Ask a hobo libertarian anything [Archive]

Tim Cornelis

16th December 2012, 23:24

I reject your assumption that if all property was private you would be massacred for going on it. There is a lot of property now and I am welcome on a lot of it.

You are then awfully unfamiliar with the real world. That wasn't a hypothetical scenario of a free market capitalist society, it was a reference to social cleansing in Colombia and to a lesser degree other Latin American countries.

In Colombia the rich elite sees the poor devaluing their private property. In response they pay private paramilitaries to "socially cleanse" (i.e. massacre) the poor, homeless people. In the 1990s circa 2,000 poor people were killed every year. Presumably, more than 5 people are killed each day still.

Some things to point out:
Currently, it is illegal to socially cleanse--yet they get away with it.
In a stateless capitalist society law is privatised, and consequently subject to market forces. Market forces gravitate towards profits.
Judges will rule in favour of those who can pay them most money (the rich). In fact, the poor can't even afford to go to court when they are privatised (which costs at least more than 2,000€).
Therefore law will favour rich over poor (rich generate more profits, and law is skewed in that direction through market forces), hence it would be legal to socially cleanse (even without taking trespassing into account).
Even if there was a judge that would rule against social cleansing, how would he enforce it? The rich who order the social cleansing have enough money to hire private paramilitaries. What do judges have at their disposal to enforce their rulings? "Dispute resolution companies"? Well, the rich can pay them as well. And even if they can't, they still can pay the paramilitaries to defend them.

Usually, stateless-capitalist advocates will say "war is expensive so they will negotiate," but then the judge's ruling is already diminished. Moreover, look at the Mexican war. Apparently it is profitable enough to wage war if there is enough money--which the rich elite has.

Stateless capitalism would be a constant state of oppression, misery, massacres, and war.

Additionally, it would be legal to shoot trespassers so socially cleansing would be allowed by virtue of property rights.

freehobo

16th December 2012, 23:24

Probably a dumb-ass question, but a serious one: How the hell do you go online so freakin' much as a homeless poor person?

Im not homeless right now. Im staying with family who have broadband. I get online when I'm homeless though. Just go to McDonalds and use their wiifi and read their paper.

Anarchocommunaltoad

16th December 2012, 23:24

I know of it.

Communal states/polities have existed throughout history. In ancient Sumeria the economy was organized by the state. Sparta, Egypt under the Ptolemese were successful communist societies. Rome had a socialist interlude under Diocletian. Consciously socialistic political movements came out of the industrial revolution, as people looked for a better way to organize the new technology. Robert Owen was the first, but there were many different socialistic thinkers. Marx's role and mission was to claim that socialism is not only desirable but inevitable.

I could spend a lifetime getting acquainted with the works of all the various Marxist theoreticians, but ya I know the gist.

State control and tribal councils doesn't really equate to communism. There were still ruling hereditary elites in those time periods (just because the Incas used collectivization doesn't mean they didn't have caciques and a king who claimed that he was a descendent of the sun god.

Prinskaj

16th December 2012, 23:26

Rome being communist? Wow.. That one is new..

freehobo

16th December 2012, 23:26

He's trolling

No I'm not.

Zukunftsmusik

16th December 2012, 23:29

Rome being communist? Wow.. That one is new..

I've actually heard it before, from one guy who was surprised when I said the french revolution was bourgeois - he had always thought it was socialist :rolleyes:

if your general worldview is that socialism equals the state, then it's apparently not so weird to falsify history as much as you like

Anarchocommunaltoad

16th December 2012, 23:33

I've actually heard it before, from one guy who was surprised when I said the french revolution was bourgeois - he had always thought it was socialist :rolleyes:

if your general worldview is that socialism equals the state, then it's apparently not so weird to falsify history as much as you like

Either critique the guy with facts or shut up. Eye rolls don't educate.

Zukunftsmusik

16th December 2012, 23:37

Either critique the guy with facts or shut up. Eye rolls don't educate.

yeah, okay, except you weren't there and I'm not arguing against that guy right now. I did critique him, and I did come with evidence to back up my claim. although I might have rolled my eyes too. either way it's irrelevant. If I had done it to someone claiming the same in this thread, what you said would've been justified, absolutely. but this was merely a reference to some other debate and whether I roll my eyes about it now shouldn't really matter. and it's off topic so

freehobo

16th December 2012, 23:48

Homebum =/= hobo

That's true enough. I think the "itinerant worker" definition of a hobo has kinda changed. Those hobos really thrived in the early part of the century when there was no welfare. Now hobos have kind of merged with homeless, substance abusers, criminals etc. A lot of us are just bums I suppose.

freehobo

16th December 2012, 23:54

To be fair, even if the OP is 14, there are plenty of really fucking young homeless/traveling folk. I've definitely met kids as young as, like, 12 or 13 who are trying to make it on their own (usually traveling / hanging out with slightly older homeless/traveling friends).

Also, I can vouch that the free bus ticket thing totally works ("My house is being evicted in Halifax - I need to get home!" "How did you get here?" "I hitchhiked!" "Why don't you hitchhike back?" "No time!" - got a bus ticket and $40 for snacks which, having been a bit of a mess at the time, I spent on booze and drugs, and ended up too fucked up to be much help cleaning out my house-in-the-process-of-being-evicted).

The best thing you can do is say you need to go to a funeral. Go through the newspaper of wherever you want to go, find a funeral, say its your grandmother/brother/whatever and call up the welfare office saying you need an advance on your welfare payment for a funeral. They will ask who it was you you tell them where the funeral is, they check to see if it exists, and give you a payment. If been bought plane tickets from east to west coast this way.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 00:02

You asked for this:

1. What's the craziest thing you've ever done for money

2. How territorial is the average Homeless

3. Is it true that hobos who take depressant/ hallucinogen type drugs are open season while they're high?

Hmmm I don't think I've done anything I would call "crazy". I've let old homos suck me off, all sorts of crime, panhandling. Nothing is crazy, it's just life.

Not particularly territorial, other than when it comes to your wine/stash. We are always looking for places to set up. We tend to have to rotate places because you can't set up camp for too long without getting moved on by the council. You see a tonne of mental illness though - like really crazy schizoid personalities.

3. No thats not true. Most hobos I know look out for each other. If we get taken advantage of its just by gangs who don't really have to apply much force - they just stand over us. Some gangs pick of homeless just for fun.

Anarchocommunaltoad

17th December 2012, 00:06

We tend to have to rotate places because you can't set up camp for too long without getting moved on by the council.

There are hobo councils?:confused:

freehobo

17th December 2012, 00:11

It seems to me you should read more on it.

communal societies actually only existed before "history", before "civilisation".

That's not communism. Nor is it "communal".

See above. These were all states, and as such were not "successful communist societies". They were both, to my understanding, slave societies, which means property relations which means they were not communist.

No. Communism/socialism hasn't existed as a force nor as a name for political movements or policies before the existence of the bourgoisie.

Well, if you did, you would get rid of such misunderstandings as the ones above.

OK fair enough, obviously you guys have very specific definitions for some of these things. I disagree with them so I can't define them for myself in the way you do. i.e. things like primitive communism as being the only communism that has ever existed. I understand the Marxist theory of history though (which is what you are arguing ). Marx is far from the only communist thinker though, so forgive me if my definitions don't fit into Marxist schema.

Jack

17th December 2012, 00:15

Where are you going to sleep when roads are privatized?

freehobo

17th December 2012, 00:24

Rome being communist? Wow.. That one is new..

Why are you quoting me out of context? I said Diocletian had implemented communism, which he did, cause of poverty and restlessness among the masses, and barbarians pounding at the gates: He issued in A.D. 301 an "Edictum de pretiis", which denounced monopolists for keeping goods from the market to raise prices, and set maximum prices and wages for all important articles and services. All the unemployed were put to work, and food was distributed gratis, or at reduced prices, to the poor. The government already owned most mines, quarries, and salt deposits-brought, and brought all other major industries and guilds under control. It was basically a war economy. The task of controlling men in detail proved too much of course and it didn't last, but it was there briefly.

And YES, I know this is not pure "communism" according to the Marxists definition, which will only exist when all states wither away.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 00:26

So you're a libertarian WHAT?

Sorry I don't understand your question?

freehobo

17th December 2012, 00:28

People are really asking how a homeless man is using the internet when this is the age of public libraries with hundreds of computers, wifi capable devices that you can buy at wal-greens for 60 bucks, internet capable phones at family dollar for 20 ect ect.

Even Mickey Dees has free wifi these days. Even wal-mart has it.

I can walk out side my four hundred thousand dollar riverside home right now and be in range of 19 networks.

I mean are you guys in third world nations or do you just live in 2003?

Yeah I was gonna say the above too. It's not hard to get connected. I know lots of bums with smarphones. Seriously. Albeit they are hard to type into.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 00:38

You are then awfully unfamiliar with the real world. That wasn't a hypothetical scenario of a free market capitalist society, it was a reference to social cleansing in Colombia and to a lesser degree other Latin American countries.

In Colombia the rich elite sees the poor devaluing their private property. In response they pay private paramilitaries to "socially cleanse" (i.e. massacre) the poor, homeless people. In the 1990s circa 2,000 poor people were killed every year. Presumably, more than 5 people are killed each day still.

Some things to point out:

Currently, it is illegal to socially cleanse--yet they get away with it.
In a stateless capitalist society law is privatised, and consequently subject to market forces. Market forces gravitate towards profits.
Judges will rule in favour of those who can pay them most money (the rich). In fact, the poor can't even afford to go to court when they are privatised (which costs at least more than 2,000€).
Therefore law will favour rich over poor (rich generate more profits, and law is skewed in that direction through market forces), hence it would be legal to socially cleanse (even without taking trespassing into account).
Even if there was a judge that would rule against social cleansing, how would he enforce it? The rich who order the social cleansing have enough money to hire private paramilitaries. What do judges have at their disposal to enforce their rulings? "Dispute resolution companies"? Well, the rich can pay them as well. And even if they can't, they still can pay the paramilitaries to defend them.

Usually, stateless-capitalist advocates will say "war is expensive so they will negotiate," but then the judge's ruling is already diminished. Moreover, look at the Mexican war. Apparently it is profitable enough to wage war if there is enough money--which the rich elite has.

Stateless capitalism would be a constant state of oppression, misery, massacres, and war.

Additionally, it would be legal to shoot trespassers so socially cleansing would be allowed by virtue of property rights.

So your assumption is that any free trade society will turn out like Columbia? If so, I reject this.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 00:45

State control and tribal councils doesn't really equate to communism. There were still ruling hereditary elites in those time periods (just because the Incas used collectivization doesn't mean they didn't have caciques and a king who claimed that he was a descendent of the sun god.

Indeed indeed, I understand that. The kind of communism that revleft would accept as legitimate has never existed and in my view never will. I don't accept Engels' theory of "primitive communism" either. 19th century Pseudo scientific garbage.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 00:48

There are hobo councils?:confused:

haha. Nah like the sheriff, council, ranger, police etc - the government essentially.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 00:51

Where are you going to sleep when roads are privatized?

On private properties.

Anarchocommunaltoad

17th December 2012, 00:52

haha. Nah like the sheriff, council, ranger, police etc - the government essentially.

I was trying to be a smartass

Jack

17th December 2012, 00:54

On private properties.

Isn't that violating people's property rights?

freehobo

17th December 2012, 00:54

I was trying to be a smartass

haha. ok. yeah i thought that might have been the case. wasn't totally sure.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 00:57

Isn't that violating people's property rights?

Only if they don't want you there. I am welcomed onto many peoples private property. You seem to have this notion of every private property being owned by a paranoid gun-toting hermit?

Yuppie Grinder

17th December 2012, 00:57

When my sister meg was homeless I'd see her online sometimes. How the fuck do you get access to internet when you're homeless?

Rational Radical

17th December 2012, 00:57

Indeed indeed, I understand that. The kind of communism that revleft would accept as legitimate has never existed and in my view never will. I don't accept Engels' theory of "primitive communism" either. 19th century Pseudo scientific garbage. What's garbage is thinking that capitalism can exist without a strong state to protect its property laws,and if the role of the state is simply to protect property rights and not provide social benefits(this is why a rational capitalist will always support at very least some welfare in a capitalist state) in your proposed society it would be evident(more than it is now) that the capitalist system is insufficient and would be immediately replaced.

Krano

17th December 2012, 01:13

http://i.imgur.com/OniNn.jpg

Astarte

17th December 2012, 01:28

As the title says, I'm a hobo, poor, unemployed, spent much of my life homeless. Also, I'm very much a hater of communists, liberals and conservatives, even though I have a lot of friends who espouse these views. Feel free to ask me anything and I will attempt to answer.

Do you make hobo nickels in your spare time during long and lonely box-car sojourns?

Althusser

17th December 2012, 01:31

So your assumption is that any free trade society will turn out like Columbia? If so, I reject this.

"I reject this, I reject this, I reject this" LOL

freehobo

17th December 2012, 01:33

What's garbage is thinking that capitalism can exist without a strong state to protect its property laws,and if the role of the state is simply to protect property rights and not provide social benefits(this is why a rational capitalist will always support at very least some welfare in a capitalist state) in your proposed society it would be evident(more than it is now) that the capitalist system is insufficient and would be immediately replaced.

If you believe that, wouldn't the clever thing to do be to support it? You know as in "the worse things get, the better things get"?

Anarchocommunaltoad

17th December 2012, 01:36

If you believe that, wouldn't the clever thing to do be to support it? You know as in "the worse things get, the better things get"?

What they don't admit is that communism and immediate anarchism isn't inevitable. That kind of collapse would lead to a little dark age and a new fascist regime.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 01:39

Do you make hobo nickels in your spare time during long and lonely box-car sojourns?

Nah. I never understood how they engrave those things? With a nail or something? I think a piece of paper is a much more suitable artistic outlet.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 01:48

What they don't admit is that communism and immediate anarchism isn't inevitable. That kind of collapse would lead to a little dark age and a new fascist regime.

True. I've never understood why any intelligent person would buy into a theory that anything is inevitable or that future can be accurately predicted using some kind of formula. The future is not even assured to arrive at all, because there could be an extinction event. This kind of horseshit belongs in Hegelian Prussia, it's amazing that it was taken seriously in the first place, let alone 2 centuries later.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

17th December 2012, 01:50

Do you make hobo nickels in your spare time during long and lonely box-car sojourns?

Sorry to burst your bubble - one almost never gets to ride a boxcar, they're usually locked. Rather, one typically rides in wellcars, gondolas, or grainers. All of which are horrendously uncomfortable, and, with the exception of grainers, leave one uncomfortably exposed to the elements.

ANYWAY, TO THE OP:

Anyway, so, how do you feel about communism in the sense of a society without any state, without any general equivalent by which labour/products are measured, etc.?
As regards rejecting Engel's ideas about "primitive communism" (which, given, is a bit problematic), how do you feel about, for example, models of the Six Nations Confederacy, the Mi'kmaq, or other Amerindian nations that have existed without money, wagelabour, state, etc.?
Also, what about instances of autonomous communist experiments - the Diggers, German autonomous scenes in the eighties, etc.? Would your ideal minarchist government act to prevent such outbreaks of communist activity?

On a note more specific to homelessness, skidery, etc., have you not encountered, if not been sustained by, communist practices at all? My own experience of itinerant, alcoholic, semi-homelessness was one of moving through countless collective spaces aimed at realizing communist possibilities - anarchist squats, punk houses, Food Not Bombs servings, occupations, circles in parks spinning 40s, well organized re-expropriation for sharing, and so on.

A Revolutionary Tool

17th December 2012, 02:21

What they don't admit is that communism and immediate anarchism isn't inevitable. That kind of collapse would lead to a little dark age and a new fascist regime.
Except that most people here readily accept these things. Hence why I've never seen someone here support Ron Paul. I've seen a few people here talking about voting Republican just to make things worse and everytime they're more or less ridiculed for suggesting to make workers lives harder. That attitude usually comes from people who aren't poor in the first place, from people who think pushing poor people down will make them rise up against capitalism when, as you said, fascism is something that can also spring from it.

A Revolutionary Tool

17th December 2012, 02:28

True. I've never understood why any intelligent person would buy into a theory that anything is inevitable or that future can be accurately predicted using some kind of formula. The future is not even assured to arrive at all, because there could be an extinction event. This kind of horseshit belongs in Hegelian Prussia, it's amazing that it was taken seriously in the first place, let alone 2 centuries later.
Nice straw man, most Marxists here realize it's not an inevitability, even Marx said socialism or barbarism. Which means either capitalism will outgrow itself and the workers will overthrow the current order and lead society to socialism or they won't and society will sink into barbarism. I would say a real "libertarian" society would fit the description of that barbarism.

And you might reject Engel's theory of primitive communism but the facts still remain that there are still tribes out there that are still living in that mode of life.

Anarchocommunaltoad

17th December 2012, 02:35

's theory of primitive communism but the facts still remain that there are still tribes out there that are still living in that mode of life.

How than they be primitive communists when their civilization has not even advanced to a production level? They're mostly subsistence farmers who usually have some sort of hereditary, clan or role based civilization.

Astarte

17th December 2012, 02:36

Nah. I never understood how they engrave those things? With a nail or something? I think a piece of paper is a much more suitable artistic outlet.

What kind of a hobo doesn't know how to make hobo nickels? Its like a capitalist not knowing how to extract surplus value from labor - I call fake here - if you were a real hobo you would at least understand the process of graving hobo nickels ...

A Revolutionary Tool

17th December 2012, 02:51

How than they be primitive communists when their civilization has not even advanced to a production level? They're mostly subsistence farmers who usually have some sort of hereditary, clan or role based civilization.

I'm speaking of the numerous hunter-gatherer tribes still out there.

Anarchocommunaltoad

17th December 2012, 02:56

I'm speaking of the numerous hunter-gatherer tribes still out there.

Deeper study of most hunter gatherer societies tend to show that they actually do have forms of culture and leadership that you wouldn't even call primitive communism.

A Revolutionary Tool

17th December 2012, 03:01

Deeper study of most hunter gatherer societies tend to show that they actually do have forms of culture and leadership that you wouldn't even call primitive communism.
And Engels knew that there were types of leadership that existed in these societies...

freehobo

17th December 2012, 03:26

Sorry to burst your bubble - one almost never gets to ride a boxcar, they're usually locked. Rather, one typically rides in wellcars, gondolas, or grainers. All of which are horrendously uncomfortable, and, with the exception of grainers, leave one uncomfortably exposed to the elements.

ANYWAY, TO THE OP:

Anyway, so, how do you feel about communism in the sense of a society without any state, without any general equivalent by which labour/products are measured, etc.?
As regards rejecting Engel's ideas about "primitive communism" (which, given, is a bit problematic), how do you feel about, for example, models of the Six Nations Confederacy, the Mi'kmaq, or other Amerindian nations that have existed without money, wagelabour, state, etc.?
Also, what about instances of autonomous communist experiments - the Diggers, German autonomous scenes in the eighties, etc.? Would your ideal minarchist government act to prevent such outbreaks of communist activity?

On a note more specific to homelessness, skidery, etc., have you not encountered, if not been sustained by, communist practices at all? My own experience of itinerant, alcoholic, semi-homelessness was one of moving through countless collective spaces aimed at realizing communist possibilities - anarchist squats, punk houses, Food Not Bombs servings, occupations, circles in parks spinning 40s, well organized re-expropriation for sharing, and so on.

A society without any state is essentially what anarcholibertarians advocate, it seems impractical to me - you're gonna needs organs to coordinate exchange, respond to natural disasters etc - a "state", no matter what you want to call it. As for a society "without any general equivalent by which labour/products are measured, etc.", I dont really understand what this means. Labour has to be measured somehow doesn't it, even if it's just the time put into doing somethihng? Same with products - products have different values to different people, Marxists might say that the value depends on how much labour was put into it, I would say otherwise, but nevertheless commodoties must attract value judgements? Excuse me if I'm not properly understanding your question.

My opinion on the Iroquois and these other supposedly classless and stateless societies is that we tend to impose our own belief systems / ontology onto them in trying to understand them. We don't even speak their languages. We can say they have no analogue of our economic "class", but my suspicion is that they do. What we do know is that they have a basic ingroup/outgroup distinctions, as (just taking the Iraqous as an egsample ) they violently proselytized and conquered rival tribes. During the American revolutions Indian mercenaries had to be restrained from scalping captured prisoners of war. You can read about it the biography of George Washington. We can say they have no analogue of private property, but my sense is that they do - they just don't define it in language we understand. "I own this" is a pretty primal instinct. It would not apply to land in extremely primitive hunter-gather societies because they had to be nomadic. I'm sure it applied to tools and such though - I'm sure troglodytes weren't completely indifferent when some random walked into his cave and made off with his stone tools.

That's not to say that I don't think we can learn a lot about ourselves by studying these "primitive" societies, or that they are not interesting. But basically I believe it's an error to pit them as examples of primitive communism.

As far as minarchism being somehow opposed to communal living, no no no no. No way. I would hate to see these ways of life disappear under the wheels of industrialization. Obviously I think they should have to support themselves buy paying for the land they live in. Note: in a libertarian model, that is ALL they would have to do to get started in communal living. They wouldn't have to pay exorbitant rates to the government for they land they already own. Surely the fact that you never really own your land is a barrier to getting a commune started?

