Capitalist Count

[Xvall]

I've been gone for a while, and I have no idea what has been going on. I have noticed however, that there are few if any people that are non-socialists/communists on this message board. Perhaps this is due to the fact that it is no longer summer, and people are busy. Regardless, I'm curious as to which people on the board are non-socialists/communists. Thanks.

[Ortega]

Well there's el_profe, John Galt, Loknar (been here for a while, I know), Y2A, and then there are several more whose names escape me.

[kylie]

Hoppe and ahura mazda, too. I dont consider myself particularly Marxist either.

[kylie]

Oh. I seem to be logged in as Kylie now. I'll never figure out this dumb cookie thing. Well normally i'm kylieII, having had this account screw up.

[Y2A]

<----Capitalist

[Al Creed]

There&#39;s also Hoppe. What about Sam Adams?

I guess you missed A Pict. He was around, but got banned for posting a link with a virus on it.

[Zanzibar]

Why would there be capitalists on a site like this? :unsure:

[Vinny Rafarino]

There was quite a bit until Reggie Hammond walked in.


But don&#39;t worry your pretty little heads off comrades, a new wave of capitalists trolls is just around the corner.


That&#39;s one cheque the postal service will indeed deliver.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:34 AM
Why would there be capitalists on a site like this? :unsure:
I don&#39;t know, but I&#39;m happy they are here.

[Autarky]

Corporatist

[Valishin]

Well there are a few here that are still gripped into reality.

[Zanzibar]

Ban them

[Bianconero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 12:02 AM
<----Capitalist
Thing is that probably nobody of these people is a capitalist in the original sense. After all, I doubt they own any means of production.

They simply believe in &#39;capitalism&#39;, which makes them policemen of the political reaction at best.

These people are policemen.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Bianconero+Feb 1 2004, 01:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bianconero @ Feb 1 2004, 01:15 PM)
[email protected] 1 2004, 12:02 AM
<----Capitalist
Thing is that probably nobody of these people is a capitalist in the original sense. After all, I doubt they own any means of production.

They simply believe in &#39;capitalism&#39;, which makes them policemen of the political reaction at best.

These people are policemen. [/b]
I think that they enjoy ridiculling commies for an ideology that can obviously never work because that is that. Few have any grasp of their ideology or reality. I must say that Hoppe is an exception, he actually knows what he is talking about and has been helpful.

I still say we need far more.


Locknar I have never really talked to but I think he also knows what he is on about.
O.K. I change my mind, El_Profe is quite clued as well. I had only seen him insult until now. Maybe these are the best we have had for a long time.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 04:44 PM
Hoppe and ahura mazda, too. I dont consider myself particularly Marxist either.
Isn&#39;t that nice? A person who "isn&#39;t particularly Marxist" can get into the CC but a person who has his own opinions about abortions gets kicked.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Bianconero+Feb 1 2004, 01:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bianconero @ Feb 1 2004, 01:15 PM)
[email protected] 1 2004, 12:02 AM
<----Capitalist
Thing is that probably nobody of these people is a capitalist in the original sense. After all, I doubt they own any means of production.

They simply believe in &#39;capitalism&#39;, which makes them policemen of the political reaction at best.

These people are policemen. [/b]
A capitalist is one who believes in the free trade and private ownership. Thus I am a capitalist. But there are capitalists who believe that the markets should be regulated by the state and others that believe it should have no restrictions, thus liberals and conservatives. That is what&#39;s wrong with you people, you think "capitalist" means rich person, I think the term you are looking for is bourgeois not capitalist.

[Bianconero]

A capitalist is one who believes in the free trade and private ownership.

This ain&#39;t necessarily a capitalist. Of course no capitalist will argue against free trade and private ownership, but this is not the correct definition.

A capitalist owns means of production. That makes him a capitalist. He &#39;pays&#39; his workers for their labour. You can argue all day that you believe in capitalism, but that doesn&#39;t make you a capitalist. It makes you every capitalist&#39;s dog. You bark when we are organizing against your lords.

Being determines counsciousness.

You are still a policeman.

[Professor Moneybags]

"This ain&#39;t necessarily a capitalist. Of course no capitalist will argue against free trade and private ownership, but this is not the correct definition."

A capitalist is a person who advocates capitalism.

"A capitalist owns means of production."

Everyone owns a "means of production". It&#39;s called a brain.

"That makes him a capitalist. He &#39;pays&#39; his workers for their labour. You can argue all day that you believe in capitalism, but that doesn&#39;t make you a capitalist."

Aw gee, what does it make me then, a communist ?

"It makes you every capitalist&#39;s dog. You bark when we are organizing against your lords."

So if I claim that I support free trade, I&#39;m lying unless I own a "means of production" ?

Capitalist is not synonymous with "the rich", as there are plenty of "rich" who oppose capitalism.

[Bianconero]

A capitalist is a person who advocates capitalism.

Listen, tough guy, I don&#39;t care about you, about what you think or about what you have heard. If you are not able to read and understand, stop argueing.

&#39;Capitalism&#39; is the economic system we live in. It&#39;s essence is that an elite owns all means of production, which allows them to exploit labour. This is not what I think, or what I have heard. This is what science tells me. A &#39;capitalist&#39; is part of that elite.

Not anyone who is rich is a capitalist.

Not anyone who advocates &#39;capitalism&#39; is a capitalist.

Anyone who exploits labour is a capitalist. Anyone owning means of production is a capitalist.


Aw gee, what does it make me then, a communist ?

A lot of people advocate &#39;capitalism.&#39; Some are capitalists, some are not. Those who are not are part of the working class. They are not communists.


So if I claim that I support free trade, I&#39;m lying unless I own a "means of production" ?

Capitalist is not synonymous with "the rich", as there are plenty of "rich" who oppose capitalism.

Free trade is benefiting those who are in favour of means of production. You are not part of that elite. Thus, free trade doesn&#39;t benefit your existance. You can advocate free trade as a worker too. That merely makes you an unconscious worker, as free trade is not helping you.

Conclusion: Anyone can advocate capitalism, but not anyone can simply declare himself a capitalist.

