Another Anti-Communist Screed

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I suppose you're all assuming that everyone will equally be interested in
their self-government in this communist society? Or for that matter, the
success of that society? You'll always have those that are only half-interested
or not interested at all in their self-government, so how do you represent
their interests without allowing those who are fully interested to simply
just represent their own? I think I would agree with Oscar Wilde when he
said that such a government would "take too many evenings." Self-government vis direct democracy is simply too time consuming and would eventually degenerate to an endless series of meetings and require enormous amounts oftime and self-discipline.

Unless you made everyone in this society equal in ability, it will ultimately fail or degenerate into master-slave relations. I'm not the one being idealistic, communists are in thinking that people will want to give up their property for the greater good of society.

It's an overly narrow vision of human nature. Moreover, what makes you so sure everyone will want to think "philosophically?" John Stuart Mill once wrote that there are people who will always choose the pleasures of the pig over higher pleasures. Sorry to come across as an elitist, but I honestly don't think that everyone will want to indulge in the higher pleasures of life. People of the working class are precisely what they are because they aren't innovators or philosophers. Those who are born into a poor family but have talent, have the ability and freedom to move up in a capitalist society like ours and make something of themselves and their posterity.

It sounds cruel, but if everyone was equally talented, I suppose government wouldn't be needed anymore anyway.

As far as what I mean by "capitalism" and "communism" is simply an
argument over semantics. I specifically said capitalism, as in the economic
system of capitalism, which we have in the world today. I wasn't talking of the
ideal libertarian paradise, PURE capitalism, where everything is essentially
governed by the laws of the jungle. When I say communism, I mean Marx's idea
of communism, I don't think you can argue our form of democracy is a form of
communism, at least as Marx envisioned it.

[Funky Monk]

Just a couple of issues with that. Yes, on one level it does raise some fears

but a) there is a train of though that modern attitudes: apathy greed etc are a product of society and environment and under a "better" society these things could be conditioned out of the populous.

Secondly i think you are a bit optomistic when suggesting that someone poor and talented would always be able to succeed. The fact is that many people are rarely given a chance, they lack education or the opportunity to take jobs which will suit their expertise. Whereas the rich often manage to take great positions (which naturally make them even more rich) despite lacking talent. Bush is a prime example of a man who was given an excellent and expensive education, did badly, was given an excellent career, wasn't hugely succesful and now "runs" the most powerful nation on Earth.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Sixty views and only one reply? Gee, I wonder why?

[sickdiscobiscuit]

what the hell are you for a republic?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 25 2004, 12:19 PM
Sixty views and only one reply? Gee, I wonder why?
Same dead horse, same dim writer.

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 24 2004, 04:39 PM
I suppose you're all assuming that everyone will equally be interested in
their self-government in this communist society? Or for that matter, the
success of that society? You'll always have those that are only half-interested
or not interested at all in their self-government, so how do you represent
their interests without allowing those who are fully interested to simply
just represent their own? I think I would agree with Oscar Wilde when he
said that such a government would "take too many evenings." Self-government vis direct democracy is simply too time consuming and would eventually degenerate to an endless series of meetings and require enormous amounts oftime and self-discipline.

Unless you made everyone in this society equal in ability, it will ultimately fail or degenerate into master-slave relations. I'm not the one being idealistic, communists are in thinking that people will want to give up their property for the greater good of society.

It's an overly narrow vision of human nature. Moreover, what makes you so sure everyone will want to think "philosophically?" John Stuart Mill once wrote that there are people who will always choose the pleasures of the pig over higher pleasures. Sorry to come across as an elitist, but I honestly don't think that everyone will want to indulge in the higher pleasures of life. People of the working class are precisely what they are because they aren't innovators or philosophers. Those who are born into a poor family but have talent, have the ability and freedom to move up in a capitalist society like ours and make something of themselves and their posterity.

It sounds cruel, but if everyone was equally talented, I suppose government wouldn't be needed anymore anyway.

