communists suck [Archive]

Jimmie Higgins

15th February 2004, 05:03

"it was the capitalists who supported russia when nazi germany invaded their country through aid from the spreading of facism. also, many of the institutions that were created when socialism was around in the USSR, were from capitalist entepeuners."
It was the western capitalists such as the so-called pacifist Woodrow Wilson (bah, he invaded Mexico 2x and was involved with many military interventions in latin AMerica, yet US history books call him a pasifist) who sent military and weapons and funded the Russian Civil war which really caused much of the problems that lead to Stalin. At the same time Woodrow Wilson was violating civil liberties with the palmer raids and Wilson was the first president to segregate the the federal government. But during and imediately following the russian revolution, russian workers and pesants sucessfully rid themselves of an unpopular goverment, ended the meaningless slaughter of russian workers in WWI, women won the vote (US women couldn't vote at this time), ended racist pogroms against jews and other ethnic and religious minoreties (many jews and other russian minoreties gained positions of importance when they had been treated at least as bad as blacks in the jim-crow south before the revolution). The revolutionary government began education programs for people who had never even learned to read, they sent trains to the countryside that had libraries and movie projectors on them so that people who probably had never even seen a lightbulb could watch movies.

So compare the US at the time of the Russian revolution and the strides that Russia made during the revolution and you can see the possibilites for a better world that we could live in if worker ran things for themselves rather than having a dictator or businessmen run things for us.

Jimmie Higgins

15th February 2004, 05:13

People look up to Bill Gates because he has the money and power to do what he want's and dosn't have to worry about rent or loosing his job or being able to afford medicine when he is sick or when he becomes elderly.

As for making the "value", Bill Gates mearly organized the wealth and value created by the people who work for him either designers or people in the actual factories. Without Bill Gates, microsoft could contine to produce and they could replace him with someone else. Without the people working the lowliest factory position in mocrosoft, Bill Gates could have nothing and would not be able to produce anything... maybe one or two computers that he makes himself and I would have no problem if he wanted to do that and could make money doing that. I do have a problem with him hireing people and having controll over thir economic lives and at least 8-hours of their day.

Henry Ford is the most famous industrialist probably ever in the world... what did he invent? Did he imporove the car? No, model T's were low quality cars. Did he invent some new invention? No he came up with a way to get workers to produce more goods for an overall lower cost of labor for the company. He could pay assembly line workers more than they would if they were working a simmilar low-skill job at a mill, but he would still be makeing more profit than if he hired engineers to proudce one car at a time. So he simply found a better way to make money off the backs of others.

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 05:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 06:03 AM

It was the western capitalists such as the so-called pacifist Woodrow Wilson (bah, he invaded Mexico 2x and was involved with many military interventions in latin AMerica, yet US history books call him a pasifist) who sent military and weapons and funded the Russian Civil war which really caused much of the problems that lead to Stalin. At the same time Woodrow Wilson was violating civil liberties with the palmer raids and Wilson was the first president to segregate the the federal government. But during and imediately following the russian revolution, russian workers and pesants sucessfully rid themselves of an unpopular goverment, ended the meaningless slaughter of russian workers in WWI, women won the vote (US women couldn't vote at this time), ended racist pogroms against jews and other ethnic and religious minoreties (many jews and other russian minoreties gained positions of importance when they had been treated at least as bad as blacks in the jim-crow south before the revolution). The revolutionary government began education programs for people who had never even learned to read, they sent trains to the countryside that had libraries and movie projectors on them so that people who probably had never even seen a lightbulb could watch movies.

So compare the US at the time of the Russian revolution and the strides that Russia made during the revolution and you can see the possibilites for a better world that we could live in if worker ran things for themselves rather than having a dictator or businessmen run things for us.
Woodrow wilson was looking for poncho villa. i dont know about u, but i would get kinda mad if some1 was raiding my borders.

The American automobile industry's creator Henry Ford was lured into building up the Soviet Union's automobile industry. The great American dam builder Hugh Cooper led the construction of the giant hydroelectric plant at Dnieprostroi in Ukraine. The Swedish S.K.F. corporation built up the Soviet Union's ball bearings industry. :huh: what allowed them to build those institutions do u think? money dont pop out of nowhere

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 05:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 06:13 AM
People look up to Bill Gates because he has the money and power to do what he want's and dosn't have to worry about rent or loosing his job or being able to afford medicine when he is sick or when he becomes elderly.

As for making the "value", Bill Gates mearly organized the wealth and value created by the people who work for him either designers or people in the actual factories. Without Bill Gates, microsoft could contine to produce and they could replace him with someone else. Without the people working the lowliest factory position in mocrosoft, Bill Gates could have nothing and would not be able to produce anything... maybe one or two computers that he makes himself and I would have no problem if he wanted to do that and could make money doing that. I do have a problem with him hireing people and having controll over thir economic lives and at least 8-hours of their day.

Henry Ford is the most famous industrialist probably ever in the world... what did he invent? Did he imporove the car? No, model T's were low quality cars. Did he invent some new invention? No he came up with a way to get workers to produce more goods for an overall lower cost of labor for the company. He could pay assembly line workers more than they would if they were working a simmilar low-skill job at a mill, but he would still be makeing more profit than if he hired engineers to proudce one car at a time. So he simply found a better way to make money off the backs of others.
those cars that henry ford made improved transportation drastically. along with the railroad and trolley car, they allowed ppl to live out in the peacful country side. and if giving tranquility and a break from work is not "value," i dont know what is.

Under Gates' leadership, Microsoft's continuously advances and improves software technology (what do u think ur comp is running on), and to make it easier, more cost-effective and more enjoyable for people to use computers (dont forget about competition).this is value

"I do have a problem with him hireing people and having controll over thir economic lives and at least 8-hours of their day." <---why dont we just take down all the businesses? every1 can be a rogue.....

Guest1

15th February 2004, 08:51

Or, we can just fire our bosses and run the businesses democratically without the wasted billions that go to feed the pigs.

How does that sound? Don't kid yourself, Bill Gates does jack-shit, and Microsoft continues to work without a single bit of input from him.

He sits his fat ass on a chair and collects the money made from the sweat of all his wage-slaves.

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 09:41

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 15 2004, 09:51 AM
Or, we can just fire our bosses and run the businesses democratically without the wasted billions that go to feed the pigs.

How does that sound? Don't kid yourself, Bill Gates does jack-shit, and Microsoft continues to work without a single bit of input from him.

He sits his fat ass on a chair and collects the money made from the sweat of all his wage-slaves.
Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto describes a world where the proteliaret overthrow the bourgesis and run the state themselves. Thats basically what you are supporting aint it, by running the businesses democratically? You think of some "golden age of equality and brotherhood." Hello? Is this not getting across to anyone? The read world shows that this is impossible. Things arent these simple people. Makes you wonder why social classes were ever developed in the first place doesnt it? :rolleyes:

Equality is supposedly the goal of this theory. But doesn't this equality eliminate all that greatness of individuals. FOr communism to work, the individual must simply become a part of the mass. Denying the individual of talents is limiting their individual and will. And yet you communists say that the capitalists hurt the individual? Well look again!:rolleyes: People who have more talent will obviously demand more, and this cannot be avoided. Im a communist, and im so happy that i want to be another sack of flesh rather than a person!!! (sarcasm) :rolleyes:

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 09:43

who's next lol. im gonna go to sleep though so i wont be answering for a while. but that doesnt mean that i am backing off!!!!!!!!!

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 09:46

oh yeah. btw, the fact that ur on the forums, or even on the internet. oh man the fact that u have windows installed on ur comp is because of capitalism. do all of you commies want to give me your comp? i need upgrades!!!!!! lmao

Guest1

15th February 2004, 09:57

Don't you mean, ignoring? I haven't seen you actually answer anything yet.

I'm not sure how making the theft of people's labour illegal will keep people from excelling in their respective talents. In fact, considering they won't have to worry about going into wage slavery to stay alive, it may actually allow them to persue those talents even more than Capitalism.

There are a few main points to what Communism really is, forget what you know and forget the USSR: 1) you work for free, and get all you need for free 2) if you refuse to work, despite being able to, you get nothing from anyone else, but will not be harmed 3) you may choose to do whatever you want, so long as those around you see that you are contributing something; otherwise they may decide not to provide you with anything 4) every job is just as important, be you a poet, a teacher, a doctor, a sanitation worker, a baker, you are essential to society 5) there are no bosses, the workplace is run democratically by everyone working within them 6) there is no state, only loosely nit democratic, consentual collectives that cooperate with each other

There, now I've armed you with some facts. Rethink your arguments and try again.

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 10:30

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 15 2004, 10:57 AM
Don't you mean, ignoring? I haven't seen you actually answer anything yet.

I'm not sure how making the theft of people's labour illegal will keep people from excelling in their respective talents. In fact, considering they won't have to worry about going into wage slavery to stay alive, it may actually allow them to persue those talents even more than Capitalism.

There are a few main points to what Communism really is, forget what you know and forget the USSR: 1) you work for free, and get all you need for free 2) if you refuse to work, despite being able to, you get nothing from anyone else, but will not be harmed 3) you may choose to do whatever you want, so long as those around you see that you are contributing something; otherwise they may decide not to provide you with anything 4) every job is just as important, be you a poet, a teacher, a doctor, a sanitation worker, a baker, you are essential to society 5) there are no bosses, the workplace is run democratically by everyone working within them 6) there is no state, only loosely nit democratic, consentual collectives that cooperate with each other

There, now I've armed you with some facts. Rethink your arguments and try again.
do not ignore history. we must not repeat the mistakes done in the past. Ignoring it is denying and ignoring faults.

what do u mean i havent been answering anything? i answered every post. anyways:

1) 2) and "excelling their respective talents"<---in order to excel in your respective talents, you must have some kind of incentive to work. If i had a choice, i would not even try to work hard if i was ever to set foot in a job. You are expecting that ppl, out of no where, will actually want to design the best house or work hard to get good marks in school. Its like going back to high school and taking all those classes you dont like. Why would i want to excel in them if everyone will get the same grade anyways? Is it fun? Well, maybe science (supposing that is the favorite class), but that is only in the limited school/work atmostphere. Its just that, ppl dont have that urge to do something, like play video games, as they do with a science textbook. dont u agree? i mean ur name is "che y marijuana." Wouldnt u rather smoke marijuana than work? lol

3) So i am forced to do something productive, just like financial worries forces me to do the same
4) the equality thing again...
5) and 6) everyone who is communist assumes that they themselves will be the elite. they aspire to be part of the ruling class. They hope that they will be elevated to high positions and responsibility. We can see, therefore, that commism seeks to remove the ppl in charge and simply replace them with new rulers. Communists expect to be rewarded after the finish their revolutions and so all these ppl are doing that motive inherent in every single one of us--self interest. Talking about how horrible bosses have exploited the working class is, therefore, hypocritical.

peaccenicked

15th February 2004, 10:45

Equality is not the problem, oppression is the problem.
http://www.uwgb.edu/fialaa/Social%20and%20...hy/Marx%203.htm (http://www.uwgb.edu/fialaa/Social%20and%20Political%20Philosophy/Marx%203.htm)

LSD

15th February 2004, 13:51

and "excelling their respective talents"<---in order to excel in your respective talents, you must have some kind of incentive to work. If i had a choice, i would not even try to work hard if i was ever to set foot in a job. You are expecting that ppl, out of no where, will actually want to design the best house or work hard to get good marks in school. Its like going back to high school and taking all those classes you dont like. Why would i want to excel in them if everyone will get the same grade anyways? Is it fun? Well, maybe science (supposing that is the favorite class), but that is only in the limited school/work atmostphere. Its just that, ppl dont have that urge to do something, like play video games, as they do with a science textbook. dont u agree? i mean ur name is "che y marijuana." Wouldnt u rather smoke marijuana than work? lol

um....yah....this is the argument that is always raised in opposition to communism, so believe it or not, we do actually have an answer.

In a communist society, people would work for a number of reasons. The most obvious is that if someone refuses to work, they will not be permitted to stay in the community or take advantage of its resources.

Secondly, there is always the issue of social approval and societal taboos. Someone who doesn't work, or works very little will face the moral outrage and social pressure of his peers, a remarkably strong force.

Perhaps most important, however, is the question of motivation. Believe it or not, most people are motivated by more than pure material gain. Most scientist have not made discoveries in the name of capitalism, but in the name of science. Workers will go into fields which they care about, now open to them as all education is free and class-structures no longer exist, and so will care about the field as well as the respect of their fellow workers.

And lastly, in a small collective, society is a very concrete thing, it is one's family and friends. And so working for society is not some abstract etherial concept, but helping those that one sees around them every day.

So i am forced to do something productive, just like financial worries forces me to do the same

sort of...but the key differences are that what you do is up to you, and your reward is not contigent on how the "market" judges your field.

the equality thing again...

By "equality thing" I guess you mean:

Equality is supposedly the goal of this theory. But doesn't this equality eliminate all that greatness of individuals. FOr communism to work, the individual must simply become a part of the mass. Denying the individual of talents is limiting their individual and will. And yet you communists say that the capitalists hurt the individual? Well look again!:rolleyes:

Actually, I would propose that communism is individualistic, whereas capitalism is communalistic.

Communism allows everyone to do nearly anything. No one is starving or wanting and so are free to do pretty much as they will. Under capitalism, things are very different.

How "free" am I if I can't eat?

There are billions starving today because of capitalism, but we're told that the system is better for everyone, that sure it doesn't always work, and some suffer, but in the long run it's better, that we should accept certain individual sacrifices for the good of society.

Communism doesn't accept this. Communism argues that everyone deserves quality of life, that everyone deserves "freedom".

People who have more talent will obviously demand more, and this cannot be avoided.

Well I can "demand" that you make me a cheese sandwich, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

So what exactly are you suggesting? social darwinism?

People born "better" deserve more?

everyone who is communist assumes that they themselves will be the elite. they aspire to be part of the ruling class. They hope that they will be elevated to high positions and responsibility. We can see, therefore, that commism seeks to remove the ppl in charge and simply replace them with new rulers. Communists expect to be rewarded after the finish their revolutions and so all these ppl are doing that motive inherent in every single one of us--self interest. Talking about how horrible bosses have exploited the working class is, therefore, hypocritical.

That is a blatant assertation and an unfounded ad hominem.
You can't possibly know what I or any other communist is thinking, so attack the ideology and not the people.

oh yeah. btw, the fact that ur on the forums, or even on the internet. oh man the fact that u have windows installed on ur comp is because of capitalism. do all of you commies want to give me your comp? i need upgrades!!!!!! lmao

Um....what's your point?

I'm asspiring for a fundamental revolution in society, how will getting rid of a computer help that?

Valishin

15th February 2004, 13:52

The mission to gain power is okay so long as it is over oneself. Who has any right in the long run to have power over anyone?
Now apply that question to a group. Why does a group have any right to have power over anyone, other than themselves? With that in mind, how do you justify the requirement that everyone must participate weither they choose to willing or not.

