How is capitalism "good"?

[ComradeRed]

How the devil is capitalism "good"? And why?

[Xvall]

Capitalism is good because it ensures that people work hard for what they get, and aren't simply given hand outs by the government. Bill Gates' children, for example, worked very hard for the several billion dollars they are going to inherit.

[socialistfuture]

capitalism is good for the enviroment - because trees hate freedom so they need to be cut down.
it is also good for human rights. capitalism is also good because it likes war which is good because people can make money off it.
mostly capitalism is good because i read it is.

[Urban Rubble]

capitalism is good for the enviroment - because trees hate freedom so they need to be cut down.

Do you really believe that when Capitalism is finished we won't need to cut down trees anymore ?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Capitalism is good for the capitalist class.

[888Kami]

Capitalism is good for the state economy. And that's probably all good there is to it.

[socialistfuture]

Do you really believe that when Capitalism is finished we won't need to cut down trees anymore ?

oh hell of course not. but things like the amazon getting smashed to pieces really sicken me - for gold, for land for mc donalds and an asortment of other reasons. native tribes get decimated and some of the most beautifull areas in the world are destroyed forever. loggers shoot civilians and corruption goes on.

the solviet union had an a horrid enviromental record - a lot of people and countries have only been intrested in envriomentalism relitavly recently. Under capitalism we get slums and wasteland for poor people in some areas and mantion and apartments for the wealthy. the poor get poisened by the waste of modern society. the west sends a lot of its waste to places like africa.

capitalism definatly has a lot to answer for with its pollution.

[Munchimoniam]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 14 2004, 12:03 AM
Capitalism is good because it ensures that people work hard for what they get, and aren't simply given hand outs by the government. Bill Gates' children, for example, worked very hard for the several billion dollars they are going to inherit.
Bill Gates is leaving all of his money to his charity foundation. His kids get Microsoft.

So I am told.

[Osman Ghazi]

Microsofts outstanding shares alone are worth 270 billion dollars.

(Share price $27, outstanding stock:apr. 10 billion)

[Forward Union]

Its good because all those third world slackers get nothing and I earn enough to feed my whole local area

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." John Maynard Keynes

[DarkAngel]

Capitalism is good for people who are already born with a silver spon in their mouth...

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 14 2004, 01:34 AM

capitalism is good for the enviroment - because trees hate freedom so they need to be cut down.

Do you really believe that when Capitalism is finished we won't need to cut down trees anymore ?
The argument doesn't have to make sense, just sound good.

The amazon rainforest is being cut down by the natives by the way ("slash and burn" farming), not McDonalds.


capitalism definatly has a lot to answer for with its pollution

How can a political system cause pollution ?


"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." John Maynard Keynes

And we all know how enlightened John "double-figure inflation" Keynes was.

[socialistfuture]

the indigenous people are destroying the amazon on their own?

cattle ranching and soya bean production are the two major causes of forest depletion in the Amazon region

http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/witnesse...iot_george.html (http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/witnesses/environment/monbiot_george.html) - read this and tell me if u still think 'natives' are destroying the forest.

here are some more sites on rainforest destruction and protection
http://www.pachamama.org/links/index.htm


How can a political system cause pollution ?
like this... (small sample)

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Bill Gates' children, for example, worked very hard for the several billion dollars they are going to inherit.

What about all of the people who have worked very hard for their millions? Should we punish them just because of a select few get inheritances handed to them?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Let me also add,

True communism will never exist. Man will not allow it. Why, because inherent in anyone with any sort of power is greed. The greed to gain more power, more influence. Utopia cannot exist where man is concerned, and that what you all here believe in.

Never has been such a thing, and never will be.

So, what do I tell all the cubans applying for Political Asylum when I see them?

[Sabocat]

So, what do I tell all the cubans applying for Political Asylum when I see them?

The same thing the Canadians said when 100,000 or so people fleeing the United States after the Revolution arrived there I would imagine.

[Xvall]

Rubble:

Do you really believe that when Capitalism is finished we won't need to cut down trees anymore ?

No, but a lot of laws enforced by capitalist societies, such as those that inhibit the production of marijuana, often cause trees being cut down to become a necessity. The United States is a good example for this. Marijuana laws prevent farmers from growing marijuana plants, which can produce roughly four times the amount of paper of redwood trees, and takes months to grow, as opposed to the redwood trees which take decades to become even slightly benificial to us. I am under the impression that with the collapse of capitalism, the environment would be more heavily regulated, and the destruction of the rainforest/sierra/etc. would decrease drastically.

Moneybags:

The amazon rainforest is being cut down by the natives by the way ("slash and burn" farming), not McDonalds.

No one even mentioned McDonalds. Yes, the amazon rainforest is being cut down by natives, but that's because companies tend to hire people within the vicinity of the areas they are working on. (In this case, natives.) The majority of the Amazonian natives are not driving around in bulldozers, and regardless of who is directly doing the cutting, the destruction of the rainforest is still taking place under the authorization of various corporations. That's a lot like me saying, "Al Capone never murdered anyone, the people under his command did."

How can a political system cause pollution ?

Capitalism was an economic system, last time I checked. Either way, I wouldn't say that capitalism causes polution, but companies and corporations do, which many people on this board would say are the direct product of capitalism.

Lawyer:

What about all of the people who have worked very hard for their millions? Should we punish them just because of a select few get inheritances handed to them?

Why not? Isn't that how America works? You punish all drug users because of the habitual actions of a few. You punished all of the Middle East because of Osoma Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

Then again, I'm not exactly a fond supporter of American foreign and domestic policy. A 'select few' do not get inheritance. The majority of the wealthy have one or more children, so in the end, the inheritees end up out numbering the 'hard workers' who worked themselves to near exhaustion in their cubicles and offices.

True communism will never exist. Man will.... etc. etc. Human nature etc. greed etc. etc.

Opinion. We've all heard this before, and most of us are sick of it. A few of us have learned to just entirely ignore statements like this. I'm still learning, apparently.

Never has been such a thing, and never will be.

Oh no.

So, what do I tell all the cubans applying for Political Asylum when I see them?

I don't know. What should I tell all the people living in capitalist Haiti who seek asylum? They greatly outnumber the number of cubans who seek asylum. The Cuban life may not be the most glamorous, but at least everyone is ensured some form of housing and food. I can't say the same thing about capitalistic places like Haiti and Indonesia. Hell, they don't even have an embargo on them, and they're doing worse than Cuba.

[ComradeRed]

Capitalism is good for the state economy. And that's probably all good there is to it.
So it is justified by having the "state economy" be in a state of good? Even if it costs lives, exploitations, etc.?


True communism will never exist. Man will not allow it. Why, because inherent in anyone with any sort of power is greed. The greed to gain more power, more influence. Utopia cannot exist where man is concerned, and that what you all here believe in.
Firstly, who brought up anything about communism? I was discussing how capitalism is good, not why communism is.