As far as what I mean by "capitalism" and "communism" is simply an
argument over semantics. I specifically said capitalism, as in the economic
system of capitalism, which we have in the world today. I wasn't talking of the
ideal libertarian paradise, PURE capitalism, where everything is essentially
governed by the laws of the jungle. When I say communism, I mean Marx's idea
of communism, I don't think you can argue our form of democracy is a form of
communism, at least as Marx envisioned it.
don' t wory i try this one too
com cap same fight
but the result was nul....
almost, they are trying to ban me,now....
but yeah i guess they don't care....... do you?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
I think I would agree with Oscar Wilde when he said that such a government would "take too many evenings." Self-government vis direct democracy is simply too time consuming and would eventually degenerate to an endless series of meetings and require enormous amounts of time and self-discipline.

Wilde, as you well know, was a "party animal"...in fact it's quite surprising that he ever found time to actually write anything at all.

You may also wish to consider the effects of a drastically shortened work-week (the amount of completely unnecessary labor that takes place in late capitalism is staggering!).

Finally, you might also want to look into an innovation that might help to deal with the problem you raise: Demarchy (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083335872&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&).


Unless you made everyone in this society equal in ability, it will ultimately fail or degenerate into master-slave relations.

I trust you understand the full import of what you have just written.

Since people are unequal in ability, all human societies must be characterized by "master-slave relations".

I don't know if you're borrowing from Hegel or Nietzsche here -- since both have become newly fashionable in the American Empire.

But even if you thought this hypothesis up "on your own", it doesn't really matter; you have admitted that capitalism itself is based on "master-slave relations".

You are making progress. :D


Communists are [idealist] in thinking that people will want to give up their property for the greater good of society.

The overwhelming majority of people have no property to "give up". But we communists do not "expect" that those who do will be "willing"...quite the contrary.

The history of capitalism is, in part, a history of massacres of those who challenged the property rights of capital.

That's why only a revolution will change matters.


John Stuart Mill once wrote that there are people who will always choose the pleasures of the pig over higher pleasures.

Oink! :lol:

The question is one of proportion, is it not? A small minority of such folks is a nuisance; a large majority of such folks would...present difficulties.

The Marxist view is that healthy humans enjoy productive labor...what they do not enjoy is the lash of compulsion.

Only in the imagination of capitalist ideologues would the working class become "lotus eaters" if they were not constantly threatened with destitution or starvation.


People of the working class are precisely what they are because they aren't innovators or philosophers.

No, they are what they "are" because they've never had the chance to be anything else.


Those who are born into a poor family but have talent, have the ability and freedom to move up in a capitalist society like ours and make something of themselves and their posterity.

Upward mobility in capitalist society is a matter of chance...and even talent and ability, though desirable, are not necessary (e.g., popular music).

I suspect that most working people function at no more than 5% of their potential; if you're destined to spend a life-time as a wage-slave, there's no point in striving for more.


Sorry to come across as an elitist...

No, you are not sorry. In fact, you probably consider yourself part of that "elite".

Elitists generally do.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Professor Moneybags]

The overwhelming majority of people have no property to "give up". But we communists do not "expect" that those who do will be "willing"...quite the contrary.

You're going to steal it. Heard it all before...


The history of capitalism is, in part, a history of massacres of those who challenged the property rights of capital.

Are you one of these people who has a fit when you hear about someone shooting a burglar ?


The Marxist view is that healthy humans enjoy productive labor...what they do not enjoy is the lash of compulsion.

That "lash" is called reality.


I suspect that most working people function at no more than 5% of their potential; if you're destined to spend a life-time as a wage-slave, there's no point in striving for more.

That's interesting. If everything one earns is going to be redistributed away to someone else, what is the point in striving for more ?

[Xvall]

You're going to steal it. Heard it all before...

Yeah. That's the plan. Then again, it wasn't really theirs to begin with. Most of them "earned" what they have by exploiting others or inheriting it from their anscestors who exploited others.


Are you one of these people who has a fit when you hear about someone shooting a burglar.

1) Burglars do not challenge property rights. They openly embrace it. The only difference is that their means of obtaining said property is not as professional as that of Ken Lay. When a burglar steals something, he intends to keep it for himself. No redistribute it or otherwise use it for the common good.

2) When we were talking about people being massacred for challenging property rights we weren't talking about people who steal television sets and are shot - we are talking about union workers, peaceful protesters, and civil rights activits that have been unlawfully abused, harmed, or murdered in order to "protect" the interests of the upper class.


That "lash" is called reality.

Murder, Rape, and violence is also reality. That doesn't mean it should be openly embraced and left alone.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Moneybags
blah, blah, blah

Come on, "professor", what about Capitalist Lawyer's central argument?