I do have a problem with him hireing people and having controll over thir economic lives and at least 8-hours of their day.
Why does it bother you that these people are participating in a voluntery exchange of goods and services?

Or, we can just fire our bosses and run the businesses democratically without the wasted billions that go to feed the pigs.
1. How are you going to run the business while doing the labor? Running a business is more than a full time job.
2. Who in the right mind would create a business from that point on?

How does that sound? Don't kid yourself, Bill Gates does jack-shit, and Microsoft continues to work without a single bit of input from him.
He sits his fat ass on a chair and collects the money made from the sweat of all his wage-slaves.
So basicly your problem is that you don't believe investment is a valid source of income. How exactly do you propose Microsoft would have started to provided all those jobs if Bill had not taken some risks an worked to build the company from the ground up?

I'm not sure how making the theft of people's labour illegal will keep people from excelling in their respective talents. In fact, considering they won't have to worry about going into wage slavery to stay alive, it may actually allow them to persue those talents even more than Capitalism
First off noone is stealing anything. You participate of your own free will. Secondly your ight they won't have to worry about going into wage slavery, there won't be any jobs because who is going to start new business when you get nothing out of all that extra work nor do you get any compensation for the potential risk.

Osman Ghazi

15th February 2004, 14:23

It isn't voluntary at all.
If I grow up poor and can't afford to go to college or university, my optinos become quite limited.
I bet you'll say 'but you could get a scholarship' well why should I have to get a scholarship when someone whose daddy is good at business can do no work and still get in?

This is fair to you?

Secondly, there are 386 billionaires in the world. Their wealth is equal to that of the poorest 2.8 billion people in the world. Imagine, 386 men and women (222 of whom are from the US) have as much wealth as [B]half the world[B].

This is fair to you?

Then your ed in the head.

Guest1

15th February 2004, 18:00

You're right, there will be no more businesses, in that sense of the term

There will be co-ops though. The whole system will be run without wage slavery, and people will band together and create new workplaces as the need arises.

Playing with money might be a full time job these days, what with bribing governments, killing union leaders and figuring out how best to get your money to a Swiss bank account, but in a society where none of these are needed, it'll be completely unnecessary. What'll be left will be everyday administrative decisions, hiring/firing, deciding how much to produce and how much materials to order, expanding operations and the like.

All of which can be done efficiently and fairly by a democratic body consisting of all the workers in the workplace. From the janitors up.

Lardlad95

15th February 2004, 18:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 05:09 AM
just another place to debate capies against commies.
i am a capitalist. as for my first manuever

many communists tell cappies that their ambition to gain power is their flaw. i,however, do not see any fault in this. Communists believe that the people should have a revolution and overthrow oppressive capitalists. But they only do this because they think they will be able to participate in the politics. And this could be farther from the truth. Anyone who studies history knows that every communist country was replaced by a dictatorial leader. this dictatorial strength has imposed the poverty, destruction, etc. upon the ppl. one argument i hear against this is with russia. they say that, during the russian revolution, russia's "rich" farmers exploited their laborers (this supposedly represents capitalism). but the truth is that they are ignoring lenin, the authoritative power who imposed harsh standards and awards for the "rich" farmers. If the standards were not met, lets just say thats not some good news lol.

ill just keep it at that 4 now. post some argument plz. my communist friend told me about this site. maybe u guys can make me a commie like him.
.....I have a question for you capitalists. Do you ever ask original questions? I mean this has been brought up so many times before, you guys sound like broken records

LuZhiming

15th February 2004, 19:45

Equality is supposedly the goal of this theory. But doesn't this equality eliminate all that greatness of individuals. FOr communism to work, the individual must simply become a part of the mass. Denying the individual of talents is limiting their individual and will.

Or of course, another way to look at it is that Communism simply gives people more opportunities to work in their respective talent. They don't get paid different amounts depending on their job, everyone is paid the same. So people would naturally work the job that they are best at, which means their talents come out. And the jobs with least amount of people with the least amount of talented people in, will have the greatest demand, which will certainly inspire people to educate themselves in that particular occupation.

Just do a little check, look at the U.S. Do you realize the large amount of people who literally hate their jobs? That isn't exactly positive incentive. Such hatred and annoyance without a doubt causes laziness and negligence.

Yawn.

bubbrubb

15th February 2004, 20:02

i think he quit becasue he knows he cant win ahahahahahahahaha

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 20:07

ok im back. wow, lot of work to do lol. ok, first one.
Lysergic acid: About motivation, yes I do agree with you about scientists making discoveries in the name of science. But think of all the other occupations. Do you really think people would want to take out the trash or all those other “lowly” jobs? The amount of people motivated by non-material gains is nothing compared to that of material. IF we put this slim ratio into society, we will see that only so many will want t succeed, giving most of the people no motivation. If very few people don’t have this, society’s economy in general will fall. Yes, they will be exceptions, but how do you accept those exceptions so sustain the whole community?
Your small collective society has faults in itself. Remember the late 1800s and early 1900s, when immigrants came to America and developed their own distinct societies in American cities? Well, what happened was they developed their own culture, and their small blocks helped them to create an identity. In return, however, the small attachments created conflicts upon the ppl in general. The debates of the time, the hottest of which include education, the liquor question, and observance of the Sabbath, were responsible for creating the crisis of politics during the 1900s. it also contributed to that “salad bowl” metaphor (ppl separate themselves from others based on their religion, ethnicity, etc.)
Communism states that everyone must have this freedom, but that always comes at a cost. By having freedom, you are also putting people in a more equal standard. In a capitalistic country, if you work hard and try to succeed you are almost guaranteed to be able to make a living no matter what social class you were born in. This is the reward of capitalism: hard work=success. Making people equal, again degrades the individual. (I added a response to your counter on this issue in the first paragraph). Is this really freedom? Freedom is not being kept down by everyone around you. Freedom is not being restrained by the abilities of the mass. Freedom is being kept away from restraints. Yes, capitalism does have many restraints, but it does not keep the individual down. It allows them to be mobile through society, but it does not come to you as a gift.
Social Darwinism is the idea that only the strong survive. It is under my impression that you believe this idea advocates selfishness, and that capitalists are therefore selfish as well. This is not the case; capitalists advocate private control of capital while socialists advocate the public or government control of capital. Notice that you are saying that private control of capital must be a selfish act. Private control means private property, which implies ownership. You believe that being able to decide how to use own’s property is the same as about caring only about yourself. IT IS NOT! It is caring only about deciding for yourself!

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 20:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 09:02 PM
i think he quit becasue he knows he cant win ahahahahahahahaha

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
bubbrubb, no. i was sleeping and im sry my time differences does not match yours. Also, i have other things to do, seeing that i am in school. i will try to get back to all of your responsies as soon as possible but i am not an automaton i hope you know. if one of u guys convinces me, i will tell you in bold, capital letters!

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 20:41

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 15 2004, 03:23 PM
It isn't voluntary at all.
If I grow up poor and can't afford to go to college or university, my optinos become quite limited.
I bet you'll say 'but you could get a scholarship' well why should I have to get a scholarship when someone whose daddy is good at business can do no work and still get in?

This is fair to you?

Secondly, there are 386 billionaires in the world. Their wealth is equal to that of the poorest 2.8 billion people in the world. Imagine, 386 men and women (222 of whom are from the US) have as much wealth as [B]half the world[B].

This is fair to you?

Then your ed in the head.
Your opinions do not become limited. You are thinking as though college is a one way route to success. It is not, although it represents one way. Just like many roads connect to a city, success can be reached by a network of opportunities. And how do you think that rich dad got rich in the first place? So yeah, it is fair.

Why is America rich in the first place? Do u think our money popped out of no where? What made America so grand compared to other countries? Think of that before you ask the second question.

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 20:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:45 PM

Equality is supposedly the goal of this theory. But doesn't this equality eliminate all that greatness of individuals. FOr communism to work, the individual must simply become a part of the mass. Denying the individual of talents is limiting their individual and will.

Or of course, another way to look at it is that Communism simply gives people more opportunities to work in their respective talent. They don't get paid different amounts depending on their job, everyone is paid the same. So people would naturally work the job that they are best at, which means their talents come out. And the jobs with least amount of people with the least amount of talented people in, will have the greatest demand, which will certainly inspire people to educate themselves in that particular occupation.

Just do a little check, look at the U.S. Do you realize the large amount of people who literally hate their jobs? That isn't exactly positive incentive. Such hatred and annoyance without a doubt causes laziness and negligence.

Yawn.
yes, i do agree with the fact that most ppl hate their jobs. and yes, i do agree that this is a fault of capitalism. yet i do not see communism as an answer. (LuZhiming, look at my response to Lysergic acid, first paragraph). this is capitalism's weakness, i know, but how to get around it..... :(

bubbrubb

15th February 2004, 21:03

:angry: america is so rich becasue they seal other countries resources... :angry:

monkeydust

15th February 2004, 21:04

About motivation, yes I do agree with you about scientists making discoveries in the name of science. But think of all the other occupations. Do you really think people would want to take out the trash or all those other “lowly” jobs?

Yes and no.

Firstly, you have to consider that many of these menial jobs are actually a product of capitalism itself, rather than intrinsically neccesary occupations.

Lets take the example of a humble street cleaner. There's no intrinsic need for street cleaners per se. The need for them is a reaction to consequences of capitalism itself. Why? Simply because capitalism, due to the fact that it advocates individual prosperity promotes effort that does not achieve a material reward. What this means to say, is that one will drop litter on the street because putting it in a bin doesn't benefit them as an individual.

If one however works for the good of society as a whole, they will not litter the street because it adversely affects society as a whole. Hence the job of street cleaner will largely become unnecessary.

So we have seen that many "lowly" jobs will not be needed, yet I do not deny that some still will be necessary. In many cases, rather than having these jobs as a full time occupation, they will be shared out amongst society as a whole. A rota system, if you will. The vast amount of people to do this will mean that no single person will have to do any "lowly" job for a long time.

Perhaps also, some people actually do enjoy these "lowly" jobs. Have you considered the fact that these jobs aren't inherently "lowly", but we only consider them to be so because of the low wages they entail?

The amount of people motivated by non-material gains is nothing compared to that of material.

I disagree. If your occupation is one which you enjoy, you will be motivated by the non-material gain of personal enrichment. Capitalism destroys this, promoting a system where some jobs are "valued" above others, though their intrinsic worth is equal.

As an example, many people, even under capitalism become teachers. Yet teaching a discipline such as Physics does not doesn't give one the material reward that they would otherwise get, using their discipline in industry.

If very few people don’t have this, society’s economy in general will fall.

Since when did Communism involve a market economy? :lol:

In a capitalistic country, if you work hard and try to succeed you are almost guaranteed to be able to make a living no matter what social class you were born in.

This is perhaps one of the most fundementally annoying capitalsit myths I continue to hear. I'd challenge you to go to a third world country, I challenge you to tell the third world that they're in the state that they are because they're lazy!

This is the reward of capitalism: hard work=success.

Another fundemental myth. Capitalism doesn't promote hard work, it is not a meritocracy as such. What it does promote is exploitation, deception, backstabbing, deceiving etc etc. The qualities of a good businessman! :lol:

If hard work=success. Why are the working class poor, do they not work hard? Well...actually they do,this was Marx's argument all along.

Making people equal, again degrades the individual. (I added a response to your counter on this issue in the first paragraph). Is this really freedom?

Equality does not necessarily mean that all has to be the same. We're not offering a 'one size fits all' approach, we're saying that differences should be valued equally within a social context.

Yes, capitalism does have many restraints, but it does not keep the individual down. It allows them to be mobile through society, but it does not come to you as a gift.

Yet more capitalist rhetoric. How can you argue capitalims has many restraints on the individual, yet doesn't keep him down, you're being illogical. The whole concept of classical capitalism is against class mobility.

Put simply, for the minority to prosper, the vast majority must suffer. As a consequence of this not everyone can be 'upper class' and as a further consequnce not everybody by any means can be socially mobile.

Furthermore, the bourgeoise class serves to repopulate itself, the vast number of high ranking politicians and civil servants are from rich, usually publically schooled backgrounds. Effectively if your rich you're children have a much greater chance of becoming rich also, because you can afford to by them the best healthcare, education and material goods that they want.

Social Darwinism is the idea that only the strong survive

No it's not.

Notice that you are saying that private control of capital must be a selfish act. Private control means private property, which implies ownership.

No, not inherently. But what private ownership often tends to entail is hoarding of land or weath, which one doesn't need by any means, and would serve a better purpose in the hands of the poor. What is selfish is that capitalism gives the opportunity for land to be disproportionately distributed.

bubbrubb

15th February 2004, 21:04

take the war on oil i mean war on iraq for example

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 21:16

LuZhiming

15th February 2004, 21:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 09:41 PM
Why is America rich in the first place? Do u think our money popped out of no where? What made America so grand compared to other countries? Think of that before you ask the second question.
Imperialism and slavery.

monkeydust

15th February 2004, 21:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 10:16 PM
ok guys, after reading all these replies, i have been fully convinced that communism is good, in a sense that, well a lot of things. the only thing that doesnt get through is how it will support a substantial economy. capitalism has brought success, financial wise, but how would communism achieve the same thing? sure, material gains is not the thing, but i mean i am more happy with a TV in my house then some card board box.
I'm glad we've made a semi-convert, if nothing else. Most cappies are far too attached to their system to be persuaded.

Of course you're happier with a TV in your house than a box. The whole point here is that the majority of people would be happier with a Tv than a box, yet they can't have that because a small elite would like to hoard such material objects in numbers beyond what they need, or even use.

CorporationsRule

15th February 2004, 21:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 10:16 PM
ok guys, after reading all these replies, i have been fully convinced that communism is good, in a sense that, well a lot of things. the only thing that doesnt get through is how it will support a substantial economy. capitalism has brought success, financial wise, but how would communism achieve the same thing? sure, material gains is not the thing, but i mean i am more happy with a TV in my house then some card board box.
You think you're more happy with a TV in your house because you've been trained by your TV to think you're happier with a TV in your house. People did fine without TVs for thousands of years. Whenever I watch TV I find myself thinking, "I wish I had something to do right now."

The first thing George Bush asked us to do after 9/11 was go out and buy stuff.

We don't need stuff.

We need friends, family, and freedom.

I'd much rather be at a party right now than typing BS.

But here I am.

Thanks capitalism!

Osman Ghazi

15th February 2004, 22:00

Even in about 1850 Owen speculated (and yes it is just speculation but bear with me) that if everyone worked equally and we removed the wasted efforts of our society (military, expensive cars etc.) we could maintain our standard of living with people working only 3 hours a day. That was in 1850 and I would bet that it has become considerably easier to produce (both agriculturally and industrially).

It is true though that not everyone would be happy with their jobs.

For example, a study of people in the Soviet Union found that all of the groups were satisifed with their jobs (the average person anyway) with the exception of manual labourers. Their main concern was the lack of control they had in their job. If Soviet workers felt they had no control, I'd be willing to bet that U$ workers feel it even more accutely.