Secondly, what would prevent everyone from having equal power? Would everyone be equally "gready"? That is supposing greed is caused by power.

Thirdly, you assert we all believe in "utopias". I am speaking for myself, but I am believe in the abolition of wage slavery.


What about all of the people who have worked very hard for their millions? Should we punish them just because of a select few get inheritances handed to them? Its not the incredible person who I detest, it is the incredibly unproportional reward!


Bill Gates is leaving all of his money to his charity foundation. His kids get Microsoft. So that is "good", or so I am told.

But, Microsoft will bring in the billions(if not, at that time, trillions) per year, so there won't be the same amount of money that they will inherit...just more!

[Munchimoniam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:32 PM
So that is "good", or so I am told.

But, Microsoft will bring in the billions(if not, at that time, trillions) per year, so there won't be the same amount of money that they will inherit...just more!
I was merely stating a fact.

[ComradeRed]

I was too!

[Nyder]

Typical fallacies about capitalism bandied about by the commies on this site:

*Capitalism is responsible for wars, etc: No that's Governments, organisations which run very differently to how corporations operate.

*All capitalism is bad because of a few unethical companies: Some companies pollute, some companies have done a lot to be environmentally sustainable. Some companies treat their workers like shit (usually in third world countries where capitalism mostly doesn't exist so the workers don't have much choice), some companies treat their workers very well. Capitalism is millions of different companies, groups and individuals trading with each other - you can't just simply point out a few doing wrong and apply it to ALL.

*Capitalism is responsible for poverty: How so? When a corporation makes a profit, it is not money out of anyone's pocket - they created that wealth by producing goods and services that people voluntarily traded for. Think about high marginal tax rates and government enforced labour market restrictions if you want to look at poverty (and in the third world - wars and brutality caused by tribal and socialist governments).

*Jealousy - commies whining that so and so made X amount of money, when they did so because they were able to create success on the market.

*The labour theory of bullshit - every time a commie mentions 'wage slave', 'product of labour', they are referring to this 200 year old redundant economic theory that Marx himself couldn't totally rationalise because of the 'transformation problem'.

So I ask you - commies - how is capitalism bad?

[socialistfuture]

ever heard of colonialism? - black slavery, genocide, corruption...
these things were done by colonial powers - capitalism is an extention of this. we still get miliatry killing off indigenous peoples to steal their land - their resources - like what happens in Mexico to the Zapatistas - or in the amazon or the massacres the Indonesian governement commited in West Papua, or the atocities commited by Israel against palestinian peoples - whose homes are constanly destroyed and are under constant siege. the list is endless. it is not about freedom and democracy - it is about greed and power.


*Capitalism is responsible for wars, etc: No that's Governments, organisations which run very differently to how corporations operate.
many people in governments are also high in corporations - some political parties get funding from corporations - there is a direct link. corporations make the arms that are used in the worlds wars. the bombs that main children - the napalm that melts skin, the bullets that end lives.

Capitalism is a system of inequality. yes it has good parts, there are good people - but you can argue Hitler had his good side or tyrants have good points - or slavery had its good side etc - by in large it has many harms - and worldwide ppl are taking action - we will not sit aside.

One person can be born into a family with hereditary wealth that his family might have from the medieval days - wealth they accumulated from slavery. while down the road is someone who is starving and homeless. capitalism is about rights for the rich and to hell with everyone else. native peoples have often been kicked off their land by corporations - some slaughtered.


*Capitalism is responsible for poverty: How so? When a corporation makes a profit, it is not money out of anyone's pocket - they created that wealth by producing goods and services that people voluntarily traded for. Think about high marginal tax rates and government enforced labour market restrictions if you want to look at poverty (and in the third world - wars and brutality caused by tribal and socialist governments).

the 'third world' has had wars for many reasons - some to end the occupation of their country by western nations - to get independance. is that tribal or socialist? its common sense that you dont wan't to be run by another country - would u like to your country to be a colony?
how is someone getting paid slave wages not contributing to poverty? sweatshops are a form of slavery. many corporations have poor practices and labour records.

all the infomation is out there if you want to look for it.

[Urban Rubble]

Well, I don't necessarily think Capitalism is "bad". I think it's advanced human civilization and generally made the world better than it was before. Feudalism was far worse, obviously. I just think it's outdated, I think it's time for humankind to move beyond it.


*Capitalism is responsible for wars, etc: No that's Governments, organisations which run very differently to how corporations operate.

Capitalism hasn't directly started most wars (though the invasion of Guatemala in the 50's was a direct result of United Fruit's actions) but it definately fuels the fire. When the system in which we live actually profits off of war, I think that is wrong. I agree that governments have played more of a role than Capitalism, war was just as rampant before Capitalism. However, Capitalism has started, and fueled many wars.


*All capitalism is bad because of a few unethical companies: Some companies pollute, some companies have done a lot to be environmentally sustainable. Some companies treat their workers like shit (usually in third world countries where capitalism mostly doesn't exist so the workers don't have much choice), some companies treat their workers very well. Capitalism is millions of different companies, groups and individuals trading with each other - you can't just simply point out a few doing wrong and apply it to ALL.

First off, big companies are going to pollute no matter what system we live under, it's a matter of how much. Capitalism is about savnig money, and if they can save money by dumping their waste in rivers instead of having it processed, alot of them will do it.

Second, it isn't a "few" unethical companies. Corporate fraud is quite widespread.

Third, it isn't that they don't treat their workers "well", some don't, some do, it's that they don't give them what they deserve.


*Jealousy - commies whining that so and so made X amount of money, when they did so because they were able to create success on the market.

I'm not jealous. In fact, I respect many Capitalists, I just don't agree with them, or in most cases, like them. It comes down to the old cliche of "Don't hate the player, hate the game". I disagree with a system that allows one to profit off of the work of others, simple as that.

[Nyder]

Capitalism is about the protection of private property, not the violation of it. Therefore capitalism can't be responsible for war. War is about a violation of property rights. War is committed by collectives. Any corporation that influences corrupt politicians to go to war is not capitalist. True capitalists respect the free market and private property.


I disagree with a system that allows one to profit off of the work of others, simple as that.

How does one profit over someone else if they both agreed to exchange value based on what they are willing to supply at a given price and what the demand is at a given price?

The only true form of exploitation is slavery when someone works only for the benefit of others and not him/herself.


Third, it isn't that they don't treat their workers "well", some don't, some do, it's that they don't give them what they deserve.

'Deserve'?

[socialistfuture]

explain your views on slave labour then - sweathsops are good for both people - one has not enough money to live on maybe making jackets for a large multi national corp say levis - and they get sold for tonnes in the west...

explain how this is moral and just for all involved

[Nas]

i got nothing but love for all my people living large :) , i don't envy them


and yes capitalist is good for the higher class because it works for them but not for the lower class

[Palmares]

Capitalism is (pseudo) meritocratic. ;)

Honestly, I think this is a pretty abstract question as it involves such a word as 'good'. I don't believe true capitalism is beneficial to the majority, but certainly has it's advantages for the rich.