And you are right, a communal spirit does pervade a lot of homeless/hobo culture. I've lived in a tent by a creek with a bunch of guys, and when one guy gets paid it's every-bodies payday - we basically share all the money, booze, smokes and weed maybe. You can live like that. You can live like that in a microcosm, where there is trust amongst the group and there is no hard drugs. When you're in a "junkie commune" it tends to break down pretty quick cause ... I'm sure you know why :p But yeah basically I think people can live like this and it's fun, but it should be voluntary, you cant force people to bond with each other. And the other thing I would say is that it only works with small groups. Probably 5 - 6 is about the magic number. It might have something to do with that being the average size of a human family. I have lived in larger boarding houses type deals which are basically communes, where everybody is a walk in, the bonds are artificial, and it's fucking horrible.

Ostrinski

17th December 2012, 03:34

Haha. Certainly conservatives would make that assessment. Social Darwinists surely would. There is no doubt that I have made some bad choices in my life, but I wouldn't call myself a leech either. I do live off tax dollars, that is true but I try my best to give back in whatever ways I can. I have worked at times and paid taxes, I've no doubt drained the system of more $ than I have put in. I suppose it a subjective judgement, whether I am a parasite or deserve to suffer. It would be no matter who you asked your question about.

Is it your opinion one must work to contribute to society?No. I find the libertarian idea that your worth is measured by what you produce for or give to society morally reprehensible as well as bizarrely anti-social.

GoddessCleoLover

17th December 2012, 03:45

No. I find the libertarian idea that your worth is measured by what you produce for or give to society morally reprehensible as well as bizarrely anti-social.

It demonstrates the selfishness and greediness of American right-wing Libertarians. The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether our "libertarian hobo" isn't in fact sitting in front of a puter in some room in a nice upper income suburban McMansion waiting for Mom to bring him a glass of milk and a PB and J sandwich.:D

freehobo

17th December 2012, 03:50

"I reject this, I reject this, I reject this" LOL

I'll explain what I mean, I just wanted to clarify what he means - that a libertarian society is bound to deteriorate to the quality of Columbia.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 03:53

No. I find the libertarian idea that your worth is measured by what you produce for or give to society morally reprehensible as well as bizarrely anti-social.

As a poor unemployed bum, I obviously don't subscribe the idea that you are worth what you produce, or what is in your bank account either. That is to say, I don't hate myself :cool:

GoddessCleoLover

17th December 2012, 03:57

As an poor unemployed bum, I obviously don't subscribe to the idea the idea that you are worth what you produce, or what is in your bank account either. That is to say, I don't hate myself :cool:

So where does an unemployed hobo access the internet on a Sunday night? Are any libraries open this late? Some unemployed folks live with the 'rents and dream libertarian dreams that they would reach the heights of John Galt if only they weren't held down by the "State".:D

freehobo

17th December 2012, 04:00

Nice straw man, most Marxists here realize it's not an inevitability, even Marx said socialism or barbarism. Which means either capitalism will outgrow itself and the workers will overthrow the current order and lead society to socialism or they won't and society will sink into barbarism. I would say a real "libertarian" society would fit the description of that barbarism.

And you might reject Engel's theory of primitive communism but the facts still remain that there are still tribes out there that are still living in that mode of life.

It's not a strawman, because Marx advertised his theory as scientific, and said that communism is inevitable. YOU might disagree, but that is revisionism.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 04:05

So where does an unemployed hobo access the internet on a Sunday night? Are any libraries open this late? Some unemployed folks live with the 'rents and dream libertarian dreams that they would reach the heights of John Galt if only they weren't held down by the "State".:D

Prolly should read the thread before asking questions that have already been answered.

GoddessCleoLover

17th December 2012, 04:11

Prolly should read the thread before asking questions that have already been answered.

Scanned the thread. Seems like you are not currently "hobo-ing". I would be willing to bet that if you were forced to spend a year or two on the streets of Baltimore that you wouldn't be a right-wing libertarian any more.;)

freehobo

17th December 2012, 04:16

Scanned the thread. Seems like you are not currently "hobo-ing". I would be willing to bet that if you were forced to spend a year or two on the streets of Baltimore that you wouldn't be a right-wing libertarian any more.;)

Haha. You'd lose that bet.

GoddessCleoLover

17th December 2012, 04:21

Haha. You'd lose that bet.

Take me up on it. I got twenty bucks that says that two years on the streets of Baltimore will adjust your attitude. Meet me at the train station on New Years' day and if you live on the streets of Baltimore for two years solid, without any respites like you are currently enjoying I mean two years solid living homeless in Baltimore city, and still hold to your beliefs on 1/1/2015 you would win that twenty dollar bet.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 04:24

Take me up on it. I got twenty bucks that says that two years on the streets of Baltimore will adjust your attitude. Meet me at the train station on New Years' day and if you live on the streets of Baltimore for two years solid, without any respites like you are currently enjoying I mean two years solid living homeless in Baltimore city, and still hold to your beliefs on 1/1/2015 you would win that twenty dollar bet.

Wow. Tempting.

BTW, why did you choose Baltimore? Did you watch The Wire?

GoddessCleoLover

17th December 2012, 04:26

Wow. Tempting.

BTW, why did you choose Baltimore? Did you watch The Wire?

I live in Bmore. If we do this bet I want to make sure that you are living rough in the city. Gotta make sure you don't slip out to the 'burbs.;)

A Revolutionary Tool

17th December 2012, 04:36

It's not a strawman, because Marx advertised his theory as scientific, and said that communism is inevitable. YOU might disagree, but that is revisionism.
Okay totally disregard what I just said about Marx's line about socialism or barbarism. He made it pretty clear that there would be no "inevitability" of socialism unless there was a fight for it, a fight for the progress of humanity, to solve the problems of society. If there was no battle there would be a regression towards barbarism. He might have said it was inevitable in a rhetorical way, and even if he did think it was absolutely 100% inevitable like you say that isn't really a core value of what is Marxism, just ask around here and most would agree with me on that.

We don't dogmatically agree with everything Marx has ever said, you ought to know this.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 04:49

Okay totally disregard what I just said about Marx's line about socialism or barbarism. He made it pretty clear that there would be no "inevitability" of socialism unless there was a fight for it, a fight for the progress of humanity, to solve the problems of society. If there was no battle there would be a regression towards barbarism. He might have said it was inevitable in a rhetorical way, and even if he did think it was absolutely 100% inevitable like you say that isn't really a core value of what is Marxism, just ask around here and most would agree with me on that.

We don't dogmatically agree with everything Marx has ever said, you ought to know this.

I do know this, but I think you are wrong about the "core" of Marxism. Inevitability of socialism because of the internal contradictions in capitalism is the core of Marxism. Without that there is nothing interesting to distinguish him from the utopian socialists.

A Revolutionary Tool

17th December 2012, 04:55

Yazman

17th December 2012, 07:52

This was true in the early 20th and you can find things online that show the kinds of art and symbols that were part of "hobo culture" - particularly in the depression. One symbol that really stuck out was one for "a guy who will give you food, but you have to hear his prothluytisin". Mostly the symbols explain things like: this house is full of assholes/the cops are brutal here/this person will give you food and board for chores or preeching.

I don't know of anything as universal as the hobo symbols supposedly were, but I'm sure people today have similar sorts of communication methods for similar reasons: letting other people know about unspoken boundaries, threats, or opportuinities.

I would also like to know why you came onto a political website if you hate politics.

Huh, that's fascinating. Judging by freehobo's response it's gone now but I guess he wasn't pulling my leg if there was a time where such a thing existed. Fascinating stuff. I wonder if anybody ever tried to document them in any detail?

freehobo

17th December 2012, 08:32

Huh, that's fascinating. Judging by freehobo's response it's gone now but I guess he wasn't pulling my leg if there was a time where such a thing existed. Fascinating stuff. I wonder if anybody ever tried to document them in any detail?

I'm as fascinated as you are, I did a quick google and found some info on good old wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobo#Hobo_.28sign.29_code

I'm apparently going to have to improve my hobo chops, cause I had no idea about any of this thing.

Jimmie Higgins

17th December 2012, 09:27

Ha, I found this digital "hobo code" for the smart-phoned among us:
http://blog.ponoko.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/hobo-codes.png
But here's some reproductions of the orgiginals:
http://acontinuouslean.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/hobo2.gif
And here's a link to a sort of jokey urban hipster hobo-code:
http://www.cockeyed.com/archive/hobo/modern_hobo.html

Jimmie Higgins

17th December 2012, 09:49

I do know this, but I think you are wrong about the "core" of Marxism. Inevitability of socialism because of the internal contradictions in capitalism is the core of Marxism. Without that there is nothing interesting to distinguish him from the utopian socialists.What distinguishes Marxism for utopian socialism or other forms of anticapitalism is not in any sort of predictive powers, but in locating a material understanding of why current society is as it is and what possibilities there are to change that and create a more democratic world. Namely the issue of class - which is something that has been missing from this discussion and your characterization of Marxism.

Marxism recognizes that workers can produce social wealth without needing to exploit others to do so - but the capitalists, in order to maintain market production must repress workers. So this was Marxism coming out of a period of bourgeois revolutions for greater democracy, trying to figure out why the ideals of Payne or Goodwin and some of the other radicals of the French Revolution era were never actually satisfied and why these same revolutionary governments now turned around to repress worker's movements which in many ways were asking for a completion of the promise of earlier revolutions - but in a new context where society was producing based on the market.

So for me, the whole idea of "big government" and "small government" is an abstraction that says little about the nature of a society or the government. "Government" needs to be clarified by what form of government, designed to do what for who in society.

Marx wrote that capitalist revolutions tended to be waged with cries of "smaller government" but resulted in much more centralized governments as the capitalists needed to organize "the nation" rather than a bunch of small princedoms. In this context what does "big" or "small" government mean? Some small fifdom migh have a religious beurocracy but it's governmental beurocracy might be smaller than that of capitalist England which needs both a governmental beurocracy and beurocracies in business firms themselves; as a nation-state rather than a feudal territory, a much more centralized military is needed and since the military isn't necissarily directly controlled by the ruling class like in feudalism, there needs to be a permanent military hierarchy and beurocracy too.

So of the Paris Commune, Marx said: here workers made the watchword of every capitalist revolution "smaller government" a reality on day one by dismissing the officialdom and the military hierarchy. For capitalists this is still "big government" since workers got together in meetings to decide how to run the Parisian guard, how to distribute food etc. But this is just a democratic approach to making the kinds of decisions which are currently made autocratically by people in business hierarchies with profit being the dirving consideration, not quality, absolute demand, benifical effects etc.

So rather than being for "big government" Marxism is fundamentally about worker's control of society, both politically and economically. Right now all that exists, but is subject to no democratic say-so by the people who work to produce those products and services or the people who consume them. So when capitalists talk about "small government" and "big government" typically they mean "no democratic influence in the market" or "popular reforms in the market". Even "big government" in the abstract doesn't apply since they constantly use the capitalist state to intervine in the economy on behalf of large firms and economic interests for the common health of the capitalist system - they just use "big government" as a code for "popular reforms".

Prinskaj

17th December 2012, 11:42

Why are you quoting me out of context? I said Diocletian had implemented communism How is that quoting out of context? You said that he had implemented communism, I.E. communism existed in Rome. (Secondly, communism is not a matter of policy, but a matter of mode of production.)

which he did, cause of poverty and restlessness among the masses, and barbarians pounding at the gates: He issued in A.D. 301 an "Edictum de pretiis", which denounced monopolists for keeping goods from the market to raise prices, and set maximum prices and wages for all important articles and services. All the unemployed were put to work, and food was distributed gratis, or at reduced prices, to the poor. The government already owned most mines, quarries, and salt deposits-brought, and brought all other major industries and guilds under control. It was basically a war economy. The task of controlling men in detail proved too much of course and it didn't last, but it was there briefly.Classes: Check
Money: Check
State: Check
Doesn't sound like communism to me..

And YES, I know this is not pure "communism" according to the Marxists definition, which will only exist when all states wither away.
I have a major problem with this statement. When you say, that A or B is communist and we reply by pointing out that it isn't. Then you reply with this concept of ascribing to us something which we do not believe in, just by adding "kinda", that is not a logical method of discussion.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 11:56

What distinguishes Marxism for utopian socialism or other forms of anticapitalism is not in any sort of predictive powers, but in locating a material understanding of why current society is as it is and what possibilities there are to change that and create a more democratic world. Namely the issue of class - which is something that has been missing from this discussion and your characterization of Marxism.

Marxism recognizes that workers can produce social wealth without needing to exploit others to do so - but the capitalists, in order to maintain market production must repress workers. So this was Marxism coming out of a period of bourgeois revolutions for greater democracy, trying to figure out why the ideals of Payne or Goodwin and some of the other radicals of the French Revolution era were never actually satisfied and why these same revolutionary governments now turned around to repress worker's movements which in many ways were asking for a completion of the promise of earlier revolutions - but in a new context where society was producing based on the market.

So for me, the whole idea of "big government" and "small government" is an abstraction that says little about the nature of a society or the government. "Government" needs to be clarified by what form of government, designed to do what for who in society.

Marx wrote that capitalist revolutions tended to be waged with cries of "smaller government" but resulted in much more centralized governments as the capitalists needed to organize "the nation" rather than a bunch of small princedoms. In this context what does "big" or "small" government mean? Some small fifdom migh have a religious beurocracy but it's governmental beurocracy might be smaller than that of capitalist England which needs both a governmental beurocracy and beurocracies in business firms themselves; as a nation-state rather than a feudal territory, a much more centralized military is needed and since the military isn't necissarily directly controlled by the ruling class like in feudalism, there needs to be a permanent military hierarchy and beurocracy too.

So of the Paris Commune, Marx said: here workers made the watchword of every capitalist revolution "smaller government" a reality on day one by dismissing the officialdom and the military hierarchy. For capitalists this is still "big government" since workers got together in meetings to decide how to run the Parisian guard, how to distribute food etc. But this is just a democratic approach to making the kinds of decisions which are currently made autocratically by people in business hierarchies with profit being the dirving consideration, not quality, absolute demand, benifical effects etc.

So rather than being for "big government" Marxism is fundamentally about worker's control of society, both politically and economically. Right now all that exists, but is subject to no democratic say-so by the people who work to produce those products and services or the people who consume them. So when capitalists talk about "small government" and "big government" typically they mean "no democratic influence in the market" or "popular reforms in the market". Even "big government" in the abstract doesn't apply since they constantly use the capitalist state to intervine in the economy on behalf of large firms and economic interests for the common health of the capitalist system - they just use "big government" as a code for "popular reforms".

This is just the historical materialist theory of history with a focus on the analysis of the capitalist "stage" of history. As you rightly point out, Marxist theory was largely an explanation for why the French Revolution failed. The theory he came up with is that every revolution generates a new set of class relationships, and that the French was a bourgeois revolution, with a proletarian one yet to come. So really there is nothing in your characterization that is different to mine, other than that you ignore the predictive aspects of it. If it was JUST about the means and modes of production causing society to be the way it is, Marx would have to conclude the relationships would change continually and randomly. This was not his, his was a LINEAR and STAGE view of history, which he theories would STOP at communism.

Primitive Communism
Slave Society
Feudalism
Capitalism
Socialism
Communism

You cannot have a stage theory of history without claiming to be able to predict the future. It doesn't make any sense. Otherwise it would be like this:

Primitive Communism
Slave Society
Feudalism
Capitalism
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????

As for big government, yeah I know that communists don't support it as an end, but you certainly support it as a means to an end.

freehobo

17th December 2012, 12:06

Then you reply with this concept of ascribing to us something which we do not believe in, just by adding "kinda", that is not a logical method of discussion.

I did no such thing. On the contrary, I recognized that that the examples of communism I gave are not valid examples of communism according to your definitions. So I don't think we have much to argue about.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

17th December 2012, 16:49

What's your class background? Did you go to university? How old are you?

To clarify, this isn't an accusation aimed at discrediting you - I'm from a middle-class family, and attended university for a year prior to several years of addiction and chronic unemployment/sleeping on cardboard/busking/etc. I think that this context is significant because it meant certain sets of social connections, familiarity with certain social rituals of class, access to certain spaces, etc. The fact that you say you're currently staying "with a family", have regular access to broadband, and so on. Now, of course a family doesn't have to be middle class to move a chronically unemployed/homeless youth (?) in to their home, but it certainly helps . . .

freehobo

18th December 2012, 03:00

What's your class background? Did you go to university? How old are you? To clarify, this isn't an accusation aimed at discrediting you

Sure. I'm not sure what the taxonomy of classes these days is, but I would definitely say I ws poor. I grew up as "white trash" basically. My parents were (and still are ) traveling hippies, hobos too I suppose, but they don't have to work because my dad is on a pension. I have 0.5 % of a university edusaction, but I've been a reader since I was young. I didn't really learn much while I was at university tbh, I gathered a lot of "information" without learning much, if that makes any sense?

- I'm from a middle-class family, and attended university for a year prior to several years of addiction and chronic unemployment/sleeping on cardboard/busking/etc. I think that this context is significant because it meant certain sets of social connections, familiarity with certain social rituals of class, access to certain spaces, etc. The fact that you say you're currently staying "with a family", have regular access to broadband, and so on. Now, of course a family doesn't have to be middle class to move a chronically unemployed/homeless youth (?) in to their home, but it certainly helps . . Yeah, I don't mean to imply that I have had not opportunities. My family is lower middle-cass I guess, in the class taxonomy. I have a safety net with my family, any time I want, so I am not an unloved abandoned orphan or anything like that. I find life pretty easy tbh, sometimes I find the security of living with my family more stressful than the freedom of being a hobo, which I guess is a succinct telling of my life story haha. But yeah, I'm not asking for violins, and there are many people worse off than me, especially mentally - I have been diagnosed with a couple of mental illnesses which I regard as total bulllshit, but my feeling is that mental illness is a hugely underrated problem, as a causal aspect for poverty. People and politicians focus so much on medical illnesses and pour out so much sympathy into their cause, but mental illnesses is more or less ignored or written off. Im not saying mental illness caused my particular situation (which I take total responsibility for ), but for a lot of people, I'm even tempted to say the majority, I think mental illness is the underlying problem. What was your experience?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

18th December 2012, 04:47

Sure. I'm not sure what the taxonomy of classes these days is, but I would definitely say I ws poor. I grew up as "white trash" basically. My parents were (and still are ) traveling hippies, hobos too I suppose, but they don't have to work because my dad is on a pension. I have 0.5 % of a university edusaction, but I've been a reader since I was young. I didn't really learn much while I was at university tbh, I gathered a lot of "information" without learning much, if that makes any sense?

Yeah, I don't mean to imply that I have had not opportunities. My family is lower middle-cass I guess, in the class taxonomy. I have a safety net with my family, any time I want, so I am not an unloved abandoned orphan or anything like that. I find life pretty easy tbh, sometimes I find the security of living with my family more stressful than the freedom of being a hobo, which I guess is a succinct telling of my life story haha. But yeah, I'm not asking for violins, and there are many people worse off than me, especially mentally - I have been diagnosed with a couple of mental illnesses which I regard as total bulllshit, but my feeling is that mental illness is a hugely underrated problem, as a causal aspect for poverty. People and politicians focus so much on medical illnesses and pour out so much sympathy into their cause, but mental illnesses is more or less ignored or written off. Im not saying mental illness caused my particular situation (which I take total responsibility for ), but for a lot of people, I'm even tempted to say the majority, I think mental illness is the underlying problem. What was your experience?

I appreciate your clarification on all of that. I think that there are a lot of stereotypes — running the gamut from racialized-beaten-had-no-chance-drug-addict-sex-worker to rich-kid-slumming-it — that impact people's perception of what a homeless person "is".

W/r/t mental illness, I agree absolutely with what you're saying. I would go a step further (probably in a way you'd find disagreeable) and say that there is a reciprocal relationship, and that often time poverty (and the violence that accompanies it in this society) has a serious impact on mental health. I'd also say that the same system that creates poverty is by and large responsible for undermining communities', especially marginalized communities, capacity for addressing it directly.

GoddessCleoLover

18th December 2012, 05:41

I appreciate your clarification on all of that. I think that there are a lot of stereotypes — running the gamut from racialized-beaten-had-no-chance-drug-addict-sex-worker to rich-kid-slumming-it — that impact people's perception of what a homeless person "is".

W/r/t mental illness, I agree absolutely with what you're saying. I would go a step further (probably in a way you'd find disagreeable) and say that there is a reciprocal relationship, and that often time poverty (and the violence that accompanies it in this society) has a serious impact on mental health. I'd also say that the same system that creates poverty is by and large responsible for undermining communities', especially marginalized communities, capacity for addressing it directly.

I have worked in the public mental health system and given the outrageous underfunding endemic to public mental health I see absolutely nothing in the right-wing Libertarian philosophy that is even in the slightest way useful or progressive.

Jason

18th December 2012, 10:34

Feel free to ask me anything and I will attempt to answer.

What role does the environment play in causing poverty?