Also, in terms of material rewards being the onyl incentive, you must open up your mind. In the society in which we live, it is often the only incentive and thusly many cappies begin to think that it is the only motivation people have. This simply wouldn't be true in a communist society.

LSD

15th February 2004, 23:26

ok guys, after reading all these replies, i have been fully convinced that communism is good, in a sense that, well a lot of things. the only thing that doesnt get through is how it will support a substantial economy. capitalism has brought success, financial wise, but how would communism achieve the same thing? sure, material gains is not the thing, but i mean i am more happy with a TV in my house then some card board box.

You'r right, communism would not support an "economy".

That's the point.

Communism would support people. People would work for all of the reasons posted above, and the product of their labour would be shared equally in the community. People would be able to enter virtually any useful field they chose, allowing those tallented in particular areas to actually take advantage of those talents. Furthermore, with more free time, there would be more discoveries and technological progress as without financial pressure and financial targetting, scientists can research what they believe will help society and not what a "supporting institution" thinks is best.

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 23:57

Avalon87

15th February 2004, 23:58

communism would be good if all the countries did it, but i mean, until then, communists will be forced to purchase goods from other countries (unless they want to segregate themselves like japan did so many yrs ago). just take money out of the equation and, yes, communism would work. but until then, iono

Don't Change Your Name

16th February 2004, 00:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 10:41 AM
Equality is supposedly the goal of this theory. But doesn't this equality eliminate all that greatness of individuals. FOr communism to work, the individual must simply become a part of the mass. Denying the individual of talents is limiting their individual and will. And yet you communists say that the capitalists hurt the individual? Well look again!:rolleyes: People who have more talent will obviously demand more, and this cannot be avoided. Im a communist, and im so happy that i want to be another sack of flesh rather than a person!!! (sarcasm) :rolleyes:
In fact capitalism hurts LOTS of individuals.
An individual IS ALREADY PART OF THE MASS. The only thing which makes it an individual is the obvious differences it has with the rest. And how many individuals are "talented"??? According to the capitalist rating system, about 1% of the people of the whole world is the one who inveted everything and the rest of the people "should be happy that they survive". Ridiculous.

Why is America rich in the first place? Do u think our money popped out of no where? What made America so grand compared to other countries? Think of that before you ask the second question.

Here you have admitted you're in yankeeland, which means you will never see the exploitation that people suffer in places which are "so far away". Anyway, let's see: a bunch of white guys went, stole the local indigenous population and claimed that to be "private property", then some idiots decided to fund the country based on principles that i doubt the believed in, and a lot of immigrants (many of them POOR) came from europe, so the population increased, which meant that all that people would work on hard conditions (governments who would machinegun people who were protesting and such things). Then it was time for the WWs and after the second one, as they took part and were on the winning side and almost untouched by it, they became world powers, and as no other imperialist country could extend its influence (european countries were destroyed by the war), they started making interventions in other parts of the world, and after the collapse of the USSR their policies and their army controlled the whole world, imposing a system where if you don't sell the whole country for half a dollar to them, you starve. That's how "America" becameso powerful and rich. It wasn't hard work, just a minority exploiting immigrants who could never reach them in economical levels. That without counting slavery, indoctrination and persecution of oppositors (like MacCarthyism, the Haymarket martyrs, etc.).

Hitman47

16th February 2004, 00:32

Yippeee America Rulez :rolleyes:

CorporationsRule

16th February 2004, 00:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:57 AM
meh, i still think techonogical advances, and the materials to actually produce and obtain these things, lets ppl have more leisure time to do what they want (and more things to do during the time). undoubtedly, farmers had a harder time 100 yrs ago than they do now, and all other occupations.
I challenge you to read this essay (http://www.primitivism.com/primitive-affluence.htm) on work.

Warning: don't read it if you don't want your brain rearranged.

LSD

16th February 2004, 04:06

meh, i still think techonogical advances, and the materials to actually produce and obtain these things, lets ppl have more leisure time to do what they want (and more things to do during the time). undoubtedly, farmers had a harder time 100 yrs ago than they do now, and all other occupations.

um...I think you're missing the point.

Communism IMPROVES technological advance and distribution.

communism would be good if all the countries did it, but i mean, until then, communists will be forced to purchase goods from other countries

Why?

Hoppe

16th February 2004, 14:34

The Feral Underclass

16th February 2004, 15:15

QUOTE (Avalon87 @ Feb 15 2004, 10:16 PM)
ok guys, after reading all these replies, i have been fully convinced that communism is good, in a sense that, well a lot of things. the only thing that doesnt get through is how it will support a substantial economy. capitalism has brought success, financial wise, but how would communism achieve the same thing? sure, material gains is not the thing, but i mean i am more happy with a TV in my house then some card board box.

Production of TV's would be something that would be dont by individuals who wanted TV's. Of course it may take a while to give everyone a TV, but one would be given to you eventually.

Socially necessary work and production of items that people want rather than need would be a second priority, but something which everyone could be a part of and be rewarded from.

cubist

16th February 2004, 16:05

AVALON THE PROBLEM IS that from capitalist sources communism is this wrong povety strichened lower form of life. and capitalism from communists point of view is a thieving in humane uncaring scoiety that only supports the rich and keeps the poor poor.

Professor Moneybags

16th February 2004, 17:18

"Production of TV's would be something that would be dont by individuals who wanted TV's."

Know how a TV works, do you ? Know how to build one ? No ? I guess you'll have to go without.

I can't wait to see what the guy who wants a trans-atlantic flight has to do to get one, but I have a rough idea.

"Of course it may take a while to give everyone a TV, but one would be given to you eventually."

By who ? At whose expense ? What if "they" don't want to make you a TV ?

Felicia

16th February 2004, 17:24

communists suck

you're right, we do, thankyou.

Professor Moneybags

16th February 2004, 18:11

It isn't voluntary at all.
If I grow up poor and can't afford to go to college or university, my optinos become quite limited.

Tough. Why should someone else have to pay for it ?

I bet you'll say 'but you could get a scholarship' well why should I have to get a scholarship when someone whose daddy is good at business can do no work and still get in?

Hey, you want "free eductation"- what work have you done to earn it/pay for it ? Zip. Yet you become outraged when someone else does it. Talk about hypocritical.

This is fair to you?

No, it isn't. Pay for your own education, parasite. I had to.

Secondly, there are 386 billionaires in the world. Their wealth is equal to that of the poorest 2.8 billion people in the world. Imagine, 386 men and women (222 of whom are from the US) have as much wealth as [B]half the world[B].

Not that zero-sum nonsense again.

Have a read of this. (http://www.prometh.com/Radcap/Inserts/ins0012.asp)

.....I have a question for you capitalists. Do you ever ask original questions? I mean this has been brought up so many times before, you guys sound like broken records

Because you never have a decent answer.

america is so rich becasue they seal other countries resources...

Non-sequitur. This argument assumes that resources are the "cause" of wealth, which is obviously not the case, as wealth would be directly linked to natural resources.

If one however works for the good of society as a whole, they will not litter the street because it adversely affects society as a whole. Hence the job of street cleaner will largely become unnecessary.

I think you'll find the exact opposite is true. People dump litter in the street, but not in their own driveways. Why not ? Because litter in the street doesn't affect them personally. The same with pollution- common land can be polluted because it is just that- everyones to do with as they please.

I disagree. If your occupation is one which you enjoy, you will be motivated by the non-material gain of personal enrichment. Capitalism destroys this, promoting a system where some jobs are "valued" above others, though their intrinsic worth is equal.

There's no such thing as "intrinsic worth". "Worth" presupposes a valuer and without a valuer, something cannot have a value and is thus worthless.

This is perhaps one of the most fundementally annoying capitalsit myths I continue to hear. I'd challenge you to go to a third world country, I challenge you to tell the third world that they're in the state that they are because they're lazy!

It's got nothing to do with laziness, it's to do with lack of freedom and political oppression from continual tribal warfare to fascist dictatorships like the Mugabe regime.

What it does promote is exploitation, deception, backstabbing, deceiving etc etc. The qualities of a good businessman!

A business man who did that wouldn't last five minutes in a free market.

If hard work=success. Why are the working class poor, do they not work hard? Well...actually they do,this was Marx's argument all along.

Capitalism isn't really harwork=success, more like ingenuity=success.

Yet more capitalist rhetoric. How can you argue capitalims has many restraints on the individual, yet doesn't keep him down, you're being illogical. The whole concept of classical capitalism is against class mobility.

The whole concept of "class" is Marxist bilge, nowhere is the idea of "class" promoted (or even acknowledged) amongst people like von Mises etc.

No, not inherently. But what private ownership often tends to entail is hoarding of land or weath, which one doesn't need by any means, and would serve a better purpose in the hands of the poor. What is selfish is that capitalism gives the opportunity for land to be disproportionately distributed.

Who and what determines what land/resources are needed ?

According to the capitalist rating system, about 1% of the people of the whole world is the one who inveted everything and the rest of the people "should be happy that they survive". Ridiculous.

That's actually true.

Here you have admitted you're in yankeeland, which means you will never see the exploitation that people suffer in places which are "so far away". Anyway, let's see: a bunch of white guys went, stole the local indigenous population and claimed that to be "private property", then some idiots decided to fund the country based on principles that i doubt the believed in, and a lot of immigrants (many of them POOR) came from europe, so the population increased, which meant that all that people would work on hard conditions (governments who would machinegun people who were protesting and such things). Then it was time for the WWs and after the second one, as they took part and were on the winning side and almost untouched by it, they became world powers, and as no other imperialist country could extend its influence (european countries were destroyed by the war), they started making interventions in other parts of the world, and after the collapse of the USSR their policies and their army controlled the whole world, imposing a system where if you don't sell the whole country for half a dollar to them, you starve. That's how "America" becameso powerful and rich. It wasn't hard work, just a minority exploiting immigrants who could never reach them in economical levels. That without counting slavery, indoctrination and persecution of oppositors (like MacCarthyism, the Haymarket martyrs, etc.).

Spare me the "White man's burden" [email protected] If half of what you wrote about slavery being the cause of wealth was true, the USSR would have the streets paved with gold by now.

You see, it's all to easy to lok back a few hundred years with today's eyes and point out how stupid people were. Yes, people thought that their harvests would fail unless they sacrificed virgins to their gods. Yes, the Europeans killed Indians and took their lands. So what ? There's too many examples of this behaviour to list- and it's certainly not a phenomenon confined to Europeans or Americans.

Perhaps this mentality is best summed up by this cartoon. (http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000267.html)

CorporationsRule

16th February 2004, 18:37

I don't live somwhere else. I live in America.

And what do you mean look back a few hundred years?

Slavery is alive and well in America. (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/hp/content/moderndayslavery/).

Read through the articles provided at that site. I'm not talking slave like conditions or debt slaves. Many of these people are actually under lock and key and guarded by guys with guns.

If that's not enough, here are some lovely things done/supported/funded in roughly the last fifty years in the name of capitalist economic interests:

1. 1945 America begins its anti-Mao covert operations into Communist China, resulting in a variety of raids and psyops for nearly two decades.
2. 1947 begins covert operations to control and overturn the Italian democracy. US sanctioned re-introduction of fascists and the drug trafficking mafia.
3. Greece 1947 begins to transform Greece into a client state.
4. 1945 Re-controlling the Phillippines, squashing rebels.
5. 1946 Arming and training the highly aggressive South Korean dictator, Rhee. The forces of Rhee and Kim raid each other's countries, in what many scholars say was really a civil war. Kim attacks in force, complaining that enough is enough. The US counter-attack kills hundreds of thousands; bombing and napalming of North Korea destroyed most population centres. Americans contemplate nukes vs China.
6. 1949 Playing with Albania.
7. 1948 Promoting terrorism vs East Germany and Eastern Europe
8. 1953 CIA Coup in Iran, American oil corporations move in
9. 1953-54. CIA Coup in Guatemala; fruit companies win.
10. 1956-57 CIA messing with Syria
11. 1958, Marines off to Lebanon.
12. 1959 , a young hitman named Saddam Hussein begins working with the CIA. On again, off again, he eventually assists the West in punishing Iran in 1980. Large scale aid to Iraq, along with European aid, results in 100s of 1000s Iranian dead.
13. 1957-1958, CIA psyops and bombing vs Indonesia
14. Adventures in Indochina, 1950 to 1973. From arming the counter-insurgent French with 80% of their weapons, to creating the false Laos Crisis in 1959, to the formation of Air America & the opium Golden Triangle, to the scandal of the Gulf of Tonkin, to mass bombing 3 different countries.
15. Haiti, 1959-63. In come the marines, yet again.
16. 1960, Guatemala, another coup
17. 1960-1963. Covert adventures in Ecuador.
18. 1960-64. CIA in the Congo.
19. 1961-1964. Introducing death squads to Brazil.
20. 1960-65. Off to Peru.
21. By this time, the US -sponsored Operation Condor is beginning to form; it is an anticommunist project to nurture rightwing banana republics, to wipe out labour movements and keep Latin America safe for US corporations.
22. 1960-1966. Off to the Dominican Republic.
23. 1959-present. Squeezing Cuba to reinstate control of sugar, metals, illegal drug traffic, produce, rich Cubans, and casinos. World on the brink of nuclear war.
24. 1965. CIA project to rid Indonesia of Sukarno, and 500,000 other human beings.
25. 1966. Ghana.
26. 1964-70. Sending torture to Uruguay.
27. 1964-1973. CIA Pinochet coup. No to democracy in Chile, and yes to dictatorship and guarding US corporate interests.
28. 1964-1974. Nurturing the Greek military coup, torture, and madness.
29. Bolivia 1964-1975. Tracking down Che and stomping through cocaine country.
30. 1972-1975. Messing with Iraq in the name of oil. 1973 the US considers invading the Gulf Oil states due to the OPEC embargo.
31. 1973-1975. The CIA messing with Australia's unions and electoral system.
32. 1975-1980s. Unleash the CIA on Angola, draw in the Russians and Chinese in a stupid bloody tribal war.
33. 1975. Zaire. Mobutu and the CIA. Yuck.
34. 1976-1980. Destabilizing Jamaica.
35. 1970s Nurturing apartheid South Africa and helping to capture populist freedom leaders.
36. 1967 Learning to love and arm Israel to the teeth. 1970s, learning to arm most everyone else in the Middle East for big profits.
37. 1978. Helping to set up the illegal opium centres in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which later became known as the Golden Crescent, which payrolled the Mujahadin later from the BCCI.
38. 1981-1989. Libya. Blaming Qaddafi for everything under the sun, for some terrorist acts he'd never even heard of. Reagan claims a new war on terrorism. Reagan says Qaddafi is in force in nicaragua. Reagan bombs Libya. Later, in the 1990s, Dick Cheney's Halliburton is fined for selling dangerous technology to Qaddafi---possible components for nukes.
39. 1981-1990. The Reagan War on Central America. Up to 200,000 die in Honduras, nicaragua, El Salvador, etc. Iran-Contra reveals enormous drug trafficking scandals, the 'Enterprise' mercenary project, massive money-laundering, the BCCI phenomenon, Wallstreet connections, and generally a whole lot of illegal activity.
40. 1989. A long history with the CIA's #1 man in Central America, Noriega, comes to violent bloody end. The war based on mostly lies. Cocaine traffick doubles aftward.
41.1990-pesent. Another CIA asset outplayed and hammered, not once but now twice. Iraq blasted to the Stone Age. America wows the world with power twice. The beginning of a long siege of Iraq and a permanent large presence in the Gulf, ending in occupation.
42. 1979-present. Afghanistan. The biggest CIA operation ever, the mujahedin instigated by NSA director Brzezinski to rise up against the Soviet puppet in Kabul. The USSR withdraws in 1988 and dissolves shortly after. The mujadin and Taliban keep training, fighting, and growing opium for the West. Apparent US threats to the Taliban are followed by 9/11. The US occupies.
43. 1986-1994. Haiti. Messing around with a messed country.