Originally posted by Nyder
How does one profit over someone else if they both agreed to exchange value based on what they are willing to supply at a given price and what the demand is at a given price?

The only true form of exploitation is slavery when someone works only for the benefit of others and not him/herself.

Have you ever heard of exploitation? Or are you saying everyone is paid sufficiently? Some people are also forced to trade below the amount to which a commodity might have previously been, and hence put them in a difficult economic situation (look at coffee seelers from Africa). From there, others then can make money from the cheap prices: at the expense of the seller.

Let's just hope Adam Smith's invisible hand comes in and regulates capitalism soon. :lol:

[Nyder]

The reason that wages and working conditions are so low in third world countries and high in richer countries is because worker's have little choice but to accept that wage because there is a lack of viable employment for them. This is because war, coercion and all forms of violence happens to suppress capitalism from happening. IE It is a bit hard to have private property when other people are either stealing it or destroying it.

Another reason is because socialism has often totally destroyed people's will and integrity to prosper like they do in western countries. This is because like in the former Soviet Union, people have been made dependant on the State to provide for them in almost all things in life. To give them self determination takes time and is extremely difficult to set up a system where they can do that. For example, they estimate that it would take Russia 15 years of constant growth of 8% GDP to reach the same living standards as Portugal.

As an aside - have you ever asked why people in poor countries are flocking to work in these factories? Maybe because it's the highest wage they can earn in their country given their lack of opportunities. It is just people's crusade for a better life for themselves, something the state has failed to adequately provide.

[LSD]

The reason that wages are so low in third world countries and high in richer countries is because worker's have little choice but to accept that wage because there is a lack of viable employment for them.

True.


. This is because war, coercion and all forms of violence happens to suppress capitalism from happening.

False.

"war, coercion and all forms of violence" are essential elements of capitalism.

The reason that these people have no viable employment is that these countries are economically dominated by the first world, which forces third world workers into working terrible conditions for terrible pay.

Surely, as a capitalist, you can understand the economic advantage of having a poorely paid labour force. It cuts costs and reduces overhead.

It's sound policy.

Paying workers actual living wages bennefits no one (except the workers themselves of course, but who in the "free world" gives a damn about them).


another reason is because socialism has often totally destroyed people's will and integrity to prosper like they do in western countries.

Bullshit.

Eastern Europe may be bad, but it's nowhere near the level of parts of Africa or Latin America which have been captialsit for decades if not longer.

It it isn't about "socialism" it's about colonialism and its bastard child neo-liberalism.

These countries can't stand on their own not because they were ruled from Moscow, but because they are ruled from Washington.


This is because like in the former Soviet Union, people have been made dependant on the State to provide for them in almost all things in life.

Well, you are right in that, corrupt as the USSR was, the people were statistically better off than under Putin's neo-fascism.

The Soviet Union was a 2nd world nation, Russia is a 3rd world one.


To give them self determination takes time and is extremely difficult to set up a system where they can do that. For example, they estimate that it would take Russia 15 years of constant growth of 8% GDP to reach the same living standards as Portugal.

Yah, I think Portugal had something else..... oh yeah.... a colonial empire!

Portugal isn't better off because of because their citizens are more "independent", they're better off because the USSR was a shitty system (not a communist one, mind you, but a verry shitty one).


As an aside - have you ever asked why people in poor countries are flocking to work in these factories? Maybe because it's the highest wage they can earn in their country given their lack of opportunities.

Yes it is. Which is what we must change.

Slaves in 18th century America got the "highest wage they can earn in their country given their lack of opportunities": none.

So we got rid of slavery.

Just because it's the status quo doesn't mean it's right.


It is just people's crusade for a better life for themselves, something the state has failed to adequately provide.

Yes, maybe because the state is....corrupt?!?

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 23 2004, 02:38 AM
"war, coercion and all forms of violence" are essential elements of capitalism.

















Utterly wrong. Otherwise why is it that in western countries capitalism operates peacefully, with people participating of their own accord - trading in markets?

I think you are confusing 'acquisition by force' with 'capitalism'. Capitalism is where private property is respected, and people trade voluntarily to the benefit of themselves. War, coercion and violence are committed by criminals and governments - who don't respect private property but seek to undermine it.


The reason that these people have no viable employment is that these countries are economically dominated by the first world, which forces third world workers into working terrible conditions for terrible pay.

The first world doesn't 'force' these workers for into their conditions. Nike doesn't have armed soldiers cruising the streets and rounding up people to work in their factories. The thing that 'forces' the workers into these conditions is a complete absence of a viable alternative, because collectivists have destroyed the country through war, violence and coercion.


Surely, as a capitalist, you can understand the economic advantage of having a poorely paid labour force. It cuts costs and reduces overhead.

It's sound policy.

Yes, but the capitalist or capitalism wasn't responsible for those conditions.


Paying workers actual living wages bennefits no one (except the workers themselves of course, but who in the "free world" gives a damn about them).

A 'living' wage in a third world country would be a lot less then in a western country.


Eastern Europe may be bad, but it's nowhere near the level of parts of Africa or Latin America which have been captialsit for decades if not longer.

Can you prove to me that Africa and Latin America respect private property rights and people's freedom to trade with each other peacefully?


It it isn't about "socialism" it's about colonialism and its bastard child neo-liberalism.

Forget all the 'isms'. There are only two ways - private property or no private property. Socialism and colonialism are all about undermining private property.


These countries can't stand on their own not because they were ruled from Moscow, but because they are ruled from Washington.

How so? And the US government is a government, not a corporation.


Well, you are right in that, corrupt as the USSR was, the people were statistically better off than under Putin's neo-fascism.

The Soviet Union was a 2nd world nation, Russia is a 3rd world one.

Millions of people dying of disease and starvation? Living standards incredibly low? Widespread oppression and Government genocide? I'd call that 'third world', more then anything else.


Yah, I think Portugal had something else..... oh yeah.... a colonial empire!

Portugal isn't better off because of because their citizens are more "independent", they're better off because the USSR was a shitty system (not a communist one, mind you, but a verry shitty one).

And your communist utopia being a 'voluntary socialism'. Don't make me laugh. You need an extreme police state to enforce socialism.


Slaves in 18th century America got the "highest wage they can earn in their country given their lack of opportunities": none.

So we got rid of slavery.

So get rid of socialism so people can keep the wealth they create.


Yes, maybe because the state is....corrupt?!?

Heartily agree with you there.

[LSD]

Utterly wrong. Otherwise why is it that in western countries capitalism operates peacefully, with people participating of their own accord - trading in markets?

Exported violence is violence.

"War":
I would point to the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, the abortive coup in Venezuala.

"coercion":
Forced labour in US dependent nations and "key allies" (e.g., China), Western support of despotic regimes in the Persian Gulf and central Asia; domestically, US health policy, plant closings...

