Capitalism

[Wiesty]

im not quite sure what capitalism really is, i know its based on privately owned buisnesses, but that dosent sound bad like what the world makes it to be
what are some definitions and bad things about capitalism that makes it so hated.
what is capitalism, what are its ideals?

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:07 AM
i know its based on privately owned buisnesses, but that dosent sound bad like what the world makes it to be

Private ownership is BAD, especially ownership of labourers. It comes down to exploitation of those who are not rich, so the rich can stay rich. It's like Anarchism gone rotten.

[Professor Moneybags]

Private ownership is BAD

Is private ownership of yourself "bad" ? If the money and property you earn to futher your survival are subject to random confiscation, then your life is subject to random destruction.


especially ownership of labourers.

People cannot be owned as property because they are an end in themselves.


It comes down to exploitation of those who are not rich, so the rich can stay rich. It's like Anarchism gone rotten.

That's possibly the biggest leap in logic I've seen in all my time here.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:07 AM
what is capitalism, what are its ideals?
Ask a hundred commies and you'll get a hundred different answers, all contradicting one another.

What a lot of these people call capitalism, isn't. What they usually describe is mercantilism, or the current mixed economy that you will find in most western countries. It certainly isn't the status quo.

I haven't read all of this (http://www.capitalism.org/), but perhaps it will give you a rough outline of what the deal is.

[Elect Marx]

This is what I have gathered from multiple resources and edited in an effort to form the most cohesive and comprehensive definition.
Feel free to respond with thoughts on any implications of my definition.

Capitalism

A socio-economic class system, having the means of production and wage labor privately owned, where value is divided between wages and profit.
Capitalism is the breakdown of all traditional relationships, and the subordination of relations to the “cash nexus” of capital, which operates according to demand and supply, as well as personal greed and profit seeking. By using this demand for supplies a capitalist (profit seeker) can influence the supply of a product (whether urgently needed or overproduced) and increase profits, exploiting people’s needs as “market prices.”

Social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labor. Under capitalism, society is divided into two main classes, the proletariat (the sellers of labor power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labor power).
The value of every product or service is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of goods.

Wage labor is the labor process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labor power of those who do not (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital).
Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labor. In societies that produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus (more production than needed for immediate reproduction). In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labor time. That extra labor is profit, used by the capitalist for whatever they choose.

Capitalism pools the wealth of the populace within a select social class, thereby depriving the majority of society (the producers of wealth).

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 21 2004, 08:37 AM
Ask a hundred commies and you'll get a hundred different answers, all contradicting one another.
Yes, diversity is horrible. You have to go with a definition that is mass-produced and believed without scrutiny. Capitalists are obviously the unbiased group because they are motivated by financial rewards and you know monetary exchange never corrupted anyone’s judgment.

Though I am fairly sure that I hear a similar definition from communists and more capitalists define their ideology as what best suits them at the time (imagine that, since capitalism is opportunistic by nature).

Why trust the people that carefully study the capitalist socio-economic system when you can trust those that believe they benefit from it?

[Wiesty]

so its pretty much a huge market, where privatley owned buissnesses try and sell the most, exploiting the lower classes, and trying to out sell their customers ,causing local buissness to go bankrupt?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 02:14 PM
so its pretty much a huge market, where privatley owned buissnesses try and sell the most, exploiting the lower classes, and trying to out sell their customers ,causing local buissness to go bankrupt?
Exactly.

And it causes pollution, childprostitution, drug abuse, racial hatred (except in Africa), slavery (except in Africa), the extinction of dinosaurs, the WTC attack, and it invented HIV to kill Africans, crack to throw annoying blacks in jail etc etc.

[Osman Ghazi]

Is private ownership of yourself "bad" ?

Yes!

I am not property, not even my own.

I am a living, breathing, conscious, sentient organism.

I am not owned, I simply am.


People cannot be owned as property because they are an end in themselves.

Huh? Didn't you just say that I owned myself? In fact, it was practically the last sentence you wrote you hypocritical . So then I cannot trade ownership of myself for a few bucks an hour?


Ask a hundred commies and you'll get a hundred different answers, all contradicting one another.


That at least shows that we each have our own thoughts about it, thoughts that we didn't hear on CNN or Fox News.