All that and for some reason you keep accepting their apology.

Which makes sense if you care about stuff and not people.

CorporationsRule

16th February 2004, 18:46

I just realized your going to say something about "in the name of communism". Oh well...I'm a failure.

cubist

16th February 2004, 19:10

QUOTE
It isn't voluntary at all.
If I grow up poor and can't afford to go to college or university, my optinos become quite limited.

Tough. Why should someone else have to pay for it ?[QUOTE]

BECUASE WE AS A COUNTY NEED DOCTORS AND MATHAMATICIANS AND ENGINEERS IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THIS IS OF BENIFIT TO ALL IDEOLOGYS COMMUNIST OR CAPITALIST.

as for the rest of it you are both arguing basic bullshit

Osman Ghazi

16th February 2004, 19:19

Let me see if I inderstand this.
You shouldn't have to pay money if your ancestors enslaved someone.
But you should be able to live without working because your ancestors had a lot of money.
"But... but you didn't do anything"
You should be able to recieve the benefits but not the costs of your ancestors?
That's some good logic you got there.

As for your comments on education and growing up poor, let's just expand using that logic.

You were enslaved? Tough.
You were shot? Tough.
Someone killed your entire people? Tough.

Face it. That is just cold-hearted inhumanity.

Maybe someone should hunt you down and kill you? What, that's not fair? You're damn right it isn't. Tough.
. :angry:

cubist

16th February 2004, 19:29

MR "CRAPITALIST" MONEYBAGS,

well in communism it isn't about capitalism it isn't about paying for and recieving its about working as team to provide for all including the one legged black blind lesbian who can't do anything.

people say capitalism is wrong becuase it profitted from slavery etc, yes and no. capitalism is wrong on a national front too ighnoring where they get the profit from

America and France and UK and Russia and Australia went through the industrial revolution earlier than the third world countries. so they are richer becuase they could mass produce and sell it cheaper.

Yes america and the UK and other corps move there mass producing factories to india and pay fuck all. But they pay above going rate they are putting money into an economy which does boost the standards of living in said country.

HOW EVER they stop the country from growing at a faster rate than that, they hold the country right where they want them in need of the cash. that is where people dislike the GLOBALIZATION of capitalist Corps.

Also another problem with GLOBAL CORPS is that they infact don't get charged extra tax for the huge difference in the gross profit from not having to pay UK or US national pay rates. Not to mention that infact in the UK especially becuase the employees aren't in the UK tere is not national insurance contribution. This increases the liquidity of the company more money cheaper assets etc which gives them more money to pay out to the share holders again no tax being paid on said income of said shareholders. that extra tax that they could be paying and the saved NI benifit could be theyre to keep students at UNI or fund the schools better or the valuable NHS.

These major companies have the president by his balls, they help fund his presidentual campaign, he won't be in next year with out the funds from the companies he pisses off by introducing CARBON Emittence taxes etc

monkeydust

16th February 2004, 20:22

To professor moneybags: I would like to counter you counter counter arguments again:

I think you'll find the exact opposite is true. People dump litter in the street, but not in their own driveways. Why not ? Because litter in the street doesn't affect them personally. The same with pollution- common land can be polluted because it is just that- everyones to do with as they please.

I agree, currently people don't litter their own land because it is their land. In the same way if people viewed public land collectively as their collective land, they would also feel the responsibility and obligation not to litter upon it.

There's no such thing as "intrinsic worth". "Worth" presupposes a valuer and without a valuer, something cannot have a value and is thus worthless.

This doesn't really justify certain occupations being 'valued' above others. Why should a businessman receive more material benefit than an intellectual, a professor (like youself!) or a philosopher for example.

It's got nothing to do with laziness, it's to do with lack of freedom and political oppression from continual tribal warfare to fascist dictatorships like the Mugabe regime.

Firstly my initial comment was a response to Avalons assertion that people who earn less are by definiton lazier. Secondly, do you entirely deny Western support for many of these oppresive regimes? Thirdly are you denying the influence of globalisation entirely? Can you not see that Western companies (e.g Nike) are often those paying baseline wages to people in third world nations.

A business man who did that wouldn't last five minutes in a free market.

Please explain why? What about Entrepeneurs such as Von Hookstraten.

Capitalism isn't really harwork=success, more like ingenuity=success.

Bill Gates is a success. Was he innovative? Not really, he stole his Windows concept from apple. Was he hard working? Probably, but not to the extent that he deserves what he earns.

The whole concept of "class" is Marxist bilge, nowhere is the idea of "class" promoted (or even acknowledged) amongst people like von Mises etc.

Are you in effect denying the concept of 'class' altogether?

Professor Moneybags

16th February 2004, 22:15

Read through the articles provided at that site. I'm not talking slave like conditions or debt slaves. Many of these people are actually under lock and key and guarded by guys with guns.

I don't remember advocating slavery.

Slavery is alive and well in America.
Read through the articles provided at that site. I'm not talking slave like conditions or debt slaves. Many of these people are actually under lock and key and guarded by guys with guns.

I think you will find that's unconstitutional. Plus, it's ironic that the same people who supposedly oppose slavery think nothing of taking 50% of your paycheck and handing it to someone else without your consent.

If that's not enough, here are some lovely things done/supported/funded in roughly the last fifty years in the name of capitalist economic interests:

Why do you all seem to think that simply shoving "capitalist" in front of something makes it serve your purpose ? Economics in itself is not "capitalist". Only a pragmatist would try and defend slavery in the name of profit, but I am not one of them.

BECUASE WE AS A COUNTY NEED DOCTORS AND MATHAMATICIANS AND ENGINEERS IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THIS IS OF BENIFIT TO ALL IDEOLOGYS COMMUNIST OR CAPITALIST.

It's not moral, though, is it ? Not that there is going to be a shortage without subsidies.

as for the rest of it you are both arguing basic bullshit

In other words, you don't have an argument to counter it. Honesty is a virtue.

Let me see if I inderstand this.
You shouldn't have to pay money if your ancestors enslaved someone.
But you should be able to live without working because your ancestors had a lot of money.
"But... but you didn't do anything"

Ancestors ? Family fortunes don't last forever and patents only last 50 years. Do you mean parents of rich kids ? It's their money, let them spend it how they chose. Unless it can be proven that the wealth they have was not aquired by immoral means (i.e. stolen), let them keep it.

You were enslaved? Tough.
You were shot? Tough.
Someone killed your entire people? Tough.

Face it. That is just cold-hearted inhumanity.

Maybe someone should hunt you down and kill you? What, that's not fair? You're damn right it isn't. Tough.

What in god's name are you talking about ? Where have I said anything that implied this ?

MR "CRAPITALIST" MONEYBAGS,

well in communism it isn't about capitalism it isn't about paying for and recieving its about working as team to provide for all including the one legged black blind lesbian who can't do anything.

And what if I don't want to take part in this wonderful team ?

people say capitalism is wrong becuase it profitted from slavery etc, yes and no. capitalism is wrong on a national front too ighnoring where they get the profit from

In other words, stealing something is the same as making it.

America and France and UK and Russia and Australia went through the industrial revolution earlier than the third world countries. so they are richer becuase they could mass produce and sell it cheaper.

Yes america and the UK and other corps move there mass producing factories to india and pay fuck all. But they pay above going rate they are putting money into an economy which does boost the standards of living in said country.

It might be fuck all to you, but it means alot to them.

HOW EVER they stop the country from growing at a faster rate than that, they hold the country right where they want them in need of the cash. that is where people dislike the GLOBALIZATION of capitalist Corps. Also another problem with GLOBAL CORPS is that they infact don't get charged extra tax for the huge difference in the gross profit from not having to pay UK or US national pay rates. Not to mention that infact in the UK especially becuase the employees aren't in the UK tere is not national insurance contribution. This increases the liquidity of the company more money cheaper assets etc which gives them more money to pay out to the share holders again no tax being paid on said income of said shareholders. that extra tax that they could be paying and the saved NI benifit could be theyre to keep students at UNI or fund the schools better or the valuable NHS.

Taxation is theft. If you tried to do what the government did, you'd be behind bars.

These major companies have the president by his balls, they help fund his presidentual campaign, he won't be in next year with out the funds from the companies he pisses off by introducing CARBON Emittence taxes etc

The carbon tax is a scam, because it isn't the most powerful greenhouse gas by a long shot.

I agree, currently people don't litter their own land because it is their land. In the same way if people viewed public land collectively as their collective land, they would also feel the responsibility and obligation not to litter upon it.

It's getting speculative now, but you might be right. Then again, looking at the tragedy of the commons...

This doesn't really justify certain occupations being 'valued' above others. Why should a businessman receive more material benefit than an intellectual, a professor (like youself!) or a philosopher for example.

Supply and demand. You can complain all you like about doctors being undervalued, but there are plenty of ill people who value the doctor and his services far more. It might sound subjective, but there is reason behind it.

Firstly my initial comment was a response to Avalons assertion that people who earn less are by definiton lazier. Secondly, do you entirely deny Western support for many of these oppresive regimes?

The Mugabe regime, definitely not. I don't think many of them care, though. Either that, or they don't want to rock the boat. It's sort of an I'm alright jack attitude, where there should be a moral obligation to remove such regimes (such as the war in Iraq).

Thirdly are you denying the influence of globalisation entirely? Can you not see that Western companies (e.g Nike) are often those paying baseline wages to people in third world nations

What might seem a pittance to you is riches to them. I'm sure $1 can buy you far more in Africa than in the US.

Please explain why? What about Entrepeneurs such as Von Hookstraten.

Who ?

Bill Gates is a success. Was he innovative? Not really, he stole his Windows concept from apple. Was he hard working? Probably, but not to the extent that he deserves what he earns.

I've heard that claim before, but I think that Windows is superior (don't start an argument on this, please). It's hard to pinpoint what makes success. Perhaps it's giving people what they want.

Are you in effect denying the concept of 'class' altogether?

We're not living in an Indian caste system.

Don't Change Your Name

16th February 2004, 22:52

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 16 2004, 07:11 PM

It isn't voluntary at all.
If I grow up poor and can't afford to go to college or university, my optinos become quite limited.

Tough. Why should someone else have to pay for it ?
Maybe because otherwise he will become a criminal that could threaten your life and steal you...

Capitalism isn't really harwork=success, more like ingenuity=success.

No in fact it is inherited wealth + good education apid by daddy + pretending to be sent by god and being superior + having good government contacts + hiring people to produce wealth and stealing most of it = success

According to the capitalist rating system, about 1% of the people of the whole world is the one who inveted everything and the rest of the people "should be happy that they survive". Ridiculous.

That's actually true.

How can you prove it? Is a businessman a creator of wealth? I don't think so.

Here you have admitted you're in yankeeland, which means you will never see the exploitation that people suffer in places which are "so far away". Anyway, let's see: a bunch of white guys went, stole the local indigenous population and claimed that to be "private property", then some idiots decided to fund the country based on principles that i doubt the believed in, and a lot of immigrants (many of them POOR) came from europe, so the population increased, which meant that all that people would work on hard conditions (governments who would machinegun people who were protesting and such things). Then it was time for the WWs and after the second one, as they took part and were on the winning side and almost untouched by it, they became world powers, and as no other imperialist country could extend its influence (european countries were destroyed by the war), they started making interventions in other parts of the world, and after the collapse of the USSR their policies and their army controlled the whole world, imposing a system where if you don't sell the whole country for half a dollar to them, you starve. That's how "America" becameso powerful and rich. It wasn't hard work, just a minority exploiting immigrants who could never reach them in economical levels. That without counting slavery, indoctrination and persecution of oppositors (like MacCarthyism, the Haymarket martyrs, etc.).

Spare me the "White man's burden" [email protected] If half of what you wrote about slavery being the cause of wealth was true, the USSR would have the streets paved with gold by now.

The USSR doesn't exist anymore and it was never capitalist, so it's impossible that there could have been slavery there.

You see, it's all to easy to lok back a few hundred years with today's eyes and point out how stupid people were. Yes, people thought that their harvests would fail unless they sacrificed virgins to their gods. Yes, the Europeans killed Indians and took their lands. So what ? There's too many examples of this behaviour to list- and it's certainly not a phenomenon confined to Europeans or Americans.

So? The idea keeps being the same. Oligarchies always did that and then became part of the top of the economical pyramid. That's capitalism.

Perhaps this mentality is best summed up by this cartoon. (http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000267.html)

Good attemp. But your beloved capitalism loves inheritances.

Hitman47

16th February 2004, 23:03

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Feb 16 2004, 11:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Feb 16 2004, 11:52 PM)
Professor [email protected] 16 2004, 07:11 PM

Capitalism isn't really harwork=success, more like ingenuity=success.

No in fact it is inherited wealth , good education apid by daddy + pretending to be sent by god and being superior + having good government contacts + hiring people to produce wealth and stealing most of it = success

[/b]
LOL

well put :D

Y2A

16th February 2004, 23:07

Originally posted by Hitman47+Feb 17 2004, 12:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hitman47 @ Feb 17 2004, 12:03 AM)
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 16 2004, 11:52 PM

Professor [email protected] 16 2004, 07:11 PM

Capitalism isn't really harwork=success, more like ingenuity=success.

No in fact it is inherited wealth , good education apid by daddy + pretending to be sent by god and being superior + having good government contacts + hiring people to produce wealth and stealing most of it = success

LOL

well put :D [/b]
What about the working man that works himself up like my family and millions of other immigrant families that have. But its always easy for a bunch of suburban kids to think they are sticking up for others when in reality they have no clue what the hell they are talking about :rolleyes:

Osman Ghazi

16th February 2004, 23:39

QUOTE
It isn't voluntary at all.
If I grow up poor and can't afford to go to college or university, my optinos become quite limited.

Tough. Why should someone else have to pay for it ?

You said that it isn't your problem if someone else has less opportunities than you.

In response I said

You were enslaved? Tough.
You were shot? Tough.
Someone killed your entire people? Tough.

Face it. That is just cold-hearted inhumanity.

Maybe someone should hunt you down and kill you? What, that's not fair? You're damn right it isn't. Tough.