"violence":
See above, not to mention the support of literally hundereds of murderous and oppressive regimes internationally to maintain international American economic hegemony.


I think you are confusing 'acquisition by force' with 'capitalism'.

Not at all.

Neo-liberal capitalism is prediacated on 'acquisition by force' from weaker nations.


Capitalism is where private property is respected, and people trade voluntarily to the benefit of themselves.

Yes, "private property" is respected, but to what end.

"private property" on any large scale is a societal myth. A religion of sorts invented to keep people in line.

The fact that capitalism "respects" it is not surprising, capitalism itself is a child of that myth.


War, coercion and violence are committed by criminals and governments - who don't respect private property but seek to undermine it.

Untrue.

Nazi Germany respected private property as did Imperial Japan as did Fascist Italy as Rome as did Emporer Qin Shi Huand Di...

Most of the great despots loved private property.



The first world doesn't 'force' these workers for into their conditions. Nike doesn't have armed soldiers cruising the streets and rounding up people to work in their factories.

No, but if they don't work there... they die.

Sounds like coercion to me.


The thing that 'forces' the workers into these conditions is a complete absence of a viable alternative, because collectivists have destroyed the country through war, violence and coercion.

Yes those damn "collectivists" in central Africa...

oh wait.... there aren't any.

There never were.

The argument that the failure of capitalism is because "communism fucked it up so bad it couldn't be fixed" is really a terrible argument.


Yes, but the capitalist or capitalism wasn't responsible for those conditions.

In some cases, yes, in some cases, no

It is responsible for maintaining those conditions.


A 'living' wage in a third world country would be a lot less then in a western country.

True, but they aren't receiving either one.


Can you prove to me that Africa and Latin America respect private property rights and people's freedom to trade with each other peacefully?

Forget all the 'isms'. There are only two ways - private property or no private property. Socialism and colonialism are all about undermining private property.

Colonialism does not undermine "private property", it expands it.

Look. The world cannot live like the average American. It is simply impossible. Therefore, enforcing American capitalism across the world has the very simple intent of maintaining American economic hegemony, pure and simple.

Now if you're American, it's great for you, even if you're American proletariat you're still better than many. It's an old trick, keep the local lower classes relatively happy, that way they don't rebel. But what you're missing is that while your "private property" is secure, you still have no guaranteed health insurance, no guaranteed food, no guaranteed shelter. As far as society is concerned you can die cold in the street.

...but as long as your "private property" is secure...

In other words, of what good is protected property rights if you don't have any property to protect.


Meanwhile, if you're not American, worse, if you're not Western, you are just plain screwed. Your "property rights" cannot be defended, even under your vaunted capitalism. For if everyone was free, capitalism would collapse.

Basically speaking, "private property" forces inequality, and once people realize that the "American dream" is just that, rebellion is inevitable.


How so? And the US government is a government, not a corporation.

Point taken.
They are being ruled by Washington/Delaware.

Happy?


Millions of people dying of disease and starvation? Living standards incredibly low? Widespread oppression and Government genocide? I'd call that 'third world', more then anything else.

I don't make the standard. The UN does.

The USSR was classified as second world, the Republic of Russia as third.

Look it up.


And your communist utopia being a 'voluntary socialism'. Don't make me laugh. You need an extreme police state to enforce socialism.

Absolutely untrue.

I could get into the exact system I envision, but it is quite long and I have done it a few times already, look it up on the forum.


So get rid of socialism so people can keep the wealth they create.

..sigh....

created wealth....


the good old capitalist myth of "wealth creation."
It's good to know some things never die...

[DaCuBaN]

The USSR was classified as third world, the Republic of Russia as 2nd.


*cough*

USSR 2nd, Russia 3rd. Couldn't have you pulling up a little error now, could we ;)

[LSD]

Whooops... :P :P :P

um... yes that would be the USSR was SECOND, Russia is THIRD.

Going back and fixing....DONE

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:28 PM
*The labour theory of bullshit - every time a commie mentions 'wage slave', 'product of labour', they are referring to this 200 year old redundant economic theory that Marx himself couldn't totally rationalise because of the 'transformation problem'.
As I recall; we've discussed this before and you ended up looking like a complete fool and gave up in your attempt to "debunk the labour theory of value."

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 06:08 PM
As I recall; we've discussed this before and you ended up looking like a complete fool and gave up in your attempt to "debunk the labour theory of value."
Whether he did or did not, and I quite frankly don't know why I, or Nyder, should believe your assessment of this alleged "victory", doesn't imply that it is not obsolete. It has been debunked ages ago, whether you agree or not.



The fact that capitalism "respects" it is not surprising, capitalism itself is a child of that myth.

Hmm, I always thought that capitalism was an invention of some lunatic historian/economist. Even before Marx stealing was not generally accepted.



Most of the great despots loved private property

Well, especially their own property, not the property of my grandfather or yours.


For if everyone was free, capitalism would collapse.

Any basis for such a claim?


US

The same old empty slogans. Discredit capitalism by pointing at the US government and discarding all critique on your isms with "but that wasn't what was written in the theorybooks so therefor it cannot be discredited".

[Osman Ghazi]

Hmm, I always thought that capitalism was an invention of some lunatic historian/economist.

Standard idealist . Do you honestly believe that one person could come up with a system to govern 6 billion people? Capitalism was the invention of a plethora of traders and merchants, who realized that they could become richer by employing others and extracting surplus profit.


Well, especially their own property, not the property of my grandfather or yours.


And what, you think Bill Gates gives a shit about it either?


The same old empty slogans. Discredit capitalism by pointing at the US government and discarding all critique on your isms with "but that wasn't what was written in the theorybooks so therefor it cannot be discredited".

:lol: I love when people quote things that no one actually said. Usually we use these handy little buggers ' ' to indicate that.

[LSD]

Even before Marx stealing was not generally accepted.

Yes, and before the 19th century, slavery was "generally accepted."

No one's denying that "private property rights" go back millenia... so does slavery.

Longevity does not indicate validity.


Well, especially their own property, not the property of my grandfather or yours.

Not true!
Mussolini himself called fascism "corporatism". He loved the "private property" of many rich individuals who were not himself.

As did Hitler, as did Hirohito, as did Qin Shi Huang Di...

For most of history, tryants have maintained and strictly enforced "private property" because they needed the support of the rich aristocrats who had a lot of it.


Any basis for such a claim?

Capitalism nescessitates inequality, it's a fundamental part of it. The only reason that it hasn't collapsed in the west is that this inequality can be exploited to maintain that paradigm. If the third world were to be on an equal footing and all of the current enslaved and oppresed and dominated workers in the third world were actually able to think about something other than not being beaten by the American (albeit subcontracted of course) task-master, they will discover that capitalism can never help them.

America has the upper field in this race, and they will never give it up. This advantage is all that is stopping their own workers from revolting.



US

I'm sorry, I don't recall making that particular statement.

I think there's a word for deliberately misquoting someone to falcify their position......oh wait, lying.