You can of course declare you support the ruling class, i.e. the capitalists. By doing that you support, if you are not part of the ruling class, the fact that you are being exploited. You exist because those you own means of production need you to work for them. They don&#39;t need you because you have great hair, mate. Or a great character. They want your labour.

[Professor Moneybags]

"Listen, tough guy, I don&#39;t care about you, about what you think or about what you have heard. If you are not able to read and understand, stop argueing."

I&#39;m terribly sorry if I don&#39;t swallow your straw man view of capitalism.

"&#39;Capitalism&#39; is the economic system we live in. It&#39;s essence is that an elite owns all means of production, which allows them to exploit labour. This is not what I think, or what I have heard."

We actually live in a mixed system of capitalism and socialism. A mixture of property right protection and violation.

"This is what science tells me. A &#39;capitalist&#39; is part of that elite.

Not anyone who is rich is a capitalist.

Not anyone who advocates &#39;capitalism&#39; is a capitalist.

Anyone who exploits labour is a capitalist. Anyone owning means of production is a capitalist."

So if I&#39;m not a capitalist, then what am I and what do I advocate ?

"Free trade is benefiting those who are in favour of means of production. You are not part of that elite. Thus, free trade doesn&#39;t benefit your existance."

Oh yes it does- it makes a difference every time you go shopping.

"You can advocate free trade as a worker too. That merely makes you an unconscious worker, as free trade is not helping you."

The exchange of values is of benefit to everyone, rich or poor. Restricting this freedom is ulitmately harmful to both.

"You can of course declare you support the ruling class, i.e. the capitalists. By doing that you support, if you are not part of the ruling class, the fact that you are being exploited."

Whoa...hold on a minute. This demonstrates an inability to tell economic from political power. Holding economic power as such does not make you an "exploiter".

"You exist because those you own means of production need you to work for them."

And how does that explain the existence of the self-employed ?

"They don&#39;t need you because you have great hair, mate. Or a great character. They want your labour."

And they can have it, providing they are willing to pay the right price and I am willing to work for them for it. Trade is a two-way street.

[John Galt]

I was away for a model UN convention, but I am back.


I am a capitalist.


You are both right

3 entries found for capitalist.
cap·i·tal·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-st)
n.

1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth.


Capitalist means both

[LSD]

You are both right

HaHa&#33;
This is a rare event, enjoy it while it lasts&#33;&#33;


Whoa...hold on a minute. This demonstrates an inability to tell economic from political power. Holding economic power as such does not make you an "exploiter".

well....yes it does.

Holding economic power, gives you economic power. And economic power must be over someone.
That "someone" is being exploited.


"Free trade is benefiting those who are in favour of means of production. You are not part of that elite. Thus, free trade doesn&#39;t benefit your existance."

Oh yes it does- it makes a difference every time you go shopping.

Yes, it "makes a difference" in "shopping", Bionconero pointed out that it does not "benefit your existance."
Tell me, how much does it really help you to have Chinese made shoes over American made ones???
This "difference" is pretty damn small.

I&#39;m assuming, however, that you live in the first world. Maybe you don&#39;t. Maybe you are a struggling worker in Indochina.
Then you&#39;re right, Free Trade makes an enourmous difference, but it sure as hell isn&#39;t a good one.



The exchange of values is of benefit to everyone, rich or poor.

The "exchange of values"??
What, like morality?


Restricting this freedom is ulitmately harmful to both.

You&#39;re going to have to actually present some reason to back this up.
Believe it or not, simply saying it doesn&#39;t make it true.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2004, 12:01 AM
Holding economic power, gives you economic power. And economic power must be over someone.
That "someone" is being exploited.

So according to this definition you can never stop exploitation. You can only swap it for "the minority being exploited by the majority".

[Professor Moneybags]

"Holding economic power, gives you economic power. And economic power must be over someone."

Only political power gives you "power over" someone. You can&#39;t force people to do anything with money, it is only a tool of exchange, after all and exchanges must be voluntary.

"Yes, it "makes a difference" in "shopping", Bionconero pointed out that it does not "benefit your existance."

It does if the goods are cheaper, which means I have more money to spend on other things.

"Tell me, how much does it really help you to have Chinese made shoes over American made ones???
This "difference" is pretty damn small."

That&#39;s not the arguement, although there would be a considerable price difference.

"Then you&#39;re right, Free Trade makes an enourmous difference, but it sure as hell isn&#39;t a good one."

Explain why it isn&#39;t good.

"The "exchange of values"??
What, like morality?"

I mean exchange of values such as goods and services. You don&#39;t believe in morality ?

"You&#39;re going to have to actually present some reason to back this up.
Believe it or not, simply saying it doesn&#39;t make it true."

Explain how restricting my right to, say, sell my car to someone is harmful enough to warrant a ban on free trade.

[LSD]

Hoppe:


So according to this definition you can never stop exploitation. You can only swap it for "the minority being exploited by the majority".

In capitalism yes.

The point of communism is that economic power is put into the hands of those subject to it. Basically this entails the elimination of economic power.



Professor Moneybags:

Only political power gives you "power over" someone. You can&#39;t force people to do anything with money, it is only a tool of exchange, after all and exchanges must be voluntary.

There is one job in my town, I take it or I starve.
Do I really have a choice??


Explain why it isn&#39;t good.

Workers in the third world are working to support interest in the first. Their labour and resources goes to the salaries of American busniessmen.


Explain how restricting my right to, say, sell my car to someone is harmful enough to warrant a ban on free trade.

What?

Restricting you "right to, say, sell my car to someone" is not harmfull. In fact I fully support the destruction of the capitalist "market".
Communism remember?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2004, 06:42 PM
In capitalism yes.

The point of communism is that economic power is put into the hands of those subject to it. Basically this entails the elimination of economic power.

How naieve. There is still economic power, but now "the majority" has it, instead of the "capitalist". So now you have democratic slavery, or does anybody precisely know what to do at any given moment?

How stupid of me, I know nothing of communism........ :(

[Professor Moneybags]

In capitalism yes.

The point of communism is that economic power is put into the hands of those subject to it. Basically this entails the elimination of economic power.

Why does economic power need eliminating, when (unlike political power) it&#39;s pretty much harmless ?