By which I meant to ask how far you are willing to take that logic. I.E. It isn't your problem if someone doesn't have the same opportunites. Fine. Is it your problem if people are being arbitrarily killed or torutred or enslaved or imprisoned?

To me they all represent the same thing: you are unwilling to help people. If you aren't willing to make their lives your problem, why would you be willing to make their deaths your problem?

My apologies if this sounds a little confusing.

Osman Ghazi

16th February 2004, 23:46

What about the working man that works himself up like my family and millions of other immigrant families that have. But its always easy for a bunch of suburban kids to think they are sticking up for others when in reality they have no clue what the hell they are talking about

And it is always easy for the 1% of immigrant kids who's daddy was successful to act like capitalism was God's gift to mankind. Not many of your buddies joined you in the burbs, eh? Why do you think that is?

Let me pre-empt your response: "Ummm... they all joined gangs and did drugs so ummm... like they didn't you know umm.... make it."

They didn't make it because they didn't have a chance and they never will.

Y2A

16th February 2004, 23:50

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 17 2004, 12:46 AM

What about the working man that works himself up like my family and millions of other immigrant families that have. But its always easy for a bunch of suburban kids to think they are sticking up for others when in reality they have no clue what the hell they are talking about

And it is always easy for the 1% of immigrant kids who's daddy was successful to act like capitalism was God's gift to mankind. Not many of your buddies joined you in the burbs, eh? Why do you think that is?

Let me pre-empt your response: "Ummm... they all joined gangs and did drugs so ummm... like they didn't you know umm.... make it."

They didn't make it because they didn't have a chance and they never will.
So there situation forced them to join gangs and do drugs?

Fuck that. You haven't lived where I have, so please don't try and "relate". What you just said is complete bull. I understand that there are some people that do need help to get out of there situation and I am for many socialist programs that help those that truely wish to make it out. But alot of people in the ghetto don't make it not because it is impossible but because they are not willing to work there way out. That is the truth. I seen it. I lived it. But hell, what do I know that some rich suburban white kid secluded from the rest of the world doesn't.

Osman Ghazi

17th February 2004, 00:09

So there situation forced them to join gangs and do drugs?

that. You haven't lived where I have, so please don't try and "relate". What you just said is complete bull. I understand that there are some people that do need help to get out of there situation and I am for many socialist programs that help those that truely wish to make it out. But alot of people in the ghetto don't make it not because it is impossible but because they are not willing to work there way out. That is the truth. I seen it. I lived it. But hell, what do I know that some rich suburban white kid secluded from the rest of the world doesn't.

But herin lies my point.

Why?

Why do they for some reason think that they can never make it out? Because obviously, if they thought that hard work would get them out, they would work hard. No?

Why are they 'not willing to work their way out'?

The truth is that most people don't have the opportunities that you have. And don't act like you are so different from me. What differentiates you from me? My family isn't exactly the cream of the crop either. My grandfather worked five days a week for his entire life since he was 15. My dad grew up in the ghetto in Toronto in government-subsidized housing. He 'made it out' like your family. I lived there for a while too, although not as long as you. How long did you live in 'the ghetto' for and which one? If you don;t mind my asking, that is.

Please don't presume to know me. :P

Y2A

17th February 2004, 00:21

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 17 2004, 01:09 AM

So there situation forced them to join gangs and do drugs?

that. You haven't lived where I have, so please don't try and "relate". What you just said is complete bull. I understand that there are some people that do need help to get out of there situation and I am for many socialist programs that help those that truely wish to make it out. But alot of people in the ghetto don't make it not because it is impossible but because they are not willing to work there way out. That is the truth. I seen it. I lived it. But hell, what do I know that some rich suburban white kid secluded from the rest of the world doesn't.

But herin lies my point.

Why?

Why do they for some reason think that they can never make it out? Because obviously, if they thought that hard work would get them out, they would work hard. No?

Why are they 'not willing to work their way out'?

The truth is that most people don't have the opportunities that you have. And don't act like you are so different from me. What differentiates you from me? My family isn't exactly the cream of the crop either. My grandfather worked five days a week for his entire life since he was 15. My dad grew up in the ghetto in Toronto in government-subsidized housing. He 'made it out' like your family. I lived there for a while too, although not as long as you. How long did you live in 'the ghetto' for and which one? If you don;t mind my asking, that is.

Please don't presume to know me. :P
First off, I apologize for my last post. I'll admit, I did get a little out of hand. "My bad"
:(

Now, you have to understand that there are some real fucked up people that live in these "ghettos". Alot of older people that fuck up there lives drag along many other kids with them by getting them into drugs and gangs. Most people that get into that kind of stuff are from really messed up homes. You know the typical, no dad, whore mom, home. And because of that it is really easy to get them involved in the gang life or drugs. Luckly I was born into a stable home, but others aren't so lucky. I am not saying that if they worked hard enough they would be sucessful and lead this great life, all I am saying is that it is not impossible to make it out.

And I just left bout 2 months ago, which means 16 years in there. Oh and I lived in inner city Newark New Jersey.

Osman Ghazi

17th February 2004, 00:33

Now it seems to me that if gangs and drugs are the problem and .... if in socialism there is no one making drugs and no gangs then .... socialism is the answer to all their problems. No? :lol:

The main problem with capitalism is the attitude that 'someone else will do it'.

For example, hardline capitalist (neoliberals) think that charities will just 'look after' everyone who has problems. Well, more often than not, they don't.

The key is to have an organ that is responsible to the people that can deal with these important issues.
I.E. If you should have public healthcare, why shouldn't you have public job agencies?
If you should have a public mail service, why shouldn't you have public drug clinic?

Are jobs and rehab not equally as important as healthcare and mail?
Why should we put our lives in the hands of people whose first priority is money?
Why not put our lives in our own hands? In hands whose first priority is people.

One of the biggest myths is that in order to want these things you also have to want the total domination of the Communist Party or that you have to put all power in the State. Well, quite simply, you don't.

Urban Rubble

17th February 2004, 00:41

Now it seems to me that if gangs and drugs are the problem and .... if in socialism there is no one making drugs and no gangs then .... socialism is the answer to all their problems. No?

I for one will be growing large amounts of marijuana under any system, regardless of if I love the system or hate it. That is all. :lol:

Don't Change Your Name

17th February 2004, 01:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 12:07 AM
What about the working man that works himself up like my family and millions of other immigrant families that have. But its always easy for a bunch of suburban kids to think they are sticking up for others when in reality they have no clue what the hell they are talking about :rolleyes:
That's someone who worked hard. Only 0,1% of them actually become rich. They are usually middle class, and capitalism usually bring them a crisis as a "reward" for their efforts, which means that they can sometimes end up in poverty or middle-low class.

Professor Moneybags

17th February 2004, 06:56

Maybe because otherwise he will become a criminal that could threaten your life and steal you...

Why don't you just come out and say "Your money or your life !". Talk about mugger mentality.

pretending to be sent by god and being superior + having good government contacts + hiring people to produce wealth and stealing most of it

I don't remember any business man claiming to be sent from god. Stolen off who, anyway ?

The USSR doesn't exist anymore and it was never capitalist, so it's impossible that there could have been slavery there.

Oh that's a good one. There was no slavery in the USSR. Are you another one of these gulag revisionists ?

So? The idea keeps being the same. Oligarchies always did that and then became part of the top of the economical pyramid. That's capitalism.

Your theory doesn't hold water; if that were true, the richest people in the world would still be kings and queens.

Good attemp. But your beloved capitalism loves inheritances.

Not from a million generations ago it doesn't.

Professor Moneybags

17th February 2004, 06:59

By which I meant to ask how far you are willing to take that logic. I.E. It isn't your problem if someone doesn't have the same opportunites. Fine. Is it your problem if people are being arbitrarily killed or torutred or enslaved or imprisoned ?

To me they all represent the same thing: you are unwilling to help people. If you aren't willing to make their lives your problem, why would you be willing to make their deaths your problem?

My apologies if this sounds a little confusing.

It certainly is confusing. Can't you tell the difference between voluntary and forced action ?

LSD

17th February 2004, 07:42

Not from a million generations ago it doesn't.

Your theory doesn't hold water; if that were true, the richest people in the world would still be kings and queens.

Clearly, you're missing the point.

There are two options here, either capitalism is meritocratic or it isn't.

Either, "hard work" always pays off, or sometimes "hard work" pays off.

In the world today, the number one method of acquiring wealth is inheritence.

Most people born poor, stay poor, no matter how hard they work.

So...capitalism? Not meritocractic.

People get rich because they happen to be born to the right family at the right time in the right place.

And you wonder why we oppose the system...

Professor Moneybags

17th February 2004, 09:29

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 17 2004, 08:42 AM
Clearly, you're missing the point.

There are two options here, either capitalism is meritocratic or it isn't.

Either, "hard work" always pays off, or sometimes "hard work" pays off.

Most people born poor, stay poor, no matter how hard they work.

So...capitalism? Not meritocractic.

People get rich because they happen to be born to the right family at the right time in the right place.

And you wonder why we oppose the system...

I doubt that very much. "oh you are just rich because you are born into the right family" is a cheap rationalisation to dismiss all wealth creation as "luck".

In the world today, the number one method of acquiring wealth is inheritence.

It would be ridiculous to ask how you actually came about that notion, wouldn't it ?

LSD

17th February 2004, 10:39

I doubt that very much. "oh you are just rich because you are born into the right family" is a cheap rationalisation to dismiss all wealth creation as "luck".

Wealth creation?

If I inherit 40 million dollars, how much "wealth" did I "create"?

Answer this question, is capitalism meritocratic or not?

Because if not, than despite all your lines about "hard work" and "wealth creation", it does just come down to "luck".

It would be ridiculous to ask how you actually came about that notion, wouldn't it ?

Fortune Magazine.

Y2A

17th February 2004, 11:08

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 17 2004, 01:33 AM
Now it seems to me that if gangs and drugs are the problem and .... if in socialism there is no one making drugs and no gangs then .... socialism is the answer to all their problems. No? :lol: .
I think it's quite egotistical to say a system will eliminate drug use and gangs.

Y2A

17th February 2004, 11:10

As for inherited wealth, I have previously stated my opinion on that. It does keep the rich, rich. But eliminating it would hurt the low and middle class far more then it will hurt the high class.

LSD

17th February 2004, 12:23

As for inherited wealth, I have previously stated my opinion on that. It does keep the rich, rich. But eliminating it would hurt the low and middle class far more then it will hurt the high class.

Well, it would depend on how you'd eliminate it.

If we're still staying within a capitalist framework, it would be tough.

I really can't concieve of a way that you can retain private property but eliminate inheritence without some sort of pervasive totalitarian state and such a system would hurt everyone.

The best way to eliminate inheritence is to eliminate the system that creates its neccessity.

Professor Moneybags

17th February 2004, 16:25

Wealth creation?

If I inherit 40 million dollars, how much "wealth" did I "create"?

None. Now let's share the 40 million out to everyone, how much have we created now ? None. Wealth isn't created by passing things around, it's created by the production of a value. Not that I was claiming that inheritence was equal to production anyway. Straw man argument there.

Because if not, than despite all your lines about "hard work" and "wealth creation", it does just come down to "luck".

...and it makes rationalising it's theft that much easier, right ? This still doesn't anser the question; if all wealth was inherited, there would be no more around now than there was during the stone age.

Professor Moneybags

17th February 2004, 16:26

LSD

17th February 2004, 16:38

None. Now let's share the 40 million out to everyone, how much have we created now ? None. Wealth isn't created by passing things around, it's created by the production of a value. Not that I was claiming that inheritence was equal to production anyway. Straw man argument there.

My comment was in direct response to your statement that:

"oh you are just rich because you are born into the right family" is a cheap rationalisation to dismiss all wealth creation as "luck".

I was demonstrating that it was no such thing, that indeed inheritance, a major reason that people are wealthy today, has nothing to do with "wealth creation".

..and it makes rationalising it's theft that much easier, right ? This still doesn't anser the question; if all wealth was inherited, there would be no more around now than there was during the stone age.

I certainly never said that all wealth is inherited (the question of just what wealth "creation" is is a different issue), my point was that inheritance demonstrates that capitalism is not meritocratic and hence not a system based on rewarding people for their "work" or their "contribution", but to a large degree based on luck.

A large proportion of wealth in capitaism is due to inheritance, and an even larger proportion thanks to gains made possible only due to that inheritance. Many who are rich today did not "work", and many who are poor did.

I'd overlooked that. Thanks for mentioning it. Inheritence is all some of the poor have to go on.

Yes, it's definitely a flawed system.

Hoppe

17th February 2004, 17:19

I was demonstrating that it was no such thing, that indeed inheritance, a major reason that people are wealthy today, has nothing to do with "wealth creation".

Yes it has, but in a indirect way. The capital needs to be invested, and investment (and saving) is needed to increase overall wealth, not consuming it. The latter will obviously happen if the state would take it and hand it out.

Osman Ghazi

17th February 2004, 20:00

The easiest way to get around inheritance is what they did in the USSR (assuming that you have a state, of course ;) ) i.e. Make a limit on the amount of wealth you can inherit.

I think (and I could be worng) that if you had one person with 40 million dollars, they could simply hang on to the money and spend it at their own discretion whereas if you had 4000 people with 10000 dollars, they would be more prone to spending that wealth and thus there would be more 'investment'. No?

So, if all these people depend on this capital as a source of 'wealth creation', why should it all be in the hands of one person? I thought you guys thought that centralism was bad.

Also, inheritance is just a passing of capital into different hands and thusly, no, inheritance does not play any role in wealth creation.

LSD

17th February 2004, 20:41

Yes it has, but in a indirect way. The capital needs to be invested, and investment (and saving) is needed to increase overall wealth, not consuming it. The latter will obviously happen if the state would take it and hand it out.

Alright, even I accept that (which I really don't for a number of reasons), it's starting to diverge from my original point.

Thanks to the good proffessor's misinterpretations, I think I have to clarify again.

Regardless of whether there is an "indirect" wealth creation, what I was trying to say is that as long as inheritence plays a significant role in wealth aquisition than to a large degree capitalism is not about "generating wealth", "being useful" or "being productive" and is not about skill, talent, ability, intelligence, ingenuity, or ideas...

...it's about luck.

Hoppe

17th February 2004, 21:40

Regardless of whether there is an "indirect" wealth creation, what I was trying to say is that as long as inheritence plays a significant role in wealth aquisition than to a large degree capitalism is not about "generating wealth", "being useful" or "being productive" and is not about skill, talent, ability, intelligence, ingenuity, or ideas..

It still is. As said, generating wealth can only done by saving and investing. So every dollar I do not consume can be spend on talented individuals with good ideas. So in the end you're bound to end up with more and more wealthy individuals. Now, the fact that they didn't work for it isn't really interesting, certainly not from an economic point of view.

Osman Ghazi

17th February 2004, 21:47

There is only one way to 'create wealth': taking something from the ground and turning it into something. Yes, investment does help to create outlets which do this, but so does spending. For example, if you a company makes enough money off, say a mine, then they could open another mine and thusly increase the amount of wealth they are able to create. Investing is not required at all.