The same old empty slogans. Discredit capitalism by pointing at the US government

You're not seriously denying that US capitalism is destroying the third world...are you?

"We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." -George Kennan.


and discarding all critique on your isms with "but that wasn't what was written in the theorybooks so therefor it cannot be discredited".

well...that's exactly what capitalist apologetics do:
But...but...Latin America isn't really capitalist, see! see! it's fake capitalism, they don't really do what Smith and Mises said to do so it's..it's not fair to critisize them!!!!

[Individual]

Because communism is not based on industry.

Because communism advocates the use of marijuana.

Because communism does not allow for paper.

Because communism does not want to produce books using trees.

Because communism does not like hamburgers.

Because communism does not use fossil fuels in their industry.

Because communism allows for me to designate my living space.

Because communism will not make me pay my government taxes.

Because communism gives me personal freedom to do anything I please.

Because communism will not take away my families heritage; the old diner.

Because communism will let me go anywhere I please.

Why, because communism is the greatest dude; righteous.

[Nyder]

Because every single country that has gone down the communist path has ended up with dictatorship, extreme poverty and political oppression.

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

pwn3d

[Nyder]

Because every single country that has gone down the communist path has ended up with dictatorship, extreme poverty and political oppression.

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

pwn3d

[Nyder]

Because every single country that has gone down the communist path has ended up with dictatorship, extreme poverty and political oppression.

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

pwn3d

[LSD]

ecause every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

Yes... Argentina's doing soooo well.

[LSD]

ecause every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

Yes... Argentina's doing soooo well.

[LSD]

ecause every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

Yes... Argentina's doing soooo well.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 24 2004, 12:04 AM

Yes... Argentina's doing soooo well.
Don't be an idiot. Obviously you are completely ignorant about the situation in Argentina to make such a statement.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 24 2004, 12:04 AM

Yes... Argentina's doing soooo well.
Don't be an idiot. Obviously you are completely ignorant about the situation in Argentina to make such a statement.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 24 2004, 12:04 AM

Yes... Argentina's doing soooo well.
Don't be an idiot. Obviously you are completely ignorant about the situation in Argentina to make such a statement.

[LSD]

Don't be an idiot.

Brilliant retort.


Obviously you are completely ignorant about the situation in Argentina to make such a statement.

Your bad grammer notwithstanding, clearly it is you who is ignorant and is expressing that ignorance through desperate ad hominems.

Attack the idea, not the man.

[LSD]

Don't be an idiot.

Brilliant retort.


Obviously you are completely ignorant about the situation in Argentina to make such a statement.

Your bad grammer notwithstanding, clearly it is you who is ignorant and is expressing that ignorance through desperate ad hominems.

Attack the idea, not the man.

[LSD]

Don't be an idiot.

Brilliant retort.


Obviously you are completely ignorant about the situation in Argentina to make such a statement.

Your bad grammer notwithstanding, clearly it is you who is ignorant and is expressing that ignorance through desperate ad hominems.

Attack the idea, not the man.

[LSD]

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

Yes... Argentina's doing soooo well.

Don't be an idiot. Obviously you are completely ignorant about the situation in Argentina to make such a statement.

You're going to have to explain to me how Argentina does not fit exactly the specification you outlined above. "men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions)", they have been for quite some time.

But... if you don't like Argentina, how about Haiti?
How about the Dominican Republic?
How about Jamaica?
How about Zimbabwe?
How about the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
How about the Popular and Democratic Republic of the Sudan?

Capitalism does not lead to prosperity in the third world. If the past 25 years have taught us anything, it's that/

[LSD]

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

Yes... Argentina's doing soooo well.

Don't be an idiot. Obviously you are completely ignorant about the situation in Argentina to make such a statement.

You're going to have to explain to me how Argentina does not fit exactly the specification you outlined above. "men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions)", they have been for quite some time.

But... if you don't like Argentina, how about Haiti?
How about the Dominican Republic?
How about Jamaica?
How about Zimbabwe?
How about the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
How about the Popular and Democratic Republic of the Sudan?

Capitalism does not lead to prosperity in the third world. If the past 25 years have taught us anything, it's that/

[LSD]

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

Yes... Argentina's doing soooo well.

Don't be an idiot. Obviously you are completely ignorant about the situation in Argentina to make such a statement.

You're going to have to explain to me how Argentina does not fit exactly the specification you outlined above. "men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions)", they have been for quite some time.

But... if you don't like Argentina, how about Haiti?
How about the Dominican Republic?
How about Jamaica?
How about Zimbabwe?
How about the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
How about the Popular and Democratic Republic of the Sudan?

Capitalism does not lead to prosperity in the third world. If the past 25 years have taught us anything, it's that/

[Nyder]

Capitalism doesn't lead to immediate prosperity in the third world. It takes time, but if the high growth rates for these countries is any indication, they should eventually catch up to western countries and even surpass them. Of course it could take decades - because things like collectivism and war can do serious long term damage to a country's economy.

As an aside, do you agree with the following quote, by a famous leftist?:-

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

[Nyder]

Capitalism doesn't lead to immediate prosperity in the third world. It takes time, but if the high growth rates for these countries is any indication, they should eventually catch up to western countries and even surpass them. Of course it could take decades - because things like collectivism and war can do serious long term damage to a country's economy.

As an aside, do you agree with the following quote, by a famous leftist?:-

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

[Nyder]

Capitalism doesn't lead to immediate prosperity in the third world. It takes time, but if the high growth rates for these countries is any indication, they should eventually catch up to western countries and even surpass them. Of course it could take decades - because things like collectivism and war can do serious long term damage to a country's economy.

As an aside, do you agree with the following quote, by a famous leftist?:-

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

[LSD]

Capitalism doesn't lead to immediate prosperity in the third world. It takes time, but if the high growth rates for these countries is any indication, they should eventually catch up to western countries and even surpass them. Of course it could take decades - because things like collectivism and war can do serious long term damage to a country's economy.



Typical Conversation:
So... how long does it take... South America has been capitalist for like forever, dude, and they're like totally fucked up, man..
SHUT UP! DON'T CHALLENGE THE PARADIGM!!


As an aside, do you agree with the following quote, by a famous leftist?:-

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Famous leftest my ass.

"Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland, über Alles, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people -- that man is a Socialist."

Hitler actually only opposed what he called "Jewish capitalism" but liked so-called "Christian Capitalism."

[LSD]

Capitalism doesn't lead to immediate prosperity in the third world. It takes time, but if the high growth rates for these countries is any indication, they should eventually catch up to western countries and even surpass them. Of course it could take decades - because things like collectivism and war can do serious long term damage to a country's economy.



Typical Conversation:
So... how long does it take... South America has been capitalist for like forever, dude, and they're like totally fucked up, man..
SHUT UP! DON'T CHALLENGE THE PARADIGM!!


As an aside, do you agree with the following quote, by a famous leftist?:-

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Famous leftest my ass.

"Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland, über Alles, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people -- that man is a Socialist."

Hitler actually only opposed what he called "Jewish capitalism" but liked so-called "Christian Capitalism."

[LSD]

Capitalism doesn't lead to immediate prosperity in the third world. It takes time, but if the high growth rates for these countries is any indication, they should eventually catch up to western countries and even surpass them. Of course it could take decades - because things like collectivism and war can do serious long term damage to a country's economy.



Typical Conversation:
So... how long does it take... South America has been capitalist for like forever, dude, and they're like totally fucked up, man..
SHUT UP! DON'T CHALLENGE THE PARADIGM!!


As an aside, do you agree with the following quote, by a famous leftist?:-

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Famous leftest my ass.

"Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland, über Alles, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people -- that man is a Socialist."

Hitler actually only opposed what he called "Jewish capitalism" but liked so-called "Christian Capitalism."

[Nyder]

Bullshit - he nationalised all businesses except for the ones who would produce for the 'good' of the state. I've never heard Hitler exclaim the virtues of free markets and private property. He is exactly like an old school leftist.

[Nyder]

Bullshit - he nationalised all businesses except for the ones who would produce for the 'good' of the state. I've never heard Hitler exclaim the virtues of free markets and private property. He is exactly like an old school leftist.

[Nyder]

Bullshit - he nationalised all businesses except for the ones who would produce for the 'good' of the state. I've never heard Hitler exclaim the virtues of free markets and private property. He is exactly like an old school leftist.

[LSD]

Bullshit - he nationalised all businesses except for the ones who would produce for the 'good' of the state. I've never heard Hitler exclaim the virtues of free markets and private property. He is exactly like an old school leftist.

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21887

[LSD]

Bullshit - he nationalised all businesses except for the ones who would produce for the 'good' of the state. I've never heard Hitler exclaim the virtues of free markets and private property. He is exactly like an old school leftist.

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21887

[LSD]

Bullshit - he nationalised all businesses except for the ones who would produce for the 'good' of the state. I've never heard Hitler exclaim the virtues of free markets and private property. He is exactly like an old school leftist.

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21887

[LSD]

oh, about the link, that argument has just been made so many times I figured it was easier if you just saw one of the classic ones...

[LSD]

oh, about the link, that argument has just been made so many times I figured it was easier if you just saw one of the classic ones...

[LSD]

oh, about the link, that argument has just been made so many times I figured it was easier if you just saw one of the classic ones...

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 08:47 PM
Whether he did or did not, and I quite frankly don't know why I, or Nyder, should believe your assessment of this alleged "victory", doesn't imply that it is not obsolete. It has been debunked ages ago, whether you agree or not.
I'd like to see this debunking, everyone I've read so far has shown a complete lack of understanding of the labour theory of value, usually it's pretty obvious that the author has never even read Das Kapital. The most informed refutation I've read was Steve Keen's but even he misinterpreted Marx's theory.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 08:47 PM
Whether he did or did not, and I quite frankly don't know why I, or Nyder, should believe your assessment of this alleged "victory", doesn't imply that it is not obsolete. It has been debunked ages ago, whether you agree or not.
I'd like to see this debunking, everyone I've read so far has shown a complete lack of understanding of the labour theory of value, usually it's pretty obvious that the author has never even read Das Kapital. The most informed refutation I've read was Steve Keen's but even he misinterpreted Marx's theory.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 08:47 PM
Whether he did or did not, and I quite frankly don't know why I, or Nyder, should believe your assessment of this alleged "victory", doesn't imply that it is not obsolete. It has been debunked ages ago, whether you agree or not.
I'd like to see this debunking, everyone I've read so far has shown a complete lack of understanding of the labour theory of value, usually it's pretty obvious that the author has never even read Das Kapital. The most informed refutation I've read was Steve Keen's but even he misinterpreted Marx's theory.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:55 PM
Because every single country that has gone down the communist path has ended up with dictatorship, extreme poverty and political oppression.

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

pwn3d
Very well, let's asses Russia's developement since the introduction of the free market.

Between 1989 and 1998 Russia's GDP fell 54%

Since 1989 poverty in Russia has increased by over 1000%

60% of the Russian economy (what's left of it) is controlled by 27 (yes, that is meant to say twenty-seven) people.

But what about the traffic jams full of mercedes in Moscow? you ask, 60% of the wealth in Russia in concentrated into that one city. It seems Moscow is a showpiece used by Russian capitalism to impress the outside world.

And just look at the political freedoms they've gained in exchange for much worse standards of living;

All media channels are state propaganda tools, some were independent but they were closed for criticising Vladimir Putin.

Anyone running for election to the state Duma must be approved by Vladamir Putin.

"pwn3d"

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:55 PM
Because every single country that has gone down the communist path has ended up with dictatorship, extreme poverty and political oppression.

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

pwn3d
Very well, let's asses Russia's developement since the introduction of the free market.

Between 1989 and 1998 Russia's GDP fell 54%

Since 1989 poverty in Russia has increased by over 1000%

60% of the Russian economy (what's left of it) is controlled by 27 (yes, that is meant to say twenty-seven) people.

But what about the traffic jams full of mercedes in Moscow? you ask, 60% of the wealth in Russia in concentrated into that one city. It seems Moscow is a showpiece used by Russian capitalism to impress the outside world.

And just look at the political freedoms they've gained in exchange for much worse standards of living;

All media channels are state propaganda tools, some were independent but they were closed for criticising Vladimir Putin.

Anyone running for election to the state Duma must be approved by Vladamir Putin.

"pwn3d"

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:55 PM
Because every single country that has gone down the communist path has ended up with dictatorship, extreme poverty and political oppression.

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

pwn3d
Very well, let's asses Russia's developement since the introduction of the free market.

Between 1989 and 1998 Russia's GDP fell 54%

Since 1989 poverty in Russia has increased by over 1000%

60% of the Russian economy (what's left of it) is controlled by 27 (yes, that is meant to say twenty-seven) people.

But what about the traffic jams full of mercedes in Moscow? you ask, 60% of the wealth in Russia in concentrated into that one city. It seems Moscow is a showpiece used by Russian capitalism to impress the outside world.

And just look at the political freedoms they've gained in exchange for much worse standards of living;

All media channels are state propaganda tools, some were independent but they were closed for criticising Vladimir Putin.

Anyone running for election to the state Duma must be approved by Vladamir Putin.

"pwn3d"

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:20 AM
I'd like to see this debunking, everyone I've read so far has shown a complete lack of understanding of the labour theory of value, usually it's pretty obvious that the author has never even read Das Kapital. The most informed refutation I've read was Steve Keen's but even he misinterpreted Marx's theory.
You could begin by reading Carl Menger or Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk or Jevons. It's pretty obvious that Marx wasn't the start and end of economic thinking. If the LTV would be correct, how come no one uses it in modern economics?

And please, no moronic answer such as "they didn't understand it" or "they are all bourgeois economists and therefor blinded".