Grenzer

18th December 2012, 10:49

Primitive Communism
Slave Society
Feudalism
Capitalism
Socialism
Communism

You cannot have a stage theory of history without claiming to be able to predict the future. It doesn't make any sense. Otherwise it would be like this:

Primitive Communism
Slave Society
Feudalism
Capitalism
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????
??????????????

You are correct about the fact that stagism is bullshit. This is not an integral part of Marxism actually, though many self styled Marxists do incorporate such a concept into their ideas. Stagism is bullshit because it sees each "stage" as a mere coda to the next, as if everything was all predetermined ahead of time. History is dynamic, and there were other directions it could have gone in, but did not. A lot of Marxists try to get this big meta-narrative where the entire arc of history can be painted with one large stroke of a brush. It is bullshit, and you are right to call that out.

It's also worth mentioning that the modes of production you listed there aren't set in concrete. Actual Marxist analysis concerns itself primarily with feudalism, capitalism, and what may go beyond. There is still much debate regarding previous modes of production, and I would say there are far more modes of production than merely what you listed and they do not necessarily progress in such a linear way. Historically one of the best Marxists to tackle this was Trotsky and his work with the theory of uneven and combined development, even if politically he was a chump.

Historically in regards to the development of capitalism and the potential for communism, it was Georgi Plekhanov who introduced the stagist theory, which essentially served as justification for his anti-communist politics.

The stagist view is crap and is suitable only for a metaphysical, mechanical, and theistic view of history; it is utterly incompatible with a dynamic, materialist understanding of history.

Green Girl

18th December 2012, 11:46

My opinion on the Iroquois and these other supposedly classless and stateless societies is that we tend to impose our own belief systems / ontology onto them in trying to understand them. We don't even speak their languages. We can say they have no analogue of our economic "class", but my suspicion is that they do. What we do know is that they have a basic ingroup/outgroup distinctions, as (just taking the Iraqous as an egsample ) they violently proselytized and conquered rival tribes. During the American revolutions Indian mercenaries had to be restrained from scalping captured prisoners of war. You can read about it the biography of George Washington. We can say they have no analogue of private property, but my sense is that they do - they just don't define it in language we understand. "I own this" is a pretty primal instinct. It would not apply to land in extremely primitive hunter-gather societies because they had to be nomadic...

I am part Cherokee Indian and have always believed that mankind doesn't own land but that mankind belongs to the Earth. For further proof of this I will ask where will we be buried when we are dead? In the Earth, six feet under. Mother Earth will swallow us as it does all life and create anew, it's a recycling process. Who owns who, the Indians understand this better than most.

Tjis

18th December 2012, 18:34

Why are you a libertarian? How does your libertarian-ism affect your life?

freehobo

18th December 2012, 21:38

I have worked in the public mental health system and given the outrageous underfunding endemic to public mental health I see absolutely nothing in the right-wing Libertarian philosophy that is even in the slightest way useful or progressive.

I dont think there is any right/left/north/south wing silver bullet to deal with mental illness. But I do think that a lot of people are self medicating. Mentally ill people have to go through a bureaucracy of bullshit just to get medications that help them. And psychiatry is pseudo-science as it, so you can barely get a consensus between two psychiatrists on what you need. I think the whole thing would be better handled if it was left to the individual to decide - i.e, drugs were legal. This would also get rid of about 80% of Americas crime, as far as I can see.

freehobo

18th December 2012, 21:54

You are correct about the fact that stagism is bullshit. This is not an integral part of Marxism actually, though many self styled Marxists do incorporate such a concept into their ideas. Stagism is bullshit because it sees each "stage" as a mere coda to the next, as if everything was all predetermined ahead of time. History is dynamic, and there were other directions it could have gone in, but did not. A lot of Marxists try to get this big meta-narrative where the entire arc of history can be painted with one large stroke of a brush. It is bullshit, and you are right to call that out.

It's also worth mentioning that the modes of production you listed there aren't set in concrete. Actual Marxist analysis concerns itself primarily with feudalism, capitalism, and what may go beyond. There is still much debate regarding previous modes of production, and I would say there are far more modes of production than merely what you listed and they do not necessarily progress in such a linear way. Historically one of the best Marxists to tackle this was Trotsky and his work with the theory of uneven and combined development, even if politically he was a chump.

Historically in regards to the development of capitalism and the potential for communism, it was Georgi Plekhanov who introduced the stagist theory, which essentially served as justification for his anti-communist politics.

The stagist view is crap and is suitable only for a metaphysical, mechanical, and theistic view of history; it is utterly incompatible with a dynamic, materialist understanding of history.

Cool, yeah I read through the wikipedia article on it just to make sure I knew what I was talking about, and noticed a lot of Marxists criticize this view / have debates about it.

Technology is certainly a spanner in the works as far as modes of production goes. Do you think that the the information/computer revolution causes radically different modes of production? Well I mean obviously it does, but does communist theory have to adapt to it, or are the old models sufficient?

freehobo

18th December 2012, 22:00

I am part Cherokee Indian and have always believed that mankind doesn't own land but that mankind belongs to the Earth. For further proof of this I will ask where will we be buried when we are dead? In the Earth, six feet under. Mother Earth will swallow us as it does all life and create anew, it's a recycling process. Who owns who, the Indians understand this better than most.

I think "own" is just a relationship between a person and an object. Or in some cases a person and a person :lol: (slavery). What we really mean when say we "own" something is that want to have control over it. In the longview, the earth owns humans, that's true.

freehobo

18th December 2012, 22:18

What role does the environment play in causing poverty?

A huge role obviously. I don't know that you can quantify just how much really. I guess I'm about right in the middle on the nurture/nature debate. But I do think for ideological reasons environmental determinism has been overstated by left wing movements, and genetic determinism has been overstated by right wing movements.

freehobo

18th December 2012, 22:42

Why are you a libertarian? How does your libertarian-ism affect your life?

I'm a libertarian because I view the government as more of an obstacle to me and my goals and prospects than an asset. I have a few "in principle" problems with the idea of government like anarchists do, but that's not the main thing.

As for affecting my life, not much really. I'm not actively political. I don't get particularly emotional about it.

smellincoffee

19th December 2012, 01:11

Self-reliance, I'm not sure how to properly define that? Does it mean just living without anyones help?

What do you do for food and money? Have you ever moved through the countryside, fishing and foraging? Do you have practical skills you support yourself with? Do you knick food from the supermarket?

Jason

19th December 2012, 02:48

A huge role obviously. I don't know that you can quantify just how much really. I guess I'm about right in the middle on the nurture/nature debate. But I do think for ideological reasons environmental determinism has been overstated by left wing movements, and genetic determinism has been overstated by right wing movements.

I don't think genetic stuff applies at all. I don't anybody is really less intellegent, unless they've been diagnosed with actual mental retardation. It seems the genetic stuff is some right wing attempt to write off third world oppression.

However, I do think a battle exists between laziness and the environment. In other words, perhaps some don't succeed because they purposely haven't sought out some form of education or job. Nonetheless, it could also be argued that the enviornments are so bad, that they discourage a postive mindset. For instance, everybody knows that people tend to do more bodybuilding in a gym rather at home.

Green Girl

19th December 2012, 15:47

However, I do think a battle exists between laziness and the environment.

There is a third possibility, speed. Before I became disabled I was slow, very slow but intelligent. For example in school I would be the last person to turn in a test paper but I usually got the highest score. In the work environment it took me twice as long to do a task but I worked harder than anyone else, however raises and job retention are measured by productivity not how well one does a job.

I can't watch foreign language films as I can't read the subtitles fast enough, I get less than half way through reading the words on the screen before they are replaced with new words to be read. I give up in frustration. And if that is not bad enough I can't see what is going on the screen when trying to read the subtitles, I don't understand how anyone can read subtitles and see the action on the screen, but they do. Thus I find foreign language films unwatchable.

I have tried watching foreign language films on DVD and pushing "Pause" to freeze the screen when the closed captions come on, so I have enough time to read them. However it takes about five hours to watch a 2 hour movie this way and when I am done, I haven't the slightest clue what I just watched. The only way I can watch foreign movies is if it is dubbed in English.

Now that I am disabled it takes me about 10 times longer to do a task. A simple task like writing this post takes me over an hour but I still love to write.

In short, in capitalist society, which is all about the fastest production for the most profits, I believe that slow people are discriminated against and they are the ones who are the first to be let go when cutbacks occur. I have thought about fighting for the rights of slow people, however I just can't see how slow people's plight can be helped in a capitalist society.

When I was still working I was thinking of starting an equal rights movement for slow people, since we are treated so poorly for something that is not our fault.

I used to really hate fast people who could do something without exerting any visible mental or physical effort in, for example, three minutes, which might take me as long as 10 minutes exerting lots of mental or physical effort going as fast I can. If I was to try to go as nonchalant as the fast people it might take me a half hour. I used to think fast people were showoffs.

Since I'm not in the job market anymore I hadn't thought about this until I read this post. I am now wondering if should start a movement to eliminate or at least reduce discrimination of slow people?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

19th December 2012, 16:15

And psychiatry is pseudo-science as it, so you can barely get a consensus between two psychiatrists on what you need.

One can always get a second opinion in medicine. That doesn't mean that any subset of it, in this case psychiatry, is necessarily a pseudoscience.

I think the whole thing would be better handled if it was left to the individual to decide - i.e, drugs were legal. This would also get rid of about 80% of Americas crime, as far as I can see.

I think you are confusing psychiatric medication with recreational drugs. The self-medication done by some of those with mental illness is not comparable to a prescription for medication given by a qualified physician.

Lord Daedra

19th December 2012, 17:06

Do the homeless have designated shit corners or is it poop where you may?

freehobo

19th December 2012, 21:53

What do you do for food and money? Have you ever moved through the countryside, fishing and foraging? Do you have practical skills you support yourself with? Do you knick food from the supermarket?

No I can't fish or hunt for shit. Stealing food is a huge part of my game yeah.

blake 3:17

19th December 2012, 22:06

Do hobos booty bump?

freehobo

19th December 2012, 22:11

There is a third possibility, speed. Before I became disabled I was slow, very slow but intelligent. For example in school I would be the last person to turn in a test paper but I usually got the highest score. In the work environment it took me twice as long to do a task but I worked harder than anyone else, however raises and job retention are measured by productivity not how well one does a job.

I can't watch foreign language films as I can't read the subtitles fast enough, I get less than half way through reading the words on the screen before they are replaced with new words to be read. I give up in frustration. And if that is not bad enough I can't see what is going on the screen when trying to read the subtitles, I don't understand how anyone can read subtitles and see the action on the screen, but they do. Thus I find foreign language films unwatchable.

I have tried watching foreign language films on DVD and pushing "Pause" to freeze the screen when the closed captions come on, so I have enough time to read them. However it takes about five hours to watch a 2 hour movie this way and when I am done, I haven't the slightest clue what I just watched. The only way I can watch foreign movies is if it is dubbed in English.

Now that I am disabled it takes me about 10 times longer to do a task. A simple task like writing this post takes me over an hour but I still love to write.

In short, in capitalist society, which is all about the fastest production for the most profits, I believe that slow people are discriminated against and they are the ones who are the first to be let go when cutbacks occur. I have thought about fighting for the rights of slow people, however I just can't see how slow people's plight can be helped in a capitalist society.

When I was still working I was thinking of starting an equal rights movement for slow people, since we are treated so poorly for something that is not our fault.

I used to really hate fast people who could do something without exerting any visible mental or physical effort in, for example, three minutes, which might take me as long as 10 minutes exerting lots of mental or physical effort going as fast I can. If I was to try to go as nonchalant as the fast people it might take me a half hour. I used to think fast people were showoffs.

Since I'm not in the job market anymore I hadn't thought about this until I read this post. I am now wondering if should start a movement to eliminate or at least reduce discrimination of slow people?

Assimilation (how fast you processes information ) is only one aspect of intelligence, and intelligence is only one biologic factor that might cause success/lack thereof. For example, you can be born stupid and beautiful, and be a successful model. You can be born stupid with athletic gifts, stupid and charismatic. Or you can just have an aptitude for something that is useful for capitalism - like an uncomplicated idiot who loves his job screwing caps on tubes of toothpaste on a production line for 8.5 hours a day every day (I've known people like this).

There are heaps of genetic variables to consider other than intelligence.

freehobo

19th December 2012, 22:24

One can always get a second opinion in medicine. That doesn't mean that any subset of it, in this case psychiatry, is necessarily a pseudoscience.

Second and 3rd and 4th opinions are how psychiatry is revealed as a pseudoscience. If you get 4 contradicting opinions, the only logical conclusion is there is no science at work. If that happened in medicine, 1 doctors says you have a brain tumor, the other says you have stomach cancer, the other says you have leukemia, your conclusion would have to be that their methods are wrong and useless - worse than useless in fact, because their information and authority could cause harm.

I think you are confusing psychiatric medication with recreational drugs. The self-medication done by some of those with mental illness is not comparable to a prescription for medication given by a qualified physician.The theory behind self medication is that addicts tend to gravitate towards they drugs they need because of an underlying issue. Just a quick CNTRL v from wikipedia:

Self-medication is a human behavior in which an individual uses unprescribed drugs to treat untreated and often undiagnosed medical ailments.

The psychology of such behavior within the specific context of using recreational drugs, psychoactive drugs, alcohol, and other self-soothing forms of behavior to alleviate symptoms of mental distress, stress and anxiety,[1] including mental illnesses and/or psychological trauma,[2][3] is particularly unique and can serve as a serious detriment to physical and mental health if motivated by addictive mechanisms.

Self-medication is often seen as gaining personal independence from established medicine.Sure, some people just like to get high, have no will power, and end up crackheads. But I don't think that is mostly the case.

freehobo

19th December 2012, 22:37

Do hobos booty bump?

The only person I've ever seen do this was a meth dealer, with an ecstasy tablet. We were in his apartment and he told me that it is the best way to take it, then he bent over and got his girlfriend to shove it up his ass for him. I just swallowed mine.

Jason

19th December 2012, 23:17

There is a third possibility, speed. Before I became disabled I was slow, very slow but intelligent. For example in school I would be the last person to turn in a test paper but I usually got the highest score. In the work environment it took me twice as long to do a task but I worked harder than anyone else, however raises and job retention are measured by productivity not how well one does a job.

I can't watch foreign language films as I can't read the subtitles fast enough, I get less than half way through reading the words on the screen before they are replaced with new words to be read. I give up in frustration. And if that is not bad enough I can't see what is going on the screen when trying to read the subtitles, I don't understand how anyone can read subtitles and see the action on the screen, but they do. Thus I find foreign language films unwatchable.

I have tried watching foreign language films on DVD and pushing "Pause" to freeze the screen when the closed captions come on, so I have enough time to read them. However it takes about five hours to watch a 2 hour movie this way and when I am done, I haven't the slightest clue what I just watched. The only way I can watch foreign movies is if it is dubbed in English.

Now that I am disabled it takes me about 10 times longer to do a task. A simple task like writing this post takes me over an hour but I still love to write.

In short, in capitalist society, which is all about the fastest production for the most profits, I believe that slow people are discriminated against and they are the ones who are the first to be let go when cutbacks occur. I have thought about fighting for the rights of slow people, however I just can't see how slow people's plight can be helped in a capitalist society.

When I was still working I was thinking of starting an equal rights movement for slow people, since we are treated so poorly for something that is not our fault.

I used to really hate fast people who could do something without exerting any visible mental or physical effort in, for example, three minutes, which might take me as long as 10 minutes exerting lots of mental or physical effort going as fast I can. If I was to try to go as nonchalant as the fast people it might take me a half hour. I used to think fast people were showoffs.

Since I'm not in the job market anymore I hadn't thought about this until I read this post. I am now wondering if should start a movement to eliminate or at least reduce discrimination of slow people?

I am not speaking of slow people, only people who watch tv or play video games all day rather than study or search for work. Of course, environment plays a role in creating such people, but you would think some sense of "betrayed manliness" would shame them.

freehobo

19th December 2012, 23:42

I am not speaking of slow people, only people who watch tv or play video games all day rather than study or search for work. Of course, environment plays a role in creating such people, but you would think some sense of "betrayed manliness" would shame them.

It's easy to be unmotivated. If you're not a very ambitious person, or just lack confidence, it's pretty tempting to sit around and do fuck all. There is a lot of fun to be had that doesn't require riches and social status.

GoddessCleoLover

20th December 2012, 01:50

Jason

20th December 2012, 01:54

It's easy to be unmotivated. If you're not a very ambitious person, or just lack confidence, it's pretty tempting to sit around and do fuck all. There is a lot of fun to be had that doesn't require riches and social status.

I guess the problem is the "hero idea". You could live under capitalism and play around all day and not work, and also support capitalism 100 percent. Myself, I don't think I'm suffering as a result of capitalism, even though I make very little. However, I would want to help those who are oppressed by capitalism.

freehobo

20th December 2012, 03:36

Would Freehobo still be a libertarian if he didn't have the social support that allows him to be where is right now, if to the contrary he was homeless and broke in a cold and windy city like Chicago. If Freehobo was on the streets of Chicago right now would he believe that there is no governmental role that is proper to alleviate the suffering of the destitute.

I hate my safety net of where I am now, I'm bored shitless and cant wait to be homeless and on the road again soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUt7xow3usM

Jason

20th December 2012, 04:34

GoddessCleoLover

20th December 2012, 04:37

You gotta share freehobos hatred of liberals though. They don't give out crap as welfare. I mean if they're going to give welfare, than it should at least be 1,300 a month or more.

The amount of welfare the US gives is tough, even on somebody living in the city with public transportation access. If you have to do any driving (perhaps 30 minutes from a town) than it's near impossible to survive as gasoline takes up your check.

Everything you post is true and therefore I am a revolutionary. Freehobo is young and is able to live rough, but IMO hoboes over the age of forty are unlikely candidates for libertarianism.

Jason

20th December 2012, 05:15

Everything you post is rue and therefore I am a revolutionary. Freehobo is young and is able to live rough, but IMO hoboes over the age of forty are unlikely candidates for libertarianism.

Right the elderly (and the sick) can't rough it, as tough as they may they think they are. Also, if freehobo had a wife and kids, then he'd have to get work and that would make him a candidate for capitalist oppression. Then would he be a libertarian?

If you can be a free spirited rebel, then fine, that's cool. But a lot of people due to various reasons are part of a society and that society affects them.

freehobo

20th December 2012, 05:39

Everything you post is rue and therefore I am a revolutionary. Freehobo is young and is able to live rough, but IMO hoboes over the age of forty are unlikely candidates for libertarianism.

That's true enough, older people are very unlikely to be able to "hack it" on the streets the way I am. BUT, you're assuming that there would be less services available if government funding was taken away. I don't believe this to be the case. People can be very generous and would be happy to fund welfare programs, charities, community housing, if they were given more input over how it was done. The reason people resist paying taxes so much is because the government gives you no control or creative input on how tax your dollars are spent. It's very unrewarding handing over your $$ to a faceless entity, to fund programs that don't seem to be working anyway. That's why people like Warren Buffett and Bill gates and co are penny-pinchers their whole careers and then happily give their fortunes away when they retire. They just want to control specifically where their money goes and make sure it is spent wisely, rather than giving it over to a bunch of bureaucrats. I think you'd see a huge increase in philanthropy if the government wasn't middle-manning, and you'd find more revenue available for the public good than is gathered by current tax rates. Hell, just the stigma of being selfish would be enough to compel most capitalists into some philanthropy.

GoddessCleoLover

20th December 2012, 05:45

That's true enough, older people are very unlikely to be able to "hack it" on the streets the way I am. BUT, you're assuming that there would be less services available if government funding was taken away. I don't believe this to be the case. People can be very generous and would be happy to fund welfare programs, charities, community housing, if they were given more input over how it was done. The reason people resist paying taxes so much is because the government gives you no control or creative input on how tax your dollars are spent. It's very unrewarding handing over your $$ to a faceless entity, to fund programs that don't seem to be working anyway. That's why people like Warren Buffett and Bill gates and co are penny-pinchers their whole careers and then happily give their fortunes away when they retire. They just want to control specifically where their money goes and make sure it is spent wisely, rather than giving it over to a bunch of bureaucrats. I think you'd see a huge increase in philanthropy if the government wasn't middle-manning, and you'd find more revenue available for the public good than is gathered by current tax rates. Hell, just the stigma of being selfish would be enough to compel most capitalists into some philanthropy.

I appreciate your youthful enthusiasm, but I spent ten years working in the public health system and seven years before that as an unpaid volunteer and I am here to tell you that without government funding the whole thing would collapse. Private charities failed to meet the need in the past and they sure are not equipped to do so in post-2008 capitalist America.

Jason

20th December 2012, 05:45

That's true enough, older people are very unlikely to be able to "hack it" on the streets the way I am. BUT, you're assuming that there would be less services available if government funding was taken away. I don't believe this to be the case. People can be very generous and would be happy to fund welfare programs, charities, community housing, if they were given more input over how it was done. The reason people resist paying taxes so much is because the government gives you no control or creative input on how tax your dollars are spent. It's very unrewarding handing over your $$ to a faceless entity, to fund programs that don't seem to be working anyway. That's why people like Warren Buffett and Bill gates and co are penny-pinchers their whole careers and then happily give their fortunes away when they retire. They just want to control specifically where their money goes and make sure it is spent wisely, rather than giving it over to a bunch of bureaucrats. I think you'd see a huge increase in philanthropy if the government wasn't middle-manning, and you'd find more revenue available for the public good than is gathered by current tax rates. Hell, just the stigma of being selfish would be enough to compel most capitalists into some philanthropy.