None of this explains how economic power is the same as political power.


There is one job in my town, I take it or I starve.
Do I really have a choice??

Floating abstraction.

But yes, you would have a choice, you can fend for yourself in the unlikely event of it coming down to that.


Workers in the third world are working to support interest in the first.

Workers in the first fork out far more to support interests in the third.


Their labour and resources goes to the salaries of American busniessmen.

How ? By force ? If so, explain.


What?

Restricting you "right to, say, sell my car to someone" is not harmfull. In fact I fully support the destruction of the capitalist "market".

There&#39;s no difference between that example and a legitimate, free, stock market.


How naieve. There is still economic power, but now "the majority" has it, instead of the "capitalist". So now you have democratic slavery, or does anybody precisely know what to do at any given moment?

True, but to be more precise, they have replaced a handful of (supposed) dictators with several million of them.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 2 2004, 07:39 PM

Workers in the first fork out far more to support interests in the third.
In cash yes, in% earnings no. A small % of tax goes on aid, a large goes on debt repayments.

[bubbrubb]

im not and i don&#39;t evr plan on it i think the commie system is a bit flawed ao i don&#39;t think i evr will be a commie

[kylieII]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:45 PM

Isn&#39;t that nice? A person who "isn&#39;t particularly Marxist" can get into the CC but a person who has his own opinions about abortions gets kicked.
Try posting 7 topics on the chitchat, OI, and politics forums, and sending 12 pms to each of the admin, letting them know you have accidentally been removed. Thats how I got in, most probably you will too, if you do it.

[LSD]

How naieve. There is still economic power, but now "the majority" has it, instead of the "capitalist". So now you have democratic slavery, or does anybody precisely know what to do at any given moment?

Democratic yes, slavery no.

The workers control themselves within their own industries, it isn&#39;t an issue of the "majority" it&#39;s all the workers.
There won&#39;t be any "capitalists" anymore, that&#39;s the point.


True, but to be more precise, they have replaced a handful of (supposed) dictators with several million of them.

Every citizen becomes a "dictator".
Sounds like democracy.



Why does economic power need eliminating, when (unlike political power) it&#39;s pretty much harmless ?

Harmless??

Within much of the first world, economic power is stronger than political power.
How many poor presidents have been elected??

You don&#39;t think the Chairman of Wal-Mart has any power? You don&#39;t think that the men who control what people see and hear and read for their news have any power?


But yes, you would have a choice, you can fend for yourself in the unlikely event of it coming down to that.

What exactly does "fend for yourself" mean?
If I have no food what exactly am I to "fend" starvation.


Workers in the first fork out far more to support interests in the third.

No, no they don&#39;t.
Economically speaking, they can&#39;t:

The US consumes a far greater percentage of the world&#39;s resources than its population or boundries would allow. the only way that Americans can live the way they do is if they are getting labour/resources from somewhere else.


How ? By force ? If so, explain.

Workers in American factories in the third world make products which are sold for massive profits which go to Americans. Their labour in making these products and their resources in the country are going to the American businessmen who "run" the company.



What?
Restricting you "right to, say, sell my car to someone" is not harmfull. In fact I fully support the destruction of the capitalist "market".

There&#39;s no difference between that example and a legitimate, free, stock market.

What example?

Look, I said that "restricting your right to sell your car is not harmfull" in other words eliminating selling is good in other words eliminating markets is good.

Understand??

[Hoppe]

Do you still believe in the labour theory?


The workers control themselves within their own industries, it isn&#39;t an issue of the "majority" it&#39;s all the workers.
There won&#39;t be any "capitalists" anymore, that&#39;s the point.

Unless it is democratically decided that you have to work in a coalmine.

But the capitalist is swapped for society, which reaps all the profits.


Look, I said that "restricting your right to sell your car is not harmfull" in other words eliminating selling is good in other words eliminating markets is good.

In other words, eliminating your freedom to do a voluntary exchange with someone is good. <_<

[Professor Moneybags]

The workers control themselves within their own industries, it isn&#39;t an issue of the "majority" it&#39;s all the workers.

Every citizen becomes a "dictator".
Sounds like democracy.


Unlimited majority rule is dictatorship by consensus. It&#39;s no better than a "regular" dictatorship. In fact it&#39;s worse, as it&#39;s even harder to get rid of.


Within much of the first world, economic power is stronger than political power.
How many poor presidents have been elected??

That is not what I mean. Political, not economic power is "power over". Let me give you an example of why you are wrong :

Bill Gates = Most economically powerful in the world.

Bush = Most politically powerful in the world

One of these can send an army into your country and kill you and pass laws that can make your life hell. The other has no such power. Which is which ?


What exactly does "fend for yourself" mean?
If I have no food what exactly am I to "fend" starvation.

Man has managed for a million or so years, why can&#39;t you ?


The US consumes a far greater percentage of the world&#39;s resources than its population or boundries would allow.

That&#39;s because it produces the greatest percentage of the world&#39;s goods.


the only way that Americans can live the way they do is if they are getting labour/resources from somewhere else.

Non sequitur; uses the zero-sum economic theory.


Workers in American factories in the third world make products which are sold for massive profits which go to Americans. Their labour in making these products and their resources in the country are going to the American businessmen who "run" the company.


This leaves the question unanswered. What is wrong with that arrangement ? Who&#39;s forcing the third world workers to do this ?

[bunnerabb]

I was wondering if anybody could outline for me the reason that every single communist society of any note has either collapsed like a flan in a cupboard, or had to rely on forcing people to stay within it&#39;s rule by using guns, barbed wire, Draconian laws and huge stone edifices.

Is there a hugely beneficial aspect to living in such fashion?

I&#39;m curious, because many of the countries that trade stuff for other stuff have people kipping by the gates 24/7, trying to get in.

I&#39;m curious as to the communisti view on this, because it seems to be that - since the advent of keeping track of human events - folks have voted for or against most ideas with their feet.

Which tends to make the whole point moot.

[LSD]

Hoppe:


But the capitalist is swapped for society, which reaps all the profits.

I&#39;m not exactly sure what your critisizm is here.


In other words, eliminating your freedom to do a voluntary exchange with someone is good.