Remember? Because humans are unequal in ability, ALL human societies are based on master-slave relations.

That includes capitalism.

What have you to say to this astoundingly blunt proposition?

Do you agree?

If not, why not?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2004, 03:18 PM
Same dead horse, same dim writer.
That's a horse? I couldn't tell, it's been so badly mutilated.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 25 2004, 12:19 PM
Sixty views and only one reply? Gee, I wonder why?
Sigh... Because we've seen this a billion times before and are tired of addressing them again and again.

[Professor Moneybags]

Yeah. That's the plan. Then again, it wasn't really theirs to begin with. Most of them "earned" what they have by exploiting others or inheriting it from their anscestors who exploited others.

Cheap rationalisation, but whatever...nice of you to be honest.


1) Burglars do not challenge property rights. They openly embrace it.

Oh sure, they openly embrace property rights by...err...violating them.


2) When we were talking about people being massacred for challenging property rights we weren't talking about people who steal television sets and are shot - we are talking about union workers, peaceful protesters, and civil rights activits that have been unlawfully abused, harmed, or murdered in order to "protect" the interests of the upper class.

Seeing as you have admitted that theft is the goal, I question whether, in some cases, there was actually a difference.


Murder, Rape, and violence is also reality. That doesn't mean it should be openly embraced and left alone.

Stop equivocating. I'm talking about metaphysical reality, not man-made actions. You openly embrace reality, or you will bet very short-lived.

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[


Come on, "professor", what about Capitalist Lawyer's central argument?

Remember? Because humans are unequal in ability, ALL human societies are based on master-slave relations.

That includes capitalism.

What have you to say to this astoundingly blunt proposition?

Do you agree?

If not, why not?

No, I don't agree with it. Master-slave relationships come about through the initiation of force, which is morally wrong. It doesn't matter if we are equal or not.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags
Master-slave relationships come about through the initiation of force, which is morally wrong.

Always odd to hear a pro-capitalist talk about "morality"...like watching a bear ride a bicycle.

In any event, "God" disagrees with your "morality"...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...opic=30063&st=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30063&st=0)

Shape up, sinner! :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redtrigger]

Communists are [idealist] in thinking that people will want to give up their property for the greater good of society.

In case you did not know, greed is a rather new idea. It was empires that first introduced it but even the early empires conquered land to improve the lives of their indigenous citizens. In the old world it was community first, self second. I have written several papers over the effects of modernization on the human condition. It is because of modernization that the ideals of capitalism and social Darwinism were born. It was because of the labor situation during the industrial revolution that Marx published his Communist Manifesto. This may seem redundant but you seem thick, so I feel it is warranted.

[Xvall]

Oh sure, they openly embrace property rights by...err...violating them.

I specifically stated that their notion of property rights were not the same as the notions of most capitalists, but they do believe that they have the right to their own property as well. When someone robs a store, they aren't doing it to abolish currency; they are doing it to get money for themselves - something far from communistic.



Seeing as you have admitted that theft is the goal, I question whether, in some cases, there was actually a difference.

First of all, not everyone who was massacred was a socialist, let alone a communist. "Theft" was not the goal of every striker in the early 1900's. Second of all, the only people who consider such actions to be theft are capitalists like yourselves. It would be a lot like someone arguing that the abolitionists had a platform of theft because they were taking slaves away from their captors without proper authorization. Only to those who are trying to uphold the systems are notions like these considered to be "theft", "treason", "rebellion" or what have you. After a system falls, a lot of people don't adhere to the same standards that once existed. I imagine the same would happen with capitalism. Call it what you like. It does little good when many of us believe that property itself is theft.



Stop equivocating. I'm talking about metaphysical reality, not man-made actions. You openly embrace reality, or you will bet very short-lived.

Capitalism is metaphysical? The stock exchange wasn't man-made? News to me!

[redtrigger]

Capitalism is metaphysical? The stock exchange wasn't man-made? News to me!

I agree with you Drake Dracoli, but let him believe what he wants, he will be the one who blows his brains out when the stock market crashes and the world will be a better place.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Regardless of Oscar WIlde's personal life, I think he still makes a
valid point about the nature of self-government in a communist society. It would simply take too much time, and it almost requires that people be constantly involved with it. So really self-government is an impossible virtue unless you had a society comprised of intellectuals or politicians.