Even among many Communists, you will find that many don't favor the liberal agenda. A lot of the programs are a waste. I'll give you a theory why:

They need to work in conjuction with some revolutionary overhaul of society. The new society would have good schools, rewarding work etc.. But as we see, the liberal society created by Lyndon Johnson has NOT used welfare wisely. Now we can admit that there is a safety net against poverty, but not much more.

freehobo

20th December 2012, 05:49

I appreciate your youthful enthusiasm, but I spent ten years working in the public health system and seven years before that as an unpaid volunteer and I am here to tell you that without government funding the whole thing would collapse. Private charities failed to meet the need in the past and they sure are not equipped to do so in post-2008 capitalist America.

I think what you would find is an initial collapse, followed by a slow but sure process of philanthropy filling the vacuum. It would probably be a brutal transition, but I think we would get there.

GoddessCleoLover

20th December 2012, 06:31

I think what you would find is an initial collapse, followed by a slow but sure process of philanthropy filling the vacuum. It would probably be a brutal transition, but I think we would get there.

I appreciate your point conceptually, but in practice I don't believe that the brutal transition would lead to a better result. To the contrary, I believe that the brutal transition would become permanent brutality.

freehobo

20th December 2012, 06:42

I appreciate your point conceptually, but in practice I don't believe that the brutal transition would lead to a better result. To the contrary, I believe that the brutal transition would become permanent brutality.

But would you admit that a sudden move to communist economy, a "revolution", would have equally brutal costs? "A brutal shock with no improvement in conditions" ... sounds like just about every communist experiment I know of ..

The way I see it, any major overhaul like that is going to really fuck things up. I wouldn't support a libertarian party coup or something like that. I guess you could say I'm an "evolutionary libertarian" haha.

Prinskaj

20th December 2012, 07:39

But would you admit that a sudden move to communist economy, a "revolution", would have equally brutal costs? "A brutal shock with no improvement in conditions" ... sounds like just about every communist experiment I know of .. You cannot transition to a communist economy in any other fashion than though revolutionary means, thinking otherwise is democratic-socialism, which has proved a massive failure.

The way I see it, any major overhaul like that is going to really fuck things up. I wouldn't support a libertarian party coup or something like that. I guess you could say I'm an "evolutionary libertarian" haha. Capitalism was not introduced though "evolutionary" means, that was a major overhaul of the feudal mode of production. Are you then admitting, that the capitalist mode of production is illegitimate?

freehobo

20th December 2012, 08:50

You cannot transition to a communist economy in any other fashion than though revolutionary means, thinking otherwise is democratic-socialism, which has proved a massive failure.

Capitalism was not introduced though "evolutionary" means, that was a major overhaul of the feudal mode of production. Are you then admitting, that the capitalist mode of production is illegitimate?

:p You say "democratic socialism has been a massive failure", by why? Why has it been a massive failure? Because it hasn't succeeded via democracy? What you really mean is the the only way you think communism can "succeed" is through coercion. Well I'm 100% with you on that one.

Of course capitalism evolved. It's not like a bunch of cunning vassals with uber-immunity deliberately started the black plague knowing that they would be the only ones left and be in a position to demand wages because of a labor shortage.

Prinskaj

20th December 2012, 09:32

:p You say "democratic socialism has been a massive failure", but why? Why has it been a massive failure? Because it hasn't succeeded via democracy? What you really mean is the the only way you think communism can "succeed" is through coercion. Well I'm 100% with you on that one. No, the reformist idea of bringing about the end of capitalism has failed, because you cannot reform a mode of production from within, socialism cannot succeed within the confines of bourgeois democracy. Also, your perception of coercion is odd to me, why is overthrowing capitalism a bad coercive act, yet keeping the status quo by force is not? Society is build upon coercion, at least to some degree.

Of course capitalism evolved. It's not like a bunch of cunning vassals with uber-immunity deliberately started the black plague knowing that they would be the only ones left and be in a position to demand wages because of a labor shortage. Capitalism had evolutionary traits, I agree fully in that point. But the old feudal structures, did not disappear as if by magic, they where forced out of existence. Revolutions, coups and the likes were needed to establish the capitalist mode of production, but it much more visible in the many missions-to-civilise or the wars to open markets. This was capitalism using "coercion" to establish a hegemony in countries without a capitalist structure.

Jason

20th December 2012, 10:12

The US is coersive in that it preaches "total socialism" is wrong. Likewise, Cuba is coersive in teaching that "free markets" are wrong. No society (or advertising agency) can force people to change thier mind. They have to use brainwashing and coersion.

I don't really know anyway to stop this phenomenon. I guess if you don't like the government's position, then your free (maybe) to leave.

freehobo

20th December 2012, 10:59

No, the reformist idea of bringing about the end of capitalism has failed, because you cannot reform a mode of production from within, socialism cannot succeed within the confines of bourgeois democracy. Also, your perception of coercion is odd to me, why is overthrowing capitalism a bad coercive act, yet keeping the status quo by force is not? Society is build upon coercion, at least to some degree.

I would view protecting capitalism by force as bad as well. If I thought capitalism needed to be protected by force I wouldn't support it.

Capitalism had evolutionary traits, I agree fully in that point. But the old feudal structures, did not disappear as if by magic, they where forced out of existence. Revolutions, coups and the likes were needed to establish the capitalist mode of production, but it much more visible in the many missions-to-civilise or the wars to open markets. This was capitalism using "coercion" to establish a hegemony in countries without a capitalist structure.Can you give an example of a coup or political movement that was consciously capitalist? I just can't think of one. These labels are always applied by historians post facto, often dubiously. "Capitalism" didn't exist as a construct until a couple hundred years after feudalism collapsed. So if there were capitalists revolutions, they must have been unwitting?

*edit I just thought about this and realized that revolutions like USSR 1989 and France 1789 could be seen as capitalist revolution. But I'm taking you to mean that capitalist revolutions displaced feudalism. Correct me if I'm wrong.

freehobo

20th December 2012, 11:06

Jason

20th December 2012, 11:07

I would view protecting capitalism by force as bad as well. If I thought capitalism needed to be protected by force I wouldn't support it.

Capitalism is protected in the US by brainwashing the public so they don't know any alternative. In other nations, it's protected by armed force because popular sentiment is often against it.

"Preaching" is not coercion. The difference between Cuba and America is that Cuba is a police state. The US has a constitution that limits executive power.

The US is a "comfortable state" in that a lot of citizens benefit from the fruits of imperalism (and the fact the US happens to have lots of natural resources). However, citizens are heavily brainwashed into following one economic system. On the other hand, Cuba is not comfortable. However, it's terrible state of affairs is due it being boycotted by American industries and government.

You can say Cuba would be a "police state" for Cubans who don't like it. The US is an "oppressive media state" for Americans who didn't favor Vietnam or Iraq. If for some reason you don't buy into the propoganda of the nation, then you would view the nation as an oppressive state.

America seems free, but only because people think they are free, when really thier choices aren't real choices. For instance, if you have kids you might give them the choice between kool aid and orange juice. However, you wouldn't put in the choice of beer.

freehobo

20th December 2012, 11:25

Capitalism is protected in the US by brainwashing the public so they don't know any alternative.

You have an even more cynical view of human nature than the worst Machiavellian if you think that many of your countrymen are so stupid and easily corruptible.

On the other hand, Cuba is not comfortable and few people want to live there. However, it's terrible state of affairs is due it being boycotted by American industries and government

Cuba is free to trade with anyone else apart from America. I don't see why Cubas destiny has to depend on being able to trade with America.

Jason

20th December 2012, 11:46

You have an even more cynical view of human nature than the worst Machiavellian if you think that many of your countrymen are so stupid and easily corruptible.

Most people are heavily influenced by propoganda. I might even go so far to say that nearly ALL people are highly influenced by thier environment. That's not stupidity, but simply hardwired human nature. Even so called free spirited "right wing extremists" saturate themselves with homemade propoganda and become slaves to it. They create thier own "propoganda machine", yet claim to have "free minds".

Cuba is free to trade with anyone else apart from America. I don't see why Cubas destiny has to depend on being able to trade with America.

Actually Cuba was doing fairly well when Russian trade was going on (for a Communist nation). When the Soviets fell they went thru hard times because nobody would trade with them. Because doing so angers the US.

freehobo

20th December 2012, 12:46

Most people are heavily influenced by propoganda. I might even go so far to say that nearly ALL people are highly influenced by thier environment. That's not stupidity, but simply hardwired human nature. Even so called free spirited "right wing extremists" saturate themselves with homemade propoganda and become slaves to it. They create thier own "propoganda machine", yet claim to have "free minds".

How did you avoid getting brainwashed? What's your secret? Know where I can sign up for a reeducation program? I've been turned into a zombie by the bourgeois propaganda machine ..

Jason

20th December 2012, 13:01

How did you avoid getting brainwashed? What's your secret? Know where I can sign up for a reeducation program? I've been turned into a zombie by the bourgeois propaganda machine ..

I didn't. :rolleyes: Who is the enlightened being who can?

Questionable

21st December 2012, 00:56

But would you admit that a sudden move to communist economy, a "revolution", would have equally brutal costs? "A brutal shock with no improvement in conditions" ... sounds like just about every communist experiment I know of ..

Firstly, you're dodging Comrade GramsciGuy's point and just giving out your own attack on communism. Secondly, a healthcare reform cannot really be compared to a revolutionary change in the means of production. Thirdly and most importantly, your accusation of all socialist revolutions as a "brutal shock with no improvements" is completely untrue and makes me think you don't know much about socialist countries beyond what we're usually taught. All countries that experienced a socialist revolution also experienced a great improvement in literacy, healthcare, technology, life expectancy, a drop in infant mortality, and more. Some of these improvements diminished over time but you can correspond these losses with increased liberalization and a loss of workers' control. The same cannot be said for capitalist counter-revolutions, as most countries in the former Eastern Bloc have gone to hell after the few remaining fragments of their economic systems were destroyed.

I would view protecting capitalism by force as bad as well. If I thought capitalism needed to be protected by force I wouldn't support it.

So are we just talking about what you think, or are we talking about what actually happens? Because thus far, every capitalist state has created an army to support itself, and the most powerful ones have battled against any attempt to upset their balance of power, whether the intrusion was communist or another capitalist state.

freehobo

21st December 2012, 01:53

Firstly, you're dodging Comrade GramsciGuy's point and just giving out your own attack on communism.

I don't mean to "dodge" his point, it's just that I can't prove my prediction of the future, or disprove his. I accept that he thinks if public services were withdrawn things would never get better. Neither view is falsifiable, it's just a difference of opinion based on a hypothetical.

From my own POV, what evidence I can give is that I have found private charity to be a whole lot more helpful than than the public sector.

Secondly, a healthcare reform cannot really be compared to a revolutionary change in the means of production. Thirdly and most importantly, your accusation of all socialist revolutions as a "brutal shock with no improvements" is completely untrue and makes me think you don't know much about socialist countries beyond what we're usually taught. All countries that experienced a socialist revolution also experienced a great improvement in literacy, healthcare, technology, life expectancy, a drop in infant mortality, and more. Some of these improvements diminished over time but you can correspond these losses with increased liberalization and a loss of workers' control. The same cannot be said for capitalist counter-revolutions, as most countries in the former Eastern Bloc have gone to hell after the few remaining fragments of their economic systems were destroyed.Can you give me a few examples of countries that you think improved under communism?

So are we just talking about what you think, or are we talking about what actually happens? Because thus far, every capitalist state has created an army to support itself, and the most powerful ones have battled against any attempt to upset their balance of power, whether the intrusion was communist or another capitalist state.Every political entity throughout history has created an army to protect itself, period. There is nothing special about capitalism in this regard. But I mean, like I said, if you can convince me that the only point of armies in capitalist countries is to protect capitalism, I will stop supporting capitalism. As I'm sure you know, most Libertarians are anti-military and so am I. I'd like to see all military funding stopped.

Prinskaj

21st December 2012, 09:11

I would view protecting capitalism by force as bad as well. If I thought capitalism needed to be protected by force I wouldn't support it. If not by force, then what will secure private property, which is necessitated for the functioning of capitalism?

Can you give an example of a coup or political movement that was consciously capitalist? I just can't think of one. These labels are always applied by historians post facto, often dubiously. "Capitalism" didn't exist as a construct until a couple hundred years after feudalism collapsed. So if there were capitalists revolutions, they must have been unwitting? I think that our disagreement here boils down to the definition of what capitalism is. If you, as I do, consider that capitalism first started with the industrial revolution, then the French Revolution, as you mentioned in your edited post, would be a good example. But there are many others, such as the Xinhai Revolution in China and even, to some degree, the early revolutions in Russia.

Can you give me a few examples of countries that you think improved under communism? Haven't we stated enough, that communism has never existed? If you refer to the east-bloc, then nobody here considers it "communist". (Though some [Stalinists and Maoists] considered it, in certain periods, to be socialist)

Jason

21st December 2012, 12:09

Can you give me a few examples of countries that you think improved under communism?

Cuba, Russia and most of the other Communist nations improved. In other words, the poor classes were better off than before thier respective revolutions. After the revolutions, the governments focused on the people rather than cater to gangsters, foreign corporations, or corrupt royalty.

Now it's true that workers in the Communist world had less than those in the west. However, you have to consider the fact that the west's extremely high living standards came from abundant natural resources and imperalism. In other words, unfair advantages and cheating. Now that's not saying that American or European workers, themselves, were not honest and hardworking though.

Looking back, the communist revolutions were bound to happen, because the working classes were fed up with inhuman capitalism. They did fail though, because the conditions for true revolution (an extremely advanced capitalist state) did not exist at the time of the various revolutions (as Marx predicted).

freehobo

21st December 2012, 12:25

If not by force, then what will secure private property, which is necessitated for the functioning of capitalism?

Well, if you're asking if I think a capitalist society could function without law enforcement then no, I don't think that. But I don't think communism can function that way either, or any society, so it's a non starter. What I think is that communism can not possibly exist without omniscient coercion.

I think that our disagreement here boils down to the definition of what capitalism is. If you, as I do, consider that capitalism first started with the industrial revolution, then the French Revolution, as you mentioned in your edited post, would be a good example. But there are many others, such as the Xinhai Revolution in China and even, to some degree, the early revolutions in Russia.
Ok, I accept that. But I don't think of the french revolution as a consciously capitalist revolution, even if capitalism is what emerged from it. Nobody at the time was demanding "capitalism". Communist historiography just says it was a capitalist revolution in retrospect.

Haven't we stated enough, that communism has never existed? If you refer to the east-bloc, then nobody here considers it "communist". (Though some [Stalinists and Maoists] considered it, in certain periods, to be socialist)Ya gotcha. I was just asking if you thought any of the attempts to implement communism had produced any positive results? I thought you were saying they had, so that's why I was asking for an example.

Jason

21st December 2012, 15:13

freehobo

21st December 2012, 21:45

Please explain omniscient coersion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

21st December 2012, 22:10

GoddessCleoLover

21st December 2012, 22:20

Have you noticed how capitalism is changing? From overt slavery being desirable to it becoming degenerate, from commonplace disgust directed towards the poor to a more decent demeanour. Come now freehobo, the faster we can remove from our path the people who are responsible for keeping a damper on our lives the easier life will become.

I am old enough to remember when disdaining workers as "burger flippers" could get the speaker a well-deserved beating. As the USA has deindustrialized and deunionized the worker is less respected than ever here.

I discerned much earlier in this thread that Freehobo is a young person who buys into the libertarian ideology. Living in Baltimore, I run across homeless people every day and I am confident that amongst them number very few libertarians. I have to admit that Freehobo dishes it out pretty well to the Tankie lefties but not all of us subscribe to that form of leftism.

rylasasin

21st December 2012, 23:51

are you even a real person?

Or are you just a character caricature/poe (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)?

Jason

22nd December 2012, 02:36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

It's only oppressive if the people don't like it.

In every nation, including the US, large swathes of people support the government. You could even argue that religion is a type of "private police state" which brainwashes people. And if your a kid, you might be in a situation where your forced to attend.

Questionable

22nd December 2012, 10:03

freehobo

22nd December 2012, 12:45

Have you noticed how capitalism is changing? From overt slavery being desirable to it becoming degenerate, from commonplace disgust directed towards the poor to a more decent demeanour. Come now freehobo, the faster we can remove from our path the people who are responsible for keeping a damper on our lives the easier life will become.

I find the contrast between your optimistic post and your Machiavelli signature rather amusing. Just as a side note :p

As for your comment, yes I agree with you. I have always said to people that capitalism is a variable, not a constant. Capitalism evolves along with the world in general.

the faster we can remove from our path the people who are responsible for keeping a damper on our lives the easier life will becomeIndeed.

freehobo

22nd December 2012, 12:55

It's only oppressive if the people don't like it.

In every nation, including the US, large swathes of people support the government. You could even argue that religion is a type of "private police state" which brainwashes people. And if your a kid, you might be in a situation where your forced to attend.

Sure, but a free society tolerates dissent, an oppressive state doesn't. I'll admit that the average Joe in the Western world lacks the ability the think critically about the forces that be, yes I will.

freehobo

22nd December 2012, 12:59

are you even a real person?

Or are you just a character caricature/poe (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)?

Haha. Do I sound fundamentalist? I consider myself pretty mild compared to a lot of Libertarians.

Slavoj Zizek's Balls

22nd December 2012, 13:18

I find the contrast between your optimistic post and your Machiavelli signature rather amusing. Just as a side not :p

As for your comment, yes I agree with you. I have always said to people that capitalism is a variable, not a constant. Capitalism evolves along with the world in general.

The quote from Machiavelli is only a part of the entire section.

"Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results."
-Machiavelli

Machiavelli's scope of history has only been within a fraction of the timeline for which the state has existed (I believe the state came into existence around 4000BC). He has not, to my knowledge, based his literature on anything other than periods such as the palaeolithic or even before that time.

In conclusion, we can clearly see that Machiavelli does not understand the true reason why passions have stayed the same for 6000 years, but has only spotted that it is indeed true that they have stayed the same. States always reinforce similar kinds of passions and always have done so, that's why humans constantly show similar forms of behaviour.

freehobo

22nd December 2012, 13:20

Hey freehobo, sorry I haven't responded to your post yet, I've been busy lately with visitors spending the weekend at my house. I'll try to give you a response soon. I'm posting this message so I won't forget.

By the way, just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the ideology of the white nationalists/fascists posting here in OI recently?

Not a worry. Haven t read the particular threads youre referring to but nationalism .. is not a very appealing ideology to me. That said I don't like to universalize my politics. A lot of parts of the world have religious / spiritual practices that are closely tied to their ethnicity or nationality - the Middle East for example. If Iran or Saudi Arabia want to practice Nationalism I don't see it as my place to tell them how to run their affairs. As for White nationalism, well I think we forfeited our right to that when brought slaves out here. I enjoy diversity but even if I didn't, we chose out path long ago.

GoddessCleoLover

22nd December 2012, 14:46

Jason

22nd December 2012, 20:31

Sure, but a free society tolerates dissent, an oppressive state doesn't. I'll admit that the average Joe in the Western world lacks the ability the think critically about the forces that be, yes I will.

The US doesn't need a police state because, the press, religion, drugs and popular entertainment keep people pacified. True, dissent is allowed, but the dissent isn't threatening.

freehobo

22nd December 2012, 21:23

The quote from Machiavelli is only a part of the entire section.

"Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results."
-Machiavelli

Machiavelli's scope of history has only been within a fraction of the timeline for which the state has existed (I believe the state came into existence around 4000BC). He has not, to my knowledge, based his literature on anything other than periods such as the palaeolithic or even before that time.

In conclusion, we can clearly see that Machiavelli does not understand the true reason why passions have stayed the same for 6000 years, but has only spotted that it is indeed true that they have stayed the same. States always reinforce similar kinds of passions and always have done so, that's why humans constantly show similar forms of behavior.

I see. Thanks for the explanation. I've not actually read any Machiavelli. I always thought of him as a sycophant who tried to suck up to
de' Medici. Poor bastartd, he whored himself out with that gushing book and he still got exiled. :p

That quote of his reminds me Santana's "Those who don't understand history are destined to repeat it".

freehobo

22nd December 2012, 21:32

Would you agree, Freehobo, that Kerouac missed the mark when he characterized Marxism and psychoanalysis as potential collective mental illnesses, but failed to include Nazism? Any idea why Kerouac might have made this glaring omission.

Yeah, cause when Kerouac was at Columbia he was surrounded by Marxists. It was really a "boom time" for the radical left, culturally speaking in America. Kerouac made a lot of enemies by not joining the left. A lot of people wanted to tie the beat generation with leftist politics and it pissed Kerouac off. So yeah, his comment was made in that context. I'm sure if you actually asked him he would have characterized Nazism as stupid group think as well.

