My Rant on Capitalism and Communism

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Basic freedoms exist independent of the state or any state system. Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.

Now, you socialists and communists tend to believe that society can shape human nature, so a socialist government could eventually eliminate individualism from a society whether through force, education or gradual introduction of more socialist policies. And how can you guys find this palatable? That's EXACTLY what Pol Pot was doing with his killing fields.

Communism comes after socialism? So we have to go through killing fields and starvation genocide in order to get to that ideal that Che Guerva and other like minds here advocate? No thanks!


In our system of free market capitalism, everyone has equal opportunity to improve their situation. In communism, everyone starts out and dies in an equal state of poverty.

Oh and by the way, I got a $13,000 raise over the past year. I began doing a different job, I was good at it, I approached my boss for a raise, and I received it based on the work I did. Isn't that nice how that worked out?

[Osman Ghazi]

In our system of free market capitalism, everyone has equal opportunity to improve their situation.

Except that the person born into incredible wealth doesn't have to. Also, if you think the chances of a poor person dying rich and a rich person dying rich are the same, you've got some figgerin' to do. I'll admit that it is possible to climb up the ladder, but hey in feudalism, if you became rich enough you could become nobility so by this logic, feudalism is meritocratic.


In communism, everyone starts out and dies in an equal state of poverty.


Well, in it's current manifestation, which Marx called 'barracks socialism', an 'equality of misery' does indeed prevail. However, replacing the old bosses with the new is not what communism is about. It is about no bosses at all.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I noticed how you ignored about 70% of my rant. So what about those other points that I included?

[Osman Ghazi]

noticed how you ignored about 70% of my rant. So what about those other points that I included?

I didn't want to bring out the big guns, but okay. :D


Basic freedoms exist independent of the state or any state system.

An assertion unsupported by fact. So your saying that if you were the only human being alive, you would still have rights? Interesting.


Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.


Empty rhetoric, mostly. Freedom is an empty concept to those whose option are wage-slavery or death.


Now, you socialists and communists tend to believe that society can shape human nature,

I don't know about that. 'Human nature' as a concept tends to refer to something that is common to all humans at all times, thus a state couldn't shape it. It is supposed to be something created by our genes as a natural defense mechanism or something.


so a socialist government could eventually eliminate individualism from a society whether through force, education or gradual introduction of more socialist policies.

Why would anyone ever want to eliminate individualism? In fact, communism rests on people working at jobs they like, thusly they need to have different interests to run any kind of complex economy. We want to eliminate individualistic grandeur; the thought that I have more money than this person, therefore I must be better than that person, therefore I deserve more than them.

That seems to be pretty much it. Welcome to the board. :ph34r:

[Archpremier]

You haven't researched this very thoroughly.


Now, you socialists and communists tend to believe that society can shape human nature, so a socialist government could eventually eliminate individualism from a society whether through force, education or gradual introduction of more socialist policies.
Wrong. The socialist government put in place would introduce more and more communistic policies until the state served no more purpose than taking votes, and letting the people know what results were, and a few other small functions. At this point, it wouldn't be very much of a government anyway? Now would it? The only reason a government would want to introduce a socialist policy is if it still a bit capitalistic and is trying to become socialist.


And how can you guys find this palatable? That's EXACTLY what Pol Pot was doing with his killing fields.
Pol Pot was introducing more socialist policies in his killing fields? Actually, I'm pretty sure he was killing in his killing fields. Pol Pot is not exactly a role model, nor a communist. He was a tyrannical socialist. The socialism he envisioned had little to no potential to progress to communism, because it is just too far away from being a beacon of democracy. He didn't actually intend for it to progress past this state of unhappy socialism. This is even more true in his case, particularly because of the killing fields that you accuse 'us socialists' of 'finding palatable'.


Communism comes after socialism? So we have to go through killing fields and starvation genocide in order to get to that ideal that Che Guerva and other like minds here advocate?
See above debunaktion of your unthoughtful ignorance.

More specifically:
...that ideal that Che Guerva and other like minds here advocate?
You are now accusing Che Guevara have being in the like with Pol Pot in ideology. Pol Pot was interested in power, not the good of the people. He used the vision of communism to capture the people's imagination, so that he could get power. Che was never in a seat of power, nor did he push to be. He was a genuine communist. He wanted liberty for the masses, and humbly denied credit for things that he clearly helped accomplish.


No thanks!
I agree! Though, I feel bad that you have no idea what you're talking about when you make the statement that I have just agreed with.

I decided to couple the next two paragraphs, because they are foolish on equal planes;
Basic freedoms exist independent of the state or any state system. Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.
In our system of free market capitalism, everyone has equal opportunity to improve their situation. In communism, everyone starts out and dies in an equal state of poverty.
What are you talking about? In what we have now, we occasionally take a gamble and choose a rich guy to sit around getting richer for the next few years. We hope he does good things for us, but he rarely does, because he must use the money of other rich people to get into power, and is obligated to repay the favor, by ruling in their favor. People rarely get to vote directly on legislation, and when they do, it's usually pretty insignificant stuff. Why? Because the people don't decide what they get to vote on. But back to your first sentence. Basic freedoms such as... what? Speach? Religion? Life? Work? People should have all those, but what you really mean is the freedom to be rich. Also, you say they are 'independent of the state or any state system'. First of all, ambiguity. It's extremely difficult to imagine any of the 'basic freedoms' listed above being state-dependent. I'm surely missing one that is easy to image. Please, what is it? However, if you meant to say that they aren't restricted by the state, then you're still wrong. These are dependent on the state not restricting them. Think. Also, you say that 'Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.' What of the one that has little value to exchange for value? They aren't going to amass more value doing this, now are they? In socialism and communism, I've never heard of anything restricting equal-value exchange. Also, what of the ones that have no liquidatable wealth. They must sell work. This does not pay enough for them to purchase something valuable for trade far beyond the little that that originally had. So, there is no need for a capitalist state to intervene in an exchange, because capitalism inherently sets up value walls. The poor obviously have nothing to trade to the rich. The poor must work so that they may buy their necessary sustainance from the rich. The rich need only continue to sell to the poor and trade with each other, because they are also the ones that pay the people who will soon be returning their money to other rich people by buying what they need, which was produced by other workers who are locked in the same cycle. Next: 'In our system of free market capitalism, everyone has equal opportunity to improve their situation.' No they don't. Not everyone has something to generate real wealth, as I said above. Why do you think its such a wonderous story when someone rises above poverty? BECAUSE IT HARDLY EVER HAPPENS! In communism, money does not determine a social class, so poverty has no meaning. Ihave left no sentence unscathed. Care to try again?

[Commie Girl]

So much of your argument rests on YOUR personal definition of "freedom"...free to do what? That all people have the BASIC minimum necessities to live ie: food, clothing, shelter, health and education...that is what Castro DOES provide for the Cuban people.

Capitalists define freedom much differently ie: free to make more money, buy a house, step over the homeless on their way to their pathetic little jobs.

[Xvall]

Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.

But does Capitalism have every freedom available? In a capitalist society, I don't necessarilly have the freedom to be born in a life without intense poverty. in a capitalistic society, I do not have the freedom to be born in a society where everything hasn't already been taken or claimed by some corporation.


And how can you guys find this palatable? That's EXACTLY what Pol Pot was doing with his killing fields.

Pol Pot wasn't a communist. If you claim that Pol Pot is a communist because of his claims that he supported certain communistic ideals, then we can argue that Hitler is a capitalist, for claiming that he supported free trade systems.


Communism comes after socialism? So we have to go through killing fields and starvation genocide in order to get to that ideal that Che Guerva and other like minds here advocate? No thanks!

No one said you have to go through killing fields, starvation, or genocide in order to get to any ideals. This isn't even a valid argument, you're just assuming that communism leads to death without any basis, other than the fact that certain 'communists' in the past may have killed people. As before, I can point out countless capitalists who have engaged in acts of murder to further their 'causes'.


In our system of free market capitalism, everyone has equal opportunity to improve their situation.

Really? So you're telling me that a man born in the ghetto has just as good of an opportunity to 'improve his situation' as Bill Gates' son?


In communism, everyone starts out and dies in an equal state of poverty.

Is everyone in Moldova in abject poverty? The standard of living in Cuba is much higher than that of Haiti or Indonesia, both capitalistic nations.


Oh and by the way, I got a $13,000 raise over the past year. I began doing a different job, I was good at it, I approached my boss for a raise, and I received it based on the work I did. Isn't that nice how that worked out?

That's great.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:25 AM






'Use the money of rich people to get into power'? - wtf are you talking about? Wealth is created through producing goods and services which is then sold through markets. The more wealth is amassed, the more the poor benefit because it creates jobs. More jobs=higher incomes=greater standard of living. Why do you think cab drivers are paid more in New York then in Egypt? Because wealth trickles down to benefit those at the bottom of the ladder.


People rarely get to vote directly on legislation, and when they do, it's usually pretty insignificant stuff. Why? Because the people don't decide what they get to vote on. But back to your first sentence.

This is politics not capitalism.


Basic freedoms such as... what? Speach? Religion? Life? Work? People should have all those, but what you really mean is the freedom to be rich.

Freedom to be rich and freedom to be poor. People's lives are determined by their choices. The only way to eliminate poverty and 'create' equality is to eliminate free will.


Also, you say that 'Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.' What of the one that has little value to exchange for value?

Then they create it. Everyone has different talents and abilities they can use to trade in employment or business.


They aren't going to amass more value doing this, now are they? In socialism and communism, I've never heard of anything restricting equal-value exchange.

:lol: Are you stupid or something? Communism and socialism is all about restricting/banning/regulating exchange. And all exchange is equal-value exchange as you exchange the value that the commodity is equal to, unless you are referring to value as coming solely from labour which is a load of b/s.


Also, what of the ones that have no liquidatable wealth. They must sell work. This does not pay enough for them to purchase something valuable for trade far beyond the little that that originally had. So, there is no need for a capitalist state to intervene in an exchange, because capitalism inherently sets up value walls. The poor obviously have nothing to trade to the rich. The poor must work so that they may buy their necessary sustainance from the rich.

Who do the 'poor' work for? The 'poor' TRADE their labour to work for those who have created businesses. The 'poor' are better off.


The rich need only continue to sell to the poor and trade with each other, because they are also the ones that pay the people who will soon be returning their money to other rich people by buying what they need, which was produced by other workers who are locked in the same cycle.

It doesn't work that way. You just have no grasp of how the world works...


Next: 'In our system of free market capitalism, everyone has equal opportunity to improve their situation.' No they don't. Not everyone has something to generate real wealth, as I said above. Why do you think its such a wonderous story when someone rises above poverty? BECAUSE IT HARDLY EVER HAPPENS!

And how do you know that? In any case, most people live very comfortable lives because of the money they earn through trade. Poverty is relative, also. In 'capitalist' countries the poor are a lot richer then the poor in many socialist states (like Cuba).


In communism, money does not determine a social class, so poverty has no meaning. Ihave left no sentence unscathed. Care to try again?

Poverty has no meaning because all there is, is poverty.

[Hitman47]

Guess Capitalist "Lawyer" can't defend his ideology. :D

[Capitalist Imperial]

Let me formulate a response to these communist assertions...

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 29 2004, 01:52 AM
Basic freedoms exist independent of the state or any state system. Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.

Now, you socialists and communists tend to believe that society can shape human nature, so a socialist government could eventually eliminate individualism from a society whether through force, education or gradual introduction of more socialist policies. And how can you guys find this palatable? That's EXACTLY what Pol Pot was doing with his killing fields.

Communism comes after socialism? So we have to go through killing fields and starvation genocide in order to get to that ideal that Che Guerva and other like minds here advocate? No thanks!


In our system of free market capitalism, everyone has equal opportunity to improve their situation. In communism, everyone starts out and dies in an equal state of poverty.

Oh and by the way, I got a $13,000 raise over the past year. I began doing a different job, I was good at it, I approached my boss for a raise, and I received it based on the work I did. Isn't that nice how that worked out?
Do you really expext us to believe that you're a lawyer?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 02:29 AM
An assertion unsupported by fact. So your saying that if you were the only human being alive, you would still have rights? Interesting.


So, where do rights in communist society come from?

[New Tolerance]

So, where do rights in communist society come from?

Where do rights in capitalist society come from?

[Osman Ghazi]

So, where do rights in communist society come from?

They are a set of rules that a society adopts so that it can protect its members. Rights and responsibilities are granted so that a society may thrive.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 04:46 PM

They are a set of rules that a society adopts so that it can protect its members. Rights and responsibilities are granted so that a society may thrive.
Aha, rights by majority. That would be fun

[New Tolerance]

Aha, rights by majority. That would be fun

It's already like that anyways now days, it's not so bad.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 02:29 AM
I didn't want to bring out the big guns,
You don't have any.


An assertion unsupported by fact. So your saying that if you were the only human being alive, you would still have rights? Interesting.

Rights only exist in a social context. If you were the only human being, there would be no one else to violate those rights.


Empty rhetoric, mostly. Freedom is an empty concept to those whose option are wage-slavery or death.

Wage slavery is an empty concept because it is self contradicting.

[Professor Moneybags]

Capitalists define freedom much differently ie: free to make more money, buy a house, step over the homeless on their way to their pathetic little jobs.

Aka. Freedom from the initation of force.


That all people have the BASIC minimum necessities to live ie: food, clothing, shelter, health and education...that is what Castro DOES provide for the Cuban people.

Aka. Freedom to initiate force.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 29 2004, 04:50 PM

It's already like that anyways now days, it's not so bad.
Nazi Germany put that into practice too. With lethal consistency.

[Osman Ghazi]

You don't have any.


Ouch. Good one.


Rights only exist in a social context. If you were the only human being, there would be no one else to violate those rights.


Yes.


Wage slavery is an empty concept because it is self contradicting.

Not really. Anyone who lacks freedom is a slave. Since the average person lacks the freedom to break free of the wage system (i.e. work for someone else or starve) they are wage (paid) slaves.

[Professor Moneybags]

Pol Pot wasn't a communist. If you claim that Pol Pot is a communist because of his claims that he supported certain communistic ideals, then we can argue that Hitler is a capitalist, for claiming that he supported free trade systems.

He didn't. Trade was entirely regulated by his government.


Really? So you're telling me that a man born in the ghetto has just as good of an opportunity to 'improve his situation' as Bill Gates' son?

Bill Gates wasn't exactly born with a silver spoon up his ass was he ?


The standard of living in Cuba is much higher than that of Haiti or Indonesia,

On what criterion is "standard of living" judged ?

[Osman Ghazi]

He didn't. Trade was entirely regulated by his government.

Yes, well the point was that he claimed to. It doesn't have to be true.


