remember of that excelent example of capitalism.

[Urban Rubble]

Yes, Malthus was one sick fuck. He opposed all and any kind of welfare of help for the poor. He believed that would just give them less incentive to work.