It&#39;s slightly more complicated than that.
Obviously it is impossible to legislate away "voluntary exchange"

The idea is to create a society in which there is no need for such exchanges, in which everything is provided and no such "echanges" are entered into. There isn&#39;t an issue of force because you aren&#39;t removing the problem, you&#39;re removing the cause of the problem.



Professor Moneybags:


Unlimited majority rule is dictatorship by consensus. It&#39;s no better than a "regular" dictatorship. In fact it&#39;s worse, as it&#39;s even harder to get rid of.

Sounds like democracy to me.


That is not what I mean. Political, not economic power is "power over". Let me give you an example of why you are wrong :

Bill Gates = Most economically powerful in the world.

Bush = Most politically powerful in the world

One of these can send an army into your country and kill you and pass laws that can make your life hell. The other has no such power. Which is which ?

One can send an army, one can control what I see and hear.
One can pass laws, one can control what I eat and drink.
One controls the lives of his citizens, one can control the lives of his workers.

Now I&#39;m not dismissing the power of one, don&#39;t deny the power of the other.


Man has managed for a million or so years, why can&#39;t you ?

Because capitalist society is in no way state of nature.
One can hardly live at a subsistence level if all the property is owned.


That&#39;s because it produces the greatest percentage of the world&#39;s goods.

Bullshit answer. American standard of living is vastly disproportionate to population/resources.


Non sequitur; uses the zero-sum economic theory.

hmm.....

US has living standard 5 times better than it should.
Rest of the world has living standard 5 times less than it should.

Label it what you will, but the facts are the facts.


This leaves the question unanswered. What is wrong with that arrangement ? Who&#39;s forcing the third world workers to do this ?

What&#39;s wrong with the arrangement is that these workers are working for the bennifit of Americans while they and their people starve. (see above)

And as to who&#39;s forcing them....
Well try The United States of America



bunnerabb:


I was wondering if anybody could outline for me the reason that every single communist society of any note has either collapsed like a flan in a cupboard, or had to rely on forcing people to stay within it&#39;s rule by using guns, barbed wire, Draconian laws and huge stone edifices.

Well it&#39;s been covered several times and in far greater detail, but the short answer is that there never really has been a communist state, just socialist and state-capitalist ones.

[Professor Moneybags]

hmm.....

US has living standard 5 times better than it should.
Rest of the world has living standard 5 times less than it should.

Label it what you will, but the facts are the facts.

So you are advocating that the US should lower it&#39;s standard of living to that of most of Africa&#39;s ? I don&#39;t know what you think the "standard" of living "should" be, but what the US "has" is besides the point. Perhaps it&#39;s time to start asking what&#39;s wrong with Africa, instead of what&#39;s wrong with the US. Don&#39;t start complaining that Africa&#39;s plight is all Nike&#39;s fault. Poverty in Africa existed long before corporations and capitalism.


One can send an army, one can control what I see and hear.
One can pass laws, one can control what I eat and drink.
One controls the lives of his citizens, one can control the lives of his workers.

By law ? I don&#39;t think so. Having money does not mean you can start dictating what people can see or hear, eat or drink, neither does your boss "control your life".



Bullshit answer. American standard of living is vastly disproportionate to population/resources.


Resources and labour are not the cause of wealth. This should be self evident, as Africa would be the richest place on earth and places like Japan would be the poorest. In reality, the opposite is true.



What&#39;s wrong with the arrangement is that these workers are working for the bennifit of Americans while they and their people starve. (see above)

And they wouldn&#39;t starve if they weren&#39;t ?


And as to who&#39;s forcing them....
Well try The United States of America

What, did they clamp them in irons and point guns at them ? That&#39;s force.


Well it&#39;s been covered several times and in far greater detail, but the short answer is that there never really has been a communist state, just socialist and state-capitalist ones.

There is no such concept as state capitalism.

[LSD]

So you are advocating that the US should lower it&#39;s standard of living to that of most of Africa&#39;s ?

Not to the present level of Africa, of course not. But to such a level that the people of Africa can enjoy the same standard.
And that wouldn&#39;t be very hard&#33;&#33;
The problem isn&#39;t really the average working American, it&#39;s those who have accumulated massive amounts of wealth. The whole world could easily live quite comfortable with the resources it has.


I don&#39;t know what you think the "standard" of living "should" be, but what the US "has" is besides the point.

How is it besides the point?

The US does consume more resources than its population or boundries would support.
How? It has to come from somewhere. It comes from the labour and resources of "Africa" and of South America and of Asia and of Central America.
What "the US &#39;has&#39;" is pivotal to the question of economic disparity in the world today. You can&#39;t avoid it by pretending that it is the fault of someone else. The United States of America is what&#39;s "wrong", and it&#39;s starving the rest of the world.


Perhaps it&#39;s time to start asking what&#39;s wrong with Africa, instead of what&#39;s wrong with the US.


Africa ain&#39;t the problem, it&#39;s the victim.


Don&#39;t start complaining that Africa&#39;s plight is all Nike&#39;s fault. Poverty in Africa existed long before corporations and capitalism.

What, you mean European colonialism?
Yah that is an important factor, but American corporatism is continuing the process of economic subjugation.


By law ? I don&#39;t think so. Having money does not mean you can start dictating what people can see or hear, eat or drink, neither does your boss "control your life".

Laws aren&#39;t everything.
In an age of smaller and smaller government, often laws are unimportant.

But if I own all the news in your town, I control your news.
Hey, look at Burlisconi, the man owns 90% of the television in Italy.... now how do you think he managed to win the election...


Resources and labour are not the cause of wealth. This should be self evident, as Africa would be the richest place on earth and places like Japan would be the poorest. In reality, the opposite is true.

Japan imports millions of tons of practically every natural resource, while Africa exports the same.
You don&#39;t need to have them within your national boundries to own them. Britain was the richest nation on earth because of what it controlled.
India, Canada, South Africa....

Today the US is the richest because of what it Controls, it isn&#39;t about boundries, it&#39;s about power.


And they wouldn&#39;t starve if they weren&#39;t ?

Not if they restructure no.
The resources are there, they&#39;re just all going to corrupt officials and the US.


