knee jerk right wingers

[RGacky3]

Its funny, that you get this reaction, I've heard a lot of people, rant against "socialism" because "I earned this money, and why should the government take it and give it to people that did'nt bla bla bla." Then in the next sentance, with almost no sense of irony, they will talk about "the company they work for, saying "these guys don't know what they're doing, they're just leaching money from my work, they are totally not necessary other than their capital, these guys ruin the workplace."

I remember hearing a radio guy (opie and anthony), doing that exact thing, arguing against tax+welfare, THEN arguing against the capitalist mode of production (we had the radio company, the production company, they just leach off our tallent), and the same with comedians arguing against club owners and the such, but at the same time saying they hate progressives because of the tax thing.

This is what Socialists have beeng fighting for the WHOLE TIME, its against the capitalist mode of production, not the ways and means committee. It just shows Socialists need to stop with the narrative pushed by progressives, and stick to what we do best, point out the Boss-Worker relationship and fight against it, this is why Richard Wolff, unions and the cooperative movement have the right idea.

Thats why even though most of the country is progressive, I bet given the right narrative EVEN MORE of the country would be leftist.

BTW, this anti-boss, but at the same time anti-progressive attitude usually comes from conservatives.

[Railyon]

I love how right-wingers describe democracy as "two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner" while totally failing to realize it is not the "wolves" calling the shots (the analogy of rich fucks = lambs says all in the first place)...

Poor poor bourgies gotta pay for my health care, yes what a dire situation indeed

[Jimmie Higgins]

Its funny, that you get this reaction, I've heard a lot of people, rant against "socialism" because "I earned this money, and why should the government take it and give it to people that did'nt bla bla bla." Then in the next sentance, with almost no sense of irony, they will talk about "the company they work for, saying "these guys don't know what they're doing, they're just leaching money from my work, they are totally not necessary other than their capital, these guys ruin the workplace."

I remember hearing a radio guy (opie and anthony), doing that exact thing, arguing against tax+welfare, THEN arguing against the capitalist mode of production (we had the radio company, the production company, they just leach off our tallent), and the same with comedians arguing against club owners and the such, but at the same time saying they hate progressives because of the tax thing.

This is what Socialists have beeng fighting for the WHOLE TIME, its against the capitalist mode of production, not the ways and means committee. It just shows Socialists need to stop with the narrative pushed by progressives, and stick to what we do best, point out the Boss-Worker relationship and fight against it, this is why Richard Wolff, unions and the cooperative movement have the right idea.

Thats why even though most of the country is progressive, I bet given the right narrative EVEN MORE of the country would be leftist.

BTW, this anti-boss, but at the same time anti-progressive attitude usually comes from conservatives.

Mixed consciousness. It's amazing how living in this society constantly forces people to hold contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.

"Don't tax the rich for social services! Wait, what, you want to cut medicare?!"

"Damn this nanny state for trying to regulate the toxic goop they put in my hamburgers! Why won't the government build a huge border wall and put troops in border-states to check Latinos for their papers!"

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Yeah give us a 'small government' that looks after OUR finances and interests and makes us feel 'proud' of our nationality through war...these are MY tax dollars, given to me by my superiors / employers for doing a job they tell me to do and no elected government is gonna have a penny of it, to hell with them

Until I lose all my 'hard-earned' in another private banking market cluster-fcuk, then the government needs to get off it's ass and help me!!!!

[Railyon]

lol yeah bailouts are where right wingers show their unfettered opportunism.

[RGacky3]

Its true, they always oppose bailouts ... Until they happen. (at least in the political sphere), but I'm talking about the people.

[Revolution starts with U]

Gratz Gack :D

[chefdave]

Its funny, that you get this reaction, I've heard a lot of people, rant against "socialism" because "I earned this money, and why should the government take it and give it to people that did'nt bla bla bla." Then in the next sentance, with almost no sense of irony, they will talk about "the company they work for, saying "these guys don't know what they're doing, they're just leaching money from my work, they are totally not necessary other than their capital, these guys ruin the workplace."

I remember hearing a radio guy (opie and anthony), doing that exact thing, arguing against tax+welfare, THEN arguing against the capitalist mode of production (we had the radio company, the production company, they just leach off our tallent), and the same with comedians arguing against club owners and the such, but at the same time saying they hate progressives because of the tax thing.

This is what Socialists have beeng fighting for the WHOLE TIME, its against the capitalist mode of production, not the ways and means committee. It just shows Socialists need to stop with the narrative pushed by progressives, and stick to what we do best, point out the Boss-Worker relationship and fight against it, this is why Richard Wolff, unions and the cooperative movement have the right idea.

Thats why even though most of the country is progressive, I bet given the right narrative EVEN MORE of the country would be leftist.

BTW, this anti-boss, but at the same time anti-progressive attitude usually comes from conservatives.


So you think you can convert these alienated conservatives if only you can tap into the dissatisfaction with their working arrangements?

Face it, conservatives are reasonably logical people that are naturally suspicious of big government. There's no way they'd ditch a common sense approach with Marxist utopianism and 'scientific' social theories that have led to tyrannical regimes like the Soviet Union and N.Korea (waits for the inevitable cat calls of 'but they're not socialist')

While most Conservatives probably agree that the economy is in desperate need of change I suspect the change they're looking for is the very antithesis of socialism: the free market. No amount of rhetoric manipulation on your part will be able to cover up the fact that you're totally opposed to individual liberty and the free market.

[chefdave]

lol yeah bailouts are where right wingers show their unfettered opportunism.

In the UK it was a leftist party that bailed out the banking system, our major "right-wing" party lost the easiest election against one of the most unpopular PMs ever because they were determined to continue New Labour's bankrupt economics of repeated bailouts and ultra low interest rates.

[chefdave]

I love how right-wingers describe democracy as "two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner" while totally failing to realize it is not the "wolves" calling the shots (the analogy of rich fucks = lambs says all in the first place)...

Poor poor bourgies gotta pay for my health care, yes what a dire situation indeed

Out of interest, why do you feel that you have a right to consume the value created by medical workers before passing the bill onto the "bourgeois"? This entitlement thing you've got going on all sounds very capitalistic in nature to me, i.e the workers in the economy have a duty to provide you with an effort free living.

[NewLeft]

So you think you can convert these alienated conservatives if only you can tap into the dissatisfaction with their working arrangements?

Face it, conservatives are reasonably logical people that are naturally suspicious of big government. There's no way they'd ditch a common sense approach with Marxist utopianism and 'scientific' social theories that have led to tyrannical regimes like the Soviet Union and N.Korea (waits for the inevitable cat calls of 'but they're not socialist')

While most Conservatives probably agree that the economy is in desperate need of change I suspect the change they're looking for is the very antithesis of socialism: the free market. No amount of rhetoric manipulation on your part will be able to cover up the fact that you're totally opposed to individual liberty and the free market.
And you think you can vote in a free market?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Out of interest, why do you feel that you have a right to consume the value created by medical workers before passing the bill onto the "bourgeois"? This entitlement thing you've got going on all sounds very capitalistic in nature to me, i.e the workers in the economy have a duty to provide you with an effort free living.
Out of iterest, aren´t you the "liberitarian" who supports Nick Griffin and is against immigration?

[chefdave]

And you think you can vote in a free market?

Voting is a means to an end, it's not an end in itself. Why would we ruin the free market with "democracy" when it's strength is that it allows all consumers to satisfy their individual material desires?

What's better, a system that affords everyone the opportunity to get exactly what they want or a messy compromise that leaves all participants feeling shortchanged?

[helot]

Voting is a means to an end, it's not an end in itself. Why would we ruin the free market with "democracy" when it's strength is that it allows all consumers to satisfy their individual material desires?

What's better, a system that affords everyone the opportunity to get exactly what they want or a messy compromise that leavesall participants feeling shortchanged?

Are you talking about the 'free market' in an abstract sense? If so what you're saying is useless. The free market is a fantasy.

If you look at the realities of the UK as an example you'll easily see that the market definitely doesn't allow all consumers to satisfy their material desires. How could any society based on the extraction of surplus value from the workforce firstly be 'free' and secondly provide everyone with the ability to get what they want?

[chefdave]

Out of iterest, aren´t you the "liberitarian" who supports Nick Griffin and is against immigration?

I'm a right-wing geo-libertarian who's opposed to mass immigration and multi-culturalism, as I've mentioned a number of times now the BNP are a far leftist party so I have little time for the majority of polices. On the narrow issue of immigration and British identity though I think Griffin has something interesting to say.