And it causes pollution, childprostitution, drug abuse, racial hatred (except in Africa), slavery (except in Africa), the extinction of dinosaurs, the WTC attack, and it invented HIV to kill Africans, crack to throw annoying blacks in jail etc etc.

Woah. Hold on there. Most of those are true. It does cause pollution, child prostitution drug abuse and racial hatred (even in Africa) and it did cause the WTC attack.

No one would deny that the rise in industrialism that came along with capitalism is what is causing today's environmental problems. For example, in Sydney, Nova Scotia, they have something called the Tar Ponds, which contains about 300,000 tonnes of toxic materials from about 80 years of coke (for steel) production. You see, it wasn't profitable to isolate the toxic waste, so they just dumped it into Sydney harbour.

Now, in terms of child prostitiution, obviously, that existed before capitalism. However, capitalism, with its inherently high unemployment rates and the risk of starvation necessitates that the members of its sciety do something to get money. Prostituting oneself is, if degrading, at least a constant source of income.

Drug abuse is the same way. It existed before capitalism, but becuase drug dealers can make a dime pushing it, they do. that is the essence of capitalism, after all.

Poverty is also a cause of racial hatred, which means that capitalism, because it sustains poverty, sustains racial hatred.

And the WTC attack is a direct result of American foreign policy which is a direct result of the military adventurism (and interventionist opportunism) of the American capitalist class.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 21 2004, 08:41 AM
This is what I have gathered from multiple resources and edited in an effort to form the most cohesive and comprehensive definition.
Feel free to respond with thoughts on any implications of my definition.
Multiple sources being the Communist Mannifeso 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Yes, diversity is horrible. You have to go with a definition that is mass-produced and believed without scrutiny.

Your defintion is "mass produced" and "believed without scrutiny" and (as I have said before) self-contradicting.


capitalists define their ideology as what best suits them at the time (imagine that, since capitalism is opportunistic by nature).

This is completely hypocritical. I have never altered my definitions.


Why trust the people that carefully study the capitalist socio-economic system

Because they don't.

[Professor Moneybags]

Yes!

I am not property, not even my own.

I am a living, breathing, conscious, sentient organism.

I am not owned, I simply am.

So who gets to decide what happens to you ? You ? Obviously not, seeing as you don't own yourself.


Huh? Didn't you just say that I owned myself?

You can't own people other than yourself.


That at least shows that we each have our own thoughts about it,

If you thought about it, your views wouldn't contradict one another. More than likely you're getting it all from the same self-contradicting source.


No one would deny that the rise in industrialism that came along with capitalism is what is causing today's environmental problems.

So you want to go back to the stone age ? See you, then.


Now, in terms of child prostitiution, obviously, that existed before capitalism. However, capitalism, with its inherently high unemployment rates

Even higher when "sweatshops" are removed by the do-gooders.


and the risk of starvation necessitates that the members of its sciety do something to get money.

You're a real clown. These people are subsistence farmers, they farm their own food. If they didn't someone else would be forced to do it for them. This isn't the fault of capitalism, it's metaphysical reality.

Reality isn't like your socialist fairly land where food just falls from the sky at your command.


Poverty is also a cause of racial hatred, which means that capitalism, because it sustains poverty, sustains racial hatred.

How does poverty cause racial hatred ? (I can't wait to hear this.)

And if capitalism really does sustains poverty, it isn't doing a very good job at it, I'll say that much.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 21 2004, 04:30 PM
Woah. Hold on there. Most of those are true. It does cause pollution, child prostitution drug abuse and racial hatred (even in Africa) and it did cause the WTC attack.

I forgot baldness, overweight people, David Hasselhoff, plaincrashes, heart attacks, grashopper plagues, leatherfetishes, and the Holocaust.

[LSD]

David Hasselhoff

leatherfetishes

mmmm...David Hasselhoff in leather.... :wub:

[Osman Ghazi]

So who gets to decide what happens to you ?

Umm, me, but that doesn't mean that I 'own' myself.


You can't own people other than yourself.


But you can rent them for 7.45 (Cdn) an hour.


If you thought about it, your views wouldn't contradict one another.

What? Why not?


More than likely you're getting it all from the same self-contradicting source.


Ouch. Good one.


So you want to go back to the stone age ? See you, then.