Bill Gates wasn't exactly born with a silver spoon up his ass was he ?


And that is your justification for his children to do no work? Rather pathetic don't you think?.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Really? So you're telling me that a man born in the ghetto has just as good of an opportunity to 'improve his situation' as Bill Gates' son?

Funny you should say that.

Bill started Microsoft in his parent's garage.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 07:40 PM



And that is your justification for his children to do no work? Rather pathetic don't you think?.

Not really, it's called freedom of choice. You commies should try it sometime.

He earned his fortune (you are probably using his product or some portion thereof right now), and he can use his wealth as he sees fit.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 29 2004, 07:09 PM
Nazi Germany put that into practice too. With lethal consistency.
are you comparing our current society with that of Nazi Germany?

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 02:12 PM
Not really. Anyone who lacks freedom is a slave. Since the average person lacks the freedom to break free of the wage system (i.e. work for someone else or starve) they are wage (paid) slaves.
No one is stopping you or anyone else from running away and setting up a commune.

Do you consider yourself a slave?

[Osman Ghazi]

No one is stopping you or anyone else from running away and setting up a commune.

Do you consider yourself a slave?


No but I am not a working class person. I wouldn't have to get a job even if I didn't want one.


Not really, it's called freedom of choice.

So how far does this 'freedom to choose' extend? Are you free to make a choice that will harm others?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 09:08 PM



So how far does this 'freedom to choose' extend? Are you free to make a choice that will harm others?
No, but I don't see Bill Gates doing this.

[Xvall]

He didn't. Trade was entirely regulated by his government.

Likewise, Pol Pot didn't really create a classless, stateless, moneyless society. I wasn't claiming that Hitler was an argument against capitalism; I was saying that if capitalists can use Pol Pot (Someone who didn't really represent the views of communists, or try to achieve anything other than his personal advancement) as an arguement against communism, we can use Hitler and Mussolini (People who didn't really represent the views of capitalists, or try to acheive anything other than the advancement of themselves).



Bill Gates wasn't exactly born with a silver spoon up his ass was he ?

Bill started Microsoft in his parent's garage.

I never said anything about Bill Gates. Bill worked for his money. I stated that Bill Gates' children are going to inherit a crap load of money without putting fourth a single ounce of effort. And because of this, his children and the children in the ghetto do not have an equal opportunity to succeed in the world. One group is being born into a right lifestyle, the other doesn't have any guarentee that they will even live into their adolescence.


On what criterion is "standard of living" judged ?

How many people have food and housing, for starters?

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, if he say, chose to shut down one of his plants, would that not harm others?

That is what I dislike most about capitalism. A few rich people get to make decisions for everyone else.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 29 2004, 07:50 PM

Not really, it's called freedom of choice. You commies should try it sometime.

He earned his fortune (you are probably using his product or some portion thereof right now), and he can use his wealth as he sees fit.
Yes and Bill Gates is all about "freedom of choice" isn't he? He's about the ability to choose Microsoft, Microsoft or Microsoft.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 29 2004, 01:07 PM

Aka. Freedom from the initation of force.



Aka. Freedom to initiate force.
Explain?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:25 PM
Yes and Bill Gates is all about "freedom of choice" isn't he? He's about the ability to choose Microsoft, Microsoft or Microsoft.
Or a Mac, or OS/2 Warp, or any other OS now in obscurity

Besides, the market chose Microsoft, because windows was the best OS, just like Coke is the best cola, so it gets overwhelming support, but still not the only cola.

There were plenty of OS's before microsoft won the market over.

So yes, freedom of choice. Bill gates didn't see that any OS's were outlawed, it is just that the vast majority chose Mr. Softie

[Misodoctakleidist]

Microsoft is certainly not the best OS, do you know how microsoft got the monopoly?

Bill Gates sold IBM the permission to use MS Dos on all the computers they sold, software companies began writting all their programs for MS Dos because it was the most used OS, not because it was the best but because it was pre-installed on IBM computers. Now we have a situation where almost all software is written for windows and as a concequence windows comes pre-instaled on almost every PC. Most people have never even heard of other OS's.

[Guest1]

There's no question that Windows XP is inferior to Mac OS X and Linux in every way except availability due to unfair market practices. Much like how Betamax cassette tapes were superior to VHS, and yet we know how that turned out.

Your argument does not hold CI.

And a funny story actually, he sold them DOS and signed the contract without ever having made it. His friends went psycho over this, cause they knew there was no way to write such a program within the one day they had to provide it.

So he went out on the street and found an idiot programmer who'd already written one and was willing to sell it for 30 000 dollars.

Once again, he did no work.

He simply knew how to manipulate people, and that is not a skill that can produce wealth for society.

[DaCuBaN]

Even his &#39;flagship&#39; product - windows - was a rip off from Archimedes. Go back and reload windows for workgroups or it&#39;s predecessors onto your x86 box, and grab your self an old Acorn and spot the difference <_<

[YKTMX]

Basic freedoms exist independent of the state or any state system. Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.

I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve already been torn to shreds but oh well.

The problem for the apologists when it comes to the question of "free exchange" is this. What force in society sets the value of exchange? How do things gain and lose value? Answer, under capitalism, it&#39;s the market&#33;

Now, from this basic truth, we can deduce a few further basic truths.

1. The market is a human (i.e. capitalist) creation. There is a growing tendency for the market to fetishised and objectified as if it some strange creation outwith our force. "The invisible hand of the market" regulates wages and values not for the benfit of humanity, but for profit, and that is the problem.

2. Who decides what get&#39;s produced? As we are painfuly aware, the group that creates every single slice of the wealth in society (The proletariat) has no say in what they themselves produce. It is the boss (or the market) who decides what his property (labour and capital) will make for him.

Obviously, far from being a "free exchange", it is the cruel, alien hand of the market which regulates economic relations under capitalism.

[DaCuBaN]

. The market is a human (i.e. capitalist) creation. There is a growing tendency for the market to fetishised and objectified as if it some strange creation outwith our force. "The invisible hand of the market" regulates wages and values not for the benfit of humanity, but for profit, and that is the problem

Objectivism&#33; Of course they are going to make the &#39;market&#39; out to be some solid &#39;thing&#39; rather than an intellectual construct. To admit that it isn&#39;t &#39;real&#39; would undermine everything that idiotic Rand woman wrote.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Objectivism is a faith based ideology, their God is "the market," I think this description of religious ideas from the preface of The German Ideology is quite an accurate description of the role "the market" has taken in society;


Hitherto men have constantly made up for themselves false conceptions about themselves, about what they are and what they ought to be. They have arranged their relationships according to their ideas of God, of normal man, etc. The phantoms of their brains have got out of their hands. They, the creators, have bowed down before their creations

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
No but I am not a working class person.

Really? what do you do for a living? Or how do you support yourself?

[Osman Ghazi]

I am only 17. However, when I said I wasn&#39;t working class I meant because my dad is considered upper middle class. In fact, the only real job (9 to 5) (or rather 7-4) was one I got through my dad&#39;s connections.

I don&#39;t have a job now, though I will have to get one when I move out to BC at the end of August.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 30 2004, 12:36 PM
There&#39;s no question that Windows XP is inferior to Mac OS X and Linux in every way except availability due to unfair market practices. Much like how Betamax cassette tapes were superior to VHS, and yet we know how that turned out.

Your argument does not hold CI.

And a funny story actually, he sold them DOS and signed the contract without ever having made it. His friends went psycho over this, cause they knew there was no way to write such a program within the one day they had to provide it.

So he went out on the street and found an idiot programmer who&#39;d already written one and was willing to sell it for 30 000 dollars.

Once again, he did no work.

He simply knew how to manipulate people, and that is not a skill that can produce wealth for society.

There&#39;s no question that Windows XP is inferior to Mac OS X and Linux in every way except availability due to unfair market practices. Much like how Betamax cassette tapes were superior to VHS, and yet we know how that turned out.

Isn&#39;t that opinion, and so by definition, not without queston?


And a funny story actually, he sold them DOS and signed the contract without ever having made it. His friends went psycho over this, cause they knew there was no way to write such a program within the one day they had to provide it.

So he went out on the street and found an idiot programmer who&#39;d already written one and was willing to sell it for 30 000 dollars.

Once again, he did no work.

Yep, thats all there is to it, Bill Gates made billions with no work, That how it usually works for successful people, right? It&#39;s easy to become a billionaire with no work. Your argument holds no water whatsoever.

Come on, get serious.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 30 2004, 05:26 PM
Yep, thats all there is to it, Bill Gates made billions with no work, That how it usually works for successful people, right? It&#39;s easy to become a billionaire with no work. Your argument holds no water whatsoever.

Come on, get serious.
First of all, on the specific question of Bill Gates, I think there is evidence that a good portion (if not all) of the Windows idea was his friend&#39;s, not his own.

Second, there are individuals that work just as hard as Bill Gates, but never even see any money. My mother, for example, operates a business and her work day is at home, 12 hours on the phone, trying to employ new Russian immigrants for jobs. She works twelve hours a day on this particular job, and sees very little money...she has been working ever since she was very young, and still saw no money. She&#39;s single, by the way.

I guess "by accident" she could meet a great "business contact" and make millions off of her business....but nonetheless, these "millions" would have to be attributed to nothing more than a "twist of fate," "luck," "chance," etc. not skill...because if "skill" and "labor" were the "real issues," she would have been a millionare a long, long time ago.

You&#39;re not taking into consideration all the folks that have been working just as hard as anyone else but have nothing to show for it. The real path to "making it big" under capitalism is the "genius" involved in operating capital, in handling money and managing finances. But, of course, not "everyone" can "make it big" under capitalism, no matter how hard they work.

So, our society is thus reduced to nothing but a casino, as RedStar put it. And for every "lucky winner" that worked hard, there are millions of losers that worked just as hard, if not harder.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 11:36 AM
I am only 17. However, when I said I wasn&#39;t working class I meant because my dad is considered upper middle class. In fact, the only real job (9 to 5) (or rather 7-4) was one I got through my dad&#39;s connections.

I don&#39;t have a job now, though I will have to get one when I move out to BC at the end of August.
So do you consider your father a slave, or is he bourgeois?

Are you going to college? or seeking enslavement fulltime?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Brooklyn&#045;[email protected] 30 2004, 05:58 PM
First of all, on the specific question of Bill Gates, I think there is evidence that a good portion (if not all) of the Windows idea was his friend&#39;s, not his own.

Second, there are individuals that work just as hard as Bill Gates, but never even see any money. My mother, for example, operates a business and her work day is at home, 12 hours on the phone, trying to employ new Russian immigrants for jobs. She works twelve hours a day on this particular job, and sees very little money...she has been working ever since she was very young, and still saw no money. She&#39;s single, by the way.

I guess "by accident" she could meet a great "business contact" and make millions off of her business....but nonetheless, these "millions" would have to be attributed to nothing more than a "twist of fate," "luck," "chance," etc. not skill...because if "skill" and "labor" were the "real issues," she would have been a millionare a long, long time ago.

You&#39;re not taking into consideration all the folks that have been working just as hard as anyone else but have nothing to show for it. The real path to "making it big" under capitalism is the "genius" involved in operating capital, in handling money and managing finances. But, of course, not "everyone" can "make it big" under capitalism, no matter how hard they work.

So, our society is thus reduced to nothing but a casino, as RedStar put it. And for every "lucky winner" that worked hard, there are millions of losers that worked just as hard, if not harder.
This is nothing but pure defeatist thinking, Brooklyn.

I would say that most people who work hard in America are rewarded. Are we all millionares? No. Do most of us have good shelter, food, and a little extrra for new shoes? Yes, and that is much more than billions of others have in the world.

I, for instance, am by no means rich by the American definition, but I am middle class, and I own a home, a couple of cars, and I don&#39;t go hungry. And, contrary to leftists who claim that most of America&#39;s wealth is distributed among the few, the vast majority of American wealth is actually distributed throught the middle class, which is by a wide margin the largest economic segment in America. I would say they "have something to show for it".

Again, buy the American definition, not rich, but by world averages, pretty wealthy.

I got it all by working smart and working hard. It&#39;s funny, tthe harder I work, the luckier I get.

The notion that "America is a Big Casino" is a purely ignorant, a highly inaccurate analogy and a pure cop-out for those that are unsatisfied with their own success, however they define it. Thus, they make excuses for those that excel beyond them, instead of accepting responsibility for their own failures.

I absolutely refute your idea that financial success is a dervivative of "luck". It is a derivitive of hard work, snatrt thinking, and enterprise.

[The Sloth]

I would say that most people who work hard in America are rewarded. Are we all millionares? No. Do most of us have good shelter, food, and a little extrra for new shoes?

But if many work very hard, why aren&#39;t they millionaires?&#33; Why is that "fair"? My mother probably works harder than many of these billionare CEO&#39;s, but why isn&#39;t she rich? I ask the same question in the name of everyone else that works dilligently, but makes no where as near to the amount that they deserve.


Yes, and that is much more than billions of others have in the world.

And this is true because what we have is at the expense of these other "billions." And "we" is not even the proper term...the "minority elite" of the world is more accurate, because "we" do not get our fair share.


I, for instance, am by no means rich by the American definition, but I am middle class, and I own a home, a couple of cars, and I don&#39;t go hungry. And, contrary to leftists who claim that most of America&#39;s wealth is distributed among the few, the vast majority of American wealth is actually distributed throught the middle class, which is by a wide margin the largest economic segment in America. I would say they "have something to show for it".

Many have "something to show for it," but at the same time, those that work just as hard have nothing at all to show for it. Laborers in factories, single parents, etc. of course can all "get rich" to an extent, but the job for them would be much more difficult because the majority of the people cannot be rich no matter how much work they put in.

Tell me, CI, why is it fair that most of the people in the world can&#39;t "all" be rich if many of them put in as much as anyone else? The hardest of those workers may have "something to show for it," but of course, not nearly enough considering the fact that others will always be richer than them. How do you propose to this one individual to "become wealthy"? Through "hard work"? Fine, but then it means that everyone else who follows should, in the name of fairness, also attain the same wealth.

But this won&#39;t happen, of course.


I got it all by working smart and working hard. It&#39;s funny, tthe harder I work, the luckier I get.

There is a thread in Chit Chat that I started regarding the members&#39; jobs. Almost every single person on this site, it seems, works at a low-pay, menial job. I&#39;ve met rappers on the street, talented, that ended up talking to me about politics for hours, but some of them either have no money or are homeless.

Now, I would consider myself a fairly intelligent person. And I would consider most of the members of this forum to be not "fairly intelligent" but "exceptionally intelligent." Even if you have disagreements with us about our ideological stances, I&#39;m sure you won&#39;t deny that we&#39;re mostly "very smart" and probably "hard-working" in real life.