By the way, the BNP also advocate British withdrawal from Afghanistan. By your logic does it make you a fascist or a "Griffin supporter" if you too want to end British/American occupation in the Middle East?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

what´s a geo- libertarian?
If you believe in the free market, why don´t you think people should be able to live where the global market takes them?
If there is a market for "multi-culturalism", why do you want the state to use force to stop it?

[chefdave]

what´s a geo- libertarian?

Someone who'd substitute the entire tax system with a simple free market inspired land value tax. The idea is to redistribute the value of the nation's land supply by taxing it away and then either spending it on public services or dishing it out as a universal Citizens' Dividend. Just to reiterate the BNP point, New Labour have an entire faction devoted to the promotion of the land value tax and while I'm happy to support this element of the party I wouldn't call myself a New Labour supporter. Far from it in fact. I despise New Labour! Supporting individual policies or politicians doesn't necessarily make you a fan of a party's entire manifesto.

[chefdave]

If you believe in the free market, why don´t you think people should be able to live where the global market takes them?
If there is a market for "multi-culturalism", why do you want the state to use force to stop it?

Because geo-libertarians recognise that land ownership and the right to private property is a crucial prerequisite for any free market. Border control is bound up with statehood, property ownership and the rule of law, by sacrificing our claim to UK land we simultaneously weaken the very instutions that would allow the free market to function. For that reason I believe the state has a duty to defend the borders on the behalf of British citizens.

[NewLeft]

Voting is a means to an end, it's not an end in itself. Why would we ruin the free market with "democracy" when it's strength is that it allows all consumers to satisfy their individual material desires?

What's better, a system that affords everyone the opportunity to get exactly what they want or a messy compromise that leavesall participants feeling shortchanged?
Free market revolution!?

[chefdave]

Free market revolution!?

Aye. More free market and less capitalism please. I'm sick of capitalism.

[DinodudeEpic]

OK, so stop advocating for capitalism, and start advocating for some cooperatives. Then again, I'm still going to be against your ideas on immigration and nationalism. And, your arguments are complete rubbish.

[chefdave]

OK, so stop advocating for capitalism, and start advocating for some cooperatives. Then again, I'm still going to be against your ideas on immigration and nationalism. And, your arguments are complete rubbish.

Why would I advocate cooperatives? The idea of a free market libertarian state is that it permits individuals or collectives the space to arrange their own affairs voluntarily. If you want to work in a cooperative then you can do so, if you want to work in a traditional top down company that's fine too, but it's not the state's job to pick one over the other and then force everyone to conform. That is communist statism and is something I'm strongly opposed to.

[Conscript]

OK, so stop advocating for capitalism, and start advocating for some cooperatives. Then again, I'm still going to be against your ideas on immigration and nationalism. And, your arguments are complete rubbish.

But he doesn't really argue, just spouts the simple old and tired rhetoric we hear from the right. You're not going to find any insightful or anything thought provoking, just a list of liberalism-inspired assertions.

His kind has a near obsession with private property, even if you proved its oppressive character they wouldn't care. They just want to be able to accumulate capital and not give a shit about anyone else, if you disagree you're some 'freedom hating socialist'.

Class enemies will be class enemies I suppose.

[chefdave]

But he doesn't really argue, just spouts the simple old and tired rhetoric we hear from the right. You're not going to find any insightful or anything thought provoking, just a list of liberalism-inspired assertions.

His kind has a near obsession with private property, even if you proved its oppressive character they wouldn't care. They just want to be able to accumulate capital and not give a shit about anyone else, if you disagree you're some 'freedom hating socialist'.

Class enemies will be class enemies I suppose.

Nah, I just realise that the poor will never be able to climb their way out of poverty if we deny them the right to accumulate wealth and capital. Surely this is obvious even for a simplistic socialist?

[DinodudeEpic]

Nah, I just realise that the poor will never be able to climb their way out of poverty if we deny them the right to accumulate wealth and capital. Surely this is obvious even for a simplistic socialist?

Free markets do exactly that. Top-down corporations don't.

Considering that top-down corporations can never account for the labor-theory of value when it comes to wages, corporations pretty much steal property from the workers.

[chefdave]

Free markets do exactly that. Top-down corporations don't.

Considering that top-down corporations can never account for the labor-theory of value when it comes to wages, corporations pretty much steal property from the workers.

But the labour theory of value is a steamy pile of horsecrap so it would be unreasonable to expect corporations to take it into account :lol:

The value we add isn't determined by the amount of effort expended, it's measured in a free market that is able to give us a before and after price. Imagine if I spent the entire day working really hard to transform a pile of bricks into rubble with a lumphammer, has my labour added anything to the world? No. If anything it's destroyed the value that others have created. If I turn £50's worth of bricks into a wall however and charge £100 the value of my labour - as decided by the free market - is £50. It's the pricing mechanism that measures the value of effort, the value theory of labour is a dreadful theory used to justify proletariat takeovers.

[Krano]

Two Right-Wingers fighting in a revolutionary leftist forum? what the fuck :lol:

[Conscript]

Nah, I just realise that the poor will never be able to climb their way out of poverty if we deny them the right to accumulate wealth and capital. Surely this is obvious even for a simplistic socialist?

You do realize poverty and unemployment are endemic to capitalism, right? Not to mention your idea of everyone becoming capitalists is just ridiculous (also it seems you already discounted the idea of climbing out of poverty through working, how honest of you).

I realize poverty can't be alleviated as long as there are people trying to take what's there resource-wise as private property and use it to accumulate capital, instead of being used to produce goods directly according to need and eventually achieve post-scarcity. Capitalism cannot do that, commodities can't do that, because the system thrives on scarcity, it can only satisfy market 'demand'. Even attempting it would strangle capital in an overproduction crisis. Capitalism is a system of rationing that runs in a way to perpetuate itself, at the wider expense of labor.

The only time the truly productive class will enjoy their collective wealth and value of their labor is when they own the means of production, as common property. Then, and only then, will poverty be abolished.

Btw, do you see how this post actually went into detail on something? I need you to do that, not speak in recycled soundbytes, mottos, slogans, etc.

[DinodudeEpic]

"But the labour theory of value is a steamy pile of horsecrap so it would be unreasonable to expect corporations to take it into account :lol:

The value we add isn't determined by the amount of effort expended, it's measured in a free market that is able to give us a before and after price. Imagine if I spent the entire day working really hard to transform a pile of bricks into rubble with a lumphammer, has my labour added anything to the world? No. If anything it's destroyed the value that others have created. If I turn £50's worth of bricks into a wall however and charge £100 the value of my labour - as decided by the free market - is £50. It's the pricing mechanism that measures the value of effort, the value theory of labour is a dreadful theory used to justify proletariat takeovers"

Value does not equal price. Supply-and-demand manipulates the price from the basic value produced by labor. What I'm saying is that corporations can not account for the free market, labor theory of value. Thus, wage labor is theft.

"Two Right-Wingers fighting in a revolutionary leftist forum? what the fuck :lol:"

I am, indeed, not a Right-Winger. I am a revolutionary leftist, who is apparently misunderstood by the entire forum as a rightist due to not accepting Marxist justification for socialism. I have my own, liberal, justifications for socialism, and I find them much more rational then a philosophy that makes several faulty basic assumptions.

"But he doesn't really argue, just spouts the simple old and tired rhetoric we hear from the right. You're not going to find any insightful or anything thought provoking, just a list of liberalism-inspired assertions.

His kind has a near obsession with private property, even if you proved its oppressive character they wouldn't care. They just want to be able to accumulate capital and not give a shit about anyone else, if you disagree you're some 'freedom hating socialist'.

Class enemies will be class enemies I suppose. "

It's not liberalism. Remember that Liberalism is actually very rationalistic. This is just classic libertarian garbage.

Honestly, class-determinism is a flawed idea that assumes that all people of an economic relationship would automatically act in a certain way in the interests of his class. Attack the economic relationship itself, not the class.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Conservatives are transparent, chant the same slogans, use the same pointless examples. I've come to realize that they're simpletons, relying on a bunch of rowdy rich folks to guide them through debate, which is usually a screaming match, calling their adversaries bums.

With that rant off my chest. I believe that conservatives, mainly working conservatives, are aware of their exploitation, but feel they'll become 'unpatriotic' when they speak out about their rulers.

[milkmiku]

Question for the echo chamber. Do people here think the US health care plan panned by obeezy, which is copy and pasted it from other sources in the first place, is an actual socialist concept?

Everyone deserves healthcare, but Obeezys plan is not "Socialized healthcare". Japan or the EU have better examples of Socialized healthcare, even Canada. This plan in America is more like enforced capitalism. Privet Insurance providers stand to make TREMENDOUS profit when it kicks into full effect.