Did I say that? No. I said simply that industrialization was the cause of pollution. Stop drawing stupid conclusions.


Even higher when "sweatshops" are removed by the do-gooders.


Sweatshop work is easily as degrading as prostitution.


You're a real clown. These people are subsistence farmers, they farm their own food. If they didn't someone else would be forced to do it for them.

What? Are you completly insane? What gave you the notion that every one of 'these people' (what group is this? Child prostitutes? Poor people?) is a farmer? No country on earth has an economy where more than 80% of the population is supported by agriculture. And subsistence farming has been out of style for quite some time. Now its mostly cash crops.


How does poverty cause racial hatred ? (I can't wait to hear this.)


Competition over limited resources breeds hate in humans. Groups tend to get divided along ethnic lines, as well as religious. It's quite simple really.

Why? Do you think some people 'just are' racist and others 'just aren't'?


And if capitalism really does sustains poverty, it isn't doing a very good job at it, I'll say that much.

You don't have any idea what you are talking about. Do you know that?

The GINI rating for the United States is 40, meaning that it is as stratified as China. And China ing sucks. The politicans are stinking rich and most other people are dirt poor. Kind of liek the US actually...

Oh, and one more thing. PLEASE, pretty please stop saying 'metaphysical'. You don't know what it means. You said 'metaphysical reality', but what you obviously don't know is that metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality. Thus, reality cannot be metaphysical.


I forgot baldness, overweight people, heart attacks

All of which are closely linked to job stress. Hmmm....

[Hoppe]

All of which are closely linked to job stress. Hmmm....

I wonder whether women in the previous century suffered from PMS. That could also be because of capitalism.

[Maksym]

Captialism is...the producer being expropriated by the owner of the product. Then the product and producer being sold as a commodity.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 22 2004, 08:13 PM
But you can rent them for 7.45 (Cdn) an hour.

But that isn't "owning" them is it ? There is actually a difference between employing them voluntarily and coercing them, Kazi, even if the distinction it isn't part of your worldview (or that of any other commie here).


Sweatshop work is easily as degrading as prostitution.

What's wrong, Kazi ? Manual labour "below" you is it ? And you call yourselves "workers" ? Lol. What a joke.


Competition over limited resources breeds hate in humans. Groups tend to get divided along ethnic lines, as well as religious. It's quite simple really.

Uh, yeah, it certainly is "simple". People tend to be racist due to their hatred/fear of anything different to them. It has nothing to do with "competition over resources".


The GINI rating for the United States is 40,

Right below...err....Ghana, Moldova and Cambodia. Do these places represent your economic ideal ?


meaning that it is as stratified as China. And China ing sucks. The politicans are stinking rich and most other people are dirt poor. Kind of liek the US actually...

So you'd rather live in Ethiopia than in the US ? :rolleyes:

GINI = "Measure of inequality", not poverty. The only type of poverty inequality creates is relative poverty, which isn't real poverty anyway.


Oh, and one more thing. PLEASE, pretty please stop saying 'metaphysical'. You don't know what it means. You said 'metaphysical reality', but what you obviously don't know is that metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality. Thus, reality cannot be metaphysical.

The study of the "nature of reality" is "not real" ? If I was to shoot you in the head, your subsequent death would be a :

- A fact of reality.
- A metaphysical fact.

Please don't insult me with your clueless ramblings again.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 22 2004, 04:16 PM


GINI = "Measure of inequality", not poverty. The only type of poverty inequality creates is relative poverty, which isn't real poverty anyway.


So the tens of thousands of Americans that have starved, or succumed to the elements (do to homelessness) every few years, aren't the recipients of REAL poverty?

[Osman Ghazi]

But that isn't "owning" them is it ?

But it does have a lot of the benefits such as being able to tell them what to do. Or, (to tie it into the 'myth of free speech' thread) of being able to dictate what they are able to say.


What's wrong, Kazi ? Manual labour "below" you is it ? And you call yourselves "workers" ? Lol. What a joke.


A) Why Kazi?

B) Actually, I do kind of resent the fact that I have to get a job that rests on physical talents, which are rather poor when compared to my mental faculties.

C) I haven't really ever referred to myself as a worker because my experiences in the world of work are dwarfed by those of others.


People tend to be racist due to their hatred/fear of anything different to them.