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:20 AM
I'd like to see this debunking, everyone I've read so far has shown a complete lack of understanding of the labour theory of value, usually it's pretty obvious that the author has never even read Das Kapital. The most informed refutation I've read was Steve Keen's but even he misinterpreted Marx's theory.
You could begin by reading Carl Menger or Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk or Jevons. It's pretty obvious that Marx wasn't the start and end of economic thinking. If the LTV would be correct, how come no one uses it in modern economics?

And please, no moronic answer such as "they didn't understand it" or "they are all bourgeois economists and therefor blinded".

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:20 AM
I'd like to see this debunking, everyone I've read so far has shown a complete lack of understanding of the labour theory of value, usually it's pretty obvious that the author has never even read Das Kapital. The most informed refutation I've read was Steve Keen's but even he misinterpreted Marx's theory.
You could begin by reading Carl Menger or Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk or Jevons. It's pretty obvious that Marx wasn't the start and end of economic thinking. If the LTV would be correct, how come no one uses it in modern economics?

And please, no moronic answer such as "they didn't understand it" or "they are all bourgeois economists and therefor blinded".

[Misodoctakleidist]

If the LTV would be correct, how come no one uses it in modern economics?

Becuase they would have to conclude that capitalism is exploitive which isn't a view which gets you very far.

[Misodoctakleidist]

If the LTV would be correct, how come no one uses it in modern economics?

Becuase they would have to conclude that capitalism is exploitive which isn't a view which gets you very far.

[Misodoctakleidist]

If the LTV would be correct, how come no one uses it in modern economics?

Becuase they would have to conclude that capitalism is exploitive which isn't a view which gets you very far.

[Xvall]

I've never heard Hitler exclaim the virtues of free markets and private property.

"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

[Xvall]

I've never heard Hitler exclaim the virtues of free markets and private property.

"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

[Xvall]

I've never heard Hitler exclaim the virtues of free markets and private property.

"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

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 24 2004, 07:57 PM

"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
Well he is a politician after all. He says one thing and does another.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 24 2004, 07:57 PM

"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
Well he is a politician after all. He says one thing and does another.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 24 2004, 07:57 PM

"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
Well he is a politician after all. He says one thing and does another.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:33 AM
Very well, let's asses Russia's developement since the introduction of the free market.

Between 1989 and 1998 Russia's GDP fell 54%

Since 1989 poverty in Russia has increased by over 1000%

60% of the Russian economy (what's left of it) is controlled by 27 (yes, that is meant to say twenty-seven) people.

But what about the traffic jams full of mercedes in Moscow? you ask, 60% of the wealth in Russia in concentrated into that one city. It seems Moscow is a showpiece used by Russian capitalism to impress the outside world.

And just look at the political freedoms they've gained in exchange for much worse standards of living;

All media channels are state propaganda tools, some were independent but they were closed for criticising Vladimir Putin.

Anyone running for election to the state Duma must be approved by Vladamir Putin.

"pwn3d"
And this is all 'capitalism's' fault? :rolleyes:

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:33 AM
Very well, let's asses Russia's developement since the introduction of the free market.

Between 1989 and 1998 Russia's GDP fell 54%

Since 1989 poverty in Russia has increased by over 1000%

60% of the Russian economy (what's left of it) is controlled by 27 (yes, that is meant to say twenty-seven) people.

But what about the traffic jams full of mercedes in Moscow? you ask, 60% of the wealth in Russia in concentrated into that one city. It seems Moscow is a showpiece used by Russian capitalism to impress the outside world.

And just look at the political freedoms they've gained in exchange for much worse standards of living;

All media channels are state propaganda tools, some were independent but they were closed for criticising Vladimir Putin.

Anyone running for election to the state Duma must be approved by Vladamir Putin.

"pwn3d"
And this is all 'capitalism's' fault? :rolleyes:

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:33 AM
Very well, let's asses Russia's developement since the introduction of the free market.

Between 1989 and 1998 Russia's GDP fell 54%

Since 1989 poverty in Russia has increased by over 1000%

60% of the Russian economy (what's left of it) is controlled by 27 (yes, that is meant to say twenty-seven) people.

But what about the traffic jams full of mercedes in Moscow? you ask, 60% of the wealth in Russia in concentrated into that one city. It seems Moscow is a showpiece used by Russian capitalism to impress the outside world.

And just look at the political freedoms they've gained in exchange for much worse standards of living;

All media channels are state propaganda tools, some were independent but they were closed for criticising Vladimir Putin.

Anyone running for election to the state Duma must be approved by Vladamir Putin.

"pwn3d"
And this is all 'capitalism's' fault? :rolleyes:

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:20 AM
I'd like to see this debunking, everyone I've read so far has shown a complete lack of understanding of the labour theory of value, usually it's pretty obvious that the author has never even read Das Kapital. The most informed refutation I've read was Steve Keen's but even he misinterpreted Marx's theory.
It doesn't need to be debunked by some egghead to see that it's completely false. The theory defies common sense. In fact it has absolutely no correlation in reality. It has about as much credibility as Santa Claus or the Boogeyman.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:20 AM
I'd like to see this debunking, everyone I've read so far has shown a complete lack of understanding of the labour theory of value, usually it's pretty obvious that the author has never even read Das Kapital. The most informed refutation I've read was Steve Keen's but even he misinterpreted Marx's theory.
It doesn't need to be debunked by some egghead to see that it's completely false. The theory defies common sense. In fact it has absolutely no correlation in reality. It has about as much credibility as Santa Claus or the Boogeyman.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:20 AM
I'd like to see this debunking, everyone I've read so far has shown a complete lack of understanding of the labour theory of value, usually it's pretty obvious that the author has never even read Das Kapital. The most informed refutation I've read was Steve Keen's but even he misinterpreted Marx's theory.
It doesn't need to be debunked by some egghead to see that it's completely false. The theory defies common sense. In fact it has absolutely no correlation in reality. It has about as much credibility as Santa Claus or the Boogeyman.

[LSD]

Well he is a politician after all. He says one thing and does another.

um... you brought him into this discussion:


As an aside, do you agree with the following quote, by a famous leftist?:-

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

So when he makes socialist comments he's a leftist, when he makes capitalist ones... he's a politician?

Wow, smell the bullshit on that argument.


And this is all 'capitalism's' fault?

The economic part, yes.

Remember what you said:

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

Since Russia now meets those standards (and didn't 15 years ago) it's a good example on which to test your hypthesis.

It's your argument, not mine.

[LSD]

Well he is a politician after all. He says one thing and does another.

um... you brought him into this discussion:


As an aside, do you agree with the following quote, by a famous leftist?:-

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

So when he makes socialist comments he's a leftist, when he makes capitalist ones... he's a politician?

Wow, smell the bullshit on that argument.


And this is all 'capitalism's' fault?

The economic part, yes.

Remember what you said:

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

Since Russia now meets those standards (and didn't 15 years ago) it's a good example on which to test your hypthesis.