I'm eagerly awaiting all the Obama rap remixes when he is reelected.

[milkmiku]

Two Right-Wingers fighting in a revolutionary leftist forum? what the fuck :lol:


Did you miss the "Opposing Ideologies Forum for opposing ideologies and beliefs to be discussed; only forum where right-wingers, capitalists, preachers, primitivists, and other restricted members can post. *No Fascists* "?

Why you be surprised son?

[chefdave]

You do realize poverty and unemployment are endemic to capitalism, right? Not to mention your idea of everyone becoming capitalists is just ridiculous (also it seems you already discounted the idea of climbing out of poverty through working, how honest of you).

I realize poverty can't be alleviated as long as there are people trying to take what's there resource-wise as private property and use it to accumulate capital, instead of being used to produce goods directly according to need and eventually achieve post-scarcity. Capitalism cannot do that, commodities can't do that, because the system thrives on scarcity, it can only satisfy market 'demand'. Even attempting it would strangle capital in an overproduction crisis. Capitalism is a system of rationing that runs in a way to perpetuate itself, at the wider expense of labor.

The only time the truly productive class will enjoy their collective wealth and value of their labor is when they own the means of production, as common property. Then, and only then, will poverty be abolished.

Btw, do you see how this post actually went into detail on something? I need you to do that, not speak in recycled soundbytes, mottos, slogans, etc.

You sound very confused. I agree that capitalism is flawed and is sometimes conducive to scarcity but the point is socialism seeks to empty capitalism of all it's beneficial qualities: private property and the rule of law etc and introduce as a matter of principle it's absolute worst aspect: government monopolisation of the economy. This explains why under socialist regimes the people usually end up on rations or fighting for their very survival, the state like a large out of control corporation prevents autonomous individual production - usually using the excuse that private individuals are unable to plan ahead suffiently - and generally acts as a wealth suppressor with a paranoid mandate to squish the forces of capital. We cannot expect people to produce wealth when any value they add instantly becomes public property, that would be like asking people to go to work and then having their remunated decided ex-post by a committee of wise beard stroking demigods. No labourer in his right mind would think this was a good idea. Why do you think it's a good idea?

[chefdave]

Conservatives are transparent, chant the same slogans, use the same pointless examples. I've come to realize that they're simpletons, relying on a bunch of rowdy rich folks to guide them through debate, which is usually a screaming match, calling their adversaries bums.

With that rant off my chest. I believe that conservatives, mainly working conservatives, are aware of their exploitation, but feel they'll become 'unpatriotic' when they speak out about their rulers.

As a libertarian I look upon leftism as more of a religion than an ideology and susequently feel that we should keep it a million miles away from the state. I expect Conservatives feel the same way. In fact I struggle think of a single issue over the past decade or two where the left havn't ended up with egg all over their face. Global warming? Yep. The EU? Yes The Euro? Yep. Multiculturalism? Definitely Political Correctness? Oh yes. The list is endless. Given their awful track record I'm not surprised some adherents rely on attacking the rich to claw back a bit of credibility, it's about the political problem where it's imposible to score an own goal!

[roy]

chefdave, you seem to think the 'left' is some homogeneous group that goes all the way from communists to liberals. it's not; even communists are divided. with regard to how conservatives feel, you should know since you are one, what with your fear of the multicultural boogeyman. idk what you're trying to say about global warming either. if you think we aren't seriously playing havoc with the environment, i don't know what to tell you. also, could you please elaborate on how 'leftism' is a religion as opposed to any other ideology?

[Revolution starts with U]

Class enemies will be class enemies I suppose.

I highly doubt he's a class enemy. He doesn't have the same high and mighty patronizing attitude that real class enemies have.

No... no, I think he just fancies himself their lapdog, barking at strangers until he gets a scrap.

[Revolution starts with U]

I want the government to tell me when I'm allowed to poop... there, I said it. :thumbup1:

[citizen of industry]

You sound very confused. I agree that capitalism is flawed and is sometimes conducive to scarcity but the point is socialism seeks to empty capitalism of all it's beneficial qualities: private property and the rule of law etc and introduce as a matter of principle it's absolute worst aspect: government monopolisation of the economy. This explains why under socialist regimes the people usually end up on rations or fighting for their very survival, the state like a large out of control corporation prevents autonomous individual production - usually using the excuse that private individuals are unable to plan ahead suffiently - and generally acts as a wealth suppressor with a paranoid mandate to squish the forces of capital. We cannot expect people to produce wealth when any value they add instantly becomes public property, that would be like asking people to go to work and then having their remunated decided ex-post by a committee of wise beard stroking demigods. No labourer in his right mind would think this was a good idea. Why do you think it's a good idea?

In general capitalism has already exhausted its beneficial qualities. It was progressive in the sense that it allowed more individual freedoms by replacing feudalism, it greatly enhanced the production powers of society, and in fact socialized these productive powers in large part, a precondition for socialism. Raw materials are extracted from one location with tools manufactured in another, produced in yet another country, exported to many others, etc. Nothing is really "private" in capitalist production. To illustrate that point, look at joint-stock corporations - production is on such a large scale that it takes "social industry" to continue production on such a scale. Private ownership, I mean by single individuals or even corporations is quite small.

Now here you say "government monopolization of the economy" as an attribute of socialism. But we can demonstrate that in fact monopolization of the economy is an attribute of capitalism. Look at the financial sector: individuals and corporations deposit their money in the bank. The bank loans this money out to corporations at interest. The bank invests in securities, mostly fictitious capital because they are exchanged based on an assumption of future profits, and collects interest on these. Banks invest in real estate and mortgage, making interest off the loans. Rather than your monopoly man greedy capitalist persona, what we are actually dealing with is credit. Industry is subordinated to the financial sector. Once expenditures are made for wages, raw material, replacement/repair of machinery, etc. (What Marx would call constant capital), profits are divided into interest and profit of enterprise. In these days, interest makes up a large part of profit. Company heads receive essentially a wage (albeit one that makes them rich) and profits go to banks and shareholders. For the banks, the lend out money and receive interest, and the whole production of value is alien to them. To them, money creates more money.

That's why crisis manifests itself in the financial sector. If there is a higher than average profit rate in one sector, investments flow there, labor flows there as wages are higher, interests rates are low in periods of prosperity because the demands for loans is less, so money flows freely. Speculation ensues. This prosperity hits it's limits, supply is well over demand. Excess of labor lowers wages. Relying on credit, corporations can't pay off the interests on their loans, and take out loans to cover the loans, eventually bankruptcy on a large scale, skyrocketing interest rates, layoffs, decreased consumption, and here, here! - the capitalist government has to loan to banks and corporations to get them out of the crisis. And so on and on...The industrial cycle. To keep going it actually requires destruction of accumulated social wealth on a massive scale.

As an individual, you have no say in this. The scale of production prohibits individuals from economic influence. How are you going to manufacture a product, when you have to have enough capital for a global operation? 5 or 6 companies will form a joint-stock company, get bank loans, etc. that's how. So capitalism prevents autonomous individual production. It's not just a "large out of control corporation." That's the law of competition, of a free market. Centralization. Hence antitrust laws. Allow a free-market - remove antitrust legislation, and in a short time you end up with one giant corporation, unimaginable poverty, and economic crisis, because there are no consumers. Another law of capitalism - you are only allowed to live if you can pay.

So what is the incentive to work in a socialist society, when wealth "becomes public property"? Look at this image of capitalist society:http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8oJbXwN8ianxTGdO8Ch86gRvAVvbpj UOOJ10PJ3IQ6dfgO-LYrf6h49D3NA

Right now, almost all wealth is centralized in a few hands. It instantly becomes private property, and is expropriated from the producers. In exchange we receive essentially the bare minimum to live and reproduce our own labor. That's it. And only as long as you are healthy and aren't living in a crisis period of the cycle.

Also, your brick smashing metaphor of the labor theory of value is faulty, because it doesn't take into account use value. Smashed bricks are useless, and therefore have no value. Much like rocks. Rocks are everywhere, so it doesn't take much labor to extract them. In your metaphor, you destroyed the use-value of the bricks, and hence their exchange value as well, and destroyed their value, which was originally created by the labor that went into producing them.

[Deicide]

Chefdave and his ilk will be swept aside by revolutionary terror. We're going to take your property scum. In fact, I'm specifically going to take your property and everything inside your fridge come revolution.

;)

[citizen of industry]

Chefdave and his ilk will be swept aside by revolutionary terror. We're going to take your property scum. In fact, I'm specifically going to take your property and everything inside your fridge come revolution.