Why, then, do these individuals work at low-paying menial jobs?

You must understand that no matter how smart you are, or how skilled, there isn&#39;t a slot open to everyone...and, usually, someone with better qualifications does not find a job before the "other" person. It actually is all a game of chance...your anecdote is just that, an anecdote.


The notion that "America is a Big Casino" is a purely ignorant, a highly inaccurate analogy and a pure cop-out for those that are unsatisfied with their own success, however they define it. Thus, they make excuses for those that excel beyond them, instead of accepting responsibility for their own failures.

Why are 50 Cent, Ja Rule, Chingy, Nelly, Britney Spears, etc. rich, famous, and glorified? They are fucking shit when it comes to "talent." They may "work hard" to promote their fucking shit "talent," and they may dance in some videos to further spread the image of their bullshit "talent," but at the end of the day, 50 Cent is an ignorant gangster and Chingy is just a piece of shit.

By the way, I don&#39;t know how much of hip-hop you follow, but the names I just listed are of dumb pieces of shit "performers"...you don&#39;t need to research it for yourself, trust me. :)

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 30 2004, 05:26 PM
Yep, thats all there is to it, Bill Gates made billions with no work, That how it usually works for successful people, right? It&#39;s easy to become a billionaire with no work. Your argument holds no water whatsoever.

Come on, get serious.
YEP&#33;

he did shit all for work in comparrison to a homeless man who works 18 hour days for about 12 bucks a day.

[Capitalist Imperial]

You automatically relate phsical labor to the only definition of hard work.

That&#39;s a poor assessment.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 30 2004, 07:26 PM
You automatically relate phsical labor to the only definition of hard work.

That&#39;s a poor assessment.
No, no, no....

You automatically relate marketable skills to hard work. Those without marketteable skills deserve to whither and die.

[Osman Ghazi]

What then makes work harder or easier? Is sitting in an office all day working easier or harder to do than being say, a garbageman or janitor?


You automatically relate marketable skills to hard work. Those without marketteable skills deserve to whither and die.

That really is true. In fact, I can remember CI dispensing advice like &#39;go get some marketable skills and then people will hire you.&#39; Why is that?


So do you consider your father a slave, or is he bourgeois?


He is petty bourgeois. That is to say, he doesn&#39;t own the means of production, but as a privileged (and rich) member of society he has by definition more freedom than the average worker.

[QUOTE]Are you going to college? or seeking enslavement fulltime?[QUOTE]

University, most like. Though enslavement awaits everyone (except the really rich) sooner or later.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)He is petty bourgeois. That is to say, he doesn&#39;t own the means of production, but as a privileged (and rich) member of society he has by definition more freedom than the average worker.[/b]

But he is not “really rich” right, so you still would consider him a slave right?


Osman Ghazi
University, most like. Though enslavement awaits everyone (except the really rich) sooner or later

Why are you going to University if slavery awaits you either way? What do you want to study?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Brooklyn&#045;[email protected] 30 2004, 06:57 PM

But if many work very hard, why aren&#39;t they millionaires?&#33; Why is that "fair"? My mother probably works harder than many of these billionare CEO&#39;s, but why isn&#39;t she rich? I ask the same question in the name of everyone else that works dilligently, but makes no where as near to the amount that they deserve.



And this is true because what we have is at the expense of these other "billions." And "we" is not even the proper term...the "minority elite" of the world is more accurate, because "we" do not get our fair share.



Many have "something to show for it," but at the same time, those that work just as hard have nothing at all to show for it. Laborers in factories, single parents, etc. of course can all "get rich" to an extent, but the job for them would be much more difficult because the majority of the people cannot be rich no matter how much work they put in.

Tell me, CI, why is it fair that most of the people in the world can&#39;t "all" be rich if many of them put in as much as anyone else? The hardest of those workers may have "something to show for it," but of course, not nearly enough considering the fact that others will always be richer than them. How do you propose to this one individual to "become wealthy"? Through "hard work"? Fine, but then it means that everyone else who follows should, in the name of fairness, also attain the same wealth.

But this won&#39;t happen, of course.



There is a thread in Chit Chat that I started regarding the members&#39; jobs. Almost every single person on this site, it seems, works at a low-pay, menial job. I&#39;ve met rappers on the street, talented, that ended up talking to me about politics for hours, but some of them either have no money or are homeless.

Now, I would consider myself a fairly intelligent person. And I would consider most of the members of this forum to be not "fairly intelligent" but "exceptionally intelligent." Even if you have disagreements with us about our ideological stances, I&#39;m sure you won&#39;t deny that we&#39;re mostly "very smart" and probably "hard-working" in real life.

Why, then, do these individuals work at low-paying menial jobs?

You must understand that no matter how smart you are, or how skilled, there isn&#39;t a slot open to everyone...and, usually, someone with better qualifications does not find a job before the "other" person. It actually is all a game of chance...your anecdote is just that, an anecdote.



Why are 50 Cent, Ja Rule, Chingy, Nelly, Britney Spears, etc. rich, famous, and glorified? They are fucking shit when it comes to "talent." They may "work hard" to promote their fucking shit "talent," and they may dance in some videos to further spread the image of their bullshit "talent," but at the end of the day, 50 Cent is an ignorant gangster and Chingy is just a piece of shit.

By the way, I don&#39;t know how much of hip-hop you follow, but the names I just listed are of dumb pieces of shit "performers"...you don&#39;t need to research it for yourself, trust me. :)

But if many work very hard, why aren&#39;t they millionaires?&#33; Why is that "fair"? My mother probably works harder than many of these billionare CEO&#39;s, but why isn&#39;t she rich? I ask the same question in the name of everyone else that works dilligently, but makes no where as near to the amount that they deserve.

Well, who is to say what the metric for hard work is? I wouls say that while blue-collar work is in fact physically hard, it pays the way it does because that is what the market has deemed it is worth, based on the fact that aalmost any able-bodied person can do it. I&#39;m sure your mom works very hard, and her rewards go beyond money, but that is what the market pays for her service. She is free to try something ese if she desires more monetary compensation. I heard a statistic once that says over 50% of self-made milionaires have filed for bankruptcy. Its a hard road to the top.

The billionaire CEO, on the other hand, has skills that not everone posseses, as a matter of fact few people do. Mental cpability and leadership characteristics are much harder to come by than the ability to dig a ditch or attach bolts to widgets, thus the market will pay more for that. It is a self-proving concept. Often times people assume that CEO&#39;s don&#39;t work hard. Nothing could be fatrther from the truth. They often work 18 hour days under a lot of stress and a lot of responisbility, which, believe me, can be just as tiring and exhausting as a man swinging a hammer. White collar workers work just as hard as blue collar, it is just that the effort is coming from a different place.



And this is true because what we have is at the expense of these other "billions." And "we" is not even the proper term...the "minority elite" of the world is more accurate, because "we" do not get our fair share.

Well, we all know that life isn&#39;t really fair no matter where you live, but at least here you do have some autonomy over your own destiny. As far as your "fair share", fair share of what? No ideology comes with pre-rationed "shares: of anything.



Many have "something to show for it," but at the same time, those that work just as hard have nothing at all to show for it. Laborers in factories, single parents, etc. of course can all "get rich" to an extent, but the job for them would be much more difficult because the majority of the people cannot be rich no matter how much work they put in.

Thats true, there is not pure parity in the dstribution of wealth or even opportunity, but there is a lot, and it is the best system in the world with regards to what you can do with individual determination, unequivocally, bar none. And those factory workers and laborers can still make enough of a living to put them in the top 5% of world citizens.


Tell me, CI, why is it fair that most of the people in the world can&#39;t "all" be rich if many of them put in as much as anyone else?


again, what is to say that thy do?


The hardest of those workers may have "something to show for it," but of course, not nearly enough considering the fact that others will always be richer than them.

We really have to distinguish between pure hard labor, and working smart, and taking risks, which are also large components of reward. The ditch-digger is guaranteed a wage if he works, the investor can actually go to work and lose money, so can the business owner. If they lose money in their construction business, the ditch digger working for them still gets paid, regardless.

risk/reward, get it?


There is a thread in Chit Chat that I started regarding the members&#39; jobs. Almost every single person on this site, it seems, works at a low-pay, menial job. I&#39;ve met rappers on the street, talented, that ended up talking to me about politics for hours, but some of them either have no money or are homeless.

There seems to be somewhat of a correlation between lack of financial success and leftism on this board. Lets not kid ourselves, not every talented rapper is going to get a &#036;5 million contract. if that was the case, we&#39;d all be in hip-hop.


Now, I would consider myself a fairly intelligent person. And I would consider most of the members of this forum to be not "fairly intelligent" but "exceptionally intelligent." Even if you have disagreements with us about our ideological stances, I&#39;m sure you won&#39;t deny that we&#39;re mostly "very smart" and probably "hard-working" in real life.

Why, then, do these individuals work at low-paying menial jobs?

I&#39;m not sure, maybe because they didn&#39;t shave their goatees? They weren&#39;t ambitious enough? I honestly think that they are probably over-intellectualized liberals who don&#39;t actually apply themselves to the extent that they should. Maybe the "refuse to be slaves to the corporate machine".


You must understand that no matter how smart you are, or how skilled, there isn&#39;t a slot open to everyone...and, usually, someone with better qualifications does not find a job before the "other" person. It actually is all a game of chance...your anecdote is just that, an anecdote.

I just don&#39;t agree.. I think that anyone with cpacity, desire, and a little effort can find a decent job. I&#39;ve seen it happen too many times to deny it.


Why are 50 Cent, Ja Rule, Chingy, Nelly, Britney Spears, etc. rich, famous, and glorified? They are fucking shit when it comes to "talent." They may "work hard" to promote their fucking shit "talent," and they may dance in some videos to further spread the image of their bullshit "talent," but at the end of the day, 50 Cent is an ignorant gangster and Chingy is just a piece of shit.

By the way, I don&#39;t know how much of hip-hop you follow, but the names I just listed are of dumb pieces of shit "performers"...you don&#39;t need to research it for yourself, trust me. :)

Of course I know who they are, they&#39;re all mainstream. Maybe their music isn&#39;t politically relevant, but some of them have some cool joints for party purposes. I think 50 is actually a pretty good lyricist. At the end of the day, pro musicians actually work very hard between touring, recording, and endless promotion. Have you ever seen brittany spears perform? I don&#39;t like her music, but she does a 2-3 hour show that requires near-olympic fitness. Not only that, but she rehearses for hours every day&#33;&#33;

They really do earn it.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 07:47 PM
What then makes work harder or easier? Is sitting in an office all day working easier or harder to do than being say, a garbageman or janitor?



That really is true. In fact, I can remember CI dispensing advice like &#39;go get some marketable skills and then people will hire you.&#39; Why is that?



He is petty bourgeois. That is to say, he doesn&#39;t own the means of production, but as a privileged (and rich) member of society he has by definition more freedom than the average worker.

[QUOTE]Are you going to college? or seeking enslavement fulltime?[QUOTE]

University, most like. Though enslavement awaits everyone (except the really rich) sooner or later.
They are both hard and challenging in their own ways.


That really is true. In fact, I can remember CI dispensing advice like &#39;go get some marketable skills and then people will hire you.&#39; Why is that?

Whats wrong with that? Do you think that a canoe factory should make you CEO for nothing? What do you know about canoes? The canoe market? Canoe contruction?

Do you see what I&#39;m saying? The more rare a skill or experience is, the more others are willing to pay for it.

Or, you can dig dittches like everyone else who doesn&#39;t want to invest in their own value. The univesity is your best option


University, most like. Though enslavement awaits everyone (except the really rich) sooner or later.

Utter B.S. don&#39;t assign your inaccurate definitions to me, please.

[Shredder]

He didn&#39;t. Trade was entirely regulated by his government.

Wrong. His government was entirely regulated by trade.

That is what fascism is. The distilled essence of capitalism. Freedom, right, and all the other unquantifiable ideals go out the window when they no longer succeed as tools of class opression. Force must be used instead. The illusion of democracy must be replaced by naked force of bourgeois over proletariat.


Basic freedoms exist independent of the state or any state system. Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.

In our system of free market capitalism, everyone has equal opportunity to improve their situation. In communism, everyone starts out and dies in an equal state of poverty.

Wrong. Capitalism has separated the creation of wealth from the ownership right to wealth. It is by this that in capitalism everyone starts out at an unequal state of poverty, for one man only has his labor to sell but another man has capital. A capitalist would have you believe that every man is a capitalist, for they try to define capitalist as one who trades. But in reality, there are two distinct "business cycles" for the two distinct classes. The proletariat sells its labor for money and spends his money for the benefit of his life. C-M-C. The bourgeoisie spends his money on labor power and then trades the product of the labor power for more money. M-C-M. Opposite systems with opposite interests.

New wealth can only be created by labor. New gold only enters the market as currency once it is mined and smelted. Would a commodity drop from the sky when one willed it to, that commodity would be so bountiful as to have no price. But in capitalism, wealth itself is created and the right to that wealth is bought. It is by this quirk that one man invests his entire wealth of &#036;100 and is returned &#036;1 while another man invests his entire wealth of &#036;1,000 and is returned &#036;10. But once the means of subsistence are subtracted, the richer man can only get richer. For a day&#39;s food and shelter is the same price regardless of your wealth. The one man must sacrifice 50% to meet his means of subsistence, but the other man must invest only 5% of his profit for the same means of subsistence. This mechanism means that the rate of profit increases with wealth. As peoples are born with different quantities of wealth, the gap cannot be closed but only grow. This does not mean that it is impossible for one to "get rich quick" but for every man that gets rich quick from a random fluctuation in the market, another man gets poor quick. These fluctuations are like the waves of the ocean. Once we count out the equal lows and highs, we are still left with sea level; the rich get richer.

Basic &#39;freedoms&#39; exist totally outside of the state, as a state can only take away freedoms to a greater or lesser degree. A &#39;free&#39; state may impinge on fewer freedoms, but still take some away. Where is my freedom of murder?

Law is a mutual agreement between people. If I don&#39;t kill you, you won&#39;t kill me. If I do kill you, someone will kill me back. But this agreement has become alienated from the people. Now it is not my law, it is someone else&#39;s; now it is not in my hands, but in those of a uniformed man on 5th avenue with a pistol and a painted car; now it is an instrument of class oppression. If the law will not protect me, the law must be done away with. If it is not in my interest to obey the law, then I will not obey the law. And the "right to labor" in reality a right of the capitalist to exploit the workers&#39; labor power is not in the interest of the vast majority of the population; 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth. This sick version of "free trade" is no better than the freedom to murder. All because right to wealth is separate from the creation of the wealth. You do not get from society what you put into it. You put your labor into society, but the spoils go to the highest bidder.