What, did they clamp them in irons and point guns at them ? That&#39;s force.

There are many types of "force", most are far more subtle than your example.
US plants offering the only jobs in an area is a very powerfull example of "force" albeit more complex than a loaded gun.


There is no such concept as state capitalism.

Why, because you so decree?? State-capitalism is what Russia turned into.
Coupon-communism. Effectively just statist neomarketism with centralized ownership and mangement but maintaining capitalistic value exchange models.
It&#39;s shorter to say "state-capitalism"

[Bianconero]

We actually live in a mixed system of capitalism and socialism. A mixture of property right protection and violation.

What are you talking about? &#39;Mixed system&#39; &#33;?

Not even an eight-year old would possibly make this mistake. A system is either capitalist or socialist, it can never be a &#39;mixture.&#39; Capitalism exists, where class-relations exist, where society is divided into classes.

There are, originally, two classes.

Those who exploit and those who are being exploited.
Those who own and those who don&#39;t own means of production.
Those who refuse to work, but let others work for them and those who have to work for others.
Those who send their children to the finest schools and those who have to send their children right into the next factory. To work.


So if I&#39;m not a capitalist, then what am I and what do I advocate?

If you own means of production and support capitalism, you are a capitalist.
If you don&#39;t own any means of production and support capitalism, you are an unconscious worker.


Oh yes it does- it makes a difference every time you go shopping.

That sure was one wise input.


The exchange of values is of benefit to everyone, rich or poor. Restricting this freedom is ulitmately harmful to both.

Back up this statement. Not with your oppinion, but with something you can prove. And don&#39;t start talking about shopping. That argument is not connected with our discussion whatsoever.


Whoa...hold on a minute. This demonstrates an inability to tell economic from political power. Holding economic power as such does not make you an "exploiter".

What do you mean? Holding economic power means being able to exploit. Political power is a tool, either for those who own means of production, i.e. for those who hold economic power or for those who don&#39;t.


And they can have it, providing they are willing to pay the right price and I am willing to work for them for it. Trade is a two-way street.

And how is it justified that those who work less than you do get millions and millions every week, whereas you&#39;ll have to accept your salary of let us say 1500&#036;/month? Given that you live in the west. People in so-called &#39;third world countries&#39; will get 50&#036;/month. For the same time, for worse conditions at work etc.

[Hoppe]

Not even an eight-year old would possibly make this mistake. A system is either capitalist or socialist, it can never be a &#39;mixture.&#39; Capitalism exists, where class-relations exist, where society is divided into classes.

It&#39;s called interventionism.

And since most of the working people in the West own stocks, either because they have an investment portfolio or some sort of pensionplan, they partly own the means of production.


Those who send their children to the finest schools and those who have to send their children right into the next factory. To work.


In what age do you live? Somewhere around the industrial revolution?

[LSD]

In what age do you live? Somewhere around the industrial revolution?

Well, for a good part of the world, yes.

Sure,the American worker can send his child to a decent public school (one of the worst systems in the industrialized world, but sill better than most of the third), but if I&#39;m working in an American factory in Singapore, where do you think my children are being educated?
Probably "right into the next factory".

Classes haven&#39;t dissapeared they&#39;ve just been geographically adjusted.
Out of sight, out of mind.

I guess it helps the rulling class sleep at night.

[Hoppe]

So, the very flawed capitalism in the western world has managed to let every working class kid have an education. There hasn&#39;t been any revolution of the proletariat, hence you have to focus on the third-world because the rest doesn&#39;t care anymore about your slogans. It clarifies a lot.

If capitalism in the western world worked, better than all your tries to make the world safe for communism, shouldn&#39;t you be supporting more capitalism in these countries?

[LSD]

If capitalism in the western world worked, better than all your tries to make the world safe for communism, shouldn&#39;t you be supporting more capitalism in these countries?

But the point is that that&#39;s impossible.

Capitalism has worked (marginally) in the first world only by maintaining the poverty of the third. By pure limitations of geography everyone in the world cannot live like Bill Gates. Your dream of saving the whole world through capitalism would be admirable were it not so intrinsically contrary to essential facts of nature. It can&#39;t be done.

[Hoppe]

Oh is that really? And what essential facts of nature are restricting world-wide capitalism?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:32 PM
Oh is that really? And what essential facts of nature are restricting world-wide capitalism?
How about quotas, taxes tarriffs, and nationalist policies? America steel, CAP...the countries that do best are those that are least capitalist, and are the first to scream "socialist scum" at developing countries that protect their industries...I could defend some of the left&#39;s critique of capitalism...becuase it has not been implemented before..just as I defend the right&#39;s critique because communism has never been achieved. (even though I still prefer Marx to Smith) But face it what we have now could be better, but can never get to good...the world has to have unequal people....but equality of oppurtuinity is not even on the cards.

[LSD]

Oh is that really? And what essential facts of nature are restricting world-wide capitalism?

Limited resources.

How much of the word&#39;s resources does the US use?
Now, how much of the world&#39;s population does it include?

Capitalism neccessitates oppression, and don&#39;t think that that doesn&#39;t include many in the first word. The gap between rich and poor is rapidly widening even within the industrialized world. Sure some policies have been implemented to ensure that first world workers are satisfied enough to maintain the system and indoctrinated enough that they would never threaten it, but to balance these seemingly progressive moves, more and more labour is required from abroad. To maintain production (or increase it) cheap easy work is needed, and that comes from the rest of the world.

"World-wide capitalism" is easily possible, but world-wide benneficial capitalism is not. World-wide capitalism is indeed one of the primary goals of the neoliberal movement, but its implementation helps only those already being helped by present capitalism:
the rich.

[Iepilei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 09:41 AM
So, the very flawed capitalism in the western world has managed to let every working class kid have an education.
You make it sound as if the economics had anything to do with the public education system, which is inheriantly a marxist ideal. I can guarentee you, capitalism had no influence on the establishment of a public education system in the US.

Infact, many cappies I argue with believe all education should still be private. =)

[Hoppe]

You make it sound as if the economics had anything to do with the public education system, which is inheriantly a marxist ideal. I can guarentee you, capitalism had no influence on the establishment of a public education system in the US.