It's your argument, not mine.

[LSD]

Well he is a politician after all. He says one thing and does another.

um... you brought him into this discussion:


As an aside, do you agree with the following quote, by a famous leftist?:-

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

So when he makes socialist comments he's a leftist, when he makes capitalist ones... he's a politician?

Wow, smell the bullshit on that argument.


And this is all 'capitalism's' fault?

The economic part, yes.

Remember what you said:

Because every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty.

Since Russia now meets those standards (and didn't 15 years ago) it's a good example on which to test your hypthesis.

It's your argument, not mine.

[Nyder]

Yeah, sure, commie - Russia is a great example of laissez faire capitalism. And pigs fly too.

Russia has been wrecked from decades of collectivism - destroying its resources, its environment and its people. They are still a heavily controlled economy, and the country has been wrecked by poverty and war - brought on by collectivism.

[Nyder]

Yeah, sure, commie - Russia is a great example of laissez faire capitalism. And pigs fly too.

Russia has been wrecked from decades of collectivism - destroying its resources, its environment and its people. They are still a heavily controlled economy, and the country has been wrecked by poverty and war - brought on by collectivism.

[Nyder]

Yeah, sure, commie - Russia is a great example of laissez faire capitalism. And pigs fly too.

Russia has been wrecked from decades of collectivism - destroying its resources, its environment and its people. They are still a heavily controlled economy, and the country has been wrecked by poverty and war - brought on by collectivism.

[LSD]

Yeah, sure, commie - Russia is a great example of laissez faire capitalism. And pigs fly too.

Hmm... "laizes faire capitalism"...

So you don't credit the advances the US made under state-capitalism and protectionism as products of capitalism?

Careful now, you don't want to discount the only real capitalist successses of the first hundred years.

How about Keynesian capitalism? Could I chock the post-WWII period as successes of socialism? I mean if you don't want them in the capitalist pile....



Russia has been wrecked from decades of collectivism - destroying its resources, its environment and its people. They are still a heavily controlled economy, and the country has been wrecked by poverty and war - brought on by collectivism.

So... how long will it take?

Clearly we need to ammend "every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty." to "every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets in laizez faire neo-liberal enviroments (albeit even with many restrictions) will probably become prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty eventually."

That doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it?

[LSD]

Yeah, sure, commie - Russia is a great example of laissez faire capitalism. And pigs fly too.

Hmm... "laizes faire capitalism"...

So you don't credit the advances the US made under state-capitalism and protectionism as products of capitalism?

Careful now, you don't want to discount the only real capitalist successses of the first hundred years.

How about Keynesian capitalism? Could I chock the post-WWII period as successes of socialism? I mean if you don't want them in the capitalist pile....



Russia has been wrecked from decades of collectivism - destroying its resources, its environment and its people. They are still a heavily controlled economy, and the country has been wrecked by poverty and war - brought on by collectivism.

So... how long will it take?

Clearly we need to ammend "every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty." to "every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets in laizez faire neo-liberal enviroments (albeit even with many restrictions) will probably become prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty eventually."

That doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it?

[LSD]

Yeah, sure, commie - Russia is a great example of laissez faire capitalism. And pigs fly too.

Hmm... "laizes faire capitalism"...

So you don't credit the advances the US made under state-capitalism and protectionism as products of capitalism?

Careful now, you don't want to discount the only real capitalist successses of the first hundred years.

How about Keynesian capitalism? Could I chock the post-WWII period as successes of socialism? I mean if you don't want them in the capitalist pile....



Russia has been wrecked from decades of collectivism - destroying its resources, its environment and its people. They are still a heavily controlled economy, and the country has been wrecked by poverty and war - brought on by collectivism.

So... how long will it take?

Clearly we need to ammend "every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets (albeit even with many restrictions) has been prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty." to "every country where men are free to own property and trade it in markets in laizez faire neo-liberal enviroments (albeit even with many restrictions) will probably become prosperous, with high living standards for all and very low rates of poverty eventually."

That doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it?

[ComradeRed]

It doesn't need to be debunked by some egghead to see that it's completely false. The theory defies common sense. In fact it has absolutely no correlation in reality. It has about as much credibility as Santa Claus or the Boogeyman. Did you even read Das Kapital before you burned it?

[ComradeRed]

It doesn't need to be debunked by some egghead to see that it's completely false. The theory defies common sense. In fact it has absolutely no correlation in reality. It has about as much credibility as Santa Claus or the Boogeyman. Did you even read Das Kapital before you burned it?

[ComradeRed]

It doesn't need to be debunked by some egghead to see that it's completely false. The theory defies common sense. In fact it has absolutely no correlation in reality. It has about as much credibility as Santa Claus or the Boogeyman. Did you even read Das Kapital before you burned it?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 06:12 PM

Becuase they would have to conclude that capitalism is exploitive which isn't a view which gets you very far.

Absolute nonsense. People assessed the LTV and concluded that it wasn't the holy grail. It gave more questions than answers. Simple as that. No where was it a communism vs capitalism battle.

so, maybe you should go to the library and do some catching up. There has been more written on economics after the 19th century.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 06:12 PM

Becuase they would have to conclude that capitalism is exploitive which isn't a view which gets you very far.

Absolute nonsense. People assessed the LTV and concluded that it wasn't the holy grail. It gave more questions than answers. Simple as that. No where was it a communism vs capitalism battle.

so, maybe you should go to the library and do some catching up. There has been more written on economics after the 19th century.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 06:12 PM

Becuase they would have to conclude that capitalism is exploitive which isn't a view which gets you very far.

Absolute nonsense. People assessed the LTV and concluded that it wasn't the holy grail. It gave more questions than answers. Simple as that. No where was it a communism vs capitalism battle.

so, maybe you should go to the library and do some catching up. There has been more written on economics after the 19th century.

[ComradeRed]

Absolute nonsense. People assessed the LTV and concluded that it wasn't the holy grail. It gave more questions than answers. Simple as that. No where was it a communism vs capitalism battle.

so, maybe you should go to the library and do some catching up. There has been more written on economics after the 19th century. You wouldn't happen to know any, would you?

[ComradeRed]

Absolute nonsense. People assessed the LTV and concluded that it wasn't the holy grail. It gave more questions than answers. Simple as that. No where was it a communism vs capitalism battle.

so, maybe you should go to the library and do some catching up. There has been more written on economics after the 19th century. You wouldn't happen to know any, would you?

[ComradeRed]

Absolute nonsense. People assessed the LTV and concluded that it wasn't the holy grail. It gave more questions than answers. Simple as that. No where was it a communism vs capitalism battle.

so, maybe you should go to the library and do some catching up. There has been more written on economics after the 19th century. You wouldn't happen to know any, would you?

[komon]

it is good in illusions, because you want to believe in it(and it knows it),it needs you like illusion does,other wise it will not work.......it is up to you.