;)

Yeah, and his toothbrush too! And then we can share it.

[chefdave]

Chefdave and his ilk will be swept aside by revolutionary terror. We're going to take your property scum. In fact, I'm specifically going to take your property and everything inside your fridge come revolution.

;)

I don't own a fridge, in fact I own very little because the UK housing bubble has made it impossible for me to afford a house. I'm basically a landless serf with only his labour to offer, and even the value of that has been diminished by rampant unskilled immigration.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't own a fridge, in fact I own very little because the UK housing bubble has made it impossible for me to afford a house. I'm basically a landless serf with only his labour to offer, and even the value of that has been diminished by rampant unskilled immigration.

Oh the irony! :rolleyes:

[Deicide]

I don't own a fridge, in fact I own very little because the UK housing bubble has made it impossible for me to afford a house. I'm basically a landless serf with only his labour to offer, and even the value of that has been diminished by rampant unskilled immigration.

So if you only kicked out those 'good for nuttin' immigrants, England would return to glorious age of prosperity, which by the way never existed in reality, and you'd have a chance of becoming a bourgeois or petty-bourgeois yourself?

[chefdave]

chefdave, you seem to think the 'left' is some homogeneous group that goes all the way from communists to liberals. it's not; even communists are divided. with regard to how conservatives feel, you should know since you are one, what with your fear of the multicultural boogeyman. idk what you're trying to say about global warming either. if you think we aren't seriously playing havoc with the environment, i don't know what to tell you. also, could you please elaborate on how 'leftism' is a religion as opposed to any other ideology?

I'm not a Conservative, although admittedly I find myself drawn to some Conservative thinkers. Conservative thought is littered with contradictions because adherents will quite happily wax lyrical about the importance of liberty and the free market but it gets down to business they'll gladly resort to arbitrary statist controls when it suits their prejudices. Conservatives are not radical or consistent enough to warrant my support.

[citizen of industry]

I don't own a fridge, in fact I own very little because the UK housing bubble has made it impossible for me to afford a house. I'm basically a landless serf with only his labour to offer, and even the value of that has been diminished by rampant unskilled immigration.

Now, try to put aside your nationalism for a second here and look at things globally, like a real capitalist does. What causes migration? For example, there was profits to be made in some industry several years back and there wasn't enough labor, labor costs rose. So immigration laws were relaxed. Capitalism. Or like you see in the US with "Dem Mexicans are taking our jobs...": Capitalist agriculture produces food at a low cost, free trade agreements are then forced on Mexico to increase sales. The lower price of the American products destroys Mexican agriculture, giving many agriculture laborers the choice of becoming migrant workers or dying. For capitalism, this has the added advantage of a new labor pool willing to work for a lower wage, and wages decline. (Plus the "illegal" immigrants still pay sales tax when buying products, free revenue for the state without having to provide any services in return). Capitalism

So why are you scapegoating immigrants when immigration is clearly beneficial in the short-term for capital, and a result of capitalist production? Aren't you pointing your finger in the wrong direction?

[chefdave]

So if you only kicked out those 'good for nuttin' immigrants, England would return to glorious age of prosperity, which by the way never existed in reality, and you'd have a chance of becoming a bourgeois or petty-bourgeois yourself?

Immigration is a seperate problem, and no if we kicked them out it would actually reduce my chances of profiteering off the back of their labour so my reason for opposing mass immigration isn't out of economic self interest: it's cultural. Many non-Western cultures from a human rights perspective lag decades behind the West so I'm concerned that mass 3rd world immigration will erode support for our few remaining libertarian principles. For example it's illegal to drive if you're a Saudi women, Somali has a history of stoning alleged female adulters, the Ivory Coast is known for it's sporadic outbursts of violence towards foreigners, and in some other parts of Africa homosexuality has been outlawed. By importing large numbers of sexists, racists and homophobes from other countries we simultaneously expose ourselves a cultural headache and legal problems that were totally avoidable. And all this to prove that we're not racist? No thanks.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't own a fridge, in fact I own very little because the UK housing bubble has made it impossible for me to afford a house. I'm basically a landless serf with only his labour to offer, and even the value of that has been diminished by rampant unskilled immigration.

The housing crisis in Cornwall in particular has been caused by rich London capitalists purchasing holiday homes for the summer months creating an artificial raise in the prices and making it too difficult for locals to afford housing of their own. This is private property denying a majority of people what they need and providing for a minority what they desire.

Similarly the squeeze on employment in the south west has come from the deindustrialisation of Devon and Cornwall, particularly the dock yards and mines, due to neoliberalist privatisation. Cornwall's reliance on the tourist industry has been both a boon and a bust since the fluctuating opportunity and success makes the scramble for jobs more unstable.

[chefdave]

The housing crisis in Cornwall in particular has been caused by rich London capitalists purchasing holiday homes for the summer months creating an artificial raise in the prices and making it too difficult for locals to afford housing of their own. This is private property denying a majority of people what they need and providing for a minority what they desire.

Similarly the squeeze on employment in the south west has come from the deindustrialisation of Devon and Cornwall, particularly the dock yards and mines, due to neoliberalist privatisation. Cornwall's reliance on the tourist industry has been both a boon and a bust since the fluctuating opportunity and success makes the scramble for jobs more unstable.

Other than the gratuitous use of the words 'capitalist' and 'neoliberalist' (they simply disguise the real economic problems at work) I agree with your analysis. The area I'm staying in: Hayle, was very well known a century ago for it's world beating engineering industry, but now it's been reduced to a delapidated tourist destination 'enhanced' with pockets of speculator driven new build housing developments. Between the housing parasites and the government's excessive regime of taxation there's little future in a town like Hayle because average workers are simply unable to generate enough income to satisfy the rent seekers. It's a shame but I'll be moving on soon anyway.

[Ocean Seal]

lol yeah bailouts are where right wingers show their unfettered opportunism.
But don't cha kno that teh economy teh economy would have collapsed if rich people didn't get all the monies and without that we would have anarchy!!!!

[citizen of industry]

Other than the gratuitous use of the words 'capitalist' and 'neoliberalist' (they simply disguise the real economic problems at work) I agree with your analysis. The area I'm staying in: Hayle, was very well known a century ago for it's world beating engineering industry, but now it's been reduced to a delapidated tourist destination 'enhanced' with pockets of speculator driven new build housing developments. Between the housing parasites and the government's excessive regime of taxation there's little future in a town like Hayle because average workers are simply unable to generate enough income to satisfy the rent seekers. It's a shame but I'll be moving on soon anyway.

If you agree with the economic analysis, then what exact economic problems at work in the analysis do you feel the words "capitalist" and "neoliberalist" are disguising?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

So you dislike landlords, real estate corruption, deindustrialisation, speculative investment... any of this ringing the 'free market' bell? How's life in private property working out for you?

[chefdave]

If you agree with the economic analysis, then what exact economic problems at work in the analysis do you feel the words "capitalist" and "neoliberalist" are disguising?

The terms 'capitalist' and 'neoliberalist' are very broad so can be used to mean just about anything. This is very unhelpful when trying to pinpoint the exact source of the problem. As a geo-libertarian I believe the source of the problem is the state back monopolisation of the earth's natural resources. The UK only has a finite amount of land so if we designate it the private property of some at the expense of others we end up creating two classes of people: the landed elites who collect rent and the landless serfs who need to labour to pay their rent. This fundamental abuse of human rights has nothing to do with either capital or neoliberalism, the use of these terms actually masks the true nature of the problem.

[chefdave]

So you dislike landlords, real estate corruption, deindustrialisation, speculative investment... any of this ringing the 'free market' bell? How's life in private property working out for you?

I dislike theft. As land appropriation is a very specific type of theft it has no place in the capitalist economy. Unfortunately for many capitalists property ownership forms the cornerstone of their ideology so I find myself disagreeing with them quite a lot.

[citizen of industry]

So now you are against private property and wage labor? Private property is the cornerstone of capitalist economy. How can you claim it has no place in capitalist economy?

[chefdave]

So now you are against private property and wage labor?

I'm not against private property, what I take issue with is the Trojan Horse the land market represents. While there's a logical element behind private property in labour this is missing when it comes to natural resources because the earth doesn't owe it's existence to human effort. If I craft a lump of wood into a table for example I can only legitimately claim the difference in value between the wood in it's raw state and price it fetches after I've worked on it. The pre-existing value of the unimproved wood is a free gift of nature. Capitalism seeks to privatise the earth's natural value and pass it off as a legitimate source of private property by sneaking it in with private property in labour and capital.