GoddessCleoLover

22nd December 2012, 22:37

I didn't even realize that Kerouac was an Ivy Leaguer. That explains alot.:D

blinxwang

22nd December 2012, 22:38

What do you think of CrimethInc and other such anarchists?

freehobo

22nd December 2012, 23:02

I didn't even realize that Kerouac was an Ivy Leaguer. That explains alot.:D

Haha. What do you mean by that?

freehobo

22nd December 2012, 23:27

What do you think of CrimethInc and other such anarchists?

Don't know much about them, but they are pretty funny trolls from what I can tell? I remember that "Unabomba for president" thing, that was hilarious. The unabomba so should be president. As his first act (judging from his manifesto) he would have the industrial revolution reversed lololol. I <3 ted Kaczynski. What are your thoughts on them?

Mass Grave Aesthetics

22nd December 2012, 23:54

Have you seen the film Hobo with a Shotgun? What are your thoughts on it?

blinxwang

23rd December 2012, 00:23

Don't know much about them, but they are pretty funny trolls from what I can tell? I remember that "Unabomba for president" thing, that was hilarious. The unabomba so should be president. As his first act (judging from his manifesto) he would have the industrial revolution reversed lololol. I <3 ted Kaczynski. What are your thoughts on them?
They pretty much inspired me to become an anarchist after sitting on the sidelines as a "libertarian socialist" chomskyite for god knows how long. I love the prose and diction they use in their narratives and essays; they really know how to tell a story or deliver a message. I also how they are very informal and not at all condescending while still maintaining an uncompromising anti-capitalist outlook. Although I've moved past dropout culture and McCandless-esque fantasies (and, if their recent publications are any indication, they have too), CrimethInc's Evasion is a great narrative even if you disregard the controversial elements.
Perhaps what I like most about CrimethInc is their continued criticism of the entire ideological spectrum, including the Left wing, and they argue very convincingly that all current and past ideologies deny subjectivity and spontaneity in favor of enforced uniformity, even the so-called radical tendencies, and thus are useless in subverting the post-industrial Capitalist totality.

freehobo

23rd December 2012, 00:34

Have you seen the film Hobo with a Shotgun? What are your thoughts on it?

No i haven't, worth watching?

Leftsolidarity

23rd December 2012, 00:57

No i haven't, worth watching?

Good movie actually.

-----

But I've got enough trainhopping, hitch-hiking, squatting, etc. buddies to need to come online to ask questions from some person who claims to be a hobo too, who obviously has no idea about the politics he thinks he holds and hates. If you are a hobo, much respect cuz it's a rough life but a fun one and we could probably kick it in real life but your politics are trash so why you came to a forum for people who hold views you think you hate is beyond me.

freehobo

23rd December 2012, 01:20

Good movie actually.

-----

But I've got enough trainhopping, hitch-hiking, squatting, etc. buddies to need to come online to ask questions from some person who claims to be a hobo too, who obviously has no idea about the politics he thinks he holds and hates. If you are a hobo, much respect cuz it's a rough life but a fun one and we could probably kick it in real life but your politics are trash so why you came to a forum for people who hold views you think you hate is beyond me.

Truth be told I don't hate anybody who isn't malicious. It sucks that you think I'm ignorant, because I try really hard to understand other peoples points of view and reason well about my own.

Will Scarlet

23rd December 2012, 02:27

Yeah, cause when Kerouac was at Columbia he was surrounded by Marxists. It was really a "boom time" for the radical left, culturally speaking in America. Kerouac made a lot of enemies by not joining the left. A lot of people wanted to tie the beat generation with leftist politics and it pissed Kerouac off. So yeah, his comment was made in that context. I'm sure if you actually asked him he would have characterized Nazism as stupid group think as well.
Yeah but you know who else would have been cool with defining ideologies apart from their own as illnesses and stigmatising the mentally ill? That's right, that's right.

Jason

23rd December 2012, 07:51

Being a hobo, do you play a harmonica? :)

Prinskaj

23rd December 2012, 11:18

Well, if you're asking if I think a capitalist society could function without law enforcement then no, I don't think that. But I don't think communism can function that way either, or any society, so it's a non starter. What I think is that communism can not possibly exist without omniscient coercion. But you said, that: If I thought capitalism needed to be protected by force I wouldn't support it.
Do you not consider law enforcement to be a sort of force?

Ok, I accept that. But I don't think of the french revolution as a consciously capitalist revolution, even if capitalism is what emerged from it. Nobody at the time was demanding "capitalism". Communist historiography just says it was a capitalist revolution in retrospect. Most communist consider it a capitalist revolution, because it overthrew many of the remaining feudal structures and replaced them with capitalist institutions.

Ya gotcha. I was just asking if you thought any of the attempts to implement communism had produced any positive results? I thought you were saying they had, so that's why I was asking for an example.
That presumes that I accept, that these places were actually trying to implement socialism, which I do not.

Mass Grave Aesthetics

23rd December 2012, 14:50

No i haven't, worth watching?
yeah, it´s pretty good.

Questionable

23rd December 2012, 18:09

I know I keep rearing my ugly head in this topic before I have time to respond to freehobo's post but I have to say:

Most communist consider it a capitalist revolution, because it overthrew many of the remaining feudal structures and replaced them with capitalist institutions.

PLEASE speak for yourself here. The "bourgeois revolution" analysis of 20th century revolutions is definitely not universally accepted. Even a lot of anti-Stalinists don't subscribe to it.

GoddessCleoLover

23rd December 2012, 18:33

Haha. What do you mean by that?

Either you don't understand the most basic principles of class analysis or you are a non-human, non-hobbitish Tolkien character. You seem intelligent enough so my money would be on the latter.

freehobo

23rd December 2012, 22:30

Either you don't understand the most basic principles of class analysis or you are a non-human, non-hobbitish Tolkien character. You seem intelligent enough so my money would be on the latter.

Kerouac went to Columbia on a football scholarship ;)

freehobo

23rd December 2012, 23:07

But you said, that: If I thought capitalism needed to be protected by force I wouldn't support it.
Do you not consider law enforcement to be a sort of force?
Right, well maybe a better way to phrase it is that I don't think capitalism would function well without any kind of law enforcement. I can't express enough how wild a leap in judgement I think it is to think of the police force as protecting an ideology or an economic system. Their role is much more mundane. They're just there to stop criminals. In a world with criminals, there will always be police. As a thought experiment you can ask what would happen if all law enforcement taken away. You think communism would evolve? I don't. You saw what happens when police are taken away when the police were blown away in hurricane Katrina. It's just freeforall for all us mofos who don't give a fuck.
That presumes that I accept, that these places were actually trying to implement socialism, which I do not. Fair enough ..... so youre not a fan of Lenin?

freehobo

23rd December 2012, 23:14

Being a hobo, do you play a harmonica? :)

Yes I do! I play all sorts of instruments. Music is my love, my religion. I play all sorts of instruments. The tambourine is my favorite. No just joking. I like to whistle and play the guitar.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

23rd December 2012, 23:51

God, Evasion is the worst piece of shit CrimethInc. has ever published. It's a grating narrative of a self-rightous manchild. I can only forgive CrimethInc. insofar as it was one of their earlier publications.

GoddessCleoLover

24th December 2012, 00:38

Kerouac went to Columbia on a football scholarship ;)

Then Kerouac would be a classic case of aspirational class consciousness. His father may not have been wealthy, but as a farmer he was a classic petit-bourgeois "small producer" not proletarian. Young Jack the jock naturally disdained Marxism. What do you think, Freehobo?

Let's Get Free

24th December 2012, 00:48

Isn't right wing "libertarianism" just oligarchic corporate rule after the fashion of the American Gilded Age?

Mass Grave Aesthetics

24th December 2012, 11:43

How are you spending this christmass Mr. Hobo? Do you usually enjoy christmass? What do christmass mean to you?

Jimmie Higgins

24th December 2012, 13:00

Right, well maybe a better way to phrase it is that I don't think capitalism would function well without any kind of law enforcement. I can't express enough how wild a leap in judgement I think it is to think of the police force as protecting an ideology or an economic system.The police and the military are there to do what they claim - there isn't a secrect ideological agenda other than a variation on what their stated goals are anyway. But in function, this is exactly what cops and the court system are designed to do.

What did capitalist governments first enact: they cut peasants off from communal land (through privitizing it) and then passed laws making anyone whithout a job or "master" a vagabond and subject to forced labor. This is how "crime" - or at least how the state responds to certain kinds of crime - is a social and political construction.

Even today what are most people locked up for: drug-related offenses. Are these offenses "natural" or the result of a particular policies creating a black market alongside a society where people have to compete for money to survive: thus making the black market a viable income option for some out of a desire to avoid wage-labor or out of lack of other options.

Propery crime: is this "natural" or the result of the concentration of wealth alongside the majority of the population which has to scrounge around for jobs or other income? When people invite others over to their house - do they monitor their tap-water to make sure that their guest isn't stealing it? If a neighbor takes water from your garden hose is it "theft" or just a rude annoyance? I doubt many would see it as theft, not because the act itself, but because of our relationship to water in most industrial areas: we know it will still be there when we go to use the tap.

Their role is much more mundane. They're just there to stop criminals. In a world with criminals, there will always be police. The vast majority of crimes as we know them IMO come from the conditions directly or indirectly (through stress and people "snapping") caused by the organization of this society. Crime is obviously a problem for workers when property which they have been paid for is stolen, crime is a problem for capitalists too - not so much for petty-theft, but for the disorder and unrest caused by it. But their way of dealing with actual crimes has little to do with protecting people in communities - and I think it makes it worse, in fact. Cops don't prevent much of anything - at best they can respond to something after-the-fact. So while doing little to curb crime, crime becomes a self-justifying rationale for the police, who are much better and more trained to control groups of people, not prevent crime.

As a thought experiment you can ask what would happen if all law enforcement taken away. You think communism would evolve? I don't. You saw what happens when police are taken away when the police were blown away in hurricane Katrina. It's just freeforall for all us mofos who don't give a fuck. Fair enough ..... so youre not a fan of Lenin?No I don't think a magical lack of cops would cause people to relate to eachother in a communist way or even cause people to attempt a revolution automatically. This requires not the absense of repression, but the presence of working class organization and consiousness: the tools and desire to run society for ourselves. Also class rule is not just repression alone, it's also class hegeomoy and so even without cops, without a working class alternative, then workers would still have to get money somehow, would still need to buy things and so those who didn't would just go out and take it: but it would be just for their own support and gain, not for the reshaping of society along democratic and cooperative lines. So again, it wouldn't be the absense of armed authority that would make people rob or act in violent self-interest, it would be the economic order of society causing this.

On a side note, it's funny that you mention Hurricane Katrina in this contect, since there were a number of reports of police acting on their own as vigilante thugs during the flooding.

Jason

24th December 2012, 13:48

How are you spending this christmass Mr. Hobo? Do you usually enjoy christmass? What do christmass mean to you?

It means a harmonica and a campfire. :)

The vast majority of crimes as we know them IMO come from the conditions directly or indirectly (through stress and people "snapping") caused by the organization of this society. Crime is obviously a problem for workers when property which they have been paid for is stolen, crime is a problem for capitalists too - not so much for petty-theft, but for the disorder and unrest caused by it. But their way of dealing with actual crimes has little to do with protecting people in communities - and I think it makes it worse, in fact. Cops don't prevent much of anything - at best they can respond to something after-the-fact. So while doing little to curb crime, crime becomes a self-justifying rationale for the police, who are much better and more trained to control groups of people, not prevent crime.

Well freehobo did make an interesting observation of Latin America. He said that drugs not capitalism were causing a lot of woe. So I'm wondering if stopping drugs is enough. But of course you guys would disagree and I would also.

Isn't right wing "libertarianism" just oligarchic corporate rule after the fashion of the American Gilded Age?

Actually, most of the world is still in the guilded age. For instance, a poster recently mentioned Latin American paramilitaries. So the USA is lucky it's not libertarian. Despite it's faults, there is some government control over business.

Questionable

25th December 2012, 15:24

OKAY, I finally have the free time available to respond to freehobo.

I don't mean to "dodge" his point, it's just that I can't prove my prediction of the future, or disprove his. I accept that he thinks if public services were withdrawn things would never get better. Neither view is falsifiable, it's just a difference of opinion based on a hypothetical.

From my own POV, what evidence I can give is that I have found private charity to be a whole lot more helpful than than the public sector.

It came off as dodging the point because instead of countering any of his claims, you simply said "Yeah, but communism is worse!" and said something about past socialist nations being bad.

Resigning to agnosticism isn't really the way to handle the issue. We cannot just slip away into subjectivity on the issue of whether the private or public sector would be the best handler of the job. This is best handled by looking at historical data regarding the matter. Admittedly this can be difficult because groups on both the Left and Right sometimes skewer the facts to support their own perspective, but the information is still there. For instance we can see during the US's Great Depression that the government slashed nearly all social services with the idea that private charity would take over the role, but it didn't help at all.

Can you give me a few examples of countries that you think improved under communism?

I can tell you which countries I think improved under socialism, or I can give you actual evidence to back up my claims. I'll go with the latter.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2546027/pdf/bmj00287-0032.pdf - Life expectancy of the Soviet Union from 1938 to 1986

http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/lifeexpectussr2.html - Deaths per 100 in the USSR from 1913 to 1956, along with infant mortality rates

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=china+life+expectancy - Life expectancy rates in China from 1960 to 1970

There's much more information which I don't have on hand right now. I'm not saying they don't exist but at the moment I can't think of a single country that didn't improve from socialism. Even N. Korea had a higher life expectancy than the South for a short period of time before the USSR collapsed.

Every political entity throughout history has created an army to protect itself, period. There is nothing special about capitalism in this regard.

I know. That's because every "political entity" (by that I assume we're referring to the state) throughout history thus far has been hierarchical, stratified by production.

But I mean, like I said, if you can convince me that the only point of armies in capitalist countries is to protect capitalism, I will stop supporting capitalism.

Well the proof of the pudding is in eating it. Throughout its brief history capitalism has always used military power to protect and expand their markets, to crush any disturbances in the mode of production, overall to enforce their own hegemony. I can't think of an instance of capitalist military action where this did not prove to be the case.

It seems like you're asking me to prove that capitalism requires a military to function, but I think that's putting the burden of proof in the wrong hands. Marxists look to history to prove their theories most of the time. I could construct a hypothetical scenario where the armies of the world suddenly vanish and try to "prove" that capitalism needs them, but that seems like much effort on my part when the reality is that capitalism has always used force to expand and sustain itself. You yourself admitted that there has not been a state in history (With the exception of primitive communism maybe) that did not have some sort of armed force. But you're also trying to argue that capitalism does not need an armed force to function, which seems like a contradiction considering your admission that every state has had an army.

So, instead of me constructing hypothetical scenarios to "prove" to you that capitalism doesn't need a military, I would turn the tables; if it doesn't need a military, why has it always had one?

As I'm sure you know, most Libertarians are anti-military and so am I. I'd like to see all military funding stopped.

That's nice, but what does this mean in practice? Libertarians fail to understand that the social relations they defend require martial means to uphold them. Capitalism will develop an army, whether it is a publicly-funded national army or a private defense force. As long as there is struggle between the different social classes (Other national bourgeois groups, and its own proletariat) you cannot expect the wheels of society to move without some grease.

BeingAndGrime

25th December 2012, 23:09

do the cops break your balls alot? have you slept rough when its really fucking cold out? do you feel like your health has taken a hit?

Jason

26th December 2012, 07:48

As I'm sure you know, most Libertarians are anti-military and so am I. I'd like to see all military funding stopped.

The response below:

That's nice, but what does this mean in practice? Libertarians fail to understand that the social relations they defend require martial means to uphold them. Capitalism will develop an army, whether it is a publicly-funded national army or a private defense force. As long as there is struggle between the different social classes (Other national bourgeois groups, and its own proletariat) you cannot expect the wheels of society to move without some grease.

That's the problem with Ron Paul's movement. Capitalism and military expansion go hand in hand, unless your like Japan and you got the US defending you.

That's one reason why the Communist struggle is so violent. Capitalism is violent and so that makes it's opponents the same way.

Questionable

26th December 2012, 07:53

The response below:

That's the problem with Ron Paul's movement. Capitalism and military expansion go hand in hand, unless your like Japan and you got the US defending you.

That's one reason why the Communist struggle is so violent. Capitalism is violent and so that makes it's opponents the same way.

Even Ron Paul is a dud when it comes to this. He wants to end foreign military operations, so he can strengthen America's borders and keep immigrants out. Of course his fanboys only hear the first part of that sentence so they can characterize him as the left-within-right candidate that's going to abolish drug laws and make prostitution legal.

BeingAndGrime

26th December 2012, 14:43

also where are good places to take a dump in the city without having to pay for shit?

Jason

27th December 2012, 09:12

If this guy is homeless, then where's the internet connection? :rolleyes: A public library? Where's the funds for a laptop for WiFi at McDonalds?

I think this guy posts at irregular hours, but these places are only open at specific times.

Even Ron Paul is a dud when it comes to this. He wants to end foreign military operations, so he can strengthen America's borders and keep immigrants out. Of course his fanboys only hear the first part of that sentence so they can characterize him as the left-within-right candidate that's going to abolish drug laws and make prostitution legal.

Big business would never allow it. The libertarianism is as much "fantasy land" as contemporary liberalism. :(

Even Canada, which perhaps Paul wants to turn the US into, is dependent on military protected trade. Who's protecting it? The US.

Lynx

28th December 2012, 15:16

Canada's largest trading partner is the US, and we are an exporter of natural resources, including oil. How are our trading links protected by the US military?

Jason

28th December 2012, 16:29

Canada's largest trading partner is the US, and we are an exporter of natural resources, including oil. How are our trading links protected by the US military?

Resources and trade routes have to be defended to keep trade (even though oppressive) running smoothly.

Lynx

28th December 2012, 17:17

Resources and trade routes have to be defended to keep trade (even though oppressive) running smoothly.
Shipping does not have to be protected, except in areas where piracy is a problem. Canada is able to do this on its own.
The US nuclear arsenal is a deterrent to invasion, which seems rather far fetched, even when the Cold War was being waged.
Ron Paul wants to stop military intervention and adventurism abroad, something that Canada is not involved with, or wasted resources upon, until recently. Defensive capability is another story.

freehobo

28th December 2012, 23:00

Then Kerouac would be a classic case of aspirational class consciousness. His father may not have been wealthy, but as a farmer he was a classic petit-bourgeois "small producer" not proletarian. Young Jack the jock naturally disdained Marxism. What do you think, Freehobo?

I don't think categorizing peoples opinions according to their class makes much sense. I've known lots of rich leftists and lots of poor rightists. Everybody's ideas deserve to stand on their own without being shoehorned into some kind of meta-historical analysis.

freehobo

28th December 2012, 23:11

Isn't right wing "libertarianism" just oligarchic corporate rule after the fashion of the American Gilded Age?

There shouldn't be any "ruling" in libertarianism, because the specific goal is to minimize government. Economic power would lay with successful corporations, and yeah a lof of social and cultural power comes along with that. That is not a problem with me.

freehobo

28th December 2012, 23:19

How are you spending this christmass Mr. Hobo? Do you usually enjoy christmass? What do christmass mean to you?

I'm with family this Xmas, been having a great time drinking myself stupid every night. My sister is at home as well with her boyfriend, and they are both nasty junkie ****s lol. I like Xmas this year. In the past I've had problems with the whole Xmas-new year period because NOTHING is open, and when you're alcoholic it pisses you off when the bottle shop isn't open. The chemists aren't open either so you can't go steal codeine pills - you can't do shit basically lol. For the past 5 years it was always an interruption, but this year I'm liking it.

freehobo

28th December 2012, 23:23

Will reply to Jimmy Higgins and Questionable next, when I get sufficient time.

Merry Xmas Yall.

Jason

29th December 2012, 19:17

There shouldn't be any "ruling" in libertarianism, because the specific goal is to minimize government. Economic power would lay with successful corporations, and yeah a lof of social and cultural power comes along with that. That is not a problem with me.

But the corporations expolit others, especially in the third world. To quote RedStar2000 (a former poster on here), a working man isn't free, because his next meal is dependent on the boss. So why would we want to give corporations total power?

http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/socdem/redstar/redstar86.html

I have, as it happens, read Ayn Rand and am loosely familiar with "libertarian" theory.

Its main problem turns around the concept of "free consent". It presents this as an "abstract value" that is de-coupled from the real material world.

Someone "consents" to work for a low wage because the alternative is starvation...this makes a mockery of the word "consent" in any meaningful sense.

freehobo

30th December 2012, 02:37

The police and the military are there to do what they claim - there isn't a secrect ideological agenda other than a variation on what their stated goals are anyway. But in function, this is exactly what cops and the court system are designed to do.

What did capitalist governments first enact: they cut peasants off from communal land (through privitizing it) and then passed laws making anyone whithout a job or "master" a vagabond and subject to forced labor. This is how "crime" - or at least how the state responds to certain kinds of crime - is a social and political construction.

Which do you think was the first "capitalist" government? When was the precise period that capitalism began (in your opinion)?