Infact, many cappies I argue with believe all education should still be private. =)

No, but education under capitalism in the US did very well. Literacy rates seemed to fall after the introduction of the public school system.


How about quotas, taxes tarriffs, and nationalist policies? America steel, CAP...the countries that do best are those that are least capitalist, and are the first to scream "socialist scum" at developing countries that protect their industries...I could defend some of the left&#39;s critique of capitalism.

I am opposed to that as well. Unfortunately you cannot blame it all on capitalists, the left is just as deep into this.


Limited resources.

So what? Under communism the resources are still limited. So unless you advocate we have to go back to some simple society it&#39;s a strange argument.


"World-wide capitalism" is easily possible, but world-wide benneficial capitalism is not. World-wide capitalism is indeed one of the primary goals of the neoliberal movement, but its implementation helps only those already being helped by present capitalism:
the rich.

I agree with you on this, though not that it is easily possible.

[LSD]

So what? Under communism the resources are still limited. So unless you advocate we have to go back to some simple society it&#39;s a strange argument.

Of course I don&#39;t advocate universal subsistance living, there are actually enough resources for everyone to live comforatbly but there are not enough for everyone to accumulate wealth or achieve financial success such as the modern American rich can. In a communist world the problem of limited resources still remains, however these limited resources are fairly divided rather than the bizzare wealth-starvation model of today.



I agree with you on this

I&#39;m consfused, what specifically do you agree with?

its implementation helps only...the rich.??

If so, aren&#39;t you opposing capitalism?


though not that it is easily possible.

You may be right about this...thankfully.

[LSD]

No, but education under capitalism in the US did very well. Literacy rates seemed to fall after the introduction of the public school system.

Oh, could you provide some documentation for that. I&#39;m quite loathe to believe it without any evidence...

[Hoppe]

Of course I don&#39;t advocate universal subsistance living, there are actually enough resources for everyone to live comforatbly but there are not enough for everyone to accumulate wealth or achieve financial success such as the modern American rich can. In a communist world the problem of limited resources still remains, however these limited resources are fairly divided rather than the bizzare wealth-starvation model of today.


Oh yes I forgot, you somehow managed to know exactly the amount of available resources on this planet.


If so, aren&#39;t you opposing capitalism?

No, I oppose IMF-policies. That&#39;s why I mentioned de Soto before.


Oh, could you provide some documentation for that. I&#39;m quite loathe to believe it without any evidence...

Yes, but off course highly biased. link (http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1425&id=65#_ednref7)

[LSD]

Oh yes I forgot, you somehow managed to know exactly the amount of available resources on this planet.

No, but I know how many resources are in private hands today and therefore can extrapolate what kind of life the general world population could have if those privately owned resources were shared, assuming that there remains a significant amount that is not. Now, of course, this is a very vague estimate which is why I did not say that every person will have a...... but I can say that there are at least sufficient resources for the world to live comfortably, certainly better than most of it lives today.


No, I oppose IMF-policies.

Yes, we do have that in common.


Yes, but off course highly biased.

Well.....yah.....

I&#39;m a little hesitent to 17th century estimates on population literacy, I tend to doubt their "scientific method".
It is very difficult to believe that any state in the 1850s had a "98% literacy rate"....

[Hoppe]

No, but I know how many resources are in private hands today and therefore can extrapolate what kind of life the general world population could have if those privately owned resources were shared, assuming that there remains a significant amount that is not. Now, of course, this is a very vague estimate which is why I did not say that every person will have a...... but I can say that there are at least sufficient resources for the world to live comfortably, certainly better than most of it lives today.

Hmmm, do you mind if I doubt this "scientific method"?

Why would you force socialism upon them if you still don&#39;t know what the result will be? It has never managed to produce a well run country and even your precious Cuba is well, no as good according to some here.


It is very difficult to believe that any state in the 1850s had a "98% literacy rate"....

Well, even if it&#39;s 90% that would still be impressive. Mail the author and ask him for a copy of the sources. Untill then you cannot stick to yur view that a free capitalistic society cannot produce education for all people.

[LSD]

Why would you force socialism upon them if you still don&#39;t know what the result will be? It has never managed to produce a well run country

Neither has capitalism, not without abusing others


even your precious Cuba is well, no as good according to some here.

It ain&#39;t my Cuba, and I vehemently disagree with most of it&#39;s policies.


Well, even if it&#39;s 90% that would still be impressive. Mail the author and ask him for a copy of the sources. Untill then you cannot stick to yur view that a free capitalistic society cannot produce education for all people.

The article is flawed in that it effectively only shows that literacy can rise within a private educational system it never shows that that system is innately superior.It argues that public schooling lowered attendence in England, but then statess that "Attendance in day school had reached one of every 8.36 of the total population by 1851, and one of every 7.7 by 1861." Both years before public schooling. It entirely dismisses other social causes and placed the blame entirely on public education ignoring their own data that attendence was on the decline anyway.

Furtheremore, literacy censuses taken in the 19th, 18th, or god forbid 17th centuries are likely to ignore the very elements of the population that is least likely to be literate, the poor. Often they would not recieve the census or couldn&#39;t return it or didn&#39;t have time nor interest in it. And the people running it undoubtably had a social agenda anyway. And even if all the data is absolutely correct, which it can&#39;t be, the article never analyzes any alternative explanation. Never for a moment considers that anything but public education is the cause for, reportedly, dropping literacy figures.

Finally, of course, it ignores that although education was not mandatory. Semi-public, common, and state-funded schools existed in both Britian and the US well before 1852 and 1870. The poor children who were &#39;literate&#39; were so usually because of free church schools. Schooling which also included religious indoctrination, these children could not afford to go to a secular school. Were public schooling to dissapear today, we would be forcing the poor back into that hole again. Remain ignorent (and hence not get a job) or force them to religious institutions often contrary to their beliefs.

The 19th century is over, public schooling is a must.