[chefdave]

Private property is the cornerstone of capitalist economy. How can you claim it has no place in capitalist economy?

Some forms of private property are legitimate and have no negative impact on third parties (i.e private property in labour) while other forms naturally benefit a privileged minority at the expense of the masses (private property in land). Ideologically most capitalists are discouraged from making this distinction because if they admit that land and the earth's natural resources are the common property of all mankind they expose the injustice that has kept the landed elites in unearned luxury for generations.

[MotherCossack]

Nah, I just realise that the poor will never be able to climb their way out of poverty if we deny them the right to accumulate wealth and capital. Surely this is obvious even for a simplistic socialist?

Hahahaha are you serious?
fuck me sideways this is arse about face!...
what came first .... wealth and capitlal or us?
h-e-l-l-o!!!! it was us...
we dont come as a set ... in a box... special offer buy this oppressive society and get ten free serfs and poor folk to put in it...
no no no no! ! NO!!! Listen matey... the world does not need wealth and capitalism..... it will survive...and thrive...

try and look outside the very very small box, ok!



I don't own a fridge, in fact I own very little because the UK housing bubble has made it impossible for me to afford a house. I'm basically a landless serf with only his labour to offer, and even the value of that has been diminished by rampant unskilled immigration.


I'm not a Conservative, although admittedly I find myself drawn to some Conservative thinkers. Conservative thought is littered with contradictions because adherents will quite happily wax lyrical about the importance of liberty and the free market but it gets down to business they'll gladly resort to arbitrary statist controls when it suits their prejudices. Conservatives are not radical or consistent enough to warrant my support.


Immigration is a seperate problem, and no if we kicked them out it would actually reduce my chances of profiteering off the back of their labour so my reason for opposing mass immigration isn't out of economic self interest: it's cultural. Many non-Western cultures from a human rights perspective lag decades behind the West so I'm concerned that mass 3rd world immigration will erode support for our few remaining libertarian principles. For example it's illegal to drive if you're a Saudi women, Somali has a history of stoning alleged female adulters, the Ivory Coast is known for it's sporadic outbursts of violence towards foreigners, and in some other parts of Africa homosexuality has been outlawed. By importing large numbers of sexists, racists and homophobes from other countries we simultaneously expose ourselves a cultural headache and legal problems that were totally avoidable. And all this to prove that we're not racist? No thanks.



The area I'm staying in: Hayle, was very well known a century ago for it's world beating engineering industry, but now it's been reduced to a delapidated tourist destination 'enhanced' with pockets of speculator driven build housing developments. Between the housing parasites and the government's excessive regime of taxation there's little future in a town like Hayle because average workers are simply unable to generate enough income to satisfy the rent seekers. It's a shame but I'll be monewving on soon anyway.

Are you sure that you have thought this through .... mr wannabe clever dave cook?
I detect some very right wing views and not a lot of cohesion.

In fact the world you seem to live in .... all yours matey... i can smell it from here and...
i pity you!!!!!!! You paint a brain numbingly awful picture ... without an iota of hope.....
not exactly a loving philanthropist are we....mr dave in a cornish cave.

Maybe you think being so measured and analytical is somehow superior and that us dirty commies are going to wither and die in the face of your outstanding intellect.
i am just depressed that there are people who actually believe any of the confused , noxious and ultimately highly objectionable potion of views and beliefs.
i thought that libertarians were either anarchists or fascists? am i wrong?

oops gotta go and flog some shares and maybe a few of the foreign and unwashed!!!

[chefdave]

Are you sure that you have thought this through .... mr wannabe clever dave cook?

Of course. I spent a long time sitting on the fence and staying out the debate until I could figure out which side was making the most sense. When it comes to the economy for me the geo-libertarians won the argument, on society and morality I still favour libertarianism with the caveat of strong borders to protect the indigenous people and British identity from malign foreign influences. Every time I make my mind up on a topic though I seem to alienate the radical left. Ho hum.

[Conscript]

Libertarianism with 'strong borders' is pretty redundant. The whole free market thing would work best with very transparent borders for capital and labor and very little emphasis on nation at all. It's the mere existence of the national bourgeoisie that makes libertarianism an inevitable failure in giving the wider population opportunities to enter the market as petty capitalists. Your changes wouldn't be very recognizable and would just result in the already present capitalists having a better hold over the job market and all of its associated assaults on wage labor.

Your dislike for foreigners and fetishism for the 'indigenous' is rather arbitrary. God forbid people go around the world to look for jobs and happen to be different than you.

[MotherCossack]

Of course I spent a long time sitting on the fence and staying out the debate until I could figure out which side was making the most sense. When it comes to the economy for me the geo-libertarians won the argument, on society and morality I still favour libertarianism with the caveat of strong borders to protect the indigenous people and British identity from malign foreign influences. Every time I make my mind up on a topic though I seem to alienate the radical left. Ho hum.

I still dont know what you actually believe in mr dave-does-behave-neo-culinarian.....
so what does a geo-libertarian go for? freedom for rocks? or white mercury wearing, 17th century, courtier with terminal alcoholism, syphilis and a flair for bad behaviour?

what is an indigenous person? since we have been conquered so many times.... and hey... we all started from the same tribe of part ape man in africa...
if you were american would you hold these views... especially if you were not native american.....
" oh... hello... just wanted to say sorry.... i just found out i am not an indigenous person... sorry about that... i'll be off then... ok?... errr.. sorry to bother you again... but do you know where i belong... cos i'm not sure?"

you know what... i am bored with this horse shit....
if you cant see that the real divide is that between poor and rich ... then more fool you...you are nothing but a pompous idiot with delusions of intellect.... listen... a poor man is nothing, has nothing, and is powerless to do anything... whatever colour he is... he is nothing wherever he is from....
a rich man is a rich man, with money, with power, with options, with a voice... wherever he is from.....MONEY TALKS...

strong!!! borders!!!!!.... what!!!!!!???... to keep out the scum?.... to lock up the idiots more like!!

[chefdave]

what is an indigenous person? since we have been conquered so many times.... and hey... we all started from the same tribe of part ape man in africa...
if you were american would you hold these views... especially if you were not native american.....
" oh... hello... just wanted to say sorry.... i just found out i am not an indigenous person... sorry about that... i'll be off then... ok?... errr.. sorry to bother you again... but do you know where i belong... cos i'm not sure?

Ok, so you're able to tell the difference between an indigenous American and an immigrant of European descent but you cannot tell the difference between an indigenous European and someone of African/Asian descent? Really? It sounds as if you'd like to see Europeans suffer the same fate as the native Americans and quickly become a minority in their ancestral homeland. Thank God people like myself are around to counter these anti-European views!

[milkmiku]

we all started from the same tribe of part ape man in africa


That is a THEORY, not fact. Do not throw theory around as fact.

http://www.livescience.com/15911-humans-interbred-extinct-relatives.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/26/dna-evidence-confirms-humans-and-neanderthals-mated/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2009746/Modern-mans-ancestor-Homo-erectus-extinct-108-000-years-earlier-previously-thought.html

Everyone did do the dirty with one another back then though.

[chefdave]

Libertarianism with 'strong borders' is pretty redundant. The whole free market thing would work best with very transparent borders for capital and labor and very little emphasis on nation at all. It's the mere existence of the national bourgeoisie that makes libertarianism an inevitable failure in giving the wider population opportunities to enter the market as petty capitalists. Your changes wouldn't be very recognizable and would just result in the already present capitalists having a better hold over the job market and all of its associated assaults on wage labor.

Your dislike for foreigners and fetishism for the 'indigenous' is rather arbitrary. God forbid people go around the world to look for jobs and happen to be different than you.

Libertarianism works best in conjunction with property rights and a legal system that efficiently backs up the individual's claims to land ownership. Without the stability of guaranteed land ownership the economy would simply be unable to function because producers need to be sure their homes and workplaces are still going to be there in the morning. If we're able to carve up the UK like this it stands to reason that we have the right to protect our borders from unchecked immigration.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

As a libertarian I look upon leftism as more of a religion than an ideology and susequently feel that we should keep it a million miles away from the state. I expect Conservatives feel the same way. In fact I struggle think of a single issue over the past decade or two where the left havn't ended up with egg all over their face. Global warming? Yep. The EU? Yes The Euro? Yep. Multiculturalism? Definitely Political Correctness? Oh yes. The list is endless. Given their awful track record I'm not surprised some adherents rely on attacking the rich to claw back a bit of credibility, it's about the political problem where it's imposible to score an own goal!

You do know, where I'm from, the United States, Republicans view their party to be of a 'Judeo-Christian' alliance, destined by Yahweh himself :laugh:.