This system must be smashed. Ownership of all means of production will be shared. The government of peoples will be replaced with the administration of things. Education will be provided at dead cost to provide lubrication to the job market as it replaces the stock market as a tool for ambitious peoples. The demand for a new commodity is a demand for a new type of labor to create that commodity. And as the bourgeois invester sits in his armchair and exploits the fluctuations in supply and demand, the ambitious laborer sends his body and mind where society wants it. The profit motive will become obsolete; the production of commodities will be organized in cooperation according to the want of the commodities. And finally, you do not buy the rights to more wealth. You put your labor into society, and after a few small deductions are made for education and other "lubrication," you are given a certificate for your labor. You take from society exactly what you put into it. The means of production are no longer privately owned, and workers--now everyone--employ those means of production, instead of being employed by them.

The time for heirarchy and exploitation has come and gone. If you idolize the &#39;alpha male,&#39; we will throw you to the wolves.

[Shredder]

p.s. i am an oratorical savant&#33;

[Salvador Allende]

I only have to interject on the point where it was said that Capitalism is the truest expression of freedom. Is that why in Chile under Pinochet many Marxist works were illegal and you could "disappear" if you had them? Is that why over 130,000 people disappeared in the first 3 years of his rule and why doctors were told to lie about diseases and cover them up if they would cost any money to cure?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 29 2004, 08:02 PM
are you comparing our current society with that of Nazi Germany?
There are more than a few parallels there.

[Professor Moneybags]

Second, there are individuals that work just as hard as Bill Gates, but never even see any money.

-One person efforlessly builds a house using a machine he invented.

-Another man sweats all day and night to build one by hand.

The second man "worked hard", the first didn&#39;t, yet they both achieved the same end. Do you see the flaw in your argument ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:33 PM
Explain?
I&#39;ll give someone else the pleasure of that.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 30 2004, 10:20 PM
I only have to interject on the point where it was said that Capitalism is the truest expression of freedom. Is that why in Chile under Pinochet many Marxist works were illegal and you could "disappear" if you had them? Is that why over 130,000 people disappeared in the first 3 years of his rule and why doctors were told to lie about diseases and cover them up if they would cost any money to cure?
Pinochet wasn&#39;t a capitalist.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 08:56 PM



Basic &#39;freedoms&#39; exist totally outside of the state, as a state can only take away freedoms to a greater or lesser degree. A &#39;free&#39; state may impinge on fewer freedoms, but still take some away. Where is my freedom of murder?

You take from society exactly what you put into it. The means of production are no longer privately owned, and workers--now everyone--employ those means of production, instead of being employed by them.



Wrong. Capitalism has separated the creation of wealth from the ownership right to wealth. It is by this that in capitalism everyone starts out at an unequal state of poverty, for one man only has his labor to sell but another man has capital.

You submit this notion as if this situation exists in an established caste system, when in fact that is not the case. The hypothetical man who has his labor to sell also has the granted determination to start his own business, and thus build his own wealth. By the same token, the man of capital is constantly at risk of losing it.


A capitalist would have you believe that every man is a capitalist, for they try to define capitalist as one who trades.

By definitions of all contemporary dictionanries, and dictionary.com, "capitalist" is defined in a myriad of ways, including as those who merely support the economic ideology itself. Also, it defines anyone of "wealth" as a capitalist, but such a word as "wealth" is subjective and subject to relevance. Thus, by American standards, i am merely middle class, but per world average, I am wealthy.


But in reality, there are two distinct "business cycles" for the two distinct classes. The proletariat sells its labor for money and spends his money for the benefit of his life. C-M-C. The bourgeoisie spends his money on labor power and then trades the product of the labor power for more money. M-C-M. Opposite systems with opposite interests.


Well, the proletariat does not always and exclusively dedicate all of his resources to day-to day sustenence. Many in middle/working class situations still save and invest their resources, and yield a certain rate of return, based on the market. Again, the captain of uindustry, while often seeing significant profit as the result of his personal risk and investment, is also often subject to great loss at the expense of his pockets.



Opposite systems with opposite interests.

I think that you are creating a negative false correlation with rhetoric. Possibly different interests, and a different exchangge of resources, but again, they are each party&#39;s own volition, and not really opposite.


New wealth can only be created by labor. New gold only enters the market as currency once it is mined and smelted. Would a commodity drop from the sky when one willed it to, that commodity would be so bountiful as to have no price.

Not exclusively. Market fluctuations of commodities and other instruments add wealth to existing resources, as do refinement, processes, and services. The service sector of the United States is much larger than the manufacturing sector, and in this sector value is derived from actions and processes as opposed to mere refinement and manipulation of physical materials. Thus, "labor" in the classic sense of refinement or manipulation of materials is not needed to create value. Things like consultation services, food service, and teaching, all have perceived value, and thus also are sources of wealth creation. One of the major constituents of free-market capitalism is the value-added proposition.


But in capitalism, wealth itself is created and the right to that wealth is bought. It is by this quirk that one man invests his entire wealth of &#036;100 and is returned &#036;1 while another man invests his entire wealth of &#036;1,000 and is returned &#036;10. But once the means of subsistence are subtracted, the richer man can only get richer.

But this idea doesn&#39;t sell, due to the fact that proportions of loss are comensurate with proportions of gain in such a market. Thus, yes, if I invest &#036;1000 I stand to get a higher return than a man who invests &#036;100, but I also stand to lose a greater proportion. This phenomenon is even worsened on a percentage basis, i.e If I invest &#036;1000 and take a 50% loss, then my net loss is 500. Now, I would need to make 100% on my remaineder (500), not just 50% again, just to break even (back to 1000), while the man who only invested 100 in the beginning only loses/as to make up &#036;50. This is why risk/reward is such an important component of capitalist economics, it serves to maintain some equilibrium and parity in capitalization.


Basic &#39;freedoms&#39; exist totally outside of the state, as a state can only take away freedoms to a greater or lesser degree. A &#39;free&#39; state may impinge on fewer freedoms, but still take some away. Where is my freedom of murder?

I concur with this. In theory, pure freedom would be a state much like nature itself. However, just like a refrigerator is used in the north pole to keep food from freezing as opposed to merely fresh, state decrees are created to set certain minimums with regards to freedom and individual sovereignty. They also establish that while we have cetain freedoms "of" things, we also have certain freedoms "from" things, which is really the fundaental concept of law, which brings us to...


Law is a mutual agreement between people. If I don&#39;t kill you, you won&#39;t kill me. If I do kill you, someone will kill me back. But this agreement has become alienated from the people


I&#39;m not sure what is meant by "alientated from the people". While I agree that we may have become to overzealous and overbearing in our lawmaking, I think certain "cornerstone" laws are still appreciated and desired by any populace, such as laws against murder or any violent crime, robbery, rape, reckless driving, etc.


Now it is not my law, it is someone else&#39;s; now it is not in my hands, but in those of a uniformed man on 5th avenue with a pistol and a painted car; now it is an instrument of class oppression. If the law will not protect me, the law must be done away with

I agree that there may be some laws that can be viewed this way, but not the fundamentals outlined in most penal codes. The man/woman with the pistol and painted car is actually a member of what you would define as proletariat. He/she is not really an instrument of the law as much as a messenger for intruments of the law. His/her increased presence is in responce to increased crime at the steet level, not for the desire for greater class oppression. Greater class oppression takes place much easier, and en masse, through centally planned governments and assignment of labor, where futility is distributed equally and without self-determination.


If it is not in my interest to obey the law, then I will not obey the law.

I would surmise, then, that in the end you will only worsen your own situation.



. And the "right to labor" in reality a right of the capitalist to exploit the workers&#39; labor power is not in the interest of the vast majority of the population; 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth.

A common "pareto" fallacy. In actuality, the vast majority of American wealth is distributed thrroughout the middle class.


This sick version of "free trade" is no better than the freedom to murder. All because right to wealth is separate from the creation of the wealth.

But the key is, everyone has access to the same means of wealth creation, albeit usually only in early stages, but aside from inheritance, which is really a small proportion of total acquired wealth, parity exists.


You do not get from society what you put into it. You put your labor into society, but the spoils go to the highest bidder.

What do you propose that a labor worker gets out of society, besides a house, a car, food, and clothing? Who are you to define what a laborer gets as inadequate or not?


This system must be smashed. Ownership of all means of production will be shared. The government of peoples will be replaced with the administration of things.

Translation: Freedom will be compromised, as will individual determination and competition inherent to free enterprise, thus the invention, innovation, and progress inherent to free enterprise compared to any other system, and proven more in the 20th century than ever before, will be diminished, and the entire collective of mankind ceases to progess.


Education will be provided at dead cost to provide lubrication to the job market as it replaces the stock market as a tool for ambitious peoples.

but it will be virtually wasted on state-assignment as opposed to applying such education passionately on a freely chosen endeavor



The demand for a new commodity is a demand for a new type of labor to create that commodity. And as the bourgeois invester sits in his armchair and exploits the fluctuations in supply and demand, the ambitious laborer sends his body and mind where society wants it.

you are inaccurately removing self-determination as well as the risk taken by the captain of industry from ths assessment


. The profit motive will become obsolete; the production of commodities will be organized in cooperation according to the want of the commodities. And finally, you do not buy the rights to more wealth. You put your labor into society, and after a few small deductions are made for education and other "lubrication," you are given a certificate for your labor. You take from society exactly what you put into it. The means of production are no longer privately owned, and workers--now everyone--employ those means of production, instead of being employed by them.


I.E., everyone capitulates to central planning and an equal level of mediocrity. Opn the bread lines, my friends.


The time for heirarchy and exploitation has come and gone. If you idolize the &#39;alpha male,&#39; we will throw you to the wolves.

Textbook class envy.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 30 2004, 11:01 PM
Pinochet wasn&#39;t a capitalist.
Why is it that you are allowed to freely choose which historically capitalistic figures are &#39;real capitalists&#39; and which ones aren&#39;t, but we aren&#39;t allowed to declare which historically communistic figures are &#39;true communists&#39; and which ones aren&#39;t? When we bring up the fact the Mussolini, Hitler, and Pinoche claimed to represent capitalism, you state that they didn&#39;t really allow capitalism, and expect us to accept that. But when we point out that Pol Pot didn&#39;t really bring true communism or socialism, you continue to insist that he was a communist; regardless of the fact that there is probably not a single communist in the world who supports him.

[Professor Moneybags]

Wrong. His government was entirely regulated by trade.

Hitler commanded, industry obeyed, not the other way round.


That is what fascism is. The distilled essence of capitalism. Freedom, right, and all the other unquantifiable ideals go out the window when they no longer succeed as tools of class opression.

Freedom is a tool of class oppression ?


Force must be used instead. The illusion of democracy must be replaced by naked force of bourgeois over proletariat.

What have I said repeatedly about the initiation of force ? We want to ban it. You can&#39;t exist without it.


Wrong. Capitalism has separated the creation of wealth from the ownership right to wealth.

I recall socialism doing that, but as for capitalism...

<snip the marxist bunk>


Basic &#39;freedoms&#39; exist totally outside of the state, as a state can only take away freedoms to a greater or lesser degree. A &#39;free&#39; state may impinge on fewer freedoms, but still take some away. Where is my freedom of murder?

Freedom to act as you please providing you do not violate the rights of others. Murdering them violates their rights. Trading with them doesn&#39;t.


Law is a mutual agreement between people. If I don&#39;t kill you, you won&#39;t kill me. If I do kill you, someone will kill me back. But this agreement has become alienated from the people.

What the hell are you talking about ?


If the law will not protect me, the law must be done away with. If it is not in my interest to obey the law, then I will not obey the law. And the "right to labor" in reality a right of the capitalist to exploit the workers&#39; labor power is not in the interest of the vast majority of the population; 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth.

Right and wrong is not a social phenomenon and the flaw of "pie" economics is well documented already.


This sick version of "free trade" is no better than the freedom to murder.

Why is that ?


All because right to wealth is separate from the creation of the wealth.

The LTV is flawed, as I noted in my reply to Brooklyn.


You do not get from society what you put into it.

You won&#39;t be getting that under socialism either, just as you don&#39;t see us getting it today.


Education will be provided at dead cost

By whom ? At whose expense ?


the ambitious laborer sends his body and mind where society wants it.

At whose command ? His, or "society&#39;s" (or whatever claims to be representing society) ? Whatever happened to freedom ?


The profit motive will become obsolete;

Too true, as will the work motive and the production motive.


If you idolize the &#39;alpha male,&#39; we will throw you to the wolves.

You seem to be using "society" as a surrogate for it.

[Professor Moneybags]

Why is it that you are allowed to freely choose which historically capitalistic figures are &#39;real capitalists&#39; and which ones aren&#39;t, but we aren&#39;t allowed to declare which historically communistic figures are &#39;true communists&#39; and which ones aren&#39;t?

Lenin was a communist. He tried to put communism in to practice. Same with all the others we mention every now and again. No, these places did not result in any sort of paradise, because the means to communism communism themselves does not result in anything other than dictatorship.

Pinochet did not try to put free trade into practice. Nor did he put the NIF into practice. Those are the essential characteristics of capitalism. These were never put into practice (never mind "resulted in dictatorship"), nor did he have any intention of doing so. Therefore, he was not a capitalist. Same with the others.


When we bring up the fact the Mussolini, Hitler, and Pinoche claimed to represent capitalism,

None of them claimed to represent any such thing. Quote.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] on Jul 30 2004, 11:42 PM
Lenin was a communist. He tried to put communism in to practice.

What do you base that on? His decision to undermine and dismantle the Factory Committees? His decision to crush strikes? His decision to put everything under the control of "the party" which was the only allowed party and ruled by an unelected dictator? Lenin&#39;s intentions in Russia were clear from the beginning, he wanted to create a centrally-planned economy run completely by the state. Communists believe in a highly-organized society of the masses, that is not what Lenin had in mind.

[Karo de Perro]

I m not going to kick around on a dead horse or fling a bunch of rhetoric into the mix as is the fashion among petty-bourgeois individualists but suffice it for me to say that what the world came to term and accept as &#39;communism&#39; is not Leninism nor the initial aims of the Bolsheviks.

What has came to be known as communism is nothing more than a degenerated form of statism masquerading as a workers state under a proletarian dictatorship but in reality was merely the full expression of power-hunger as witnessed in a single tyrant - Stalin the Betrayer ... for Stalin was a self-ambitous tyrant that used the communist party as a personal instrument to power.