In terms of private property relations, my interpretation of the transition from feudalism to capitalism is that land was already privatized during the middle ages, it was just much more monopolized. A packet of land was called a "fief", its owner was a "lord" and he rented it to a "vasal" who enslaved a bunch of serfs on it. This was a religious arrangement as much as anything, I think, because Christianity glorifies poverty :rolleyes:. But when the whole system collapsed the serfs found themselves in a position to demand their own private property and work for themselves - the black death wiped out so many of them that the ones left could just about set their own price (hyperbole). So whatever privatizing was done in that period, it was done from the bottom up.

Even today what are most people locked up for: drug-related offenses. Are these offenses "natural" or the result of a particular policies creating a black market alongside a society where people have to compete for money to survive: thus making the black market a viable income option for some out of a desire to avoid wage-labor or out of lack of other options.

Propery crime: is this "natural" or the result of the concentration of wealth alongside the majority of the population which has to scrounge around for jobs or other income? When people invite others over to their house - do they monitor their tap-water to make sure that their guest isn't stealing it? If a neighbor takes water from your garden hose is it "theft" or just a rude annoyance? I doubt many would see it as theft, not because the act itself, but because of our relationship to water in most industrial areas: we know it will still be there when we go to use the tap.

The vast majority of crimes as we know them IMO come from the conditions directly or indirectly (through stress and people "snapping") caused by the organization of this society. Crime is obviously a problem for workers when property which they have been paid for is stolen, crime is a problem for capitalists too - not so much for petty-theft, but for the disorder and unrest caused by it. But their way of dealing with actual crimes has little to do with protecting people in communities - and I think it makes it worse, in fact. Cops don't prevent much of anything - at best they can respond to something after-the-fact. So while doing little to curb crime, crime becomes a self-justifying rationale for the police, who are much better and more trained to control groups of people, not prevent crime. Well you know my opinion on the pointless and unwinnable "war on drugs" and its social costs. Yes drug use/abuse is "natural" in the sense that people like to use drugs. They always have. Even in those "Primitive communism" tribes you guys like to bring up. While ever there is a demand for drugs, there will be drug addicts. But it's only the illegality of drugs that turns addicts into criminals. Most property crime these days is related drugs, I would say. But you are right too - the whole havs/have-not's gap is a big cause of crime as well. I probably just see things differently to you, because I think the goal should to be to promote the "have-not's" into "have less's" rather than manufacture a classless society were everybody has the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo

(I feel like the above is a valid point because unlike many other posters here you recognize the USSR as legitimate communism?)

No I don't think a magical lack of cops would cause people to relate to eachother in a communist way or even cause people to attempt a revolution automatically. This requires not the absense of repression, but the presence of working class organization and consiousness: the tools and desire to run society for ourselves. Also class rule is not just repression alone, it's also class hegeomoy and so even without cops, without a working class alternative, then workers would still have to get money somehow, would still need to buy things and so those who didn't would just go out and take it: but it would be just for their own support and gain, not for the reshaping of society along democratic and cooperative lines. So again, it wouldn't be the absense of armed authority that would make people rob or act in violent self-interest, it would be the economic order of society causing this.Interesting. How far away do you think America is (or any country really) from having this kind of class consciousness required to make a success of a revolution?

On a side note, it's funny that you mention Hurricane Katrina in this contect, since there were a number of reports of police acting on their own as vigilante thugs during the flooding.Yeah, the police are criminals themselves half the time.

freehobo

30th December 2012, 02:55

OKAY, I finally have the free time available to respond to freehobo.

It came off as dodging the point because instead of countering any of his claims, you simply said "Yeah, but communism is worse!" and said something about past socialist nations being bad.

Resigning to agnosticism isn't really the way to handle the issue. We cannot just slip away into subjectivity on the issue of whether the private or public sector would be the best handler of the job.

This is best handled by looking at historical data regarding the matter. Admittedly this can be difficult because groups on both the Left and Right sometimes skewer the facts to support their own perspective, but the information is still there. For instance we can see during the US's Great Depression that the government slashed nearly all social services with the idea that private charity would take over the role, but it didn't help at all.

The data is just not there I'm afraid. The 30's depression is a not a good time in history to test my theory; for one thing, people hold on to their $$$ in depressions, they're not likely to be at their philanthropic best. Also, what I'm saying is that "revolutionary libertarianism (as a hypothetical movement)" is not something I would endorse; You can't rip a society apart and reassemble it like leggo and expect everything to work brilliantly, even if the new foundations are better than the old - look at Iraq, despot is gone, still a shithole. My view is that over time, services and opportunities would improve for the lower classes. Like "pure communism", "pure capitalism" has never been tried.

I can tell you which countries I think improved under socialism, or I can give you actual evidence to back up my claims. I'll go with the latter.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2546027/pdf/bmj00287-0032.pdf - Life expectancy of the Soviet Union from 1938 to 1986

http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/lifeexpectussr2.html - Deaths per 100 in the USSR from 1913 to 1956, along with infant mortality rates

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=china+life+expectancy - Life expectancy rates in China from 1960 to 1970
Life expectancy should rise over time, merely do to advances in medical technology. The only places life-expectancy seems to have stagnated or even dropped during the 20th century are places with continuing disease epidemics / civil wars / natural disasters whatever. If there's one thing the Bolsheviks did do is provide stability. :lol:

Also, the thing is you have to take into account opportunity costs. Being better than the Romanovs does not merit a nobel prize, imo. What would have happened in Russia if there was no October revolution? With Russia's resources and population it should have a GDP to rival Japan or Finland.

I know. That's because every "political entity" (by that I assume we're referring to the state) throughout history thus far has been hierarchical, stratified by production.What about the so-called "primitive communism"? Do you not think hunter-gatherer tribes had "armies" or their primitive equivalents to protect themselves?

Well the proof of the pudding is in eating it. Throughout its brief history capitalism has always used military power to protect and expand their markets, to crush any disturbances in the mode of production, overall to enforce their own hegemony. I can't think of an instance of capitalist military action where this did not prove to be the case.

It seems like you're asking me to prove that capitalism requires a military to function, but I think that's putting the burden of proof in the wrong hands. Marxists look to history to prove their theories most of the time. I could construct a hypothetical scenario where the armies of the world suddenly vanish and try to "prove" that capitalism needs them, but that seems like much effort on my part when the reality is that capitalism has always used force to expand and sustain itself. You yourself admitted that there has not been a state in history (With the exception of primitive communism maybe) that did not have some sort of armed force. But you're also trying to argue that capitalism does not need an armed force to function, which seems like a contradiction considering your admission that every state has had an army.

So, instead of me constructing hypothetical scenarios to "prove" to you that capitalism doesn't need a military, I would turn the tables; if it doesn't need a military, why has it always had one?For the same reason I carry a taser when I'm walking some places: Insecurity. Empires, tribes, nations, countries, ,clans, commonwealths, republics, kingdoms, potentates, margraviates, grand duchies, principalities, confederations, caliphates, landgraviates, palatinates, (am I missing some? lol ) states, provinces and every other political unit that ever was---all live/d in a world where security in not assured, so they instinctively seek to protect themselves with whatever technology they can. More than that actually---they also seek to conquer other social groups because dominance is the best survival strategy.

What do you think about Democratic Peace Theory ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

That's nice, but what does this mean in practice? Libertarians fail to understand that the social relations they defend require martial means to uphold them. Capitalism will develop an army, whether it is a publicly-funded national army or a private defense force. As long as there is struggle between the different social classes (Other national bourgeois groups, and its own proletariat) you cannot expect the wheels of society to move without some grease.I simply take it as a given that (for the time being at least) martal means are required because of the security dilemma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma

Having said that I don't view national in/security as the threat it was in centuries gone by, because countries can't really afford the costs of war anymore. I don't fear that arms reduction would lead to colonization by China or Germany. And it seems to me like capitalist-democracies are the ones pushing for arms reductions.

freehobo

30th December 2012, 03:13

do the cops break your balls alot? have you slept rough when its really fucking cold out? do you feel like your health has taken a hit?

The cops don't really break your balls too much, I think just mostly cause they've got more important things to do. But when enforcing the law, fuck yeah - I've had the shit kicked out of me a couple of times. The worst was one time I was running away, I'm a fast runner and if it was just one cop he would have had no chance at getting me but two others came at me from in front and tackled me. Then I coped about 8 boots to the stomach and one guy stuck his knee right into my back and it felt like my spine was going to break. I've still got scars on my wrists because the put the handcuffs on so tight.

*edit and oh! *I* got charged with "assaulting a police officer" for that! :p

Yeah, I'm the master at sleeping rough. Slept on rooftops a lot (my favorite place to set up a camp). Cold is fine as long as you are prepared, There's been a few time's I wasn't - a lot of times actually. You gotta steal some blankets or something. If it gets too bad you can throw a brick through a window and wait for the cops to come take you to a warm jail cell. Was on the verge of doing that once, but instead I broke into a car and slept in that.

I'm still really healthy as far as I know, although I'd hate to know the state of my liver. Being a bum is healthy believe it or not, cause you're always out moving around. You stay The "meth years" from 2007 - 2009 were probably the most taxing, but I'm recovered as far as I know.

freehobo

30th December 2012, 03:16

also where are good places to take a dump in the city without having to pay for shit?

Lol the civic parks mostly have a public toilet.

freehobo

30th December 2012, 03:31

But the corporations expolit others, especially in the third world.

Sure, but I'd much rather be at the mercy of an employer, where the worst he can do is cease giving me his money, than to be at the mercy of a state bureaucrat who makes choices for me, with the forces of government behind him.

Questionable

30th December 2012, 05:14

The data is just not there I'm afraid. The 30's depression is a not a good time in history to test my theory; for one thing, people hold on to their $$$ in depressions, they're not likely to be at their philanthropic best. Also, what I'm saying is that "revolutionary libertarianism (as a hypothetical movement)" is not something I would endorse; You can't rip a society apart and reassemble it like leggo and expect everything to work brilliantly, even if the new foundations are better than the old - look at Iraq, despot is gone, still a shithole. My view is that over time, services and opportunities would improve for the lower classes. Like "pure communism", "pure capitalism" has never been tried.

I have to disagree with both the claim and the logic behind this one. Firstly, you're still just saying "I can't prove my viewpoint, but trust me, capitalism is better at this." I have no reason to believe you, especially, moving along to my second point, there really ARE statistics that prove your viewpoint wrong. In every modern place where social services have been slashed, we've seen a rise in crime, poverty, and other social ills, just take a look at austerity cuts for the sake of business. There have also been a lot of studies by people in the field, it's not some gray area that no one can possibly guess about.. Take a look at this article on the topic, written by the president of Catholic Charities USA in 1995: http://charlescarmichael.edublogs.org/about/charitable-aid-cannot-replace-government-welfare/

More importantly, you're admitting that capitalism has flawed ways of handling social poverty. You're admitting that economic depressions cause the wealthy to hold onto their wealth, which is a pretty big bullet hole in your argument considering that capitalism has proven itself extremely prone to times of economic crises.

Life expectancy should rise over time, merely do to advances in medical technology. The only places life-expectancy seems to have stagnated or even dropped during the 20th century are places with continuing disease epidemics / civil wars / natural disasters whatever. If there's one thing the Bolsheviks did do is provide stability.

Are you trying to say that technology spontaneously appears into existence and the social system that people are using have no bearing on the matter? Even Marxists admit that capitalism has granted society amazing productive powers. I have trouble believing these kinds of developments would have happened under the Czarist dynasties or even under the bourgeois-democratic ones because they were the direct results of policies taken by the socialist governments.

Also, the thing is you have to take into account opportunity costs. Being better than the Romanovs does not merit a nobel prize, imo. What would have happened in Russia if there was no October revolution? With Russia's resources and population it should have a GDP to rival Japan or Finland.

Again, are you trying to say that Russia was fated to greater development regardless of whatever social system it took? You'd have to go a long way to prove that societies develop independently from the forms they take. Also, GDP is a historically capitalist way of measuring a country's success.

What about the so-called "primitive communism"? Do you not think hunter-gatherer tribes had "armies" or their primitive equivalents to protect themselves?

I'm no expert on primitive communism but if they had armies to protect themselves it still wouldn't be quite the same thing as massive imperialist war machines cracking open new markets for the sake of capitalism.

For the same reason I carry a taser when I'm walking some places: Insecurity. Empires, tribes, nations, countries, ,clans, commonwealths, republics, kingdoms, potentates, margraviates, grand duchies, principalities, confederations, caliphates, landgraviates, palatinates, (am I missing some? lol ) states, provinces and every other political unit that ever was---all live/d in a world where security in not assured, so they instinctively seek to protect themselves with whatever technology they can. More than that actually---they also seek to conquer other social groups because dominance is the best survival strategy.

I don't buy this. It's the old "Capitalism isn't a social construct, it's human nature!" argument, only this time it's used to justify military spending. But I'll address it more in-depth.

You're missing the point here. You're seeing every army in history, from the ancient club-wielding tribes to today's vast devastating legions of tanks and missiles, as the same thing, when they've always served different economic purposes depending on the social system that they served. Feudal armies served their individual kings or lords in conquering new land, modern armies are much more subtle and sinister because it's no longer about conquering new land in the name of the king, but of influencing economic events in the world economy. You don't need to conquer nations with a gun, you just need to open them up with a gun and let capital do the rest.

Nobody who takes an honest look at the actions of the modern capitalist military can say they armies have not changed and have always been about simple "instinctual" defense. It is about economic expansion. They serve a much greater role in the maintenance of the social system. As I said before, I have trouble thinking of an instance in capitalist history where the army was not defending market interests in some way, whether directly or indirectly.

What do you think about Democratic Peace Theory ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

Well I didn't read the whole article, but looking at the tenets at the beginning it appears to be another ideological tactic cover up the actions of imperialist nations. "that democracies view non-democracies or their people as threatening, and go to war with them over issues which would have been settled peacefully between democracies;" - this basically means that any military intervention by a greater imperialist power into a weaker nation can be justified with Bush-style rhetoric about "introducing democracy." It ignores any economic reason a country may have for invading another, and simply boils the issue down to child-like "non-democracies" needing to be disciplined by their democratic superiors.

When it comes to the modern military, "democracy" is always a codeword for "capitalism." The reason that issues can be worked out among imperialist nations, as the article puts forth, is that they're all advanced capitalist nations and have similar interests (Why would American and Britain waste perfectly good capital going to war with each other?).

"and that definitions of democracy and war can be deliberately cherry-picked to show a pattern that may not be there." - I think that bit in the introduction is very important too. Very many decades Soviet Russia actually had greater democratic freedom than America. Blacks and women had full voting rights, while in America I'm pretty sure that the lost polling tax wasn't removed until sometime in the 60s or 70s. However, if you asked the American leadership, they would have obviously said Russia was "un-democratic" and its people needed American liberation.

I simply take it as a given that (for the time being at least) martal means are required because of the security dilemma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma

I'm sure that the security dilemma exists between capitalist nations, but this still doesn't get to the issue I've been bringing up of how the military is called in to protect and expand the market. Their role is far larger than simple security. This is the same argument used by neocons to justify a massive military budget - "Let's cut social welfare so we can spend more on defense, America has to keep the terrorists out!"

Having said that I don't view national in/security as the threat it was in centuries gone by, because countries can't really afford the costs of war anymore. I don't fear that arms reduction would lead to colonization by China or Germany. And it seems to me like capitalist-democracies are the ones pushing for arms reductions.

Advanced capitalist nations are gearing up against each other anymore and haven't been for decades because they've developed along similar lines and have similar economic interests. As I said before, it would be silly for two major capitalist countries like America and Britain to enter a devastating war and waste billions of dollars when they've been playing the game long enough to reach a diplomatic agreement. The same cannot be said for lesser developed nations whom, for one reason or another, may not be willing to play ball with the Great Powers, and might need some encouragement via a military occupation and/or regime change.

It's also debatable whether we're truly seeing a downsizing of military spending. It's undeniable that most advanced capitalist nations are putting billions of dollars into their military budgets while simultaneously slashing things like social welfare. There have been a lot of treaties in the past to downsize specific things like nuclear arsenals, but most of those are diplomatic shows anyway.

It's not rebuttal of my claims to point out that advanced capitalist nations don't go to war with each other because they're so deeply economically intertwined (I'm going to use America and Britain again as an example, but a war between the two of them would no doubt be disastrous for their economies), but they're willing to roll out the tanks for nations that don't go along with their agenda. The biggest example was the Cold War; capitalist nations didn't fight each other during this time, they put all their military powers towards containing the spread of socialism. We began to see greater cooperation between the two as the USSR degenerated into state-capitalism and it became less about competing social classes and more about dividing up the world between two great camps of the bourgeoisie. Now we see the military clamping down on smaller third-world nations that are more reluctant to give into their demands. It's not coincidence that capitalist nations tend not to fight each other (Although I must admit my suspicion that if the economy continues to worsen we may begin seeing our governments swing further to the right on this matter).

freehobo

30th December 2012, 07:18

I have to disagree with both the claim and the logic behind this one. Firstly, you're still just saying "I can't prove my viewpoint, but trust me, capitalism is better at this." I have no reason to believe you, especially, moving along to my second point, there really ARE statistics that prove your viewpoint wrong. In every modern place where social services have been slashed, we've seen a rise in crime, poverty, and other social ills, just take a look at austerity cuts for the sake of business. There have also been a lot of studies by people in the field, it's not some gray area that no one can possibly guess about.. Take a look at this article on the topic, written by the president of Catholic Charities USA in 1995: http://charlescarmichael.edublogs.org/about/charitable-aid-cannot-replace-government-welfare/

I'm not asking or expecting you to trust me, I'm just admitting that I can't prove my point.

None of these studies re the cause/effect of austerity and such have any bearing on my argument. That funding cuts would have a damaging impact is in keeping with my argument. I said to the poster before, it would have a "brutal" impact, and a transitional period to any kind of working form (from the lower classes perspective) would be long. That is why I don't support it (which is irrelevant because it's never going to happen anyway). To test my theory you would an insulated laissez faire economy and let it evolve for many years. A ridiculous notion I know, but so be it.

I'll admit I haven't a clue what all the academics are saying about it. I'll see if I can find something out about. That link you posted is just a charity paranoid about having it's funding cut off.

More importantly, you're admitting that capitalism has flawed ways of handling social poverty. You're admitting that economic depressions cause the wealthy to hold onto their wealth, which is a pretty big bullet hole in your argument considering that capitalism has proven itself extremely prone to times of economic crises.I am not a perfectionist. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Are you trying to say that technology spontaneously appears into existence and the social system that people are using have no bearing on the matter? Even Marxists admit that capitalism has granted society amazing productive powers. I have trouble believing these kinds of developments would have happened under the Czarist dynasties or even under the bourgeois-democratic ones because they were the direct results of policies taken by the socialist governments.

Again, are you trying to say that Russia was fated to greater development regardless of whatever social system it took? You'd have to go a long way to prove that societies develop independently from the forms they take. Also, GDP is a historically capitalist way of measuring a country's success.I'm saying that I think the "Liberal route" would have worked out better for Russia. I see the 80 years they experimented with communism as "arrested development". I don't think the Tzars would have done better, no. But it's all very speculative. Although they might have done as well as the Bolsheviks - look what Peter the Great did to modernize Russia. He was the Stalin of his day.

I'm no expert on primitive communism but if they had armies to protect themselves it still wouldn't be quite the same thing as massive imperialist war machines cracking open new markets for the sake of capitalism.
Well the nation state is a lot more bigger and powerful and resourceful and technological, so you can expect their armies to reflect that.

I don't buy this. It's the old "Capitalism isn't a social construct, it's human nature!" argument, only this time it's used to justify military spending. But I'll address it more in-depth.

You're missing the point here. You're seeing every army in history, from the ancient club-wielding tribes to today's vast devastating legions of tanks and missiles, as the same thing, when they've always served different economic purposes depending on the social system that they served. Feudal armies served their individual kings or lords in conquering new land, modern armies are much more subtle and sinister because it's no longer about conquering new land in the name of the king, but of influencing economic events in the world economy. You don't need to conquer nations with a gun, you just need to open them up with a gun and let capital do the rest.OK. Well I see the point. It just sounds a lot like an out of control conspiracy theory to me. I'm an Occam's Razor kinda guy. I do view "every army in history, from the ancient club-wielding tribes to today's vast devastating legions of tanks and missiles" as the same thing. Economies, social relationships, religions, means of productions etc all change -- the one thing that stays the same is that we live in an anarchic geo-political theater and need an army.

Nobody who takes an honest look at the actions of the modern capitalist military can say they armies have not changed and have always been about simple "instinctual" defense. It is about economic expansion. They serve a much greater role in the maintenance of the social system. Economic expansion is certainly going on, but that's a different phenomenon (globalization). I'm not really sure what I think about globalization tbh. I guess I think it's inevitable.

As I said before, I have trouble thinking of an instance in capitalist history where the army was not defending market interests in some way, whether directly or indirectly.What about Bill Clinton in Kosovo? I think a lot of presidents send the forces in just to put their own little stamp on history.