Political correctness only pisses bigots off. Back in the day, stereotypes of demographics was acceptable now it's not. If you want to be a bigot, do it in the privacy of your home.

Global warming is fact, comrade. Carbon in frozen ice samples from a two centuries ago, is now doubled compared to this century.

As far as politics, the last decade Conservatives have hold the reigns of politics, we've seen countless war, destroyed economies, all in the name of free enterprise.

[citizen of industry]

Ok, so you're able to tell the difference between an indigenous American and an immigrant of European descent but you cannot tell the difference between an indigenous European and someone of African/Asian descent? Really? It sounds as if you'd like to see Europeans suffer the same fate as the native Americans and quickly become a minority in their ancestral homeland. Thank God people like myself are around to counter these anti-European views!


Libertarianism works best in conjunction with property rights and a legal system that efficiently backs up the individual's claims to land ownership. Without the stability of guaranteed land ownership the economy would simply be unable to function because producers need to be sure their homes and workplaces are still going to be there in the morning. If we're able to carve up the UK like this it stands to reason that we have the right to protect our borders from unchecked immigration.


I still favour libertarianism with the caveat of strong borders to protect the indigenous people and British identity from malign foreign influences

So in other words, "geo-libertarianism" is more or less a rebranding of fascism. More lebensraum, protecting the ancestral fatherland from the untermenschen, etc. That about right? The nationalism and scapegoating easily explains the faulty economic analysis and the glaring contradictions such as these gems:


Unfortunately for many capitalists property ownership forms the cornerstone of their ideology so I find myself disagreeing with them quite a lot.

Capitalism seeks to privatise the earth's natural value and pass it off as a legitimate source of private property

Ideologically most capitalists are discouraged from making this distinction because if they admit that land and the earth's natural resources are the common property of all mankind they expose the injustice that has kept the landed elites in unearned luxury for generations.

And then without even blinking on to:


Libertarianism works best in conjunction with property rights and a legal system that efficiently backs up the individual's claims to land ownership. Without the stability of guaranteed land ownership the economy would simply be unable to function

Because geo-libertarians recognise that land ownership and the right to private property is a crucial prerequisite for any free market.

socialism seeks to empty capitalism of all it's beneficial qualities: private property.

You seem to be a bit confused about the nature of private property, mate.

[chefdave]

You do know, where I'm from, the United States, Republicans view their party to be of a 'Judeo-Christian' alliance, destined by Yahweh himself :laugh:.

Political correctness only pisses bigots off. Back in the day, stereotypes of demographics was acceptable now it's not. If you want to be a bigot, do it in the privacy of your home.

Global warming is fact, comrade. Carbon in frozen ice samples from a two centuries ago, is now doubled compared to this century.

As far as politics, the last decade Conservatives have hold the reigns of politics, we've seen countless war, destroyed economies, all in the name of free enterprise.

Don't expect me to take responsibility for America's unique brand of conservatism, as far as I can tell Republicans such as Ron Paul are prepared to sideline reason and instead put their faith in documents written over 200 years ago by the supposedly infallible Founding Fathers. What's all that about? lol. The religious undertones running through American culture have - in my opinion - made it the least attractive out of all the Anglosphere nations, the American right need to seriously re-evaluate their core principles if they still believe religion has anything valuable to say in the 21st century.

[chefdave]

So in other words, "geo-libertarianism" is more or less a rebranding of fascism. More lebensraum, protecting the ancestral fatherland from the untermenschen, etc. That about right? The nationalism and scapegoating easily explains the faulty economic analysis and the glaring contradictions such as these gems:



And then without even blinking on to:



You seem to be a bit confused about the nature of private property, mate.

No. Tbh the few geo-libs I've come across online don't really discuss matters like immigration much, so it's unfair to tarnish the entire geo-lib movement by extrapolating from a handful of posts made by myself on a revolutionary leftist forum. The idea behind geo-libertarianism is to continue the system of private ownership in physical land but tax away the publicly created rental value with a free market inspired land value tax. This redistribution helps recycle the nation's true economic surplus into the hands of the poor while preventing opportunists from enriching themselves off the back of speculative real estate bubbles. A few minutes of reading around the subject on your behalf would have prevented you from looking rather foolish by claiming "herp derp, but you said the private pwoperdy in land isn't justified".

Edit: I realise your objection was a reasonable one I just couldn't be bothered to get into the mechanics of the land value tax above. So on the face of it is does indeed appear that my statements are contradictory - something I was well aware of before hitting the 'post' button - but it was just easier for me to make both statements without getting involved in the details.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Don't expect me to take responsibility for America's unique brand of conservatism, as far as I can tell Republicans such as Ron Paul are prepared to sideline reason and instead put their faith in documents written over 200 years ago by the supposedly infallible Founding Fathers. What's all that about? lol. The religious undertones running through American culture have - in my opinion - made it the least attractive out of all the Anglosphere nations, the American right need to seriously re-evaluate their core principles if they still believe religion has anything value to say in the 21st century.

Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were alike, and the conservative movement is based upon, in a large perspective, Reaganism. Both of their conservative policies failed. Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt, and the poor got poorer.

[citizen of industry]

So that's what it comes down to, then? High property tax? Tax has it's limits, not least of which is competition. Take agriculture, for example. How are you going to sell domestic products with the high tax rate when you have to compete with foreign producers who can sell cheaper? If high taxes make the venture unprofitable, or less profitable than average, it won't be undertaken. So I guess your solution to that would be "high free-market inspired tariffs"? Another contradiction.

And you are too narrowly focused on land. On the one hand, sure it is the source of wealth, but only in the sense that human labor increases the value of the land. If a plot in area A is less fertile than in area B, but closer to an industrial center, the value of A will be higher than B. If A and B are of the same fertility, but A is in a developing area, the value of A will be much higher than B. This is all due to social labor, not any inherent quality of the land itself.

So your idea is to steeply increase property tax as a be-all-end-all solution, greatly increasing the production costs of agriculture and other goods, then impose steep tariffs to protect domestic production from cheaper imports. Meanwhile the cost of living will shoot up, so wages will have to increase, further increasing production costs, etc. Then capital flight, as the country becomes unprofitable for investment.

Land itself is no longer the issue, but profit. We don't live in an era of serfs and feudal lords, we aren't attached to the land where we work part of the day for ourselves and give part of our product in kind to the lord, who has a divine right to the land. Your beloved capitalism long ago did away with that and destroyed large, landed estates.

The financial sector receives interest from your mortgage, recieves rent from capitalist enterprise in real estate holdings, loans this out to ventures at interest, based on the profitablility of their enterprise. Nobody has a big hard-on for land anymore, unless for whatever reason higher profits are being made in that particular sector at a given time in the industrial cycle than in others. You'll see speculation there just like in any other industry.

[MotherCossack]

Ok, so you're able to tell the difference between an indigenous American and an immigrant of European descent but you cannot tell the difference between an indigenous European and someone of African/Asian descent? Really? It sounds as if you'd like to see Europeans suffer the same fate as the native Americans and quickly become a minority in their ancestral homeland. Thank God people like myself are around to counter these anti-European views!

i think it is fair to say you missed my point.....and since we are not indigenous in the same way that native americans were or are.... there have been several influxes from overseas.... vikings being only one example...it is a mistake to view us as some kind of pure blood elite.... jesus christ.....next you will be asserting that we are some kind of aryan master race!
you know what ...there are decent, honest, honourable, kind, sympathetic, genuine, caring and friendly people all over and there are people like you..... god help your children if you have any.


That is a THEORY, not fact. Do not throw theory around as fact.

http://www.livescience.com/15911-humans-interbred-extinct-relatives.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/26/dna-evidence-confirms-humans-and-neanderthals-mated/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2009746/Modern-mans-ancestor-Homo-erectus-extinct-108-000-years-earlier-previously-thought.html

Everyone did do the dirty with one another back then though.

what is fact?
do you actually know.....
i would suggest that most of rev-left is theory......
and there is, surely, no need to be rude!
anyway you ignored my main point.....which suggested that money/power is far more divisive than race

[citizen of industry]

Case in point: look at a country like Japan. There are virtually no natural resources, yet despite this it has the third largest economy in the world. It is based on industry, not monopoly over natural resources. It purchases raw materials cheaply from other countries, manufactures them with cheap labor from other countries, and sells the commodities overseas at profit. In addition, it has a highly developed finacial sector, which profits from loan interest and securities. The countryside is quite empty and land is cheap. Most of the population lives in the cities, where land is expensive.