Leinin foreseen the inevitable outcome of the party under the leadership of Stalin and tried to warn against it.Both Lenin and Trotsky knew the value of an international socialist revolution,however,Stalin was more interested in gaining and maintaining personal power,building a state centered on a cult of personality which moved away from and likewise began to attack the idea of worldwide revolution choosing rather to glorify a single state.

Its for this cause that many,far too many,comrades were sent to their death being labeled as counter-revolutionaries,in that they clung to the initial tenets of Lenin and the old Bolshevik party ... the same cause for which Trotsky was tracked and eventually assaisinated in Mexico by Stalin agents ... because he,as well as others,were determined to remain true to original party doctrine and by this advocated permanent revolution.

[Shredder]

But the key is, everyone has access to the same means of wealth creation,

Wrong. You&#39;ve been caught in a contradiction. Production under capitalism presupposes capital. Capital is private by definition. Everybody possesses the means of labour power... but only the bourgeoisie possess capital&#33; Proletarians possess only their labor power and are forced to be employed by capital.

It would only be under communism that everyone has access to the same means of wealth creation. There, capital is replaced by the common ownership of the means of production. Only there will man have equal opportunity; each with his own labor, each with the same means of production.

That the law has become "alienated" from the people is a Marxist way of saying that what once was once a part of them has turned into something outside of them and turned against them. "Right" to ownership means I allow you to have something. It can have no other meaning on an empirical basis. But we see every day people claim "rights" to this or that as if the "right" were given to them by some alien force. You have probably done this by saying something like, "I have a right to be mad&#33;"

Let us put aside the accusations of "class envy" and the usual rhetoric that commies simply want to steal wealth because we&#39;re too inept to earn it. Hypothetically you can even assume that&#39;s true for this example. If we communist thieves were to make up the mass of society, and it was in our interest to "steal" your wealth, why shouldn&#39;t we steal it? Because you "earned" it? Because you have a "right" to it? But who gives you this "right"? God perhaps? Let him try to stop us, then.

That is how the law is alienated from the people. It is always just a mutual agreement to begin, but on the macro scale it transforms into the opposite with but a nudge. What once was the interests of all is now the advantage of a minority.

[Professor Moneybags]

Production under capitalism presupposes capital.

Nonsense. This has all been refuted before. Production creates wealth, not the other way round.

<snip the rest of the nonsense>


Let us put aside the accusations of "class envy" and the usual rhetoric that commies simply want to steal wealth because we&#39;re too inept to earn it.

Most of you are, but whatever.


Hypothetically you can even assume that&#39;s true for this example. If we communist thieves were to make up the mass of society, and it was in our interest to "steal" your wealth, why shouldn&#39;t we steal it? Because you "earned" it?

This is a call for mob-rule; the ideology behind gang-rape.


Because you have a "right" to it? But who gives you this "right"? God perhaps? Let him try to stop us, then.

Might/numbers-makes-right mob rule didn&#39;t impress me when Hitler put it into practice, it won&#39;t impress me when you do, either.

[The Sloth]

Well, who is to say what the metric for hard work is? I wouls say that while blue-collar work is in fact physically hard, it pays the way it does because that is what the market has deemed it is worth, based on the fact that aalmost any able-bodied person can do it. I&#39;m sure your mom works very hard, and her rewards go beyond money, but that is what the market pays for her service. She is free to try something ese if she desires more monetary compensation. I heard a statistic once that says over 50% of self-made milionaires have filed for bankruptcy. Its a hard road to the top.

First of all, how do my mother&#39;s rewards "go beyond money"? What are you trying to say, exactly?

Second, I understand that any "able-bodied" person can do it. However, if we&#39;re talking about construction, while the worker may not have been "trained" for it as opposed to an office secretary, remember that when he is out there, at that point the work becomes difficult, you begin to sweat, and the minutes go by very, very slowly. Not only that, the worker is just as important as the secretary...not everyone can be secretaries, as "the market" also deems the worker to be a valuable asset...that gets paid much less because he is not a master "manager of finances and capital."


The billionaire CEO, on the other hand, has skills that not everone posseses, as a matter of fact few people do. Mental cpability and leadership characteristics are much harder to come by than the ability to dig a ditch or attach bolts to widgets, thus the market will pay more for that. It is a self-proving concept. Often times people assume that CEO&#39;s don&#39;t work hard. Nothing could be fatrther from the truth. They often work 18 hour days under a lot of stress and a lot of responisbility, which, believe me, can be just as tiring and exhausting as a man swinging a hammer. White collar workers work just as hard as blue collar, it is just that the effort is coming from a different place.

No, I don&#39;t think so. The CEO is a "manager of finances," which does not benefit the people, while the blue-collar worker is doing work for the public but is somehow deemed "less important," when, in reality, both are working as hard as they can at their respective skills. You make it seem as if the CEO sharpened his skills to the point of being above the blue-collar worker...both are important to the function of society as a whole, but for some odd reason, one is "more important."


Well, we all know that life isn&#39;t really fair no matter where you live...

So it&#39;s our job to fix that.


...but at least here you do have some autonomy over your own destiny. As far as your "fair share", fair share of what?

Fair share of money; fair share of the opportunity to live life like anyone else, without the hassle of worrying about bills, college, and getting shot at when being caught in a drive-by.


No ideology comes with pre-rationed "shares" of anything.

Egalitarian wealth distribution? :blink:


Thats true, there is not pure parity in the dstribution of wealth or even opportunity, but there is a lot, and it is the best system in the world with regards to what you can do with individual determination, unequivocally, bar none.

There is "a lot" of "equal" distribution, but not enough. Especially when looking at the Third World, where there is not only "not enough," but "none"&#33;


And those factory workers and laborers can still make enough of a living to put them in the top 5% of world citizens.

You&#39;re very parochial in your thinking as you&#39;re only taking into consideration the United States and the rest of the Western world.

Let&#39;s pretend that all of a sudden, huge corporations and industries decide to pay everyone in the Third World a fair wage :lol: :lol: Now, when this happens, and the capitalist hopes not to lose much profit, then wages in America would decline.

And, it will be, "so much for equality."

Poverty everywhere.

Under capitalism, that is the outcome of having a desire to actually create equality between us and the slaves in the Third World.


We really have to distinguish between pure hard labor, and working smart, and taking risks, which are also large components of reward. The ditch-digger is guaranteed a wage if he works, the investor can actually go to work and lose money, so can the business owner. If they lose money in their construction business, the ditch digger working for them still gets paid, regardless.

If a CEO loses his business, he&#39;s not out in the street.

If a CEO starts with ten million dollars and ends up with fifty billion, you best believe that the blue-collar worker&#39;s wage isn&#39;t going up to those proportions.


risk/reward, get it?

Yes, the "master of capital management" takes a risk on decreasing wages in South America, and is rewarded for his "boldness" when there is a strike which is put down by armored police officers that crack some skulls with their batons.

:lol:


There seems to be somewhat of a correlation between lack of financial success and leftism on this board. Lets not kid ourselves, not every talented rapper is going to get a &#036;5 million contract. if that was the case, we&#39;d all be in hip-hop. I&#39;m not sure, maybe because they didn&#39;t shave their goatees? They weren&#39;t ambitious enough? I honestly think that they are probably over-intellectualized liberals who don&#39;t actually apply themselves to the extent that they should. Maybe the "refuse to be slaves to the corporate machine".

They&#39;re not ambitious because they&#39;re leftists?

How would you know?

That would mean that out of the hundreds of the most active members, none of these "over-intellectuals" apply themselves. Think about what you&#39;re saying.


I just don&#39;t agree.. I think that anyone with cpacity, desire, and a little effort can find a decent job. I&#39;ve seen it happen too many times to deny it.

I had to laugh at this one.

Maybe you should talk to some of my friends from the projects, where the menial jobs have been leaving the inner city for a couple of decades now.

There are no jobs&#33;


Of course I know who they are, they&#39;re all mainstream. Maybe their music isn&#39;t politically relevant, but some of them have some cool joints for party purposes.

And joints for "party purposes" are really what sell records these days, because "the market" finds it "profitable" to capitalize on anti-intellectualism. No one cares about making the world "better," or reading a book and learning something. They want to party, pass classes with a 65 and fail as much as they can, get drunk, and be gangsters.

"The market" demands it&#33;

:lol:


I think 50 is actually a pretty good lyricist.

You need to get out more ;)

I could send you some songs from "real" artists and lyricists if you want. Because I used to think that 50 Cent was a "pretty good lyricist" up until I realized that half the kids that listen to him want to be like him (which isn&#39;t too good), and up until I actually heard music from Blackalicious, Mos Def, Talib Kweli and etcetera.


At the end of the day, pro musicians actually work very hard between touring, recording, and endless promotion. Have you ever seen brittany spears perform? I don&#39;t like her music, but she does a 2-3 hour show that requires near-olympic fitness. Not only that, but she rehearses for hours every day&#33;&#33;

I know a few artists, so I understand what you&#39;re saying.

At the same time, there are musicians that "love it" and those that "hate it." Those that "hate it" and are in it for the money should not be musicians in the first place.

While I&#39;m sure that the majority love their work, remember the difference between making music that is relevant and making music that sucks the masses into a state of anti-intellectualism.

I&#39;m sure if I were to get an artist that truly, truly loves his work, he wouldn&#39;t care about the money as long as he&#39;s guaranteed an excellent standard of living, quality food, education for his children, (such as under communism) etc.

[Professor Moneybags]

Maybe you should talk to some of my friends from the projects, where the menial jobs have been leaving the inner city for a couple of decades now.

There are no jobs&#33;

That&#39;s the biggest pile of horse crap I&#39;ve ever heard. I look in the newspaper and see the same jobs available every day, week in, week out. Nobody bothers to fill them because they&#39;d rather be on the dole.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 31 2004, 05:32 PM

That&#39;s the biggest pile of horse crap I&#39;ve ever heard. I look in the newspaper and see the same jobs available every day, week in, week out. Nobody bothers to fill them because they&#39;d rather be on the dole.
So, you&#39;re saying that fifty percent of males in Harlem are unemployed because blacks are pathologically incompetent and lazy? :huh:

I know people that are fucking starving while wishing they had a stable job or any job at all...I know fucking homeless people from Harlem that found themselves in unfortunate cirucmstances one day and are now reduced to currently working on menial tasks from friends because they can&#39;t find some fucking "normal" employment.

So, I don&#39;t fucking know where you live, but how about going up to 125th street in Manhattan and telling some of those folks that there are jobs out there in their community and they&#39;ll laugh in your damn face you ignorant idiot. The fucking jobs starting moving out of these communities decades ago, and current non-white residents can&#39;t compete with the white business owners that live in rich communities but maintain their shops in the choked-off black neighborhoods. This may not be the situation in South Brooklyn, but it&#39;s the damn reality in South Bronx, Brownsville and East N.Y. for your fucking information. Unlike you, I should know because I visit these places and actually know these people.

I guess drug dealers peddle crack because it&#39;s fun, too, right? And folks just "choose" to starve, because they would rather not compromise their pride in being "lazy" for some food?

I have an idea...let me fucking go to Manhattan and tell my friend Dawn that he&#39;s fucking unemployed because he&#39;s a worthless piece of shit and is lazy, and just isn&#39;t "trying hard enough."

Dumb piece of shit. :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 29 2004, 01:52 AM
Basic freedoms exist independent of the state or any state system. Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.
Naive utopian crap.


Now, you socialists and communists tend to believe that society can shape human nature, so a socialist government could eventually eliminate individualism from a society whether through force, education or gradual introduction of more socialist policies.

Capitalism is supremacism, not individualism.
And "human nature" (if such a thing exists, in the sense you claim it does) was ALWAYS SHAPED. Remember religion? "Laws that protect private property"??? If private property is "human nature", why does it need to be protected?


And how can you guys find this palatable? That&#39;s EXACTLY what Pol Pot was doing with his killing fields.

You won&#39;t find many Pol Pot wannabes here. You will, however, find many Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao wannabes, although not too many. And not everyone here is a dictator-wannabe, so don&#39;t assume that everyone here wants a "totalitarian state", "killing fields", or a "vanguard party".


In our system of free market capitalism, everyone has equal opportunity to improve their situation. In communism, everyone starts out and dies in an equal state of poverty.

Blah blah blah. Nevermind that black, poor, uneducated people will still steal you since they don&#39;t have many other options. :rolleyes:

[New Tolerance]

There are more than a few parallels there.

List them.

[Xvall]

Lenin was a communist. He tried to put communism in to practice. Same with all the others we mention every now and again.

And Mussolini and Hitler were self-proclaimed capitalists. I&#39;m sure you can find pleanty of people here who don&#39;t agree with the ideologies of Lenin and Stalin. Even so, most of the deaths you attribute to the Soviet Union were due acts of tyranny. These acts of tyranny (Assuming that all of them are true) would have been done at the whim of whatever &#39;evil&#39; leader you are reffering to, and not because of the economic principles in which the nations that were established.


No, these places did not result in any sort of paradise, because the means to communism communism themselves does not result in anything other than dictatorship.

What about Moldova? They elected a communist president a while back, and I haven&#39;t heard any stories of dictatorship. Chile didn&#39;t establish a dictatorship until the elected socialist there was overthrown and replaced with a tyrant.


Pinochet did not try to put free trade into practice. Nor did he put the NIF into practice. Those are the essential characteristics of capitalism. These were never put into practice (never mind "resulted in dictatorship"), nor did he have any intention of doing so. Therefore, he was not a capitalist. Same with the others.

With that logic, I can claim that because Stalin never sought out the withering away of the state, and never abolished currency, he wasn&#39;t really a communist. Those are, after all, the essential characteristics of communism.


None of them claimed to represent any such thing. Quote.

Mussolini outright defended capitalism in many of his works, talking about the necessity of corporations. As for Hitler:

"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." - Adolph Hitler

[Professor Moneybags]

So, you&#39;re saying that fifty percent of males in Harlem are unemployed because blacks are pathologically incompetent and lazy? :huh:

Who said anything about blacks ? Why is it you try shoehorn racism into every argument ?


So, I don&#39;t fucking know where you live, but how about going up to 125th street in Manhattan and telling some of those folks that there are jobs out there in their community and they&#39;ll laugh in your damn face you ignorant idiot.

Yeah, right.


I know people that are fucking starving while wishing they had a stable job or any job at all...I know fucking homeless people from Harlem that found themselves in unfortunate cirucmstances one day and are now reduced to currently working on menial tasks from friends because they can&#39;t find some fucking "normal" employment.

What&#39;s wrong with menial tasks ? I used to do them when I was a student. Is manual labour "below you", is it ?