Hoppe

17th February 2004, 21:56

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 17 2004, 10:47 PM
There is only one way to 'create wealth': taking something from the ground and turning it into something. Yes, investment does help to create outlets which do this, but so does spending. For example, if you a company makes enough money off, say a mine, then they could open another mine and thusly increase the amount of wealth they are able to create. Investing is not required at all.
Yes it does. Before you can make use of the first mine, you first have to get equipment etc. These can be paid out of your own savings or by an investor. Furthermore, you can only explore a second mine if you don't consume all the profits from the first one, on cars or nice clothes.

So investment or saving (which is, to not consume) is the only cause. Maybe someone can explain this to Bush :)

Osman Ghazi

18th February 2004, 00:54

So investment or saving (which is, to not consume) is the only cause. Maybe someone can explain this to Bush

Umm... people not spending money generally causes an economic downturn, no?

What I am saying is that many small contributions from many different sources is just as good as one large contribution from one source. Therefore, we don't need the rich to stimulate economic developement.

Saving doesn't help at all. Unless you're saving in a bank which may or may not be what you mean.

Don't Change Your Name

18th February 2004, 06:09

Professor Moneybags:

Why don't you just come out and say "Your money or your life !". Talk about mugger mentality.

I don't get what you are trying to get into. Are you accusing me of threating you by forcing you to pay? Don't be a dumbass, many people will turn into criminals if they can't find a good source of money.

I don't remember any business man claiming to be sent from god. Stolen off who, anyway ?

Of course they won't claim that but it's pretty obvious that you cappies believe that the capitalist class are the "chosen" and that the rest should starve because they are useless crap. At least that's the image you all Ayn Rand fans leave, which makes you look like hitler worshippers. And who they stole this? In frist place, they stole the right of the rest of the people on the world to use their private property (although this can be justified and even accepted), then they are people who use it to produce wealth, and then they take it, "manage" it, keep most of it, and give the smallest possible number to the worker.

Oh that's a good one. There was no slavery in the USSR. Are you another one of these gulag revisionists ?

Check my avatar. Does it look like I'm a "revisionist"??? Of course stalinism made forced collectivizations, but those which you assume to be enslaved were capitalists. Considering the owner-worker relationship I named a few lines above this, and although a new class took power and control, such slavery didn't exist.

Your theory doesn't hold water; if that were true, the richest people in the world would still be kings and queens.

In fact I was talking about a more recent situation: "civilized" killing "indians" in America (with America I mean from Tierra del Fuego to Canada), in the period of history where the bourgueoisie already rebelled against the monarchs and started imposing capitalism, and defend their order and privileges with fascist dictatorships and mass muerders of workers who would attemp to rebel.

Not from a million generations ago it doesn't.

Then it shouldn't right now. Some day in thousands or millions of years people might see the modern capitalist order as what it is - slavery, as nobody really cared much about what happened millions of years ago (because such things were justified by religions and "human nature").

LSD

18th February 2004, 06:20

eyedrop

18th February 2004, 10:41

It still is. As said, generating wealth can only done by saving and investing. So every dollar I do not consume can be spend on talented individuals with good ideas. So in the end you're bound to end up with more and more wealthy individuals. Now, the fact that they didn't work for it isn't really interesting, certainly not from an economic point of view.

So investment or saving (which is, to not consume) is the only cause. Maybe someone can explain this to Bush

Yeah I can imagine the world where everyone saves and keeps up to your standard. Everyone will go to their mine and dig metal ores that will be bought by noone. With new low record prices to the metal ore you will guaranted make enough money to secure another mine. :)

The saving technichue works when a minority does it, but it's don't work when the mayority starts doing it.

The investment is more like consumerism to me than saving. A possible way to boost the economy would be to let the state make a deegre stating that money that is not invested in the timespan of a year will lose 25% of it's value. This would at-least stop a depression without taking away to much freedom from the rich and the powerful.

QUOTE
So there situation forced them to join gangs and do drugs?

that. You haven't lived where I have, so please don't try and "relate". What you just said is complete bull. I understand that there are some people that do need help to get out of there situation and I am for many socialist programs that help those that truely wish to make it out. But alot of people in the ghetto don't make it not because it is impossible but because they are not willing to work there way out. That is the truth. I seen it. I lived it. But hell, what do I know that some rich suburban white kid secluded from the rest of the world doesn't.

But herin lies my point.

Why?

Why do they for some reason think that they can never make it out? Because obviously, if they thought that hard work would get them out, they would work hard. No?

Why are they 'not willing to work their way out'?

The truth is that most people don't have the opportunities that you have. And don't act like you are so different from me. What differentiates you from me? My family isn't exactly the cream of the crop either. My grandfather worked five days a week for his entire life since he was 15. My dad grew up in the ghetto in Toronto in government-subsidized housing. He 'made it out' like your family. I lived there for a while too, although not as long as you. How long did you live in 'the ghetto' for and which one? If you don;t mind my asking, that is.

Please don't presume to know me.

Even if all the poor worked really hard do you think that all the poor would get up. There's only a limited number of those middle class jobs, if all tried to get there it would only lead to lower wages and better standard off the workers. Though it may be some more jobs as the wages would be lower and easier to start jobs. (Hate to admit that there may be more jobs :angry: )

Professor Moneybags

18th February 2004, 14:34

A large proportion of wealth in capitaism is due to inheritance, and an even larger proportion thanks to gains made possible only due to that inheritance. Many who are rich today did not "work", and many who are poor did.

I still find that extremely difficult to believe. Do have any figures ?

So, if all these people depend on this capital as a source of 'wealth creation', why should it all be in the hands of one person? I thought you guys thought that centralism was bad.

Centralism is bad, stealing is worse. What's the point of creating wealth if it just gets stolen and given to someone else ?

Also, inheritance is just a passing of capital into different hands and thusly, no, inheritance does not play any role in wealth creation.

The question is one of ownership. If someone else is deciding who you may or may not give your money to, they are laying a claim on your money AND you.

Regardless of whether there is an "indirect" wealth creation, what I was trying to say is that as long as inheritence plays a significant role in wealth aquisition than to a large degree capitalism is not about "generating wealth", "being useful" or "being productive" and is not about skill, talent, ability, intelligence, ingenuity, or ideas...

So because a few people aquire unearned money, aquiring money in general has nothing to do with being productive ? That's dubious reasoning.

There is only one way to 'create wealth': taking something from the ground and turning it into something.

Writers and artists make money. What do they dig out of the ground ?

I don't get what you are trying to get into. Are you accusing me of threating you by forcing you to pay? Don't be a dumbass, many people will turn into criminals if they can't find a good source of money.

So if I don't pay, you'll become a criminal and take money from me by force, even though I owe you nothing ? And you claim you don't understand why I said it was "mugger mentality" ?

Of course they won't claim that but it's pretty obvious that you cappies believe that the capitalist class are the "chosen" and that the rest should starve because they are useless crap.

"Pretty obvious" ? You need to get out more. There's no "divine right" and I see no one claiming such. As for the "useless crap" claim, if the shoe fits, wear it, but they owe you nothing, just as you owe them nothing.

"At least that's the image you all Ayn Rand fans leave, which makes you look like hitler worshippers."

I don't remember Ayn Rand claiming that anyone was "useless crap". Hitler may very well have done, but the two are hardly comparable. On the other hand, aren't you the one's claiming the capitalists are "useless crap"- thus justifying their extermination ?

"And who they stole this? In frist place, they stole the right of the rest of the people on the world to use their private property (although this can be justified and even accepted), then they are people who use it to produce wealth, and then they take it, "manage" it, keep most of it, and give the smallest possible number to the worker."

It's funny you should mention Ayn Rand. One logical fallacy she discovered was one called the "stolen concept", which you have used here; without the concept "private property", there can be no such thing as "stealing". You can't steal something from everyone, because "thief" is part of "everyone" and they would be stealing something that already belongs to them.

Check my avatar. Does it look like I'm a "revisionist"??? Of course stalinism made forced collectivizations, but those which you assume to be enslaved were capitalists. Considering the owner-worker relationship I named a few lines above this, and although a new class took power and control, such slavery didn't exist.

Oh I see. Talk about polylogic. It's wrong for someone to enslave you, but okay for you to enslave someone else ? You think that refusing to call forced-labour "slavery" prevents it from being so ? Hmmm...

In fact I was talking about a more recent situation: "civilized" killing "indians" in America (with America I mean from Tierra del Fuego to Canada),

(snip the other garbage)

That's not exactly recent. If the people who did this were still alive, they could be punished, but they are not, so they can't. Seeing as capitalism requires a respect for people's property rights, I don't think invading someone else's country really pays homage to that, do you ?

Then it shouldn't right now. Some day in thousands or millions of years people might see the modern capitalist order as what it is - slavery,

Where are the chains ? Where are the fences ? Where are the guards ? Slavery ? Yeah, right...

Since so much money is made every year through inheritence, doesn't that demonstrate that you can get something for nothing?

No money is "made" through in inheritence. Didn't I explain that earlier ? Didn't I explain the absurdity of the belief that passing money around is as good as earning it ? Read von Mises. Him smart.

Hoppe

18th February 2004, 16:16

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 18 2004, 01:54 AM
Umm... people not spending money generally causes an economic downturn, no?

Yes, you've got it. Consuming causes the downturn. :)

What I am saying is that many small contributions from many different sources is just as good as one large contribution from one source. Therefore, we don't need the rich to stimulate economic developement.

That's why we have banks. And yes, we also need the rich.

That, yes, luck is largely responsible for wealth acquisition?

Sometimes people win the lottery.....

Yeah I can imagine the world where everyone saves and keeps up to your standard. Everyone will go to their mine and dig metal ores that will be bought by noone. With new low record prices to the metal ore you will guaranted make enough money to secure another mine.

The saving technichue works when a minority does it, but it's don't work when the mayority starts doing it.

The investment is more like consumerism to me than saving. A possible way to boost the economy would be to let the state make a deegre stating that money that is not invested in the timespan of a year will lose 25% of it's value. This would at-least stop a depression without taking away to much freedom from the rich and the powerful.

Oh please, open an economic books, preferably not a Keynesian one.

And do you really like your o so nice government control your money?

Osman Ghazi

18th February 2004, 20:12

Where are the chains ? Where are the fences ? Where are the guards ? Slavery ? Yeah, right...

The chains are not being able to eat. If you can't get a job somewhere else, you can't eat, thusly leaving is not an option. Not allowing someone to leave is the point of a chain, right?

The fences are the fact that you can never make much more than what you spend on necessities. That means that you can never really go far from where you started. Limiting where people go is the point of a fence, right?

The guards are the police, who will arrest you if you try to take what you need to survuve, what you need to get out of the ghetto. Guards usually try to prevent escape, right?

And lastly, there were no chains, fences, or guards on southern plantations, so I guess that wasn't slavery. In fact, they gave them a place to stay and food to eat. Wow, I guess I was all wrong about the south, huh? Why, they weren't slavemasters at all. They were just a couple of real fine gents trying to do their part for the black man. Just like the rich are trying to do for the poor.

Osman Ghazi

18th February 2004, 20:16

That's why we have banks. And yes, we also need the rich.

Why do we need the rich? You have yet to explain that.

If we have banks, we don;t need the rich.

And do you really like your o so nice government control your money?

Hmm... let's see here. Have a person who only cares about money and who is willing to take it from anyone control my money, or have a body responsible to me and the rest of the people control my money. Tough decision.

Hoppe

18th February 2004, 21:21

Why do we need the rich? You have yet to explain that.

If we have banks, we don;t need the rich.

All wealth is created by the rich (defined as those with high purchasing power from not consuming all their money). More rich people, means more purchasing power of money.

Hmm... let's see here. Have a person who only cares about money and who is willing to take it from anyone control my money, or have a body responsible to me and the rest of the people control my money. Tough decision.

I cannot follow you. You seem to hold Alan Greenspan or the ECB in high esteem. Maybe you can send him a mail asking him to triple the amount of money overnight and give it to the needy. Problem solved.

Professor Moneybags

18th February 2004, 21:55

The chains are not being able to eat. If you can't get a job somewhere else, you can't eat, thusly leaving is not an option. Not allowing someone to leave is the point of a chain, right?

You are free to leave, though.

The fences are the fact that you can never make much more than what you spend on necessities. That means that you can never really go far from where you started. Limiting where people go is the point of a fence, right?

Not necessarily. It will take you as far as you are willing or able to let it.

The guards are the police, who will arrest you if you try to take what you need to survuve,

Let's stop the Orwell speak - you are not "taking what you need to survive", you are strealing the products of someone's labour.

what you need to get out of the ghetto. Guards usually try to prevent escape, right?

This is the centre of the whole argument- no one is preventing you from "escaping" or "leaving". Although it would seem that the only thing you seem to be interested in escaping is metaphysical reality and the fact that life requires productive effort in order to sustain it.

And lastly, there were no chains, fences, or guards on southern plantations, so I guess that wasn't slavery.

It was enforced by law, so there were guards in a manner of speaking. They could not leave the plantations either, so there were chains too.

LSD

18th February 2004, 22:05

So because a few people aquire unearned money, aquiring money in general has nothing to do with being productive ? That's dubious reasoning.

No because many people aquire unearned money and many more "work hardd" and yet recieve none, it demonstrates that capitalism effectively comes down to upbringing, family, and plain old luck.

Writers and artists make money. What do they dig out of the ground ?

Yes they make money because they're paid, but from within a capitalistic framework, they did not "create wealth", they were just given it by the "market".

The question is one of ownership. If someone else is deciding who you may or may not give your money to, they are laying a claim on your money AND you.

Well the real question is indeed one of ownership?

Do you have any right to "own" anything?

What if that "ownership" is harming others?

The ideology that somehow private property is a fundamental right on par with the right to security or the right to free speech is nonsense.

Your "property" is starving others and therefore you have no right to have it in the firstplace.

So if I don't pay, you'll become a criminal and take money from me by force, even though I owe you nothing ? And you claim you don't understand why I said it was "mugger mentality" ?

That "criminal" needs to eat and needs to survive.

And you "owe" him everything you can just as he "owes" you everything he can because you are both responsible for the safety and life of each other. If you are abusing that fundamental relationship by withholding resources that could save his life or make his miserable life bearable than he is fully justified in "stealing" what is morally his in the first place.

t's funny you should mention Ayn Rand. One logical fallacy she discovered was one called the "stolen concept", which you have used here; without the concept "private property", there can be no such thing as "stealing". You can't steal something from everyone, because "thief" is part of "everyone" and they would be stealing something that already belongs to them.

It's not a logical fallacy, just a semantic one.

You're technically correct in that "stealing" implies property, so fine, we need to change the word.

Maybe hoarding or withholding or misappropriating.

The word really doesn't matter, the point is that someone is using resources that belong to everyone and not allowing anyone else to use them.

As long as you understand the concept, what you call it is unimportant.