And how about the "sacred population." It is declining drastically. The workers can't afford to have children, the pension system is falling through the roof because there aren't enough people to pay into it, there are no jobs, most of the workforce is becoming transient, the retirement age is going into the 70's. Most of the real estate is owned by the banks or holding companies, and rented out.

How is a land-value tax going to fix this?

[milkmiku]

what is fact?
do you actually know.....
i would suggest that most of rev-left is theory......
and there is, surely, no need to be rude!
anyway you ignored my main point.....which suggested that money/power is far more divisive than race

I did not intend to be rude, I apologize if I have slighted you some how.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+fact
"any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted"

I agree with your main point. I just suggest you never take anyone's theory at face value, there is always a counter theory. Soryy again, it is just I've heard to many college liberal talk about OOA with a weird sense of pride as if that destroys racist arguments. When it dose not. Thanks for not instantly calling me racist for offering another theory, because that has happened before.

OOA is becoming hipster left as fast as SOy based products did.

By the way, research suggest that Soy makes you into a girly man.
http://www.westonaprice.org/soy-alert/phytoestrogens-and-male-reproductive-development

[chefdave]

i think it is fair to say you missed my point.....and since we are not indigenous in the same way that native americans were or are.... there have been several influxes from overseas.... vikings being only one example...it is a mistake to view us as some kind of pure blood elite.... jesus christ.....next you will be asserting that we are some kind of aryan master race!
you know what ...there are decent, honest, honourable, kind, sympathetic, genuine, caring and friendly people all over and there are people like you..... god help your children if you have all

I don't think I missed your point (such as it was) I just disagreed with it. The idea that native Americans are genetically pure and therefore deserve North America as a homeland whereas white Europeans are a mongrol race undeserving of such protections is so misguided it's borderline racist. Unlike you I don't believe that genetic purity is an essential prerequisite for basic human rights, so the fact that we were invaded by the Italians, Scandinavians and Normans 1000-2000 years ago doesn't mean we're obliged to sacrifice our right to a safe and peaceful existence today. Nice try at passing off your liberal white guilt as a reaction against neo-nazism btw, like i havn't seen that tactic used before ;)

[chefdave]

So that's what it comes down to, then? High property tax? Tax has it's limits, not least of which is competition. Take agriculture, for example. How are you going to sell domestic products with the high tax rate when you have to compete with foreign producers who can sell cheaper? If high taxes make the venture unprofitable, or less profitable than average, it won't be undertaken. So I guess your solution to that would be "high free-market inspired tariffs"? Another contradiction.

So thats what it comes down to then, high productivity taxes and taxes on profits? Take manufacturing for example, how are we going to sell domestic products with a high tax take when we have to compete with foreign producers who are more tax efficient? If high taxes make the venture unprofitable, or less profitable than average it won't be undertaken. So I guess your solution to that would be "high subsidies based upon industry need"? Another expense the country cannot afford.


And you are too narrowly focused on land. On the one hand, sure it is the source of wealth, but only in the sense that human labor increases the value of the land. If a plot in area A is less fertile than in area B, but closer to an industrial center, the value of A will be higher than B. If A and B are of the same fertility, but A is in a developing area, the value of A will be much higher than B. This is all due to social labor, not any inherent quality of the land itself.

Ironically you've outlined the problem perfectly. Whenever productive activity takes place those locations nearest the economic hub take on an additional community created value that ends up in the pockets of private landlords. We all know that real estate in central London is many times more expensive than land out in the Scottish highlands, but our economic system rewards landlords with the gains as if they're the ones creating them! This is madness and it prevents labourers from acquiring the full market value of their efforts.


So your idea is to steeply increase property tax as a be-all-end-all solution, greatly increasing the production costs of agriculture and other goods, then impose steep tariffs to protect domestic production from cheaper imports. Meanwhile the cost of living will shoot up, so wages will have to increase, further increasing production costs, etc. Then capital flight, as the country becomes unprofitable for investment.

Where on earth did you get this nonsense about me supporting high tariffs? Please stop making stuff up as it's incredibly disingenuous. The idea is to lower the more damaging taxes on productivity thus lowering inflation by taking a bigger chunk out of the surplus that naturally accrues in the land market. As most companies rent their premises anyway the net result of a land value tax would be a net reduction in overall tax paid as their landlord took the hit instead of the owners/shareholders. Why would a socialist be worried about the landlord class losing an unearned income stream that denies labourers the full product of their efforts? :confused:


Land itself is no longer the issue, but profit. We don't live in an era of serfs and feudal lords, we aren't attached to the land where we work part of the day for ourselves and give part of our product in kind to the lord, who has a divine right to the land. Your beloved capitalism long ago did away with that and destroyed large, landed estates.

The large privately owned estates still exist, at least here in the UK they do. But they're not the real source of the problem as most people have no intention of moving away from their jobs and families and out into the countryside. No, the real problem is urban landlords and the homeowning counterparts. If you believe that feudalism is just a historical anomaly superseded by capitalism how do explain the landlord-tenant relationship that coerces the tenant into handing over a portion of his weekly income in exchange for -often derisory- living accomodation? Is is a product of free exchange, or is it simply the same old traditional lord-peasant transaction that you've convinced yourself is the product of capitalism?


The financial sector receives interest from your mortgage, recieves rent from capitalist enterprise in real estate holdings, loans this out to ventures at interest, based on the profitablility of their enterprise. Nobody has a big hard-on for land anymore, unless for whatever reason higher profits are being made in that particular sector at a given time in the industrial cycle than in others. You'll see speculation there just like in any other industry.

As you've just alluded to the entire financial industry feeds like a parasite off mortgages backed by domestic property yet you still conclude that land has no part in this feeding frenzy?

Sounds like I've bagged myself my first petit bourgeois. Are you a homeowner then or a landlord? Perhaps a baby boomer who's made a small fortune out of playing the real estate game.

[chefdave]

Case in point: look at a country like Japan. There are virtually no natural resources, yet despite this it has the third largest economy in the world. It is based on industry, not monopoly over natural resources. It purchases raw materials cheaply from other countries, manufactures them with cheap labor from other countries, and sells the commodities overseas at profit. In addition, it has a highly developed finacial sector, which profits from loan interest and securities. The countryside is quite empty and land is cheap. Most of the population lives in the cities, where land is expensive.

And how about the "sacred population." It is declining drastically. The workers can't afford to have children, the pension system is falling through the roof because there aren't enough people to pay into it, there are no jobs, most of the workforce is becoming transient, the retirement age is going into the 70's. Most of the real estate is owned by the banks or holding companies, and rented out.

How is a land-value tax going to fix this?

The land value tax reduces the transaction price (i.e asset price) and penalises businesses/large landlords by ratcheting up their tax bill to a point where their business model (idle rent collecting) no longer becomes profitable. It's interesting that you picked Japan. I understand why you did because it's a nation with little in the way of natural resources, but they have a history of real estate fuelled booms and busts that have seriously eroded domestic living standards. Indeed, they still havn't recovered from the 1990 housing related downturn because of instead of letting the banking and housing systems failed they propped everything up with zero interest rates and heavy doses of government cash. Sound familiar? That's right, we've turning Japanese.

[citizen of industry]

So thats what it comes down to then, high productivity taxes and taxes on profits? Take manufacturing for example, how are we going to sell domestic products with a high tax take when we have to compete with foreign producers who are more tax efficient? If high taxes make the venture unprofitable, or less profitable than average it won't be undertaken. So I guess your solution to that would be "high subsidies based upon industry need"? Another expense the country cannot afford.



Ironically you've outlined the problem perfectly. Whenever productive activity takes place those locations nearest the economic hub take on an additional community created value that ends up in the pockets of private landlords. We all know that real estate in central London is many times more expensive than land out in the Scottish highlands, but our economic system rewards landlords with the gains as if they're the ones creating them! This is madness and it prevents labourers from acquiring the full market value of their efforts.



Where on earth did you get this nonsense about me supporting high tariffs? Please stop making stuff up as it's incredibly disingenuous. The idea is to lower the more damaging taxes on productivity thus lowering inflation by taking a bigger chunk out of the surplus that naturally accrues in the land market. As most companies rent their premises anyway the net result of a land value tax would be a net reduction in overall tax paid as their landlord took the hit instead of the owners/shareholders. Why would a socialist be worried about the landlord class losing an unearned income stream that denies labourers the full product of their efforts? :confused:



The large privately owned estates still exist, at least here in the UK they do. But they're not the real source of the problem as most people have no intention of moving away from their jobs and families and out into the countryside. No, the real problem is urban landlords and the homeowning counterparts. If you believe that feudalism is just a historical anomaly superseded by capitalism how do explain the landlord-tenant relationship that coerces the tenant into handing over a portion of his weekly income in exchange for -often derisory- living accomodation? Is is a product of free exchange, or is it simply the same old traditional lord-peasant transaction that you've convinced yourself is the product of capitalism?