Well I didn't read the whole article, but looking at the tenets at the beginning it appears to be another ideological tactic cover up the actions of imperialist nations. "that democracies view non-democracies or their people as threatening, and go to war with them over issues which would have been settled peacefully between democracies;" - this basically means that any military intervention by a greater imperialist power into a weaker nation can be justified with Bush-style rhetoric about "introducing democracy." It ignores any economic reason a country may have for invading another, and simply boils the issue down to child-like "non-democracies" needing to be disciplined by their democratic superiors.Well the basic idea is that democracies will never go to war with each other - based on the reasoning that two democracies never have thus far. You are spot on to note that the theory can be used to justify nation-building campaigns -- because it has. It's actually staple in that foreign policy. I'm an isolationist so I hate neo-cons, but I do think it's true that capitalist democracies absolutely no reason to go to war with each other.

Why would American and Britain waste perfectly good capital going to war with each other?Exactly?

I'm sure that the security dilemma exists between capitalist nations, but this still doesn't get to the issue I've been bringing up of how the military is called in to protect and expand the market. Their role is far larger than simple security. This is the same argument used by neocons to justify a massive military budget - "Let's cut social welfare so we can spend more on defense, America has to keep the terrorists out!"

Advanced capitalist nations are gearing up against each other anymore and haven't been for decades because they've developed along similar lines and have similar economic interests. As I said before, it would be silly for two major capitalist countries like America and Britain to enter a devastating war and waste billions of dollars when they've been playing the game long enough to reach a diplomatic agreement. The same cannot be said for lesser developed nations whom, for one reason or another, may not be willing to play ball with the Great Powers, and might need some encouragement via a military occupation and/or regime change.

It's also debatable whether we're truly seeing a downsizing of military spending. It's undeniable that most advanced capitalist nations are putting billions of dollars into their military budgets while simultaneously slashing things like social welfare. There have been a lot of treaties in the past to downsize specific things like nuclear arsenals, but most of those are diplomatic shows anyway.

It's not rebuttal of my claims to point out that advanced capitalist nations don't go to war with each other because they're so deeply economically intertwined (I'm going to use America and Britain again as an example, but a war between the two of them would no doubt be disastrous for their economies), but they're willing to roll out the tanks for nations that don't go along with their agenda. The biggest example was the Cold War; capitalist nations didn't fight each other during this time, they put all their military powers towards containing the spread of socialism. We began to see greater cooperation between the two as the USSR degenerated into state-capitalism and it became less about competing social classes and more about dividing up the world between two great camps of the bourgeoisie. Now we see the military clamping down on smaller third-world nations that are more reluctant to give into their demands. It's not coincidence that capitalist nations tend not to fight each other (Although I must admit my suspicion that if the economy continues to worsen we may begin seeing our governments swing further to the right on this matter).
OK, to well to target your point specifically, the military does have a huge role protecting and expanding markets. To talk about just one country specifically - America has just spent a 80 years fighting an ideological war (Cold War). To that extent the role of the military was to protect Capitalism -- it couldn't be any more obvious. I think a lot of Americas foreign policy during the Cold War was ridiculous, but whatever, that's a different thing altogether. Domestically, America has a constitution that is founded on capitalist principles, so all of the armed forces and intelligence agencies work to protect capitalism in that sense too. But none of this is the same as saying capitalism depends on these things. Honestly, now that the cold war is over, I don't think capitalism has any real threats to worry about. Terrorism is higher on the agenda as a national security concern than rival economic systems.

Let me ask you this: If the armed forces and police et al are needed to protect capitalism, why are Libertarians anti-military? Shouldn't pro-marketers be the most hawkish foreign-policy wonks you've ever seen? But we're not. The universalizing, spread-democracy, arms-racing fuckers are the neo-cons, not us.

Questionable

30th December 2012, 07:57

I'm not asking or expecting you to trust me, I'm just admitting that I can't prove my point. None of these studies re the cause/effect of austerity and such have any bearing on my argument. That funding cuts would have a damaging impact is in keeping with my argument. I said to the poster before, it would have a "brutal" impact, and a transitional period to any kind of working form (from the lower classes perspective) would be long. That is why I don't support it (which is irrelevant because it's never going to happen anyway). To test my theory you would an insulated laissez faire economy and let it evolve for many years. A ridiculous notion I know, but so be it.

Then you have no point. If you're admitting that nothing you say can have any bearing on reality, we may as well just ignore you (I won't ignore you because I like talking to you and that would be a dickish thing to do, but that is the ultimate conclusion of what you're saying.

I am not a perfectionist. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

This is an excuse for failure.

I'm saying that I think the "Liberal route" would have worked out better for Russia. I see the 80 years they experimented with communism as "arrested development". I don't think the Tzars would have done better, no. But it's all very speculative. Although they might have done as well as the Bolsheviks - look what Peter the Great did to modernize Russia. He was the Stalin of his day.

I'm sorry, but it seems like a lot of things you're saying are 100% speculative and are merely your own completely subjective interpretation of history. I'm not interested in what you think may have happened in an alternate history where Russia took to liberal capitalism, I'm interested in your explanation of how the social system introduced in Russia outperformed Western capitalism. Your original claim was that the "communist experiments" across the world had resulted in calamity, and when I made an attempt to disprove that claim, you simply said capitalism could have done it better without really addressing why socialism did it so well in the first place. If you keep admitting that there's no way to prove or disprove anything you're saying, I'm not sure what why we're talking.

OK. Well I see the point. It just sounds a lot like an out of control conspiracy theory to me. I'm an Occam's Razor kinda guy. I do view "every army in history, from the ancient club-wielding tribes to today's vast devastating legions of tanks and missiles" as the same thing.

Occam's Razor was a principal devised in the 13th century during a time when philosophy and the sciences were first developing and the lack of means to acquire real evidence meant that many competing theories could exist without being able to disprove one another. It does not apply to international politico-economics which can be studied in-depth and are indeed vastly complicated.

Economies, social relationships, religions, means of productions etc all change -- the one thing that stays the same is that we live in an anarchic geo-political theater and need an army.

Your views are contradictory. You've just confirmed what I've said. Economies, social relationships, and means of production are what define the state. You've literally just said that you view all armies as the same thing, but that everything about them has changed. There's a difference between tribalistic armies used to capture slave labor and farming land versus modern day imperialist intervention and espionage (Admittedly there are some similarities but as I've said before we still live in a class-based state society).

Economic expansion is certainly going on, but that's a different phenomenon (globalization). I'm not really sure what I think about globalization tbh. I guess I think it's inevitable.

It's inevitable within the historical context of an economic system that must be forever seeking new markets in order to sustain itself. What I'm worried about is what happens when there's nowhere left to expand.

What about Bill Clinton in Kosovo? I think a lot of presidents send the forces in just to put their own little stamp on history.

I must admit to not being an expert on the Kosovo War, but it doesn't surprise me that NATO would enforce their hegemony over terrorist factions. The economic interests can still be seen in the fact that the Kosovo Liberation Army was supported largely by Albania drug lords seeking to increase their power and influence in the region.

I also want to point out that history is not the plaything of great men. You don't need to be a Marxist to understand that wars are more than the result of individual presidents seeking to leave their marks on history. There's always class forces at work.

Well the basic idea is that democracies will never go to war with each other - based on the reasoning that two democracies never have thus far. You are spot on to note that the theory can be used to justify nation-building campaigns -- because it has. It's actually staple in that foreign policy. I'm an isolationist so I hate neo-cons, but I do think it's true that capitalist democracies absolutely no reason to go to war with each other.

There's abstract theories and then there's concrete reality. For Marxists, ideology merely exists to serve and cloak class interests. If an imperialist nation wants to go to war, it will create a way to justify itself.

This separation between the abstract and reality is also important when considering why advanced capitalist nations tend not to go to war with each other. This is a complex question, and it most be noted that in WWI many so-called democracies did in fact go to war with each other (There was even a large portion of socialists prior to the outbreak of WWI who thought that capitalism had become democratic enough that wars would no longer happen and socialism could be simply voted in without the need for revolution, kind of similar to this theory you're showing me).

If I brought up World War 2, would it be safe to guess that you would tell me that was a war between capitalist-democracies and non-democratic fascist governments? If so, I would point out that for Marxists, the economy is what shapes the state. It's not as if fascism popped up spontaneously and ruined everything, the breakdown of capitalism in many European nations is what laid the groundwork for the rise of militaristic fascism. You can see in evolution in the economics and politics of the countries that lead them to fascism. The idea that we need merely choose democracy over authoritarianism fails to take into account the fact that the economy is really what influences the "choice" that nations make (Along with a whole mess of other realities being ignored).

We can choose to believe that advanced capitalist nations don't usually enter into war simply because they have similar political ideologies, or we can examine the web of economic connections between all these nations, and how they're so deeply intertwined in trade that a war between them would be disastrous. We can also take a look at how capitalism has developed in the 21st century, how it is becoming more and more borderless, and how in prior centuries struggles between Western nations were very common despite them holding similar political ideals.

Exactly?

But this is in the case of two advanced capitalist nations who have been trading partners for hundreds of years. The same does not hold true for other nations who are not interested in bending over backwards to Western capitalism.

OK, to well to target your point specifically, the military does have a huge role protecting and expanding markets. To talk about just one country specifically - America has just spent a 80 years fighting an ideological war (Cold War). To that extent the role of the military was to protect Capitalism -- it couldn't be any more obvious. I think a lot of Americas foreign policy during the Cold War was ridiculous, but whatever, that's a different thing altogether. Domestically, America has a constitution that is founded on capitalist principles, so all of the armed forces and intelligence agencies work to protect capitalism in that sense too. But none of this is the same as saying capitalism depends on these things. Honestly, now that the cold war is over, I don't think capitalism has any real threats to worry about. Terrorism is higher on the agenda as a national security concern than rival economic systems.

America doesn't have armed forces and intelligence agencies simply because the US Constitution was built on capitalist principals, it has them because it is necessary. Even if there are no external threats in existence right now such as the USSR, there are still internal threats such as insurgency and political dissent. Warfare also has a self-expanding aspect to it, because it makes a good business; I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the military-industrial complex.

Let me ask you this: If the armed forces and police et al are needed to protect capitalism, why are Libertarians anti-military? Shouldn't pro-marketers be the most hawkish foreign-policy wonks you've ever seen? But we're not. The universalizing, spread-democracy, arms-racing fuckers are the neo-cons, not us.

It just means that most Libertarians don't understand how capitalism works and Libertarianism is an ideology instead of a science. Ironically, neocons are actually more competent managers of capital than Libertarians because they understand the role that state power must play in sustaining their system (Which is a bad thing for people like us).

Jason

30th December 2012, 19:15

Sure, but I'd much rather be at the mercy of an employer, where the worst he can do is cease giving me his money, than to be at the mercy of a state bureaucrat who makes choices for me, with the forces of government behind him.

You vastly underestimate the power (and brutality) of the private sector. Note: the private sector was behind "New World Slavery" (and Roman).

You mentioned a state bureaucrat. Well, you have a point, but in this case it would be: "exchanging one master for another". I suppose this could be some reference to Stalinism. But then you get into a debate on whether or not Stalinism was bad. You can say that for all it's faults, it was "for the people", while chattle slavery in Brazil was not.

Questionable

30th December 2012, 19:42

Jason

30th December 2012, 19:48

This argument really doesn't have much credibility in either context. It seems like it's the Libertarians' way of winning against socialists without actually winning; "Yeah, I admit capitalism is bad, but I still like it better, so HAH!"

What libertarians are saying is: "Life is a struggle and it doesn't owe you nothing, so you have to tough it out and take your chances - especially since, the only alternative is socialist slavery.". For instance, in Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom" he claims that Communism is similar to serfdom. But Hayek fails to mention that nearly all societies lead to a type of serfdom. So the question is: "Which slavery or serfdom is for the people and which isn't?".

So the society that libertarians are "toughing it out" in is actually, just another type of slavery. Unless of course, your in the ruling class, or the economy is good enough to give "Joe the Plumbers" a decent life. Of course, in the third world or in some past plantation, you have no chance to enter the middle class.

freehobo

31st December 2012, 00:33

Then you have no point. If you're admitting that nothing you say can have any bearing on reality, we may as well just ignore you (I won't ignore you because I like talking to you and that would be a dickish thing to do, but that is the ultimate conclusion of what you're saying.

Ya, I won't waste any more of your time with my speculations about that. You said before there is a lot of data / study refuting my idea. If you want suggest some reading I'll look over it when I can, I'll also do some goggling on my own. I think it's really going to be hard to get any meaningful statistics showing how a liaises-faire society would evolve over time, for the same reason that it's hard to get empirical evidence on how well communism could work - because it hasn't been achieved yet (supposedly). But I do note that you are not one of those communists who require the "withering of the state" to accept communism as valid? You seem to be quite willing to defend the un-withered version of communism as communism?

I'm interested in your explanation of how the social system introduced in Russia outperformed Western capitalism. Outperformed in what sense?

Your original claim was that the "communist experiments" across the world had resulted in calamity, and when I made an attempt to disprove that claim, you simply said capitalism could have done it better without really addressing why socialism did it so well in the first place. If you keep admitting that there's no way to prove or disprove anything you're saying.You linked me some graphs that show life-expectancy going up commensurately in China and Russia with the rest of the world.

Your views are contradictory. You've just confirmed what I've said. Economies, social relationships, and means of production are what define the state. You've literally just said that you view all armies as the same thing, but that everything about them has changed. There's a difference between tribalistic armies used to capture slave labor and farming land versus modern day imperialist intervention and espionage (Admittedly there are some similarities but as I've said before we still live in a class-based state society).I see what you're saying -- that any hierarchical, stratified society needs and army and a communist one wouldn't, because it wouldn't be hierarchical and stratified. All societies thus far have been hierarchical and stratified, and so have needed armies. Capitalism is the most hierarchical and stratified and therefore required the largest of armies. Is that syllogism a fair synopsis of what your saying?

It's inevitable within the historical context of an economic system that must be forever seeking new markets in order to sustain itself. What I'm worried about is what happens when there's nowhere left to expand.Socialism doesn't use less resources, it uses more because it has no way of calculating what is the more or less economical way of doing things. The result is massive waste. Using more resources is worse for the environment, not better.

So either
A) We're going to use more resources to achieve the same results, in which case we will "run out of resources" sooner than we would under capitalism,

OR

B) We're not going to achieve the same results. Before capitalism, and under all attempts at socialism, many more people died. This means that the saving of resources will be at the cost of many more human deaths. So I interpret the argument as "We need to kill people now, so that people don't die in the future."

There is no way out of this conundrum, because reality exists, and imposes itself on human designs. There is no magical wonder-system to produce something out of nothing. Capitalism is the only pragmatic (as well as moral) possibility .

I also want to point out that history is not the plaything of great men. You don't need to be a Marxist to understand that wars are more than the result of individual presidents seeking to leave their marks on history. There's always class forces at work.So say the Marxists, I know. I actually agree with Robert Carlyle and Will Durant on this one - "The history of the world is but the biography of great men"

There's abstract theories and then there's concrete reality. For Marxists, ideology merely exists to serve and cloak class interests. If an imperialist nation wants to go to war, it will create a way to justify itself.
You're rather selective about applying that idea though - for example when I ask you why Libertarians aren't militaristic, you basically say were all too stupid to see the big picture. But when it suits you, nothing is what it seems, there's a class conspiracy around every corner.

This separation between the abstract and reality is also important when considering why advanced capitalist nations tend not to go to war with each other. This is a complex question, and it most be noted that in WWI many so-called democracies did in fact go to war with each other Which ones? None of the Central powers were democracies.

If I brought up World War 2, would it be safe to guess that you would tell me that was a war between capitalist-democracies and non-democratic fascist governments? If so, I would point out that for Marxists, the economy is what shapes the state. It's not as if fascism popped up spontaneously and ruined everything, the breakdown of capitalism in many European nations is what laid the groundwork for the rise of militaristic fascism. You can see in evolution in the economics and politics of the countries that lead them to fascism. The idea that we need merely choose democracy over authoritarianism fails to take into account the fact that the economy is really what influences the "choice" that nations make (Along with a whole mess of other realities being ignored).
WW2 obviously had very complex causes, and I wouldn't want to single out any one. I agree that a country with a failing economy is more likely to go to war, and Germany's failing economy was, loosely, the reason she went to war. Capitalism is what caused the German Economy to fail, I assume you will say? I will expand my thoughts on this, I just wanna make sure we're thinking on the same path.

We can choose to believe that advanced capitalist nations don't usually enter into war simply because they have similar political ideologies, or we can examine the web of economic connections between all these nations, and how they're so deeply intertwined in trade that a war between them would be disastrous.This is exactly right, the only difference between our opinions here is that you view these interconnections and mutual dependencies as a bad thing (because they are based on capitalism ). I view it as a good thing because I like capitalism and I don't like wars.

That said, I don't put a hell of a lot of credence in Democratic Peace Theory, I just thought it might be relevant to you because you seem to want to portray Capitalist countries as especially militarist, when the reality is they are no more or less militant than any other type of society, including the communist ones you want to defend.

freehobo

31st December 2012, 00:40

This argument really doesn't have much credibility in either context. It seems like it's the Libertarians' way of winning against socialists without actually winning; "Yeah, I admit capitalism is bad, but I still like it better, so HAH!"

Capitalism is bad in some senses, but it's good in others. I like it because it makes everything so cheap. You've got all these greedy assholes all competing with each other for your dollar, the real winner is you the consumer. I highly doubt I could buy a cask of wine for $7 without capitalism.

Questionable

31st December 2012, 01:10

Ya, I won't waste any more of your time with my speculations about that. You said before there is a lot of data / study refuting my idea. If you want suggest some reading I'll look over it when I can, I'll also do some goggling on my own. I think it's really going to be hard to get any meaningful statistics showing how a liaises-faire society would evolve over time, for the same reason that it's hard to get empirical evidence on how well communism could work - because it hasn't been achieved yet (supposedly). But I do note that you are not one of those communists who require the "withering of the state" to accept communism as valid? You seem to be quite willing to defend the un-withered version of communism as communism?

I'll try to find something for you to read when I can.

But I do note that you are not one of those communists who require the "withering of the state" to accept communism as valid? You seem to be quite willing to defend the un-withered version of communism as communism?

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of here. Socialist countries like the USSR nations were often called "communist" to distinguish them from other kinds of socialism, even though they hadn't yet achieved statelessness or classlessness. As a Marxist-Leninist, I believe there's a transitional period where the proletariat organizes itself as the ruling class, and uses the state to suppress the bourgeoisie while simultaneously removing the relations of production that makes their very existence possible. This transitional period was incomplete in the USSR, and eventually began sliding backwards.

I defend social services under capitalism because in a lot of cases it acts as a temporary band-aid for the problems workers suffer under capitalism. I don't see it as a perfect solution, and in some cases the criticisms libertarians make about how mismanaged it is are absolutely right.

Outperformed in what sense?

In the sense that a feudalistic country with a 70% illiteracy rate caught up to the industrial giants of the West in a matter of decades. And economic performance doesn't even take into account successes that are harder to measure and compare, like political freedoms.

You linked me some graphs that show life-expectancy going up commensurately in China and Russia with the rest of the world.

Yes. If these countries were the disaster zones you're saying that are, couldn't we expect life-expectancy to drop sharply? Instead, it rose sharply.

I see what you're saying -- that any hierarchical, stratified society needs and army and a communist one wouldn't, because it wouldn't be hierarchical and stratified. All societies thus far have been hierarchical and stratified, and so have needed armies. Capitalism is the most hierarchical and stratified and therefore required the largest of armies. Is that syllogism a fair synopsis of what your saying?

It's a portion of what I'm saying. Stratification is not a cause of itself, there's also the nature of capitalism that makes it necessary to expand new markets, compete with camps of national capitalists, and suppress dissent.

Socialism doesn't use less resources, it uses more because it has no way of calculating what is the more or less economical way of doing things. The result is massive waste. Using more resources is worse for the environment, not better.

The Von Mises Calculation Problem? This has been rebuked many times by socialists. I'll show you a good one; http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

There is no way out of this conundrum, because reality exists, and imposes itself on human designs. There is no magical wonder-system to produce something out of nothing. Capitalism is the only pragmatic (as well as moral) possibility.

This is just another variation of "capitalism is human nature."

Besides, I wasn't really referring to enviromentalism when I made that post. I was referring to capital's need to find newer and newer markets to sell commodities to.

So say the Marxists, I know. I actually agree with Robert Carlyle and Will Durant on this one - "The history of the world is but the biography of great men"

I'm interested in how complex social, economic, and political structures and processes are built on the whims of great men.

You're rather selective about applying that idea though - for example when I ask you why Libertarians aren't militaristic, you basically say were all too stupid to see the big picture. But when it suits you, nothing is what it seems, there's a class conspiracy around every corner.

How am I being selective? Libertarianism is an ideology to justify capital's existence, just like democratic peace theory. Ideologies are different from sciences, they can be false. There are many white nationalists who believe capitalism would somehow become magically better if we removed all the "niggers and Jews," but we know that's bullshit.

I'm not calling anybody stupid. Libertarians can certainly be smart as individuals, but the ideology they subscribe to is problematic. And it doesn't mean anything about their intelligence. If it was easy to understand capitalism, we wouldn't be having this discussion. An individual is more than the sum of his beliefs.

Which ones? None of the Central powers were democracies.

What would you define a democracy as? For instance Russia's short-lived bourgeois-democratic regime wanted to continue participating in the war. And we're still not even looking at the economic struggles between imperialists that was leading up to the war.