Sometimes people win the lottery.....

Quite often in fact.

But is that any way to run a society?

Don't Change Your Name

18th February 2004, 23:49

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 18 2004, 03:34 PM
So if I don't pay, you'll become a criminal and take money from me by force, even though I owe you nothing ? And you claim you don't understand why I said it was "mugger mentality" ?
So let's see, what option do you prefer? Those people becoming profesionals or they becoming criminals, as they would even in the most utopian capitalism???

"Pretty obvious" ? You need to get out more. There's no "divine right" and I see no one claiming such. As for the "useless crap" claim, if the shoe fits, wear it, but they owe you nothing, just as you owe them nothing.

So people like Ayn Rand's character Howard Roark, who is able to do anything, who is so perfect, who has this innovative way of viewing architecture and the rest of the mortals who work all day long to give their kids what they need are threated equally by her??? I don't think so.

I don't remember Ayn Rand claiming that anyone was "useless crap". Hitler may very well have done, but the two are hardly comparable. On the other hand, aren't you the one's claiming the capitalists are "useless crap"- thus justifying their extermination ?

Of course she wouldn't, Otherwise none of those "useless poors" would buy his self-help books. I am not claiming that capitalists are "useless crap".

It's funny you should mention Ayn Rand. One logical fallacy she discovered was one called the "stolen concept", which you have used here; without the concept "private property", there can be no such thing as "stealing".

Yes there can be. I can't seem to understand why are you all so obsessed with making governments "smaller" but you are still obsessed with laws. Private property goes against freedom, the owner takes something and doesn't let the others use it in any way. Historically this started with attitudes that, as you have already seemd to let me know, aren't supported by you capitalists because it was a long time ago.

You can't steal something from everyone, because "thief" is part of "everyone" and they would be stealing something that already belongs to them.

That's why my perfect society would work. But with private property you are stealing the right of others over something.

Oh I see. Talk about polylogic. It's wrong for someone to enslave you, but okay for you to enslave someone else ? You think that refusing to call forced-labour "slavery" prevents it from being so ? Hmmm...

So you want a society where people who doesn't work doesn't do it?? Well after all that help the rich minority...

That's not exactly recent. If the people who did this were still alive, they could be punished, but they are not, so they can't. Seeing as capitalism requires a respect for people's property rights, I don't think invading someone else's country really pays homage to that, do you ?

Well those who did that were capitalists. And as they had control and influence over the state, the police, the army, they could do it freely. And as those who were stolen didn't have "property rights", it's right for the exploitator to go and steal he few things they have?

Where are the chains ? Where are the fences ? Where are the guards ? Slavery ? Yeah, right...

So chains are slavery??? So the meaning of slavery is "people and lots of chains and fences around them"??? Weird.

Osman Ghazi

19th February 2004, 01:34

You are free to leave, though.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said that you couldn't leave if you couldn't get a job somewhere else. Then you say "but you can just leave any time you want". You can't leave any time you want because you can't just make a living anywhere

Also, you said they had slavery in the USSR but there you could actually leave any time you wanted and you would be able to get a job anywhere. In Leningrad they did a survey and found that 8000 were looking for jobs every day and on average, they found one in 8 to 12 days. Wouldn't that make the USSR more free than the U$, even by your reckoning?

Let's stop the Orwell speak - you are not "taking what you need to survive", you are strealing the products of someone's labour.

So if I were to steal from someone who inherited wealth, I'd be stealing the product of their labour? But they didn't work for it!

Not necessarily. It will take you as far as you are willing or able to let it.

What exactly will 'take you as far as you are willing or able to let it'

This is the centre of the whole argument- no one is preventing you from "escaping" or "leaving". Although it would seem that the only thing you seem to be interested in escaping is metaphysical reality and the fact that life requires productive effort in order to sustain it.

Your the one who wants people to be able to inherit wealth and do no work and we're the ones who are trying to escape the fact that life requires work?

It was enforced by law, so there were guards in a manner of speaking. They could not leave the plantations either, so there were chains too.

What is the difference between not being allowed to leave and leaving not being an economically viable option? Answer: Nothing! Both prevent a person from leaving. And capitalism is the institution that makes it economically inviable. Face it. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Professor Moneybags

19th February 2004, 08:34

No because many people aquire unearned money and many more "work hardd" and yet recieve none, it demonstrates that capitalism effectively comes down to upbringing, family, and plain old luck.

I've asked for figures on this, which you decline to show me. Plus, it's a non-sequitur anyway as if it came down to "upbringing" all the rich people in the world would still just be kings and queens.

Yes they make money because they're paid, but from within a capitalistic framework, they did not "create wealth", they were just given it by the "market".

This question begging- where did the "market" get it ?

Well the real question is indeed one of ownership?

Do you have any right to "own" anything?

What if that "ownership" is harming others?

The ideology that somehow private property is a fundamental right on par with the right to security or the right to free speech is nonsense.

Your "property" is starving others and therefore you have no right to have it in the firstplace.

The only way of violating anyone's rights is by initiating the use use of force against them. To claim that refusing to hand over the products of my labour is initiating force is like claiming that an escaped slave is intiating force against his "owner".

That "criminal" needs to eat and needs to survive.

Let him aquire his own food.

And you "owe" him everything you can just as he "owes" you everything he can because you are both responsible for the safety and life of each other. If you are abusing that fundamental relationship by withholding resources that could save his life or make his miserable life bearable than he is fully justified in "stealing" what is morally his in the first place.

No, he's just turning me into his slave and he's now taking his unearned "share" from the local mug.

You're technically correct in that "stealing" implies property, so fine, we need to change the word.

Maybe hoarding or withholding or misappropriating.

LOL. This is like something straight out of 1984. No, it's not slavery, it's "taxation". It's not steaing from some and giving to others, its "redistribution". You believe that altering words alters the nature of the conept. Repackaging a lie doesn't make it a truth.

So let's see, what option do you prefer? Those people becoming profesionals or they becoming criminals, as they would even in the most utopian capitalism???

I don't know what you mean by "professionals".

Yes there can be. I can't seem to understand why are you all so obsessed with making governments "smaller" but you are still obsessed with laws. Private property goes against freedom, the owner takes something and doesn't let the others use it in any way. Historically this started with attitudes that, as you have already seemd to let me know, aren't supported by you capitalists because it was a long time ago.

Private property "started" because people were sick to death of getting looted.

That's why my perfect society would work. But with private property you are stealing the right of others over something.

Once again, you are claiming an unearned right to my property and thus, to my labour too.

Well those who did that were capitalists.

...They just defied everything capitalism stands for.

So chains are slavery??? So the meaning of slavery is "people and lots of chains and fences around them"??? Weird.

There's slavery in the conventional sense of the world, then there's slavery that's cunningly disguised as something else. Be it taxation or "positive rights", it's still the same.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said that you couldn't leave if you couldn't get a job somewhere else. Then you say "but you can just leave any time you want". You can't leave any time you want because you can't just make a living anywhere

Who says ? You mean you can't, or you don't know how to ?

Also, you said they had slavery in the USSR but there you could actually leave any time you wanted and you would be able to get a job anywhere.

LOL. Gulags ? Berlin wall ?

In Leningrad they did a survey and found that 8000 were looking for jobs every day and on average, they found one in 8 to 12 days. Wouldn't that make the USSR more free than the U$, even by your reckoning?

The economy also collapsed because of it.

So if I were to steal from someone who inherited wealth, I'd be stealing the product of their labour? But they didn't work for it!

Not unless they had stolen it from someone.

What is the difference between not being allowed to leave and leaving not being an economically viable option? Answer: Nothing!

The difference is the initiation of force is required in the former. That matters alot. It's the difference between freedom and slavery.

Osman Ghazi

19th February 2004, 13:41

I've asked for figures on this, which you decline to show me. Plus, it's a non-sequitur anyway as if it came down to "upbringing" all the rich people in the world would still just be kings and queens.

Umm... How about this: 386 billionaires have as much as the poorest 2.8 billion people. The sons and daughters of the 386 billionaires will remain 'kings and queens' for many generations to come. And the sons and daughters of the 2.8 billion will remain their wage-slaves. Figures enough for ya? The thing is that while it takes a smart person to amass wealth, it onlytakes an average person to maintain it.

This question begging- where did the "market" get it ?

It is actually a form of creating wealth because they take canvas and paint worth $30 and turn it into a painting worth $30,000. When I said the only way to create wealth was to dig something out of the ground, I wasn't being entirely literal. Obviously, if I cut down a tree and sell it, that is creating wealth. The point is that you have to make something to create wealth.

The only way of violating anyone's rights is by initiating the use use of force against them. To claim that refusing to hand over the products of my labour is initiating force is like claiming that an escaped slave is intiating force against his "owner".

That's stupid. If I came into your house and shat in it, am I initiating the use of force against you? No. But am I violating your rights? Yes. Likewise, if you leave money somewhere and I take it, that is stealing and thusly violating your rights. So no, violence is not the only way to violate someone's rights. Actually, this is what we call a flawed analogy.

Let him aquire his own food.

He can't acquire his own food if he can't get a job. That is why he is stealing, remember? Besides, your ownership of land is what prevents his aquiring his own food.

No, he's just turning me into his slave and he's now taking his unearned "share" from the local mug.

Well after you turned him into your slave I daresay it would be a tempting option.

LOL. This is like something straight out of 1984. No, it's not slavery, it's "taxation". It's not steaing from some and giving to others, its "redistribution". You believe that altering words alters the nature of the conept. Repackaging a lie doesn't make it a truth.

You seem to be forgetting that Orwell was a socialist. Taxation and slavery are the same word now, eh? Stealing from robbers is not stealing. If someone works harder than you and you take more money then him, you are robbing from him and using his labour to enrich yourself.

Private property "started" because people were sick to death of getting looted.

How does private property solve looting? Jesu Christo, the more you talk, the less sense you make.

Once again, you are claiming an unearned right to my property and thus, to my labour too.

By owning something, you are stealing from everyone else on earth because they have as much a right to that land as you do.

There's slavery in the conventional sense of the world, then there's slavery that's cunningly disguised as something else. Be it taxation or "positive rights", it's still the same.

I agree entirely. Slavery is cunningly disguised as capitalism and democracy.

Who says ? You mean you can't, or you don't know how to ?
[QUOTE]

If you don't know how to make a lving somewhere else, you can't make a living somewhere else.

LOL. Gulags ? Berlin wall ?

LOL. Prison? You can't go to Cuba either. So America is equally bad as the USSR in that respect. Worse, actually. 2.4% of the adult population was in prison in the USSR. In the U$, 2.8% of the adult population is in jail.

The economy also collapsed because of it.

What exactly did the economy collapse because of?

Not unless they had stolen it from someone.

So inheriting wealth is work?

The difference is the initiation of force is required in the former. That matters alot. It's the difference between freedom and slavery. [QUOTE]

This is an interesting concept. That means that freedom and slavery have the same effect so in reality Freedom is Slavery. And we're Orwellian?

Professor Moneybags

19th February 2004, 15:10

Umm... How about this: 386 billionaires have as much as the poorest 2.8 billion people. The sons and daughters of the 386 billionaires will remain 'kings and queens' for many generations to come. And the sons and daughters of the 2.8 billion will remain their wage-slaves. Figures enough for ya? The thing is that while it takes a smart person to amass wealth, it onlytakes an average person to maintain it.

That proves nothing.

That's stupid. If I came into your house and shat in it, am I initiating the use of force against you? No. But am I violating your rights? Yes.

By using my house like you owned it, you are doing both.

Likewise, if you leave money somewhere and I take it, that is stealing and thusly violating your rights. So no, violence is not the only way to violate someone's rights. Actually, this is what we call a flawed analogy.

I never said "violence" was the only way to initiate force; fraud is the same thing only indirect.

He can't acquire his own food if he can't get a job. That is why he is stealing, remember? Besides, your ownership of land is what prevents his aquiring his own food.

And I'm to be forced to provide him with one or have him rob me ? Initiating force once again.

Well after you turned him into your slave I daresay it would be a tempting option.

In other words, he's my slave even though I haven't forced him to do anything. That makes alot of sense.

You seem to be forgetting that Orwell was a socialist. Taxation and slavery are the same word now, eh?

Same in principle.

Stealing from robbers is not stealing.

"Property is theft" is stolen concept.

If someone works harder than you and you take more money then him, you are robbing from him and using his labour to enrich yourself.

You point is ? You are going around in circles.

How does private property solve looting? Jesu Christo, the more you talk, the less sense you make.

Getting rid of private property will solve looting, just like getting rid of doctors will stop disease.

By owning something, you are stealing from everyone else on earth because they have as much a right to that land as you do.

Here we go again- stealing concepts.

I agree entirely. Slavery is cunningly disguised as capitalism and democracy.

Nothing but hot air...

If you don't know how to make a lving somewhere else, you can't make a living somewhere else.

That's not really my problem.

This is an interesting concept. That means that freedom and slavery have the same effect so in reality Freedom is Slavery. And we're Orwellian?

You're the one claiming that property is theft.

The Unmoved Mover

19th February 2004, 16:22

While the asserition about communism in history is right, nobody can really fairly compare a capitalist society with a communist one because up to now nobody has successfully built a communist society that met the communist tenets. There has always been a power-hungry dictator who has made things go his way, but if you want to argue the sheer mechanics of it all and how socialist or communist societys are SUPPOSED to be run, then they would be more beneficial to the people without a doubt. In a ideal communist society, there would be no problems like lack of health care, starvation, etc.....which means there would be less desperation, less crime, less dysfunctional familes. Human beings are not born bad, they are made bad through teaching and environment. If you want to say that communism has never worked, thats true. Its also true that it would probably never work with the way things are now, because any type of government would bring power-hungry people into the light to try and take control of the head positions. As far as working for the people, capitalism does NOT work for the people. It is possible to get rich in capitalism, it is possible to survive, but it is not a good system for the people. Capitalism is good for people who generally think that life is a competition and that everybody is out to get them or take the money before they can....and we have been taught this way of thinking towards each other by the capitalist system. This is not implying a conspiracy, this is simply saying that in a system which pushes competition and greed, there is alot of lying, stealing, and cheating going on- and thus we grow up with the idea that our peers are virtually our competition. It is impossible to say that this system works for the people or that its the best type of system we could have......unless you are an idiot who wants to insist that the millions of impoverished, homeless, and exploited people in America got that way because of something THEY did wrong and not because of the system itself. But that is the easy way out isnt it?

Osman Ghazi

19th February 2004, 19:17

Well, I'm out. There is just no arguing with a man who will not consider anything other than what he has already been brainwashed with and who will only give one-line responses that don't mean anything.

Don't Change Your Name

20th February 2004, 02:45

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 19 2004, 09:34 AM
I don't know what you mean by "professionals".
Oh, I forgot, such a thing doesn't exist in capitalism because the only thing in which people would be professionals is in stealing. That means no doctors, no scientists, no universities, because if you follow that you starve. I prefer a society where there are professionals in every field and no criminals who go around killing, raping, stealing, etc as in a capitalist society.