Unlike you, I should know because I visit these places and actually know these people.

Put the violin away. I know quite a few unemployed people too. I also know the reason they&#39;re unemployed and let&#39;s just say it&#39;s not though lack of skills or jobs.


And folks just "choose" to starve, because they would rather not compromise their pride in being "lazy" for some food?

Whatever happened to the welfare state ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Naive utopian crap.

Expecting the government not to interfere with voluntary transactions is utopian ?


Capitalism is supremacism, not individualism.

Enough with the sloganeering.


And "human nature" (if such a thing exists, in the sense you claim it does) was ALWAYS SHAPED. Remember religion? "Laws that protect private property"??? If private property is "human nature", why does it need to be protected?

The right to life is part of "human nature", but that needs protecting doesn&#39;t it ?


You won&#39;t find many Pol Pot wannabes here. You will, however, find many Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao wannabes, although not too many.

That&#39;s certainly open to debate.


And not everyone here is a dictator-wannabe, so don&#39;t assume that everyone here wants a "totalitarian state", "killing fields", or a "vanguard party".

When you demand positive rights and an end to private property, you are demanding a totalitarian state.


Blah blah blah. Nevermind that black, poor, uneducated people will still steal you since they don&#39;t have many other options. :rolleyes:

No other options :rolleyes: . That&#39;s what they all say...

[Professor Moneybags]

Even so, most of the deaths you attribute to the Soviet Union were due acts of tyranny. These acts of tyranny (Assuming that all of them are true) would have been done at the whim of whatever &#39;evil&#39; leader you are reffering to, and not because of the economic principles in which the nations that were established.

Communism requires tyrrany. It cannot enforce positive rights and a command economy without it because these things requite the initiation of force in order to work.


With that logic, I can claim that because Stalin never sought out the withering away of the state, and never abolished currency, he wasn&#39;t really a communist.

Abolishing currency would have made economic calculation impossible an annihilated the economy and withering away the state would have made the command economy impossible to enforce.


Mussolini outright defended capitalism in many of his works, talking about the necessity of corporations.

Corporations are not inherently capitalist. Not when they are run by the state.


"We stand for the maintenance of private property...

Such as the Jews&#39; ? :rolleyes:


We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." - Adolph Hitler

And did he do it ? Did he hell.

Not to mention that it is contradicted by :

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious citizen the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

Yes, he&#39;s calling for a mixed economy. (Does this answer your question too, New Tolerence ?)

[The Sloth]

Who said anything about blacks ? Why is it you try shoehorn racism into every argument ?

Because Harlem is an all-black community&#33; Did you want me to bring up the 1% white people that live there, too?

Therefore, fifty percent of blacks are unemployed. The statistics are similar to other black communities such as Bedstuy, Brownsville, and Crown Heights.

Why is this?


Yeah, right.

Is this the best you can do?

You&#39;re quite the humorous fucking character, ain&#39;t ya? If I didn&#39;t know these individuals, it would be one thing...but hey, I&#39;m in these "ghettos" all the time, know the people, see the conditions, etc. So when I say that they&#39;ll laugh in your face if you tell them there are plenty of jobs in their communities, it&#39;s true.

But don&#39;t take my word for it. Next time you go to New York City for whatever reason, how about dropping by in the heart of the world&#39;s most famous ghetto? You could even do a "survey" on employment if you&#39;d like&#33;


What&#39;s wrong with menial tasks ? I used to do them when I was a student. Is manual labour "below you", is it ?

Ha, nice attempt at making me look like an "arrogant commie," but it failed.

Notice that I said menial tasks "from friends," meaning, it&#39;s not an "actual" and "stable" form of employment because it really depends on the kindness of the friends that you have.

Second, when you are a writer, a musician, an intellectual, etc. such as some of these individuals that I mentioned, it&#39;s quite sad when they can do nothing but menial tasks for the rest of your life.


Put the violin away. I know quite a few unemployed people too. I also know the reason they&#39;re unemployed and let&#39;s just say it&#39;s not though lack of skills or jobs.

How nice.

But Harlem is still dying to take your survey.

I could care less about the people that you know that don&#39;t have a job because they&#39;re "lazy," because I have those types of friends too. However, you&#39;re basically denying everything I&#39;m saying in an attempt to dismiss me as a "liar" to save some face for your capitalist system. Not working.


Whatever happened to the welfare state ?

Didn&#39;t you know that welfare is only a minor socialist reform to keep the communists at bay?

By the way, one person in particular I can think of off the top of my head is homeless. I don&#39;t know how he&#39;ll qualify for welfare.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 1 2004, 09:25 AM
Corporations are not inherently capitalist. Not when they are run by the state.
So Mussolini was a socialist, then?

Alright, alright...

You must understand that "the fascist state is not an owner of enterprises, but only an intermediary between their owners."

According to the fascist Italian newspaper, Popolo d&#39;Italia, "The corporative state directs and integrates the economy, but does not run it, which, given a monopoly of production, would be nothing but collectivism."

- June 11, 1936

"The corporative state is nothing but the sales clerk of monopoly capital...Mussolini takes upon the state the whole risk of the enterprises, leaving to the industrialists the profits of exploitation."

- Feroci

"If I desired to establish in Italy - which really has not happened - state socialism, I would possess today all the necessary and sufficient objective conditions."

- Mussolini

The latter part of the last statement, of course, is inccorect; Mussolini depended too much on the private owners of industry and capital to actually establish "state socialism." He would have never received their support.

Think of a fascist state as a capitalist state with some government intervention, where private property is protected to a much greater extent: stricter laws and crueler police officers.

[Professor Moneybags]

However, you&#39;re basically denying everything I&#39;m saying in an attempt to dismiss me as a "liar" to save some face for your capitalist system. Not working.

I&#39;ll point out for the millionth time that we live in a mixed system that I find undesirable, too.


Didn&#39;t you know that welfare is only a minor socialist reform to keep the communists at bay?

Don&#39;t start that again.

[Professor Moneybags]

So Mussolini was a socialist, then?

Alright, alright...

You must understand that "the fascist state is not an owner of enterprises, but only an intermediary between their owners."

The idea of "privately owned, government controlled" a bit of sick joke actually. "The state doesn&#39;t own your car, it just dictates when you can and cannot use it and what you can and cannot use for."



Think of a fascist state as a capitalist state with some government intervention,

Which would no longer make it a capitalist state, but whatever. The same could be used to describe socialism and even today&#39;s mixed system (and I&#39;d describe total control of the economy a little bit more that "some" intervention).


where private property is protected to a much greater extent:

Yeah, look at how well Jewish property was protected under Hitler.


stricter laws and crueler police officers.

Please elaborate.

[Subversive Pessimist]

The idea of "privately owned, government controlled" a bit of sick joke actually. "The state doesn&#39;t own your car, it just dictates when you can and cannot use it and what you can and cannot use for."

Geez. Okay, let&#39;s put it simple. Say you work in a factory. You produce goods worth 100 &#036; an hour. In a capitalist society, you will in the west, most likely be given 10 &#036; for an hour work. The rest goes into the hands of the capitalist.

In a socialist society those 100 &#036; will be yours. What&#39;s the difference? The capitalist won&#39;t sit on his ass and still receive money. That thief will no longer exist. The worker will no longer have to do unpaid labor.


Which would no longer make it a capitalist state, but whatever.

Capitalism is not an ideal. Society went from feudal to capitalist.


Yeah, look at how well Jewish property was protected under Hitler.

I recommend reading: Myth: Hitler was a leftist (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm)

Hitler advocated capitalism. He advocated competition over co-operation. I think he said it pretty clear:

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."

[The Sloth]

Don&#39;t start that again.

Alright, I&#39;ll quit it with the truth for now.


The idea of "privately owned, government controlled" a bit of sick joke actually. "The state doesn&#39;t own your car, it just dictates when you can and cannot use it and what you can and cannot use for."

Except it&#39;s not "government controlled."

You can drive your car wherever you&#39;d like, whenever you&#39;d like, but then again, there are certain rules you have to follow.


Which would no longer make it a capitalist state, but whatever. The same could be used to describe socialism and even today&#39;s mixed system (and I&#39;d describe total control of the economy a little bit more that "some" intervention).

It&#39;s as if you&#39;re against a mixed economy.

The closest to a purely capitalist state was back in the 1800&#39;s...child labor, sustenance wages, and thirteen hour work days. Mmmmm, I wish I could go back to the days when government couldn&#39;t tell you what the fuck to do with your business.

And oh, by the way, like Mussolini, Feroci, and Popo d&#39;Italia admit, there was no "total control of the economy." But whatever, it&#39;s not like you care for facts anyway.


Yeah, look at how well Jewish property was protected under Hitler.

What&#39;s this have to do with anything? Jews were singled out, as if you didn&#39;t know.

That&#39;s like me ranting about the fact that capitalism does not protect private property because blacks weren&#39;t allowed to own anything a century and a half ago. :rolleyes:


Please elaborate.

I&#39;ve already established that "the state" exists in our society to protect, to an extent, the interests of many. But mostly, "the state" exists to protect the interest of the few from the many. Whether you believe this or not should be left up to another thread, if you&#39;d like.

Now, with that being said, in a fascist state there is a mixed economy that maintains the core of capitalism (you only need to read works by Mussolini and the quotes I&#39;ve provided to understand this). And in a fascist state, I&#39;m sure you know that "the state" is actually a "police state," when the laws are stricter, and the punishments more severe, in the name of protecting the government from the people a.k.a. the elite minority protected from the majority.

[Xvall]

Abolishing currency would have made economic calculation impossible an annihilated the economy and withering away the state would have made the command economy impossible to enforce.

Regardless, that&#39;s what you have to do to attain Communism, according to Marx. It doesn&#39;t matter if it was a viable option at that time.


Corporations are not inherently capitalist. Not when they are run by the state.

And communes are not inherrntly communal. Not when they are run by an elite vanguard.


Such as the Jews&#39; ?

And did he do it ? Did he hell.

You&#39;re missing the entire point. No; Hitler didn&#39;t really do anything to allow free trade, he didn&#39;t let corporations do whatever they wanted to do. I wasn&#39;t making an argument that Hitler was an advocate of capitalism, and that Capitalism was at fault for Nazism. I was pointing out that if capitalists refuse to adress communist philosophical ideals directly, and instead hide behind the "(Self-Proclaimed Communist Dictator) was a murderer&#33;" argument, we will hide behind the "(Self-Proclaimed Capitalist Dictator) was a murderer&#33;" argument.

[Professor Moneybags]

Geez. Okay, let&#39;s put it simple. Say you work in a factory. You produce goods worth 100 &#036; an hour. In a capitalist society, you will in the west, most likely be given 10 &#036; for an hour work. The rest goes into the hands of the capitalist.

What about the money that has to go back into production ? (i.e. usually around 80-90% of it)


In a socialist society those 100 &#036; will be yours. What&#39;s the difference? The capitalist won&#39;t sit on his ass and still receive money. That thief will no longer exist. The worker will no longer have to do unpaid labor.

This is ignoring the question of who provided the factory to work in.


Capitalism is not an ideal. Society went from feudal to capitalist.

I&#39;d argue that mercanilism preceded it, but capitalism is an ideal, if followed.


I recommend reading: Myth: Hitler was a leftist (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm)

Seen it years ago. I wasn&#39;t impressed with the false dichotomies. Demanding the sacrifice of one&#39;s life for the "greater good" of one&#39;s race and country is hardly individualist.

Both derive from Hegelian collectivism.


Hitler advocated capitalism. He advocated competition over co-operation. I think he said it pretty clear:

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."

This is equivocation. "Competition" in the market place and "competition" on the battlefield are two very different things.

[Professor Moneybags]

Alright, I&#39;ll quit it with the truth for now.

I think you were doing that from your first post.



Except it&#39;s not "government controlled."

You can drive your car wherever you&#39;d like, whenever you&#39;d like, but then again, there are certain rules you have to follow.

Don&#39;t play games; just because the state has the right to prevent you from murdering people doesn&#39;t mean it has the right to restict your actions in whatever manner it pleases. There is only one rule, that is don&#39;t initiate the use of force.


It&#39;s as if you&#39;re against a mixed economy.

I am.


The closest to a purely capitalist state was back in the 1800&#39;s...child labor, sustenance wages, and thirteen hour work days. Mmmmm, I wish I could go back to the days when government couldn&#39;t tell you what the fuck to do with your business.

They ALWAYS dig this pittiful argument up, as if the government decended from heaven and "gave" us 8 hour days out of the goodness of it&#39;s heart. The reason you don&#39;t work thirteen hours a day now is that&#39;s to industrialisation and the mechanisation it bought with it, otherwise you&#39;d be spending 18 hours a day farming, just to eat.


And oh, by the way, like Mussolini, Feroci, and Popo d&#39;Italia admit, there was no "total control of the economy." But whatever, it&#39;s not like you care for facts anyway.

I&#39;m sure that if Mussolini had demanded that factories be handed over to him, I&#39;m sure the factory owners would have protested, and then I&#39;m sure Mussolini would have said "I&#39;m sorry, I didn&#39;t mean to violate your property rights. Whatever was I thinking ?" And did you know that the word "gullible" wasn&#39;t in the dictionary ?


What&#39;s this have to do with anything? Jews were singled out, as if you didn&#39;t know.

Oh riiiiiiiiiight. What was stopping them from singling anyone out ? Nothing.


That&#39;s like me ranting about the fact that capitalism does not protect private property because blacks weren&#39;t allowed to own anything a century and a half ago. :rolleyes:

That wasn&#39;t a result of capitalism, though, was it ? Arguing by non-essentials again.


Now, with that being said, in a fascist state there is a mixed economy that maintains the core of capitalism (you only need to read works by Mussolini and the quotes I&#39;ve provided to understand this).

You mean an illusion of capitalism. He&#39;s not the only one; Hitler did that too.

Capitalism must be backed up with the protection of absloute individual rights- not "sort-of" rights.

[Professor Moneybags]

I was pointing out that if capitalists refuse to adress communist philosophical ideals directly, and instead hide behind the "(Self-Proclaimed Communist Dictator) was a murderer&#33;" argument, we will hide behind the "(Self-Proclaimed Capitalist Dictator) was a murderer&#33;" argument.

...written immediately after...


I wasn&#39;t making an argument that Hitler was an advocate of capitalism

Communism turns out to be dictatorial the same way as Fascism does for the same reason- by stripping people of their individual rights.