As you've just alluded to the entire financial industry feeds like a parasite off mortgages backed by domestic property yet you still conclude that land has no part in this feeding frenzy?

Sounds like I've bagged myself my first petit bourgeois. Are you a homeowner then or a landlord? Perhaps a baby boomer who's made a small fortune out of playing the real estate game.

I live hand to mouth. Not a baby-boomer, a home-owner, a petit-bourgeois, a landlord, nor am I against increasing taxes for the rich, either property or income. It's a good transitional measure, but not a cure. Land is subordinate to industry and finance. You've scoffed off most of the economy, in the hopes that a higher property tax will solve all. What's to keep the landlord from just raising your rent to compensate for higher taxes? What's to keep the manufacturer from raising the price of the commodities, since a larger portion of revenue has to go to the bank in the form of rent? Since production is done on a global scale, and has little to do with national industry anymore, what's to keep manufactuers from pulling their capital out of your nation and investing it in places where land and production is cheaper?

The landlord-tenent relationship is based on a different mode of production than serfdom. You aren't attached to the land. You receive wages. The iron law of wages ensures you'll receive enough to reproduce your own labor power, nothing more. That means food, basic, derisory, accomodation, and a small amount of disposable income. The product of your labor goes to a manufacturer, retailer, and from there to banks and shareholders. Your own wages go to the retailer, to the landlord and to the banks/shareholders. Wealth is accumulated and centralized.

Land is certainly a part of the feeding frenzy, but a part, only that. You've isolated a tiny sector of the economy which you have a personal animosity towards, and are ignoring the rest, the production and circulation process as a whole.

[citizen of industry]

The land value tax reduces the transaction price (i.e asset price) and penalises businesses/large landlords by ratcheting up their tax bill to a point where their business model (idle rent collecting) no longer becomes profitable. It's interesting that you picked Japan. I understand why you did because it's a nation with little in the way of natural resources, but they have a history of real estate fuelled booms and busts that have seriously eroded domestic living standards. Indeed, they still havn't recovered from the 1990 housing related downturn because of instead of letting the banking and housing systems failed they propped everything up with zero interest rates and heavy doses of government cash. Sound familiar? That's right, we've turning Japanese.

Real estate was only a small part of the bubble economy. At the time, banks were purchasing overseas artwork simply because they were running out of ways to profitable invest their capital. There was over-accumulation and over -production on a massive scale. There were low interest rates prior to the implosion, because they needed an outlet for their capital.

[chefdave]

Real estate was only a small part of the bubble economy. At the time, banks were purchasing overseas artwork simply because they were running out of ways to profitable invest their capital. There was over-accumulation and over -production on a massive scale. There were low interest rates prior to the implosion, because they needed an outlet for their capital.

Real estate was the driving force behind Japan's economic boom, yes the credit splurge spilled out into other areas such as artwork and the stock market but if it wasn't for an artificially pumped up housing market a lot of these secondary activities wouldn't have been possible. I don't have the figures, obviously, but I expect if you compare the total value of loans granted to purchase real estate against the loans that were used to speculate in artwork etc the first figure would dwarf the second. The reason for this is that the real estate market forms the lynchpin of every capitalist economy, no production can take place without it and it's also in finite supply giving the holders a monopoly advantage, this is why it periodically becomes the object of intense 'capitalist' speculation: the nation's surpluses always stack up in real estate so in order to generate the best return over the course of the economic cycle you need to be involved in land to grab some of the wealth for yourself. These forces plague every economy from Japan, to Australia, to the U.S and Europe, but so far very few people have been either willing or able to put their finger on the source of the problem.

[citizen of industry]

Real estate was the driving force behind Japan's economic boom, yes the credit splurge spilled out into other areas such as artwork and the stock market but if it wasn't for an artificially pumped up housing market a lot of these secondary activities wouldn't have been possible. I don't have the figures, obviously, but I expect if you compare the total value of loans granted to purchase real estate against the loans that were used to speculate in artwork etc the first figure would dwarf the second. The reason for this is that the real estate market forms the lynchpin of every capitalist economy, no production can take place without it and it's also in finite supply giving the holders a monopoly advantage, this is why it periodically becomes the object of intense 'capitalist' speculation: the nation's surpluses always stack up in real estate so in order to generate the best return over the course of the economic cycle you need to be involved in land to grab some of the wealth for yourself. These forces plague every economy from Japan, to Australia, to the U.S and Europe, but so far very few people have been either willing or able to put their finger on the source of the problem.

Over accumulation of capital and a trade surplus led to low interests rates and speculation, in both stock markets and real estate. I gave you the artwork example to show how the financial sector had so much capital sitting there, they didn't know what to do with it. We've had crisis on basically a regular basis now for about two hundred years, it doesn't matter if the straw that breaks the camel's back happens to be foodstuffs, cotton, railroads, stocks, IT or real estate. The root of the crisis is overproduction, inherint in an anarchistic system that relies on constant expansion, and the impoverishment of its consumers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

on society and morality I still favour libertarianism with the caveat of strong borders to protect the indigenous people and British identity from malign foreign influences.You mean like rock and roll, hollywood, regae, Vespas and Shakespeare's plays (mostly Italian in origin)?

Really your stance on immigration shows the hypocrisy and ahistorical nature of the "free-market": freedom for capital, restrictions for labor. And even then it's not really true - the US and UK only favor "open markets" when it aids them, the US is fine with closing markets and access for other countries like China or other competitors when it wants to. The US won't even allow France, for example, to give aid to some Latin American countries because it doesn't want other countries making deals down the line.

Libertarian ideas (at least the "true believers") are also a-historical because a strong centralized nation-state grew up with and because of capitalism. The trajectory of capitalism has been to increase the power and centralization of the state and it's no different in the neo-liberal era even though trade and regulations and reforms were "liberalized" and reformed into oblivion. Sure trade laws were liberalized, but this is one aspect and only about the relation of the capitalist state to trade, not an overall weakening or lessening of the state - it's like arguing that there is no monarchy if the king freed 10% of the peasants: it's still a function of monarchy.

At any rate, the state in capitalism isn't an issue of policy, it's fundamental to the system. Each capitalist-oriented revolution in France brought about a larger state - hell people didn't even really have a concept of France as a nation until after the French Revolution and most people outside of Paris didn't even speak French until they created public schools basically to culturally unify the country and get rid of patois. The same trajectory exists in the US where there was the articles of confederation replaced by the more federal model of the constitution, then a more centralized industrial model after the Civil War and then a full-time standing army several times the size of all competitors armies after WWII. All of these changes came out of the needs of the system at the time.

The state-capitalism of post-Prussia Germany, post-Feudal Japan, the USSR, and China all used the state to organize the kind of modernization and primitive accumulation that the bourgeois did on its own in England or the Netherlands or the US. So again, state-power in capitalist systems is a requirement for setting up the parameters of the system and maintaining it.

And here you are in the UK - no exception to the cobbled together feudal regions creating a "nation-state". When you speak of protecting English culture - do you include the Scotts, Welsh, Irish as well?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's the mere existence of the national bourgeoisie that makes libertarianism an inevitable failure in giving the wider population opportunities to enter the market as petty capitalists. Your changes wouldn't be very recognizable and would just result in the already present capitalists having a better hold over the job market and all of its associated assaults on wage labor.

The US which most would probably agree is one of the leaders in these sorts of policies and yet it has a lower small-business ownership percentage and success rate than practically every social-dem/Keynesian country in Europe. I think it's 14th or 16th down the list of industrial countries for small businesses. So not only is it harmful to workers, but it's useless to small business as well!

And just to add to your points, libertarianism is a failure for many of the reasons folks have already listed, but fundamentally it's a failure because it can't iron over the contradictions of capitalism. The chief contradiction is working class struggle which is why no matter what reforms or policies capitalism tries, ultimately they do need a state to ensure capitalist relations and arrangements on all of society. They will do this peacfully through civic institutions and so on or they will do it with force through the courts and police, but some kind of mechanism is needed to keep society in a particular kind of order.

[eric922]

I don't own a fridge, in fact I own very little because the UK housing bubble has made it impossible for me to afford a house. I'm basically a landless serf with only his labour to offer, and even the value of that has been diminished by rampant unskilled immigration.
Isn't the bold part an oxymoron since serfs by their very nature are bound to the land? If you are landless you aren't a serf. I know I'm nitpicking, I apologize.