There will always, always be people that just don't care. The ultimate
problem that arises is that only a select few will actually have the inerest to participate fully in government, which raises the problem of how you adequately represent the interests of those who are half-interested or not at all. Michael Walzer, a contemporary political philosopher suggested that this might be the greatest fault of direct democracy and instead advocated a representative democracy over that, since it could also represent the interests of those who aren't involved as much as the "activists."

I only meant as far as "master-slave" relations that if such a
communist society was established, it would eventually degenerate into Farmer
Brown into controlling Joe and Bob because he has all the food and the talent to grow that food. Maybe "master-slave" was a bad choice of words in that matter. I'm not thinking about it in today's context, but more of a medieval context where those who were more powerful would simply control the peasants.

This is where we can really disagree, because I think that it's merely
an issue of perspective on human nature and ability, but here goes:

I have a neighbor, he's a good person, he's married and had four
children with his wife. They're both good people, and they all raised their four
children the same way. The father is a very intelligent math professor and
the wife a very talented landscaper. The sons and daughters all had the same opportunities and influences, yet they all turned out quite differently.

One daughter is a succesful investment banker, another a grade school teacher, one a waitress, and the youngest son, well... just unemployed. The point is, people who are born with "lower faculties" and are given the chance to partake in philosophy and higher pleasures will probably reject them based on their own nature and instincts regardless of whether you present them with the opportunity or not. There are just those who are born to appreciate the higher things in life, and those who aren't. But that's not to say that workers are just lower forms of life, just another essential part of society. Society alone cannot operate on the will of intellectuals and leaders, there must also be a base in this pyramid of
social classes that consist of workers. Almost like a hive of bees.

After typing this it actually reminds me somewhat of what Socrates envisioned
the perfectly just state would be.

It doesn't seem right than in a perfectly equal society, my worthless
high school gym teacher or some sap that doesn't know who the President is
on Jay Leno's Jaywalking would have just as much political clout as I would.

As far as giving up property, I think it would be silly to assume that even those in the working class would want to give up what they have, they still have something a house/apartment, personal effects, and things of that nature. The whole point of having inequality in property provides incentive for those who don't have as much. That's what makes capitalism run if everyone had basically the same thing, what's the point of even working anymore?

Maybe during the Industrial Revolution, Marx would have a point that most
workers could not enjoy the higher pleasures of life. I don't think that view
is applicable to today's world. I think it's important to consider the context
under which Marx wrote his works, a time in which there was extreme
poverty and widespread misery. I truly believe (now this is again open
to debate) that those who really want to move up in society and make a
better life for themselves truly can. That's how great human beings
are made - through work and determination. I suppose there are exceptions
to this rule, like Elvis or pop stars, even though in my perfect
society I'd have them all enslaved and beaten down relentlessly by my elite police
force. But still, the fact remains that there was only one Elvis, and
he got paid for making music that many enjoyed. And since capitalism is more
or less an unregulated system, there will be excesses here and there,
but that's the beauty of liberty. If a man is born into a poor family, but
takes a natural liking to the good things in life like philosophical thought, he has
the ability and probably the will to work himself up in society.

I mean, just take a look around any college campus. This is a time when people
are free to do just about anything we wish to do - those who want to
make something of themselves in academics can. Some people will choose to
study and work hard and graduate with honors and receive scholarships
to good universities. Then there are just those that are indifferent,
and would much rather waste their time and money getting drunk on the
weekends on a constant basis. Ultimately, I believe that when given
the choice, those in the lay will choose base pleasures anyway even if
presented with something of higher value. I mean, the job I had over
the summer I had to work with a 36 year old man. He was only a high-school
graduate, but had the choice to go to college - he declined, and has
been working at the same crappy golf course for 20 years. The point is, is
that this man can choose to leave and strive for better at any point in his
lifetime, maybe find a better job and train to become a golf
professional? Maybe take out a loan and try to build his own little 9 hole golf
course?

Anything is possible.


Maybe I do consider myself an elite, but I think I'd rather consider myself unique. I sure don't see everyone else getting involved in campus activities or making political contributions - instead I just see them getting plastered or wasting their time on frat row finding stupid parties to go to.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
So really self-government is an impossible virtue unless you had a society comprised of intellectuals or politicians.