[Osman Ghazi]

Don&#39;t play games; just because the state has the right to prevent you from murdering people doesn&#39;t mean it has the right to restict your actions in whatever manner it pleases.
Funnily enough, that is exactly what it means. I mean, if you had the sole monoploy on the use of force, wouldn&#39;t you do whatever the hell you want? I mean, that would be rational after all. The state doesn&#39;t have any rights. It has a monoploy on the legitimate use of force, thus it does whatever the hell it wants.


They ALWAYS dig this pittiful argument up, as if the government decended from heaven and "gave" us 8 hour days out of the goodness of it&#39;s heart.
&#39;The government&#39; didn&#39;t &#39;give&#39; us the 8-hour work day. It was fought for and won.


The reason you don&#39;t work thirteen hours a day now is that&#39;s to industrialisation and the mechanisation it bought with it, otherwise you&#39;d be spending 18 hours a day farming, just to eat.
Could you stop missing the point for two seconds? No here is saying that capitalism should never have existed. Were saying that it will inevitably destroy itself. He was just pointing out that the closest thing to an LF capitalist state sucked ass.


I&#39;m sure that if Mussolini had demanded that factories be handed over to him, I&#39;m sure the factory owners would have protested, and then I&#39;m sure Mussolini would have said "I&#39;m sorry, I didn&#39;t mean to violate your property rights. Whatever was I thinking ?" And did you know that the word "gullible" wasn&#39;t in the dictionary ?
*sigh* :rolleyes:

Yes, I could say the same thing about George Bush and it would be just as true. He could demand the handover of factories. But why in the hell would he? He would risk upsetting the ruling class. The thing is, the state and the ruling class have a symbiotic relationship. The ruling class uses the state to increase its own fortunes and the state uses the ruling class to keep stability by maintaining the support of a large enough segment of society.

Thusly, why would the head of any state ever do that? Answer: They wouldn&#39;t. Therefore your point is rather moot.


Oh riiiiiiiiiight. What was stopping them from singling anyone out ? Nothing.
A lot of things, actually. I mean, they have no reason to target their supporters, it just wouldn&#39;t make sense, so that stops them from singling out a lot of people.


That wasn&#39;t a result of capitalism, though, was it ? Arguing by non-essentials again.
But it did exist during capitalism. If capitalism didn&#39;t start slavery, it at least has no problem with continuing it. After all, that would mean initiating force against the slaveowners. NIF = status quo.


You mean an illusion of capitalism.
Whatever. If most people can&#39;t tell the difference between fascism and capitalism, well that isn&#39;t very flattering, is it?


Capitalism must be backed up with the protection of absloute individual rights- not "sort-of" rights.
No, it must be backed up with the illusion of rights for some, but actual ones for the rich. In morality, it is essentially no different than feudalism.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

You didn&#39;t answer my post, it was easy to miss a couple of pages back but I’m really curious about your answer so I&#39;ll ask again.


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)He is petty bourgeois. That is to say, he doesn&#39;t own the means of production, but as a privileged (and rich) member of society he has by definition more freedom than the average worker. [/b]
But he is not “really rich” right, so you still would consider him a slave right?


Osman Ghazi
University, most like. Though enslavement awaits everyone (except the really rich) sooner or later
Why are you going to University if slavery awaits you either way? What do you want to study?

[The Sloth]

I think you were doing that from your first post.

Sure.


Don&#39;t play games; just because the state has the right to prevent you from murdering people doesn&#39;t mean it has the right to restict your actions in whatever manner it pleases.

Ahhhh, but it does&#33;

The whole fucking point of a state is to initiate force for the purpose of "telling" people what to do (club them with batons if they disobey) because they are too "stupid" to know how to act for themselves&#33; Check the other thread where I&#39;m focusing on the state to get a better understanding.


There is only one rule, that is don&#39;t initiate the use of force.

See above.


They ALWAYS dig this pittiful argument up, as if the government decended from heaven and "gave" us 8 hour days out of the goodness of it&#39;s heart. The reason you don&#39;t work thirteen hours a day now is that&#39;s to industrialisation and the mechanisation it bought with it, otherwise you&#39;d be spending 18 hours a day farming, just to eat.

So if there was pure capitalism and no state laws on business, the "capitalist class"
wouldn&#39;t profit from keeping you thirteen hours in a factory?


I&#39;m sure that if Mussolini had demanded that factories be handed over to him, I&#39;m sure the factory owners would have protested, and then I&#39;m sure Mussolini would have said "I&#39;m sorry, I didn&#39;t mean to violate your property rights. Whatever was I thinking ?" And did you know that the word "gullible" wasn&#39;t in the dictionary ?

:angry: How naive&#33;

Don&#39;t you understand that in capitalism there is an unholy alliance between the capitalist class and the state? They are inseperable&#33;

Mussolini did not have the power to demand a "hand-over" of the factories because he would lose support&#33;


Oh riiiiiiiiiight. What was stopping them from singling anyone out ? Nothing.

That wasn&#39;t a result of capitalism, though, was it ? Arguing by non-essentials again.

The first statement I just quoted claims that there was nothing to "stop" Hitler from singling out everyone.

The second quote claims that slavery was not the result of capitalism.

Well, then, I propose you this question: was it the fault of capitalism that Hitler singled the Jews out?


Capitalism must be backed up with the protection of absloute individual rights- not "sort-of" rights.

These rights are most meaningful for the upper-class minority though.

So, in the name of democracy and majority rule, I suggest that we first cater to the majority and forget about the minority if the minority lives at the greater expense of the majority. That is, we suppress the minority that controls a little too much of the international capital, squeeze them motherfuckers dry, and humble them down.

I got the "morals of an armed robber," correct? :lol:

I don&#39;t mind, though&#33; Thanks for the compliment, anyway&#33;

[Osman Ghazi]

But he is not “really rich” right, so you still would consider him a slave right?


Well, not really. He certainly has enough money that if he wanted to, he could actually work for himself instead of someone else.

[QUOTE]Why are you going to University if slavery awaits you either way? What do you want to study?
[QUOTE]

I plan to, if possible study history and political science, as those are the subjects I am most interested in. I suppose I&#39;ll try to get a job where I&#39;ll use that, though there isn&#39;t really much demand for that sort of thing, is there?

[Professor Moneybags]

I mean, if you had the sole monoploy on the use of force, wouldn&#39;t you do whatever the hell you want?

Erm...no. I&#39;m not really into dictatorships, even one run by me.


The state doesn&#39;t have any rights. It has a monoploy on the legitimate use of force, thus it does whatever the hell it wants.

And which state is more likely to do this ? One with limited powers with no legal right to do whatever it wants, or one where the elected mob is free to run riot ?


&#39;The government&#39; didn&#39;t &#39;give&#39; us the 8-hour work day. It was fought for and won.

You little worker&#39;s warrior, you. You didn&#39;t "fight" for it- it was given to you courtesy of mechanisation. Let&#39;s see you fight for a one-hour working day. I hope you don&#39;t mind starving...


Could you stop missing the point for two seconds? No here is saying that capitalism should never have existed. Were saying that it will inevitably destroy itself.

Prove it.


He was just pointing out that the closest thing to an LF capitalist state sucked ass.

Relative to what ? Ignoring historical context.


A lot of things, actually. I mean, they have no reason to target their supporters, it just wouldn&#39;t make sense, so that stops them from singling out a lot of people.

It made no sense to invade Poland, but they did.


But it did exist during capitalism. If capitalism didn&#39;t start slavery, it at least has no problem with continuing it.

Slavery is an intiation of force which goes contrary to capitalism.


After all, that would mean initiating force against the slaveowners. NIF = status quo.

You are MENTALLY RETARDED. The slave owners are the initators of force.


Whatever. If most people can&#39;t tell the difference between fascism and capitalism, well that isn&#39;t very flattering, is it?

Pure social metaphysics.


No, it must be backed up with the illusion of rights for some, but actual ones for the rich. In morality, it is essentially no different than feudalism.

Feudalism advocates the intiation of force.

[James]

It made no sense to invade Poland, but they did.


breeding room&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

The whole fucking point of a state is to initiate force for the purpose of "telling" people what to do (club them with batons if they disobey) because they are too "stupid" to know how to act for themselves&#33;

You&#39;re proof enough that there are people who will be too stupid to know how to act; you haven&#39;t got the slightest clue of what does or does not constitute rational human behaviour, as can be seen from your "might/numbers makes right" approach to ethics. In defending some people against others, the state is not initiating force, but retaliating on their behalf. What is there about this that you do not understand.


So if there was pure capitalism and no state laws on business, the "capitalist class"

There is no anything "class". A social class would be indifferent from an enforced caste system and the rulers of it would still be kings and lords.


wouldn&#39;t profit from keeping you thirteen hours in a factory?

Not if others were offering 8 hour days and no one wanted to work for them as a result.


Don&#39;t you understand that in capitalism there is an unholy alliance between the capitalist class and the state? They are inseperable&#33;

Keep repeating the mantras...


Mussolini did not have the power to demand a "hand-over" of the factories because he would lose support&#33;

Why does he need support ? He can demand anything and take it by force whether his actions are "supported" or not.


Well, then, I propose you this question: was it the fault of capitalism that Hitler singled the Jews out?

Why would you think it was ?


These rights are most meaningful for the upper-class minority though.

What do you mean by "meaningful" ? Why would a poor person hold property rights in less regard than a rich one ? The poor person has less to steal and thus more to lose by not having his rights respected.

<snip the rest of the blather>

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:36 PM

breeding room&#33;
"lebensraum" was a lame excuse, if you ask me.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)Well, not really. He certainly has enough money that if he wanted to, he could actually work for himself instead of someone else.[/b]
So your father is “really rich” then, because he does meets your criteria for avoiding slavery.
Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)Though enslavement awaits everyone (except the really rich) sooner or later[/b]What did your father do to earn that money, or was your father born “really rich”?


Osman [email protected]
I plan to, if possible study history and political science, as those are the subjects I am most interested in.
That’s good many students get forced into majors their parents want them to pursue and it never works out, stick with your passion and success will follow if you work hard. What schools are you looking into?


Osman Ghazi
I suppose I&#39;ll try to get a job where I&#39;ll use that, though there isn&#39;t really much demand for that sort of thing, is there?
Oh I don’t know teachers are in short supply. Who knows maybe you’ll end up as a left wing professor at some big university :D

But back to our discussion on slavery for a moment, do you believe there are gradations of slavery?

[Xvall]

...written immediately after...

How were those posts contradictory. Did you even read them?


Communism turns out to be dictatorial the same way as Fascism does for the same reason- by stripping people of their individual rights.

With that logic, isn&#39;t capitalism dictatorial, because you work for a boss, and you have to do what he or she said, or risk loosing your means of survival?

[Osman Ghazi]

So your father is “really rich” then, because he does meets your criteria for avoiding slavery.
Well, members of the upper middle class can usually make the leap to being capitalists if they are ambitious enough. However, in the more prominent jobs, it becomes less and less like slavery.


What did your father do to earn that money, or was your father born “really rich”?
He dropped out of high school at 17 and joined the navy. Then eventually he went back to school and became a licensed electrician. Now he works as the General manager of an energy management company. Ironically, capitalism &#39;worked&#39; for my father in that he was born to an immigant family that lived in subsidized housing but became rich.


That’s good many students get forced into majors their parents want them to pursue and it never works out, stick with your passion and success will follow if you work hard. What schools are you looking into?
Canadian Universities. You probably wouldn&#39;t have heard of them, but I&#39;m considering U of BC. It may also be something closer to home, depending on how things turn out.


Oh I don’t know teachers are in short supply. Who knows maybe you’ll end up as a left wing professor at some big university.
With any luck&#33; :lol: But seriously, that would allow me to indoctrinate thousands and advance my evil schemes.


But back to our discussion on slavery for a moment, do you believe there are gradations of slavery?
Absolutely. For example, a good manager may be able to bargain with his employer to stay on; a skill the common labourer lacks. Also, you have to consider that money is very closely tied to freedom (in the real, tangible sense of being able to do what you want, rather than what may be possible with your limited choices). Thusly, the more money you have, the more freedom you have to do whatever you want within our society.


Erm...no. I&#39;m not really into dictatorships, even one run by me.
HA&#33; Ya right. I mean after all, isn&#39;t it &#39;human nature&#39;? Isn&#39;t that what you cappies are always saying?


And which state is more likely to do this ? One with limited powers with no legal right to do whatever it wants, or one where the elected mob is free to run riot ?
If there were no state, it would be a 0% chance, wouldn&#39;t it?


You little worker&#39;s warrior, you. You didn&#39;t "fight" for it- it was given to you courtesy of mechanisation.
That doesn&#39;t make any sense. How did mechanisation (an abstract concept) give me anything? But seriously, can they only run the machines for 8 hours at a time?


Relative to what ? Ignoring historical context.
Relative to non-LF societies. Take Prussia for example, little freedom, especially for non-aristocrats, but they put an end to child labour, among other things, much sooner than the Lf states.


Slavery is an intiation of force which goes contrary to capitalism.
What if you sell yourself into slavery?


You are MENTALLY RETARDED. The slave owners are the initators of force.
I was referring to the continuation of slavery by early capitalism. Since slavery was accepted as a valid institution, it required the initiation of force (the Civil War, among other things) to end it.


Feudalism advocates the intiation of force.
So does capitalism, so has every single system of governance yet seen on the face of the earth.

[Xvall]

Something is up with your quotes, bro.

[James]

"lebensraum" was a lame excuse, if you ask me.

It still made sense to them though.
Also, the polish corridor.
And of course as an invasion platform for invading russia (we could also go as far to say that poland happened to "seal the deal" between hitler and stalin).

[Guest1]

Osman Ghazi... were you stoned? :P Fuck, you flipped your quotes around, using endquote brakets to begin and beginquote brackets to end.

It was crazy, but I fixed it for you.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 4 2004, 04:20 AM

How were those posts contradictory. Did you even read them?



With that logic, isn&#39;t capitalism dictatorial, because you work for a boss, and you have to do what he or she said, or risk loosing your means of survival?
Your means of survival is your brain, not your boss.

Although in your case...

[Professor Moneybags]

HA&#33; Ya right. I mean after all, isn&#39;t it &#39;human nature&#39;? Isn&#39;t that what you cappies are always saying?

It&#39;s not human nature to become a fascist dictator.


If there were no state, it would be a 0% chance, wouldn&#39;t it?

Don&#39;t be daft. An elected mob is a "state".


What if you sell yourself into slavery?

You can&#39;t. Someone has to force you- by definition.

<snip the other tripe I can&#39;t be bother to go over again>

[The Sloth]

It&#39;s not human nature to become a fascist dictator.

Because human nature does not exist.

But, of course, the way people act these days is reinforced by their environments, and you have plenty of authoritarian individuals that seek to be "fascist dictators."