[Hoppe]

Furtheremore, literacy censuses taken in the 19th, 18th, or god forbid 17th centuries are likely to ignore the very elements of the population that is least likely to be literate, the poor. Often they would not recieve the census or couldn&#39;t return it or didn&#39;t have time nor interest in it. And the people running it undoubtably had a social agenda anyway. And even if all the data is absolutely correct, which it can&#39;t be, the article never analyzes any alternative explanation. Never for a moment considers that anything but public education is the cause for, reportedly, dropping literacy figures.

Please give me opposite data then, becuase now you&#39;re just hypothizing away.


Finally, of course, it ignores that although education was not mandatory. Semi-public, common, and state-funded schools existed in both Britian and the US well before 1852 and 1870. The poor children who were &#39;literate&#39; were so usually because of free church schools. Schooling which also included religious indoctrination, these children could not afford to go to a secular school. Were public schooling to dissapear today, we would be forcing the poor back into that hole again. Remain ignorent (and hence not get a job) or force them to religious institutions often contrary to their beliefs

Oh, so we have to send them to a public school were they can be properly brainwashed by the government? And catholic parents will most likely send their children to a catholic school and jews vice versa, nothing wrong with that.

Despite all your pityful attempts you still cannot deny that "capitalism" did a very decent job, so there isn&#39;t any need for "public schools or otherwise poor children have to work as slaves in coalmines". I never stated that it was superior, only that public schools aren&#39;t necessary.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I am opposed to that as well. Unfortunately you cannot blame it all on capitalists, the left is just as deep into this. They ain&#39;t the left that most of us propose, many here would like a world-wide left wing system. I am not sure, but you still support asspects of a society (left and right) where this happens.

You oppose the current system and look at the good points, because it is nearer your ideology than ours. So you defend only the good bits, saying that the rest would be different if you were in charge. We do the same, most oppose former "communist" countries and still defend the bits they like.

I can see the defence of ideology as reasonable. But not the policies of countries that never adopted the ideology. They are not in context, and therefore may work more or less effectivel than if applied within the ideology. It is in this way I think that the blaming of taxes, quotas etc on the left (as well as the not so right "right") a little unfair. Most of us realise that by applying some of them outside of a command economy, you are actually creating more problems.

[LSD]

Please give me opposite data then, becuase now you&#39;re just hypothizing away.

My point was that any data from those centuries is most likely inaccurate.


Oh, so we have to send them to a public school were they can be properly brainwashed by the government?

At least you have some say in what public schools educate, you have no control over what the church teaches.


And catholic parents will most likely send their children to a catholic school and jews vice versa, nothing wrong with that.


Yes but if there is no Jewish school in your town, your children are forced to attend a Christian one. And there is something "wrong with that"&#33;


Despite all your pityful attempts you still cannot deny that "capitalism" did a very decent job

I most certainly can.
I can show that the article failed to prove its point, and I have.


so there isn&#39;t any need for "public schools or otherwise poor children have to work as slaves in coalmines".

"coalmines"? No.
Inferior education? Yes.
Religious education? Most likely.

So yes, there is a "need" for public schools.


I never stated that it was superior, only that public schools aren&#39;t necessary.

Why?
If an all-private education system isn&#39;t "superior", why have one??

[Hegemonicretribution]

Perhaps a decentralised system could work. Everyone should get private education and the government funds it..so they will not charge over the top prices. Meritocratic. Fuck civil service and coucils being resposible, let the "market" get the best school sto the best kids via mass government intervention..i.e. making it free to the kids who do not hav the chance to raise the wealth to go to these places.

[LSD]

Fuck civil service and coucils being resposible, let the "market" get the best school sto the best kids via mass government intervention

What exactly do you mean?

The "market" slecting the school would mean that the richer get better, but "mass government intervention" (Assuming it&#39;s a fair government) neccessitates some sort of equality. Your position strikes me as contradictory.

[Iepilei]

Public education, in modern times, is damn-near required. Under a privatised system, very few students would have access to elementry, middle, and high-schools... let alone college or trade schools.

As it stands now, the goverment pays 5,670 (depending on state/region) per high-school student, per semester. This is the cost you would probably pay for the same shitty high-school experience you get now, and I can guarentee you that younger education levels aren&#39;t much cheaper. Many parents stress sending their kids to college, how do you think they&#39;d react to having to pull it off EVERY YEAR for 16 years?

Lets not forget to mention what declines the economy would face due to the lack of liquid currency pumping through it&#39;s veins. What with all monies tied up in sending young-ones to school, who would pay outrageous prices for simple luxuries, as we do nowadays? You complain about the left taxing to the point of a decayed market, but that&#39;s exactly what you&#39;d get under this scenario.

Taxes and public education are required and are EXTREMELY beneficial to our society. Keep em.

On a side note, however, I believe attendance should be mandatory for grades 9+. Allow for uninterested parties to enter trade schools or training for vocations should they decide high-school not for them. This way they&#39;d still retain a basic education (which would allow them to function in a modern society) and have a means to support themselves and their society.

[LSD]

On a side note, however, I believe attendance should be mandatory for grades 9+.

I thought that it was mandatory up to Sec IV?? (Isn&#39;t it age based, such that you can drop out after 16?)
And how far would you extend mandatory education? 17, 18? It would seem bizarre to force adults to go to high school if they don&#39;t want to....

[Iepilei]

My mistake&#33; I meant that to read, "shouldn&#39;t".

The law requires anyone under the age of 18 be permenately enrolled in public education (K-12). However, I don&#39;t believe high-school should be mandatory - though it should be free to all those who seek to further their educations.

My reasoning is it keeps the costs down, and it allows people who just drain the system to seek alternate methods to find their stake in society. Be it through trade school, vocational school, or the like.

[LSD]

My mistake&#33; I meant that to read, "shouldn&#39;t".

Hell of a difference there&#33; :D
Whoops, that order was supposed to read we "shouldn&#39;t" invade poland....


The law requires anyone under the age of 18 be permenately enrolled in public education (K-12)

Where are you hailing from?
I&#39;m pretty sure that the age is 16 &#39;round here...

[Iepilei]

Texas, of all places. And last I checked, 18 was the official (unless you could some how prove to be your own guardian).

[Hoppe]

At least you have some say in what public schools educate, you have no control over what the church teaches.