Well, I expect people will be a good deal more "intellectual" and "political" in communist society than they are now.

But since we're both just speculating, what is the alternative to communism? It's what we have now.

Is that "acceptable"? Would you rather take a chance on participatory democracy or just accept the fact that your fate is in the hands of people who don't know you or give a rat's ass about you...except insofar as they can exploit your labor or pack you off to some shithole to fight another one of their dirty little wars?

No one really knows at this point if communism is even possible...but we all know very well (if we've been paying attention) what "more the same" is going to get us.

Sure, you could get lucky...move up the ladder a little bit; but you could also get really unlucky and see everything you've gained wiped out. Look at what happened to all those poor bastards who worked for Enron or Worldcom or...well, it's a long list and getting longer.

I heard a guy say once that he became a communist because he was "sick of taking orders from stupid people".


There will always, always be people that just don't care.

So what? If they don't care then they don't care and they have no input on what gets decided.

But that's their free choice...it's not like now where everyone but the elite is deliberately excluded from all substantive decisions.


Michael Walzer, a contemporary political philosopher suggested that this might be the greatest fault of direct democracy and instead advocated a representative democracy over that, since it could also represent the interests of those who aren't involved as much as the "activists."

I've never heard of this particular fellow, but the argument is a common one.

The obvious response is that "representatives" in a capitalist "democracy" are not required to represent anything but the interests of wealth.

And they are really good at that.

Neither the "activists" nor those "who aren't involved as much" get represented at all.


I'm not thinking about it in today's context, but more of a medieval context where those who were more powerful would simply control the peasants.

Again we're speculating...but it seems to me that reducing a victorious working class to the status of medieval peasants would be a very formidable task. In fact, I suspect that even the attempt to do that would provoke a "second revolution".


I have a neighbor, he's a good person, he's married and had four children with his wife. They're both good people, and they all raised their four children the same way. The father is a very intelligent math professor and the wife a very talented landscaper. The sons and daughters all had the same opportunities and influences, yet they all turned out quite differently.

One daughter is a successful investment banker, another a grade school teacher, one a waitress, and the youngest son, well... just unemployed.

An interesting "spread". One thing I would question is your statement that they raised all their kids "in the same way".

Studies have shown that parental "child-raising strategies" vary considerably depending on birth-order. There's also a rather complex dynamic that takes place among siblings.

We don't really know at this point why child-raising outcomes are or can be so different. But the presumption is that what seems "the same" really isn't.


The point is, people who are born with "lower faculties" and are given the chance to partake in philosophy and higher pleasures will probably reject them based on their own nature and instincts regardless of whether you present them with the opportunity or not. There are just those who are born to appreciate the higher things in life, and those who aren't.

But aren't you curious as to why those who "appreciate the higher things" are disproportionately represented precisely among those who are exposed to those things at a very young age?

If it were just a matter of statistical chance, then you'd expect philosophers to pop up in more or less equal numbers (per capita) all across class society.

Most people who try to follow this line of "reasoning" end up falling back on "genetics" -- the people who were born to "appreciate the finer things" have "better genes" than those who don't.

But your own example shoots that argument down; two bright parents ("good genes") have four kids with entirely different results. (Perhaps the "unemployed kid" is a budding philosopher. :lol:)


After typing this it actually reminds me somewhat of what Socrates envisioned
the perfectly just state would be.

Keep in mind that Socrates was a reactionary...as was Plato also.

And that humans are not bees.


It doesn't seem right than in a perfectly equal society, my worthless
high school gym teacher or some sap that doesn't know who the President is
on Jay Leno's Jaywalking would have just as much political clout as I would.

If your assumption that "some people won't care" is accurate, then you will have "more say". The "sap" won't show up for the important meeting.


The whole point of having inequality in property provides incentive for those who don't have as much. That's what makes capitalism run; if everyone had basically the same thing, what's the point of even working anymore?

This is a very important point; you suggest that the reason that we work is because we don't have as much as someone else.

The communist premise that that most people enjoy work that is interesting and productive for its own sake. We are "purposeful" entities.

What we don't enjoy is being taken advantage of...worked to exhaustion, paid an insulting wage, treated as a "low-life" or a "slave". We respond to the way we're treated -- we fuck off as much as we can, steal if we think we can get away with it, piss in the boss's coffeepot if possible, etc.