You&#39;re proof enough that there are people who will be too stupid to know how to act; you haven&#39;t got the slightest clue of what does or does not constitute rational human behaviour, as can be seen from your "might/numbers makes right" approach to ethics. In defending some people against others, the state is not initiating force, but retaliating on their behalf. What is there about this that you do not understand.

*Sigh*

Arguing with you, especially correcting you, is like training a disobedient dog.

Rational human behavior is not competition and cut-throat economics, as only those such as yourself that hope to pervert behavior would encourage such barbaric systems.

I don’t understand how someone could be so fucking stupid as to actually say, “…the state is not initiating force.” You have very little understanding of “the state” other than the pre-conceived notions you have that were picked up every now and then from little textbooks, movies, etc. The typical idiot’s mentality: “We need the state, look at what we’d be doing to each other&#33;” I gave you a simple fucking request, and that was to outline in detail what the state is, and when it becomes necessary (because, as we all know [err, actually, all of us minus yourself] ‘the state’ has not always existed). Failing that simple task, you resort to dancing and prancing around in a mix-up of “logic” such as applying “self-defense” to mean “not an initiation of force,” when the question naturally arises: just WHY does “the state” find itself in a position where it “needs to” protect the people FROM the people?

According to you, it’s because the people like to kill, steal, and snort cocaine for the fun of it. According to you, Harlem has a 50% unemployment rate because blacks are inherently lazy. According to you, every sociologist’s idea that the environment shapes the people cannot be accepted because it actually puts some responsibility on “the state” instead of putting it all on “the people.” You’re a joke&#33;

I already showed you that the police force came to be out of the factory owners’ desire for protection of the sustenance-level wages, 13-hour work days, to break up strikes, etc. You declare, “so what?” as if you are REFUSING common sense. Obviously, “the state” didn’t give a fuck about protecting “the people” from “the people,” did it? There are REASONS for murder, rape, robbery, etc. If “the state” was doing its job, and not transforming one form of distress for another, then there would be no need for a police force, etc. and therefore no need for the state. The state arises for the purpose of protecting the people because the people are put in a position where they are given the incentive to kill and to steal.



There is no anything "class".

Oh, so now there are no classes in society. Keep these strokes of brilliance up and I won’t find it necessary to return to Opposing Ideologies because there’s absolutely nothing I can say as a retort to such idiocy.


A social class would be indifferent from an enforced caste system and the rulers of it would still be kings and lords.

Which is what I have been insinuating all along – capitalist society has a reinforced caste system where only a few change their positions. Thank you for articulating that for me. I’m surprised you haven’t been accepted to Commie Club yet, considering the fact that your opinion on such a pivotal point is so similar to mine.


Not if others were offering 8 hour days and no one wanted to work for them as a result.

:lol:

If business owners find it necessary, they can come together and decide on certain issues. If there was no state regulation, they could easily push the work day to ten hours, expand their business, increase prices, etc. with little competition. Robert Owen was offering a ten-hour work day, I believe, during the 1800’s, for powerful pay, rest breaks, free education, adequate food and housing, etc. He didn’t make the other factory owners “lose business” though.



Keep repeating the mantras...

Keep repeating your mantras.



Why does he need support ? He can demand anything and take it by force whether his actions are "supported" or not.

*Sigh*

You can’t “demand” anything…capital in Italy was not “capital in Italy.” Huge banks are dependent on one another, with lesser banks being subordinate to them. Businessmen and business owners work internationally, too. If Mussolini would “take over” the industries, he would lose support from this “chain of command” and be choked off economically.


What do you mean by "meaningful" ? Why would a poor person hold property rights in less regard than a rich one ? The poor person has less to steal and thus more to lose by not having his rights respected.

Property rights are more meaningful to a rich person because he has the most to lose. A poor person wouldn’t mind living in a communist society. Bill Gates would.

[Professor Moneybags]

Because human nature does not exist.

Water has a nature. Stones have a nature. Birds have a nature. Humans have a nature too.


Arguing with you, especially correcting you, is like training a disobedient dog.

Do you see yourself as a "master" and me as "servant" who needs to "obey" your "commands" ? Interesting...


Rational human behavior is not competition and cut-throat economics,

"Cut throat" ? Is that the one where we all kill each other over money ? Very creative. I don&#39;t know who has advocated that, but it&#39;s certainly not me. Looks like a bit of package dealing to me.


as only those such as yourself that hope to pervert behavior would encourage such barbaric systems.

What are you blathering on about this time ? Which part of the NIF do you not understand ? There&#39;s nothing barbaric about respecting other&#39;s right to live their own lives as they see fit, or course provided they do not use agressive force against others.


I don’t understand how someone could be so fucking stupid as to actually say, “…the state is not initiating force.” You have very little understanding of “the state” other than the pre-conceived notions you have that were picked up every now and then from little textbooks, movies, etc.

Speak for yourself. In what context do you speak of ? Do you think that the mere *existence* of a state is an act of force against you ?


The typical idiot’s mentality: “We need the state, look at what we’d be doing to each other&#33;”

What you are planning to do to people is bad enough. Perhaps you don&#39;t realise that you are actually advocating grand theft (which is an initiation of force). If you can rationalise that, you can rationalize pretty much any act of agressive force.

Thank heavens the state is there to protect me from such brutal thugs.


I gave you a simple fucking request, and that was to outline in detail what the state is, and when it becomes necessary (because, as we all know [err, actually, all of us minus yourself] ‘the state’ has not always existed).

What do you mean by the state ?


Failing that simple task, you resort to dancing and prancing around in a mix-up of “logic” such as applying “self-defense” to mean “not an initiation of force,” when the question naturally arises: just WHY does “the state” find itself in a position where it “needs to” protect the people FROM the people?

Because of people like you. Of course, you can&#39;t see that because you&#39;re a collectivist. You see humanity as one great mass instead of individuals. There exist individuals in any society who attack other individuals (whom we call criminals). Some individuals cannot protect themselves from these people, so a state is needed to protect them. I can see why you oppose it; such a system would sanction retalliation against you if you ever tried to attack/steal from anyone, which is what you are planning to do.


According to you, it’s because the people like to kill, steal, and snort cocaine for the fun of it.

Or because someone never taught them to respect other&#39;s rights, or that rights only serve the "rich" ? (I wonder who...?)


According to you, Harlem has a 50% unemployment rate because blacks are inherently lazy.

When I did I say that ? That is a blatant lie.


According to you, every sociologist’s idea that the environment shapes the people cannot be accepted because it actually puts some responsibility on “the state” instead of putting it all on “the people.” You’re a joke&#33;

These people&#39;s problems are their own, not "the peoples". If you are a drug addict, it is your problem, not mine. How about some individual responsibility ?


There are REASONS for murder, rape, robbery, etc.

Really ? Do tell.

What is the reason for rape, then ? Economic inequality ? Not enough jobs, perhaps ? What about arson ? Low wages ?


If “the state” was doing its job, and not transforming one form of distress for another, then there would be no need for a police force, etc. and therefore no need for the state. The state arises for the purpose of protecting the people because the people are put in a position where they are given the incentive to kill and to steal.

I think you&#39;ll find that people just do it because they&#39;re scum.


Oh, so now there are no classes in society. Keep these strokes of brilliance up and I won’t find it necessary to return to Opposing Ideologies because there’s absolutely nothing I can say as a retort to such idiocy.

You have no evidence to support it, that&#39;s why. What are the definitions of "class" and what are the criterion for belong to these different "classes" ?


If business owners find it necessary, they can come together and decide on certain issues. If there was no state regulation, they could easily push the work day to ten hours, expand their business, increase prices, etc. with little competition.

From whom ? It&#39;s so cute the way you think they can just "do" these things without any strikes or consumer backlash.


You can’t “demand” anything…capital in Italy was not “capital in Italy.” Huge banks are dependent on one another, with lesser banks being subordinate to them. Businessmen and business owners work internationally, too. If Mussolini would “take over” the industries, he would lose support from this “chain of command” and be choked off economically.

Of course, "business owners" themselves are not intrinsically capitalist. Some can and do support socialism and interventionism to suit themselves- especially in Germany, when given the choice between the communist&#39;s "Up against the wall with you." and Hitler&#39;s "Do as I tell you or die.", they quite willingly supported the latter.


Property rights are more meaningful to a rich person because he has the most to lose. A poor person wouldn’t mind living in a communist society. Bill Gates would.

I don&#39;t think either a poor person or Bill Gates would fancy the idea of slavery.

[Osman Ghazi]

Osman Ghazi... were you stoned?

Actually, yes. :lol: And it was 3:00 in the morning. Sorry about that.

[Osman Ghazi]

It&#39;s not human nature to become a t dictator.


Probably true, but with that sentence, you revealed the weakness of the &#39;human nature&#39; argument. That is to say, yes, humans tend to do certain things, but really, they can do whatever the they they want whether its &#39;human nature&#39; or not.


Don&#39;t be daft. An elected mob is a "state".

I&#39;ve never promoted electing anyone. I mean, anyone who could win an election is not someone I want to be running anything. Demarchic organisation seems both the most realistic type for communism and, ultimately, the best.


You can&#39;t. Someone has to force you- by definition.


Okay. Hypothetical situation here. My son needs say, a &#036;40,000 operation that I will never be able to afford. In order to save my sons life, I go to a rich business man and say, "I&#39;ll be your slave for a year if you pay me &#036;40,000 for my son&#39;s operation and give me room and board." That is slavery without force, and since LF-Capitalism relies on property rights, the pillar of which is self-ownership, there isn&#39;t a goddamn thing anyone could do about it.


I don&#39;t think either a poor person or Bill Gates would fancy the idea of slavery.

Actually, even socialism was an improvement for most poor people, so I don&#39;t think that&#39;s true.

What exactly is it that makes it slavery?

[Lardlad95]

Basic freedoms exist independent of the state or any state system. Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.

Ok Locke, care to state what these freedoms are. How you determined that these are natural freedoms, and why these freedoms take precedence over any other "non-natural" freedoms that exist.


Now, you socialists and communists tend to believe that society can shape human nature, so a socialist government could eventually eliminate individualism from a society whether through force, education or gradual introduction of more socialist policies. And how can you guys find this palatable? That&#39;s EXACTLY what Pol Pot was doing with his killing fields.

Thats your opinion of the situation. I seek to eradicate the ability of one man to hold econmic, political, or social dominance over another man. I have no need, nor do I want to eradicate individuality. In the sense in which we use the two terms individuality and individualism are not the same term.



Communism comes after socialism? So we have to go through killing fields and starvation genocide in order to get to that ideal that Che Guerva and other like minds here advocate? No thanks&#33;

Please do not tell me that you honestly believe that anyone here advocates what those despots did. None of the founders of socialist thought ever said that socialism was supposed to be a repressive authratative society.

Here&#39;s an idea, read a book, you may learn something instead of just assuming that because they claimed to be socialist that they actualley were.

If I say that i&#39;m a duck that doesn&#39;t make it true, and if a despot says he&#39;s a socialist that doesn&#39;t make it true either.




In our system of free market capitalism, everyone has equal opportunity to improve their situation. In communism, everyone starts out and dies in an equal state of poverty.

Equal oppurtunity? If you start off at a different economic levels how is it an equal oppurtunity. If I start off dirt poor, in a piss poor neighborhood, my mother is a crack head and my school hasn&#39;t had new books in 20 years. And you start off in a middle class neigherborhood. how in the hell is that an equal oppurtunity?


Oh and by the way, I got a &#036;13,000 raise over the past year. I began doing a different job, I was good at it, I approached my boss for a raise, and I received it based on the work I did. Isn&#39;t that nice how that worked out?


Oh thats wonderful because everyone who works hard gets what rightfully theirs i a capitalist system.

[Xvall]

Human nature is survival. Human nature has nothing to do with capitalism.

[Karo de Perro]

If human nature is the basis for capitalism then its time we create a new species of man&#33;

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 1 2004, 09:07 AM
Expecting the government not to interfere with voluntary transactions is utopian ?
Trade seems "voluntary" but the one who sells has more advantages and is just taking profits just because some irrational thing called "right" allows him to.


The right to life is part of "human nature", but that needs protecting doesn&#39;t it ?

Let&#39;s see:
1. if human nature is capitalism, and the "right to life" (rights don&#39;t exist, they are an invention) needs to be protected, then it means that part of human nature would be to go against that "human nature"
2. According to "Capitalist Lawyer", "socialists and communists tend to believe that society can shape human nature", however he recognizes that, for some reason, protecting "individual rights" through the state is acceptable and it&#39;s not "shaping human nature" and "trying" to "eliminate individualism"(?) as leftists "want" is against "human nature". That makes no sense.


When you demand positive rights and an end to private property, you are demanding a totalitarian state.

Prove me that the opposite of "private property" is a "totalitarian state".

You can&#39;t&#33;

And by the way, nothing would be more totalitarian than privately-owned streets, privately-owned air, privately-owned governments, etc.


No other options :rolleyes: . That&#39;s what they all say...

Yeah, stealing or doing "illegal" stuff...of course the government coerces them not to do so&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

Trade seems "voluntary" but the one who sells has more advantages and is just taking profits just because some irrational thing called "right" allows him to.

Why does he have more advantages ?


Let&#39;s see:
1. if human nature is capitalism, and the "right to life" (rights don&#39;t exist, they are an invention) needs to be protected, then it means that part of human nature would be to go against that "human nature"

So you oppose the "right to life", then ?


2. According to "Capitalist Lawyer", "socialists and communists tend to believe that society can shape human nature", however he recognizes that, for some reason, protecting "individual rights" through the state is acceptable and it&#39;s not "shaping human nature" and "trying" to "eliminate individualism"(?) as leftists "want" is against "human nature". That makes no sense.

Rights are not a social phenomenon, just as the validity of a particular moral code is not socially determined.


Prove me that the opposite of "private property" is a "totalitarian state".

Violation of property rights is a claim that your property, a result of your labour, is not yours, but belongs to the "state" or whatever is representing the state. That is totalitarian.


You can&#39;t&#33;

I just have.


And by the way, nothing would be more totalitarian than privately-owned streets, privately-owned air, privately-owned governments, etc.

Straw men. You can only claim as property what you have modified, or in some way added value to.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Karo de [email protected] 4 2004, 11:46 PM
If human nature is the basis for capitalism
I never said it was.

[Osman Ghazi]

Why does he have more advantages ?


Obviously the owner is in a position of dominance over the worker. If the owner doesn&#39;t hire this guy, he can hire the 3 or 4 other guys waiting in the lobby. The worker, on the other hand needs a job to survive, unlike the owner who doesn&#39;t really need that particular worker.