WW2 obviously had very complex causes, and I wouldn't want to single out any one. I agree that a country with a failing economy is more likely to go to war, and Germany's failing economy was, loosely, the reason she went to war. Capitalism is what caused the German Economy to fail, I assume you will say? I will expand my thoughts on this, I just wanna make sure we're thinking on the same path.

There were other causes, but that was a big part of it, yes. Though undemocratic, fascism was still an economic system based on the social reproduction of capital.

This is exactly right, the only difference between our opinions here is that you view these interconnections and mutual dependencies as a bad thing (because they are based on capitalism ). I view it as a good thing because I like capitalism and I don't like wars.

You're assuming that capitalism is a static thing that will remain good forever, when the reality is that it's an extremely rocky system that even throws advanced capitalist nations under the bus. Just look at what's happening with the European Union right now; there's no wars breaking out (yet), but there's still extreme poverty and misery. Capitalism doesn't have to break out into open warfare to be bad (Although it tends to go that direction when things get rough).

That said, I don't put a hell of a lot of credence in Democratic Peace Theory, I just thought it might be relevant to you because you seem to want to portray Capitalist countries as especially militarist, when the reality is they are no more or less militant than any other type of society, including the communist ones you want to defend.

Well first of all we've established that democratic peace theory is just plain wrong and merely a smokescreen for spreading capitalism. Second I'm not sure how you can keep claiming that capitalism is not militarist or is becoming less militarist, each country puts billions of dollars towards its war machines and there's still lots of conflict between Western countries and the third-world. I'd say America alone has a strong enough military to inflict permanent damage on the world if it unleashed its whole arsenal against someone. If I'm not mistaken the US defense budget is bigger than its ever been right now.

No one can say that capitalism has not changed. Multinational corporations have become more important than the flag you're carrying, and these corporations are usually the ones who become intertwined in the military-industrial complex and initiate brute force against reluctant "market opportunities." The reason we don't see much war in the West is because that's mostly where these multinational corporations are based and it wouldn't make sense for them to go to war with territory that already belongs to them. Their military power is put towards cracking open new markets, like the USSR or "Arab Socialism" in the Middle East, or the new wave of left-wing Latin American governments.

Not to mention that, as I said before, peacetime does not necessarily mean everyone is living some prosperous life. You don't need war for people to be getting fired because of a depression and starving in the streets.

Jason

31st December 2012, 01:17

Fire

31st December 2012, 12:49

I've heard of the hobo marks thing. It's actually mentioned in the game Promethean the Created where the PCs are "hobos" because they have a supernatural curse.

Jason

2nd January 2013, 03:03

In the sense that a feudalistic country with a 70% illiteracy rate caught up to the industrial giants of the West in a matter of decades. And economic performance doesn't even take into account successes that are harder to measure and compare, like political freedoms.

A reactionary could attack this pretty easy. First of all, they did catch up to the west, but only via Stalinist slavery. Also what political freedom? :( One could also mention that capitalist India, Brazil and China (Communist in name only) have caught up to the west in a matter of decades also.

Not saying I think the Soviet Union was bad (opinion is neutral), but just contemplating what an opponent might say.

There are many white nationalists who believe capitalism would somehow become magically better if we removed all the "niggers and Jews," but we know that's bullshit.

How could Jews alone magically cause every screwup in capitalism, since they comprise such a small number? Also, the you have to remember the "great paradox of white nationalism": "Jews were behind the slave trade and imperalism, yet we believe those things were a positive good. :rolleyes:"

Questionable

2nd January 2013, 04:23

A reactionary could attack this pretty easy. First of all, they did catch up to the west, but only via Stalinist slavery. Also what political freedom? One could also mention that capitalist India, Brazil and China (Communist in name only) have caught up to the west in a matter of decades also.

Well being a ML I don't believe in most of the "Stalinist slavery" crap that gets peddled by the Left nowadays. Obviously it wasn't perfect but it wasn't a hellhole.

China only caught up to the West because of its initial socialist construction, that's what gave it the groundwork to become one of the worlds greatest imperialist powers.

In fact, I'd say India and Brazil have become bigger hellholes than any Soviet country ever was, despite whether you believe they were genuinely socialist or not. India has massive wealth inequality and Brazil is currently embroiled in a devastating drug problem, among other things

What political freedom? Well, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that women and non-whites had full voting rights goes quite a long way when comparing them to the West. Here's a pamphlet about Soviet democracy, although it was written by the USSR so parts of it should be taken with a grain of salt, it's still an interesting explanation of how democracy worked; http://sovietlibrary.org/Library/Union%20of%20Soviet%20Socialist%20Republics/1951_The%20Soviet%20Socialist%20State_1951_e-book.pdf

You could also read the 1936 Soviet Constitution if you're interested.

Thelonious

2nd January 2013, 05:57

[QUOTE=freehobo;2556402]Capitalism is bad in some senses, but it's good in others. I like it because it makes everything so cheap.

After reading the above statement I must assume that you either have good health insurance, or you never go to a doctor or a dentist, and do not take any medications.

Rafiq

5th January 2013, 21:22

You vastly underestimate the power (and brutality) of the private sector. Note: the private sector was behind "New World Slavery" (and Roman).

You mentioned a state bureaucrat. Well, you have a point, but in this case it would be: "exchanging one master for another". I suppose this could be some reference to Stalinism. But then you get into a debate on whether or not Stalinism was bad. You can say that for all it's faults, it was "for the people", while chattle slavery in Brazil was not.

The dichotomy between "private" and "public" sectors, as far as a macro-analysis of the capitalist mode of production goes, is intrinsically a bourgeois ideological pre supposion. Not only is it an inherent false dichotomy, they are not diametrically or even "dialectically" opposed entities, public space in the end will always be sustained by "private" space, and so on. We should not scold at those who say "private" hands are more efficient than "public", i.e. as far as infrastructure and technological developments go, it is simply an objective fact (well, as far as making these things "feasible" and "comfortable"). The problem is simple: Yes, "private innovation" may be better (after all, the bourgeois state is sustained by capitalist social relations, not the other way around), but who can afford it?

Ele'ill

5th January 2013, 21:31

why am i in oi

Capitalism is bad in some senses, but it's good in others. I like it because it makes everything so cheap.

Like rent and medical

Rafiq

5th January 2013, 21:33

Capitalism is bad in some senses, but it's good in others. I like it because it makes everything so cheap. You've got all these greedy assholes all competing with each other for your dollar, the real winner is you the consumer. I highly doubt I could buy a cask of wine for $7 without capitalism.

Uh huh, the problem resides with the fact that the difference between socialism and capitalism does not amount to mere personal preference, i.e. "well there's good and bad components of both, but I prefer the latter". Whether you "like" capitalism or not, whether you appreciate all of the social achievements made by the capitalist mode of production or not, capitalism carries the seeds of it's own destruction, and one of those seeds resides with the revolutionary proletariat. Communism is not a matter of choice, it is an actually existing reflection or a real class interest, not some abstract blueprint that we have pulled out of our ass because we think it would "function better" or what have you. If capitalism was free of social antagonisms and could function indefinitely, while still retaining, you know, relative social comfort, standard of living etc. Then there would be no reason for anyone to take action against the bourgeois class, a criticism of the capitalist mode of production would be rendered useless, especially from the mouth of an academic. As far as this, bizarre and wholly idealist conception of the relationship between the consumer and the "producer", the real winner is neither you or the man who makes a profit, but the social relations which sustain this. The phenomena of "market democracy" is a non existent one, you do not "choose" what the better product is, you are born and your preference is not determined by your consciousness, but the social factors which determine your consciousness. There are countless examples here that I shouldn't even have to bring up. Take for example the phenomena that is 3D movies: Nobody fucking likes 3d, almost everyone I've spoken to prefers to see movies without it. But because so many movies are becoming 3D-only, people simply remain indifferent to it, and eventually, they will adjust to it. It's pretty absurd for you to say that you "doubt" you could come to possess a bottle of wine so easily in any form of social organisation that isn't capitalism, while you are yourself constrained by capitalist social relations, not only on a social level, but on an ideological level as well. Of course you can not imagine another form of social organisation, one that has not existed yet. Mode(s) of production do not come about form our "imagination" but from real existing class interests, real existing classes for filling their interests just as new specimen do not come about from their own "imagination" but from their struggle to survive and adapt to their environments.

Rafiq

5th January 2013, 21:37

why am i in oi

Like rent and medical

Then one could proceed to say:

"Yeah well you could still sustain capitalism while having a state-subsidized renting fee and medical system". Expensive rent and medical necessities is not a necessary component of the capitalist mode of production. It's why those types of arguments have to be attacked by doing away with the notion of "preference" all together, doing away with the notion of "good and bad" regarding whole mode(s) of production and instead analyzing the actual systemic contradictions which give birth to these systemic components of capitalism (expensive rent, low wages, and so on).

Ele'ill

5th January 2013, 21:51

Then one could proceed to say:

"Yeah well you could still sustain capitalism while having a state-subsidized renting fee and medical system". Expensive rent and medical necessities is not a necessary component of the capitalist mode of production. It's why those types of arguments have to be attacked by doing away with the notion of "preference" all together, doing away with the notion of "good and bad" regarding whole mode(s) of production and instead analyzing the actual systemic contradictions which give birth to these systemic components of capitalism (expensive rent, low wages, and so on).

I read this with the Robot Chicken nerd voice. Anyways, It was to contrast cost vs free.

Jason

6th January 2013, 00:34

Well being a ML I don't believe in most of the "Stalinist slavery" crap that gets peddled by the Left nowadays. Obviously it wasn't perfect but it wasn't a hellhole.

China only caught up to the West because of its initial socialist construction, that's what gave it the groundwork to become one of the worlds greatest imperialist powers.

In fact, I'd say India and Brazil have become bigger hellholes than any Soviet country ever was, despite whether you believe they were genuinely socialist or not. India has massive wealth inequality and Brazil is currently embroiled in a devastating drug problem, among other things

What political freedom? Well, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that women and non-whites had full voting rights goes quite a long way when comparing them to the West. Here's a pamphlet about Soviet democracy, although it was written by the USSR so parts of it should be taken with a grain of salt, it's still an interesting explanation of how democracy worked; http://sovietlibrary.org/Library/Union%20of%20Soviet%20Socialist%20Republics/1951_The%20Soviet%20Socialist%20State_1951_e-book.pdf

You could also read the 1936 Soviet Constitution if you're interested.

It's interesting how they describe US journalists as selling out for "30 pieces of silver". So the Soviets did use religious analogies despite being athiest.

Rafiq

6th January 2013, 00:54

I read this with the Robot Chicken nerd voice. Anyways, It was to contrast cost vs free.

I don't think you will do well to compare some kind of abstract utopia to an actually existing mode of production, i.e. "Hur dur well in Commurnism we got FREE fucking spaceships for everyone!!!!!!111". What you can do is form a critical analysis of capitalism without resorting to comparisons with a future society.

Ele'ill

6th January 2013, 20:47

I don't think you will do well to compare some kind of abstract utopia to an actually existing mode of production, i.e. "Hur dur well in Commurnism we got FREE fucking spaceships for everyone!!!!!!111". What you can do is form a critical analysis of capitalism without resorting to comparisons with a future society.

yeah I didn't say anything about spaceships for everyone I was alluding to basic needs, just two examples, casually. I'm really kind of baffled as to why you're so upset about this.

Lowtech

7th January 2013, 20:56

If you are what you say you are Mr. Hobo, I'm sure you understand that in the most general sense, you are homeless/moneyless because society assumes it decides your worth rather than yourself.

Communism recognizes you as a human being, not a potential wage slave.

And I say this because, society, designed as it is currently, a monetary market, plutocratic society, you're made to buy all resources required to sustain your life. Without working, without ownership of capital, you're treated as subhuman.

Now having to earn your keep alone would not be bad if it weren't for the fact that one must be paid less than the value of his labor for it to be profitable, aswell as all commodities being sold above production cost (at a profit) creating artificial scarcity. This is why capitalism is defunct, elitist, bullshit.

If after understanding all this you are still stubbornly against communism, you haven't the slightest clue what communism is and your opinion is about as useful as a punch to the genitals.

Questionable

7th January 2013, 21:52

I wish this guy would come back. His views were problematic but as an individual he seemed quite intelligent.

Lowtech

8th January 2013, 16:09

I wish this guy would come back. His views were problematic but as an individual he seemed quite intelligent.

Perhaps

Perhaps, he was a gift in desguise, polarizing us further to the left. Where we should be.

Or just a really gimmicky troll lol.

Questionable

8th January 2013, 21:30

Perhaps

Perhaps, he was a gift in desguise, polarizing us further to the left. Where we should be.

Or just a really gimmicky troll lol.

I like to think, at the risk of sounding arrogant, it was more of an example of how Libertarianism is such a flawed ideology that even a man of fair intelligence can't defend it.

Jason

9th January 2013, 07:55

Sure, but I'd much rather be at the mercy of an employer, where the worst he can do is cease giving me his money, than to be at the mercy of a state bureaucrat who makes choices for me, with the forces of government behind him.

The government is supposed to represent the "working class". If it doesn't, then it's a fraud.

I'm saying that I think the "Liberal route" would have worked out better for Russia. I see the 80 years they experimented with communism as "arrested development". I don't think the Tzars would have done better, no. But it's all very speculative. Although they might have done as well as the Bolsheviks - look what Peter the Great did to modernize Russia. He was the Stalin of his day.

Except that Peter's modernization only affected the upper classes, unless you really buy into "trickle down theory". :rolleyes:

Well the basic idea is that democracies will never go to war with each other - based on the reasoning that two democracies never have thus far. You are spot on to note that the theory can be used to justify nation-building campaigns -- because it has. It's actually staple in that foreign policy. I'm an isolationist so I hate neo-cons, but I do think it's true that capitalist democracies absolutely no reason to go to war with each other.

The US is a "dictatorship of the capitalist class". True, it may not go to war with similar states, but it always picks fights with different ones - who don't deserve it.

I'm an isolationist so I hate neo-cons

As much as we may hate neo-cons, they are simply practicing hardcore capitalism. At least they're not pulling no punches.

OK, to well to target your point specifically, the military does have a huge role protecting and expanding markets. To talk about just one country specifically - America has just spent a 80 years fighting an ideological war (Cold War). To that extent the role of the military was to protect Capitalism -- it couldn't be any more obvious. I think a lot of Americas foreign policy during the Cold War was ridiculous, but whatever, that's a different thing altogether. Domestically, America has a constitution that is founded on capitalist principles, so all of the armed forces and intelligence agencies work to protect capitalism in that sense too. But none of this is the same as saying capitalism depends on these things. Honestly, now that the cold war is over, I don't think capitalism has any real threats to worry about. Terrorism is higher on the agenda as a national security concern than rival economic systems.

It's human nature to protect one's own interest. For instance, capitalists have a strong interest in keeping bananas in private hands. Plus, they have the money and connections to utilize armies and police. Put two and two together. You isolationists can't understand that the world isn't "Mr. Rogers Neighborhood". :rolleyes:

I don't think capitalism has any real threats to worry about. Terrorism is higher on the agenda as a national security concern than rival economic systems.

It's a smokescreen for domination. Imperalist wars are always about money. ALWAYS.

Lowtech

9th January 2013, 20:50

Sure, but I'd much rather be at the mercy of an employer, where the worst he can do is cease giving me his money, than to be at the mercy of a state bureaucrat who makes choices for me, with the forces of government behind him.

Firing you isnt worse than the fact employers must pay you less than the value of your labor for it to be profitable (exploitation). Needing capital is no excuse for exploitation, capitalism creates artificial scarcity, therfore the artificial need for capital as an excuse for capitalism is circular logic.

Also, it is not "his money," the capitalist aquires the money via exploitation.

Additionally, "state bureaucrat who makes choices for me" is a strawman, as the totalitarian state capitalism seen in north Korea and the former USSR are not examples of communism.

This is the same method creationists use, a condensed argument of multiple false ASSumptions and strawmen.

Dog

10th January 2013, 02:16

Firing you isnt worse than the fact employers must pay you less than the value of your labor for it to be profitable (exploitation). Needing capital is no excuse for exploitation, capitalism creates artificial scarcity, therfore the artificial need for capital as an excuse for capitalism is circular logic.

Also, it is not "his money," the capitalist aquires the money via exploitation.

Additionally, "state bureaucrat who makes choices for me" is a strawman, as the totalitarian state capitalism seen in north Korea and the former USSR are not examples of communism.

This is the same method creationists use, a condensed argument of multiple false ASSumptions and strawmen.

If you're a libertarian communist, I think the same criticism applies. Just replace state bureaucrat with the collective (work for the collective or starve). And please with this artificial scarcity concept, it's that which is circular logic - yes, if you outlaw capitalists, there will be no capitalists. But you don't increase capital by that. You just redistribute it, and destroy a lot of it as a result.

Lowtech

10th January 2013, 08:39

If you're a libertarian communist, I think the same criticism applies. Just replace state bureaucrat with the collective (work for the collective or starve). And please with this artificial scarcity concept, it's that which is circular logic - yes, if you outlaw capitalists, there will be no capitalists. But you don't increase capital by that. You just redistribute it, and destroy a lot of it as a result.

This "concept" is mathematically observable. Selling above production cost and under paying workers creates artificial scarcity.

Capital doesn't exist. Rather, as capitalists increase scarcity artificially, inturn general cost of production also increases artificially, therfore what is precieved as a need for "capital" is in fact artificial scarcity.

In essense, capitalism is an economy of perception, and it has been fabricated so the rich can keep more for themselves. Where it breaks down is that the rich cannot validate consuming more than they produce.

If you're a libertarian communist, I think the same criticism applies. Just replace state bureaucrat with the collective (work for the collective or starve).

people are intelligent enough to understand the concept of work. What capitalists want you to do is be so ignorant that you don't understand you're being exploited. Within communism, there's no artificial scarcity.

If you look at our current economy, with 20% of people having 80% of the wealth, it doesn't take a mathematician to understand that removing concentration of wealth, 80% of the population will see an immediate increase in quality of life.

Conversely, 20% of people cannot produce 80% of economic value, it is physically impossible. this is why capitalists rely on social constructs of ownership and markets to force economic subjugation onto the masses.

Dog

13th January 2013, 02:01

This "concept" is mathematically observable. Selling above production cost and under paying workers creates artificial scarcity.

No it doesn't. It's just more efficient.

Capital doesn't exist. Rather, as capitalists increase scarcity artificially, inturn general cost of production also increases artificially, therfore what is precieved as a need for "capital" is in fact artificial scarcity.

If your methods of production were so efficient, they would dominate on a free market. But they're not, and so you have to abolish private property.

In essense, capitalism is an economy of perception, and it has been fabricated so the rich can keep more for themselves. Where it breaks down is that the rich cannot validate consuming more than they produce.

They can never consume more than they produce. If they did, they wouldn't be rich anymore.

Ipeople are intelligent enough to understand the concept of work. What capitalists want you to do is be so ignorant that you don't understand you're being exploited.

But it's not exploitation. See: mises.org/etexts/mises/interventionism/section5.asp

If you look at our current economy, with 20% of people having 80% of the wealth, it doesn't take a mathematician to understand that removing concentration of wealth, 80% of the population will see an immediate increase in quality of life.

That's exactly it. It'd be "immediate". As soon as they consumed all the capital they'd become peasants.

Lowtech

13th January 2013, 15:32

No it doesn't. It's just more efficient.profit is not a legitimate means to measure efficiency. its efficient for the seller to sell garbage at a markup, but inefficient for the buyer.

artificial scarcity is produced by this:

production cost for person A is $2, then they sell their product to person B at $5, person B's transmuted production cost is now $5, whereas in reality production cost was only $2. person B is experiencing artificial scarcity directly due to person A retaining value via the profit mechanism.
If your methods of production were so efficient, they would dominate on a free market. But they're not, and so you have to abolish private property.there's really only one kind of production, however to answer your question, communism is more efficient, this is exactly why the working class is vastly larger than the plutocratic class. the mathematics of the rich would implode if there were not the vast numbers of working class producing value, and having that value exploited by the rich.
They can never consume more than they produce. If they did, they wouldn't be rich anymore.wrong. they don't produce any wealth, their assets do. more accurately, assets derive wealth, or value, from those who produce it, the working class. assets being businesses; but more simply labor and materials, infrastructure. if the rich truly produced anything themselves, they wouldn't need "assets" or wouldn't need "ownership" of assets. also they have no practicality, they do nothing more than create an abstract role that serves to alienate the worker from the organizational process.
But it's not exploitation. See: mises.org/etexts/mises/interventionism/section5.aspstop crying that its not exploitation. you must be paid less than the value of your labor for it to be profitable. period. and being paid less than the value of your labor is exploitation.
That's exactly it. It'd be "immediate". As soon as they consumed all the capital they'd become peasants.spare me your archaic view of economics. the rich exist for their own sake alone. remove them and the world won't fall apart like you suggest. and believing that we would consume ourselves into poverty simply shows you have no idea where value comes from. the rich have two impacts on economics, one they distort our ability to utilize resources and two, they are a burden that consumes 80% or more of resources, creating poverty and wage slavery.