Private property "started" because people were sick to death of getting looted.

People in that case means the oligarchy, which is about 1% of the people. Good way of brainwashing, associating words with what you want them to mean so that people doesn't notice what you really mean.

Once again, you are claiming an unearned right to my property and thus, to my labour too.

It depends on what you "own" and on the labour. If you worked more than the average then you get some extra money that you can spend on different commodities (excepting things that can be used as means of production). And if your property is something like a house then I don't see where I'm claiming an "unearned right".

...They just defied everything capitalism stands for.

But people like you said nothing... :rolleyes:

There's slavery in the conventional sense of the world, then there's slavery that's cunningly disguised as something else. Be it taxation or "positive rights", it's still the same.

Or capitalism.

cubist

20th February 2004, 11:56

CRAPITALIST MONEYBAGS,

TAXATION IS THEFT? yes i agree but it is essential to keep the proleteriat lower income people in the same bed as those more fortunate.

can i ask or should i say dare i? do you think its a homeless persons fault and would you not help them return to there feet?

Hoppe

20th February 2004, 14:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 12:56 PM
can i ask or should i say dare i? do you think its a homeless persons fault and would you not help them return to there feet?
Oh please. This is such a pathetic argument. Helping someone because you feel that you need to is something completely different than founding a government which coerces people into distributing their wealth.

cubist

20th February 2004, 17:03

Posted on Feb 20 2004, 03:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (cephas @ Feb 20 2004, 12:56 PM)
can i ask or should i say dare i? do you think its a homeless persons fault and would you not help them return to there feet?

Oh please. This is such a pathetic argument. Helping someone because you feel that you need to is something completely different than founding a government which coerces people into distributing their wealth.

oh please answer if you can read i addressed mr moneybags it isn't a poll its a question as to what he would do. not what a capitalist would do.

Hoppe

20th February 2004, 17:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 06:03 PM
oh please answer if you can read i addressed mr moneybags it isn't a poll its a question as to what he would do. not what a capitalist would do.
Oh really? The only reason you ask these questions is that you want to show the superiority of your ideology over the brutal, egocentric capitalists.

cubist

20th February 2004, 18:03

YES HOPPE YOUR RIGHT VERY GOOD NEXT!!

Avalon87

21st February 2004, 06:09

no, i wasnt easily converted. this process wasnt just the forums u know......... :rolleyes:

Invader Zim

21st February 2004, 16:22

Professor Monybags, if one liners are all you can come up with I'm disappointed.

I have seen it stated that only the rich make money. Well thats true to an extent, the rich invest money and they reap the reward, but the person who makes him his money is the worker who does all the hard work, and is rewarded bearly enough to survive, where as the investor gains the profit for minimum effort. This anyone, but the most asinine individual, can see is an unfair and corrupt system. It is the very reason millions starve in Africa, the reason why children are pimped in back allys, the obvious conclusion is capitalism is amoral.

Hoppe

21st February 2004, 19:08

the obvious conclusion is capitalism is amoral

Very true, and luckily it is. But you probably meant immoral?

but the person who makes him his money is the worker who does all the hard work

The investor has all the risk. Did it ever occur to you that there are some people on this planet who would rather earn a steady income than having to hope to receive something some time in the future?

Osman Ghazi

21st February 2004, 20:30

Ooh.. risk. That's impressive.

Doesn't the worker risk losing his job if his benefactor goes bankrupt?
Well, it seems that the investor doesn't take all the risk after all.

Hoppe

22nd February 2004, 10:01

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 21 2004, 09:30 PM
Ooh.. risk. That's impressive.

Doesn't the worker risk losing his job if his benefactor goes bankrupt?
Well, it seems that the investor doesn't take all the risk after all.
Your lack of understanding individual preferences is impressive.

Of course the risk of losing your job is entirely different than the risk of losing a big chunk or all of your savings. I have never seen a company which held their employees liable for the default. They can simply go and get another job.

Valishin

22nd February 2004, 10:43

Hmm... let's see here. Have a person who only cares about money and who is willing to take it from anyone control my money, or have a body responsible to me and the rest of the people control my money. Tough decision.
How about you control it yourself?

it demonstrates that capitalism effectively comes down to upbringing, family, and plain old luck
And if other people choose to sacrafice to help me make a better life then why is that wrong even if they are family? It isn't my fault if someone else's family wasn't willing to help them. I was able to get investors he was not.

And you "owe" him everything you can just as he "owes" you everything he can because you are both responsible for the safety and life of each other.
I am in no way responsible for him, nor is he responsible for me!

Did you even read what I wrote? I said that you couldn't leave if you couldn't get a job somewhere else. Then you say "but you can just leave any time you want". You can't leave any time you want because you can't just make a living anywhere
That isn't stopping you from leaving. Besides how you make your living is your business, so long as your not hindering the legal rights of others in the process.

So if I were to steal from someone who inherited wealth, I'd be stealing the product of their labour? But they didn't work for it
They did not but their parent did. The wealth was earned by labor. Inheritance is simply allowing someone else to reap the rewards from your labor, much like charity. Both of which are perfectly valid as long as they occur volunteerly.

I have seen it stated that only the rich make money. Well thats true to an extent, the rich invest money and they reap the reward, but the person who makes him his money is the worker who does all the hard work, and is rewarded bearly enough to survive, where as the investor gains the profit for minimum effort. This anyone, but the most asinine individual, can see is an unfair and corrupt system.
Only if participation is not a volunteery service.

Invader Zim

23rd February 2004, 08:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 08:08 PM

the obvious conclusion is capitalism is amoral

Very true, and luckily it is. But you probably meant immoral?

but the person who makes him his money is the worker who does all the hard work

The investor has all the risk. Did it ever occur to you that there are some people on this planet who would rather earn a steady income than having to hope to receive something some time in the future?
No I meant Amoral: -

---------------

amoral

adj : without moral standards or principles; "a completely amoral person"

WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

---------------

The investor has all the risk.

Hardly, if the buisness fails the worker gets made redundant, and as such doesn't eat, the buisness man who made the investment has no such worries.

Did it ever occur to you that there are some people on this planet who would rather earn a steady income than having to hope to receive something some time in the future?

Did it ever occur to you that there are some people on this planet, who are on 1$ or less, while their employers company MD is on $1,000,000 PA, yet without the worker the company MD would be earning nothing.

Your an idiot, go away before you are further destroyed.

LSD

23rd February 2004, 11:47

And if other people choose to sacrafice to help me make a better life then why is that wrong even if they are family? It isn't my fault if someone else's family wasn't willing to help them. I was able to get investors he was not.

Make up your mind.

Either capitalism is about "hard work" or it's about luck.

If you're born rich it isn't your "fault", but you are most definitely lucky!

They did not but their parent did. The wealth was earned by labor. Inheritance is simply allowing someone else to reap the rewards from your labor, much like charity. Both of which are perfectly valid as long as they occur volunteerly.

You may consider them "valid", but you are still evading the issue.

THEY HAVE WEALTH THAT THEY DID NOT WORK FOR. THEY GOT LUCKY!!!

They were born into the right family...good for them.

But if these people can make money without work, what about others?

How about people who are born to the right ethnicity? Or who are able to afford a better education? Or who are born in a better are??

One you acknowledge (and you really have no other choice) that even one element of capitalism is based on luck, it casts doubt on the entire ideology.

I am in no way responsible for him, nor is he responsible for me!

Of course you are!
It's an implicit part of any society!

Sure, much of human interaction is based on so-called negative rights, but for the most part human societies have always been predicated on the idea that everyone in society, fundamentally, is helping everyone else! Why else have a society?! Clearly the advantage of living with other people is living with other people.

The question is not am I my brother's keeper, but to what extend am I my brother's keeper. And the only justifiable answer is to whatever extent possible.

That isn't stopping you from leaving. Besides how you make your living is your business, so long as your not hindering the legal rights of others in the process.

haha!

Oh yes, nothing's forcing them to stay! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Owner: Work here or starve!!
Worker: hmmm, have to consider my options.....well....I like being alive...but then again I haven't really considered the advantages of death....

Hoppe

23rd February 2004, 15:16

No I meant Amoral:

Very strange that you object to this. My moral isn't necessarily your moral, which is no problem.

Hardly, if the buisness fails the worker gets made redundant, and as such doesn't eat, the buisness man who made the investment has no such worries.

Haha, so if I am being made redundant I'll drop dead one week later?

Did it ever occur to you that there are some people on this planet, who are on 1$ or less, while their employers company MD is on $1,000,000 PA, yet without the worker the company MD would be earning nothing.

Blablabla. Always the same examples. Since capitalism has proved the failure of your ideology you have to point at the third-world. Always very easy, except that you don't have an alternative.

Your an idiot, go away before you are further destroyed.

By whom? Marxist terrorists? You?

LSD

23rd February 2004, 16:08

Haha, so if I am being made redundant I'll drop dead one week later?

No, but it's a spiraling process.

If you don't get paid for a few weeks, you can't pay your bills, but you need services so you use up your savings, but your still unemployed so you can't pay your rent and you loose your home. No one will hire you without an address or decent cloths and you have a family to support. Social security just doesn't cut it, all of your savings are blown and your credit cards are useless. And then, yes, you starve.

Does this happen to everyone? Of course not.

But the fact remains that the worker has far more to loose should his employment disappear than the owner does. The loss of capital is nothing as compared with the loss of life or shelter or food.

It speaks to the twisted vocabulary of capitalism that we attribute "risk" to the owner.

Hoppe

23rd February 2004, 17:07

Does this happen to everyone? Of course not.

You've given the answer yourself

But the fact remains that the worker has far more to loose should his employment disappear than the owner does. The loss of capital is nothing as compared with the loss of life or shelter or food.

Strange perception of risk you have. The IBM's, Enron's or Mcdonalds only make up a small piece of the economic pie. Most employment is in smaller companies where management is also the owner.

It speaks to the twisted vocabulary of capitalism that we attribute "risk" to the owner.

Yes, they have taken the risk. If they fail, gone is the capital. If the worker is fired, he get's another job (which is quite easy).

LSD

23rd February 2004, 17:30

Strange perception of risk you have. The IBM's, Enron's or Mcdonalds only make up a small piece of the economic pie. Most employment is in smaller companies where management is also the owner.

Where?

Yes, they have taken the risk. If they fail, gone is the capital. If the worker is fired, he get's another job (which is quite easy).

Yes, which is why unemployment doesn't exist...

My point was that the "risk" of lost capital is nothing compared with the risk of starvation or of homelessness. Yet we do not refer to the workers as encuring risk.

Hoppe

23rd February 2004, 17:42

Where?

US, Europe, Asia etc

Yes, which is why unemployment doesn't exist...

Not in a free market. If you raise the minimumwage above the marginal value of the worker you create unemployment. Not really capitalist I should say.

My point was that the "risk" of lost capital is nothing compared with the risk of starvation or of homelessness.

Hmm, tell that to your local supermarket owner.

Jimmie Higgins

23rd February 2004, 21:41

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 17 2004, 05:25 PM

Wealth creation?

If I inherit 40 million dollars, how much "wealth" did I "create"?

None. Now let's share the 40 million out to everyone, how much have we created now ? None. Wealth isn't created by passing things around, it's created by the production of a value. Not that I was claiming that inheritence was equal to production anyway. Straw man argument there.

Because if not, than despite all your lines about "hard work" and "wealth creation", it does just come down to "luck".

...and it makes rationalising it's theft that much easier, right ? This still doesn't anser the question; if all wealth was inherited, there would be no more around now than there was during the stone age.
"Wealth isn't created by passing things around, it's created by the production of a value. Not that I was claiming that inheritence was equal to production anyway. Straw man argument there." Wealth comes from the Labor people put in to create more than what they had to begin with both Marx and Adam Smith agreed on this point. What capitalism does is collectivise labor under the control of a few induviduals who use wage-labor to create their wealth and they pay the laborers less than the capital that they make from the wealth and that is how they make profit. This is the basic capitalistic model; it is not the work of the capitalist who create the wealth, it is how they collectivise labor and organize the wealth created by that labor and this results in the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.

"Not in a free market. If you raise the minimumwage above the marginal value of the worker you create unemployment. Not really capitalist I should say." But what is capitalist is the creation of unemployment. When the capitalists concentrate agriculture and set up "private property" they are causing unemplyment of 1000s of former farmers who now must go to the cities to seek wages so they can subsits whereas before they subsited on their harvests and the things they traded. My father and 100s of his cowerkers were laid off from their telecom jobs in the 90s when telecom companies were seeing their biggest boom ever and there was no change in the minimum wage at that time.

"Hmm, tell that to your local supermarket owner." Are we talking about the petty-bourgoise here or are we talking about the major forces of capitalism. Many small businesses fail as part of capitalism and all the people who were hired by your local shopkeeper also loose their jobs and now must compete with their former coweorkers to find similar jobs. Or the petty-bourgoise shop keepercould decide to sell-out to the big corporate competator and the workers are still out of a job or the shop keeper could decide that if he made his customers bag their own groceries, then he could fire all the baggers and retain more profits for the store. Boo-hoo for the ever-shifting 10% of the population in this country who own their own business compared to the 70% of the population who get screwed by the sytem in both good and bad times and have to beg the wealthy for enough money to pay other wealthy people rent.

"...and it makes rationalising it's theft that much easier, right ?" Maybe you can enlighten us on the easy or rationalizations since you rationalize the theft of living standards, labor, wealth, freedom, self-resspect, and so on whenever you apologise for a sytem that uses the skills and labor of 70% of the population to increase the power and wealth of 1% of the population over everyone else.

Jimmie Higgins

23rd February 2004, 21:56

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 23 2004, 05:08 PM
[QUOTE]
But the fact remains that the worker has far more to loose should his employment disappear than the owner does. The loss of capital is nothing as compared with the loss of life or shelter or food.

It speaks to the twisted vocabulary of capitalism that we attribute "risk" to the owner.
I don't think they understood your point friend. The induvidualistic apology for capitalism (often presented as: "sure your emplyer has the power to fire you for no reason or cut your pay for no reason but you have to power to quit and work somewhere else) is completely rediculous. It would be like saying: "sure you're a slave and have to work for your master, but you can always kill yourself so you don't have to work for the master anymore". People like rand say that capitalism is all about the induvidual, but things don't really work that way in capitalism since labor is collectivised under the power of the induvidual employer. So an induvidual quitting the collectivised labor makes only a fraction of an impact or incovinience on the employer, because he still has lots of labor force in the rest of the collective whereas the induvidual worker has lost all source of income and hence all ability to maintain his ability to live until another employer hires him. Collectivism is fine and necissary for capitalists as long as they reap all the results of that collectivisation.

So even if there is a small-employer who has only three or four employees can make due shorthanded for a little while until someone else is hired, should one of the emplyees quit and at worst, their productive capacity is diminished. For the employee, on the other hand, quitting or being fired could cause a great deal of dammage such as loosing their home or ending up in debt that follows them long after they have gotten a new job.