Yes I do, if I don&#39;t like the catholic school I&#39;ll send my kid to another school. If more parents start acting my way the church has to change its curriculum.


Yes but if there is no Jewish school in your town, your children are forced to attend a Christian one. And there is something "wrong with that"&#33;

I am not forced. I can start up my own school, that&#39;s why it&#39;s called a free society.


I can show that the article failed to prove its point, and I have.

You proved nothing. You haven&#39;t provided opposite data and the rest was just a hypothesis.


So yes, there is a "need" for public schools.

No, see above.


Why?
If an all-private education system isn&#39;t "superior", why have one??

for your information, I am not a socialist or other ism. That should give an answer. If the "market" can do the same job or do it better, there is no need for government.

[LSD]

Yes I do, if I don&#39;t like the catholic school I&#39;ll send my kid to another school. If more parents start acting my way the church has to change its curriculum.

Yes...if a better school (that you can AFFORD) is available, which it won&#39;t neccessarily.


I am not forced. I can start up my own school, that&#39;s why it&#39;s called a free society.

"start up my own school"?? It takes a great deal of money to do that, and it is those without money for whom I&#39;m concerned.


for your information, I am not a socialist or other ism. That should give an answer. If the "market" can do the same job or do it better, there is no need for government.

But there is no evidence that it can&#33;&#33; And as you said yourself "I never stated that [a solely-private education system] was superior". Hence I would say that there is indeed a "need for government".


You proved nothing. You haven&#39;t provided opposite data and the rest was just a hypothesis.

The entire article was hypothesis&#33;
An attempt to take questionable data and assign a cause to it that they never proved, they may have shown an apparent reaction, but they never even so much as attempted to demonstrate causation.

And the idea that you can take social developments from the 18th century and graft them on to the present one is ludicrous. Even if the article had proved its point (which it most certainly DIDN&#39;T, it says nothing about present problems or present solutions.

[LSD]

Texas, of all places. And last I checked, 18 was the official (unless you could some how prove to be your own guardian).

hmm... it&#39;s 16 up here in Quebec, probably more to your liking....

[Hoppe]

Yes...if a better school (that you can AFFORD) is available, which it won&#39;t neccessarily.

No, everyone should have an equal bad education.


"start up my own school"?? It takes a great deal of money to do that, and it is those without money for whom I&#39;m concerned.

I am not. Many people with money are concerned for the well being of other people. But charity is probably an evil thing and forced payments are better?


But there is no evidence that it can&#33;&#33; And as you said yourself "I never stated that [a solely-private education system] was superior". Hence I would say that there is indeed a "need for government".

No, you&#39;re putting words in my mouth. If a free society can produce an education system in which the overwhelming majority is literate then there is no need for a public school.


The entire article was hypothesis&#33;
An attempt to take questionable data and assign a cause to it that they never proved, they may have shown an apparent reaction, but they never even so much as attempted to demonstrate causation.


Since you haven&#39;t read the sources in this article it seems to be rather early to question the objectivity of the data, don&#39;t you think? So if you can prove the opposite, which you haven&#39;t, please do so. Provide me with accurate data that "poor" people didn&#39;t go to school but only the "rich" kids.


And the idea that you can take social developments from the 18th century and graft them on to the present one is ludicrous. Even if the article had proved its point (which it most certainly DIDN&#39;T, it says nothing about present problems or present solutions.

Marxism is 19th century, why still use this dated ideology for present problems?

[Iepilei]

And I suppose private schools are the modern rage? It&#39;s what all the hip monarchs and aristocrats are doing these days, I hear. I suggest you partake upon some revising of policy before you get too far ahead of yourself, &#39;right-wing&#39; theory dates back just as far if not further.

Equally "bad" education. Last I checked, the "problems" extending to public schools were largely found within the United States. German and other european schools, I&#39;ve seen, have actually been quite efficient at maintaining decent levels of education for their future leaders. Perhaps it&#39;s not a qualm with the system itself, but the United States&#39; implementation of such a system.

Perhaps it should be worked on, rather than disregarded. However it&#39;s been my experience that Americans aren&#39;t too keen on problems which face them at home... they&#39;re too busy focused elsewhere.

[LSD]

No, everyone should have an equal bad education.

Yes&#33; Everyone should have equal education.


I am not. Many people with money are concerned for the well being of other people. But charity is probably an evil thing and forced payments are better?

Sure, some people are charitable, but you can&#39;t base a system on the expectation of charity. Not every town will have some kindly old philanthropist willing to start a school. Some will, some won&#39;t. And the one&#39;s that don&#39;t will suffer.


No, you&#39;re putting words in my mouth. If a free society can produce an education system in which the overwhelming majority is literate then there is no need for a public school.

More than literacy is required to "succeed".


Since you haven&#39;t read the sources in this article it seems to be rather early to question the objectivity of the data, don&#39;t you think? So if you can prove the opposite, which you haven&#39;t, please do so. Provide me with accurate data that "poor" people didn&#39;t go to school but only the "rich" kids.

Well we know that blacks weren&#39;t being educated and we know that women weren&#39;t. We also know that many children were being home-schooled. This home-schooling was rather rudementary but it did include (usually) literacy.
Why?
Because the government made them&#33;&#33;
In both of the article&#39;s precious examples (Massachusits and England) had both passed laws requiring parents or masters to educate their children on how to read. So most children got a basic understanding of reading. Fine.

Is that enough today? Of course not.
You think that a coal miner has time to teach his children to read? Probably.
But to give him the equivalent of a primary/secondary education????

Don&#39;t fool yourself, there were never enough (inexpensive) private schools for the poor, they gained their literacy at home but literacy is not all we care about anymore.


Marxism is 19th century, why still use this dated ideology for present problems?

I don&#39;t&#33;&#33; I&#39;m not a pure Marxist, I accept that there are elements of Marxism that are dates and some elements that are complete nonsense (dialectics comes to mind), but I also acknowledge that much of it is still relevent.

Besides, democracy as an ideology is even older, yet would you say it isn&#39;t relevent? The data from the 18th century is not relevent because their focus is entirely on literacy. Literacy may have been all that mattered 150 years ago, but in that respect, certainly, times have changed.