If a man is born into a poor family, but takes a natural liking to the good things in life like philosophical thought, he has the ability and probably the will to work himself up in society.

You seem to be a bit confused here; there's no money in philosophy. The only philosopher I ever met was a cab-driver in San Francisco.

In fact, people who are successful in capitalist society are not interested in "higher pleasures" at all...except perhaps as status icons. They are interested in accumulating wealth.

As the saying has it, they love money "like a hog loves slop".


I mean, just take a look around any college campus. This is a time when people are free to do just about anything we wish to do - those who want to make something of themselves in academics can. Some people will choose to study and work hard and graduate with honors and receive scholarships to good universities.

Don't forget that some of those who might like to "make something of themselves" may also have to have jobs in order to be able to afford to go to college. Unless they give up sleeping, they're simply not going to be able to compete with the kids who don't have to have jobs.


Then there are just those that are indifferent, and would much rather waste their time and money getting drunk on the weekends on a constant basis.

Perhaps it's because that they are not particularly interested in academics -- the reason they go to college is because they know that a college degree is a "credential"...a piece of paper that you "have to have" to "get a good job".

Whenever you find yourself compelled to spend a great deal of time doing something that you find boring, some people cope with this by getting drunk. Frequently.

It's a funny thing...before I retired, I drank a lot. Now, I just "don't feel the need" anymore.


Ultimately, I believe that when given the choice, those in the lay will choose base pleasures anyway even if presented with something of higher value.

An awful lot depends, in my opinion, on what they're exposed to while they're growing up. In a "crap culture" like what we have now, most will choose crap.


I mean, the job I had over the summer I had to work with a 36 year old man. He was only a high-school graduate, but had the choice to go to college - he declined, and has been working at the same crappy golf course for 20 years. The point is, is that this man can choose to leave and strive for better at any point in his lifetime, maybe find a better job and train to become a golf professional? Maybe take out a loan and try to build his own little 9 hole golf course?

Why should he do those things and how would it "better" him? Perhaps he too is a "philosopher" of sorts and has decided that striving for wealth is not worth the human cost.

The imperative of capitalist society is to accumulate wealth...nothing else really matters.

But is that really a human way to live? You turn yourself into a specialized "money-making tool" that can't really be used for any other purpose.

Would you really want to be Donald Trump?


Anything is possible.

No, some things are possible and some things aren't. Trying to figure out the difference is very difficult.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Professor Moneybags]

Always odd to hear a pro-capitalist talk about "morality"...like watching a bear ride a bicycle.

In any event, "God" disagrees with your "morality"...

Is this supposed to be some sort of argument ?


http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...opic=30063&st=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30063&st=0)

Shape up, sinner! :lol:

What's a passage on slavery got to do with anything ? Slavery requires the initiation of force to run (just like communism) and is therefore immoral as far as I am concerned.

Why are you complaining about slavery for ? The NIF principle isn't part of your worldview, so why should you consider slavery immoral ?

[Professor Moneybags]

I specifically stated that their notion of property rights were not the same as the notions of most capitalists, but they do believe that they have the right to their own property as well.

Burglary is a quest for the unearned. A bit like communism, really.


First of all, not everyone who was massacred was a socialist, let alone a communist. "Theft" was not the goal of every striker in the early 1900's.

Neither is it the goal of failed businessmen who take cheques from the government to prop up their companies, nor the so-called poor who live on welfare handouts, but theft is what they are committing. Remember, it's not the government's money they are recieving, it's ours. Do they ask permission before they take it ? No.


Second of all, the only people who consider such actions to be theft are capitalists like yourselves.

Confiscating property without permission from its owner is still theft, regardless of who does or doesn't agree with it.


It would be a lot like someone arguing that the abolitionists had a platform of theft because they were taking slaves away from their captors without proper authorization.

Oh no you dont; People cannot be property as people are ends in themselves and should not have force initiated against them (see my reply to Redstar2000).


After a system falls, a lot of people don't adhere to the same standards that once existed. I imagine the same would happen with capitalism. Call it what you like. It does little good when many of us believe that property itself is theft.

"Theft" presupposes "rightfully owned property" and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner's consent. If no property is rightfully owned (i.e. if nothing is property), there can be no such concept as "theft." You have contradicted yourself.