I don't hate/fear anything that is different than me. Why is that? Why is it that some people irrationally fear while others don't?


Right below...err....Ghana, Moldova and Cambodia. Do these places represent your economic ideal ?


Yes, obviously. Again, what's with the stupid conclusions? Of any industrialized country, the United States is the most highly stratifed. That is all I am trying to say. The fact that the United States is ranked among third world nations should tip you off top the fact that they are doing something wrong.


So you'd rather live in Ethiopia than in the US ?

Clearly, yes. :rolleyes:


GINI = "Measure of inequality, not poverty

Yes, in other words, it measures the stratification of a society. Which is why I said: "meaning that it is as stratified as China" and not 'meaning that it is as poor as China'.


The study of the "nature of reality" is "not real"

No, metaphysics is real, but that doesn't make reality metaphysical, which is what you said.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 22 2004, 02:17 PM
Multiple sources being the Communist Mannifeso 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition ?
No; generally encyclopedias and a little detail from other sources. There is that capitalist neutrality again. Maybe if you have a dispute with my definition, you should air it.


Your defintion is "mass produced" and "believed without scrutiny" and (as I have said before) self-contradicting.

First off, that sentence was improper but I will respond as if it was proper.
How is my DEFINITION "mass produced?" It is made individually by me from multiple sources and as for "self-contradicting," you show no proof so I can only assume you are simply a propagandizing liar.


capitalists define their ideology as what best suits them at the time (imagine that, since capitalism is opportunistic by nature).

This is completely hypocritical. I have never altered my definitions.

Hypocritical!? Neither have I, what the hell are you talking about? I am sooo sorry manifestation of all that is capitalism.


Why trust the people that carefully study the capitalist socio-economic system
Because they don't.

Hmm, damn, good point; or was it a pointless assertion? You'd have to be really stupid to not be able to tell the difference.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Wiesty, was it really necesary to put this thread in here? This is equivalent of dragging a cow carcass behind a boat in shark-infested waters.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 22 2004, 11:47 PM
Wiesty, was it really necesary to put this thread in here? This is equivalent of dragging a cow carcass behind a boat in shark-infested waters.
Good point. I figgured this would happen....it always does but I don't mind a little hostile bebate here and there. As long as it is more debate thatn hostility. Anyway, hopefully I will soon be done with this thread.

[Professor Moneybags]

There is that capitalist neutrality again. Maybe if you have a dispute with my definition, you should air it.

As I have said before, these definitions consist of non-essential characteristics.


First off, that sentence was improper but I will respond as if it was proper.
How is my DEFINITION "mass produced?"

It's the one most people believe (without question).


It is made individually by me from multiple sources and as for "self-contradicting," you show no proof so I can only assume you are simply a propagandizing liar.

Who did you get this from :

"Under capitalism, society is divided into two main classes, the proletariat (the sellers of labor power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labor power). The value of every product or service is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of goods."

Ludwig von Mises ? Hayek ? I didn't think so. Class warfare is not a consideration for an advocate of capitalism because it is not a metaphysical fact. You use this straw man in an attempt to justify grand theft.

"Capitalism pools the wealth of the populace within a select social class"

No, my dear boy, it doesn't. Capitalism is based upon individualism and only individuals may own property; it is not some rival form of collectivism. There is no "class ownership". Can you actually prove any of this ?


Hmm, damn, good point; or was it a pointless assertion? You'd have to be really stupid to not be able to tell the difference.

Between what ?

You can't study it, because you can't even identify it (see above).
You commies will never understand it because your whole existence is bound up in collectivism and social metaphysics. There is no reality to you beyond the herd. "Class warfare" is all you know.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 23 2004, 05:58 PM
As I have said before, these definitions consist of non-essential characteristics.

It's the one most people believe (without question).

PROVIDE PROOF, or at least some shitty attempt at rationalization.


Class warfare is not a consideration for an advocate of capitalism because it is not a metaphysical fact. You use this straw man in an attempt to justify grand theft.

Riiight, so you deny that under capitalism there has always be a set of rulers and a set of workers? I am afraid that is historical fact and if you deny it or the resulting conflicts, you are the one denying "metaphysical fact."


"Capitalism pools the wealth of the populace within a select social class"

No, my dear boy, it doesn't. Capitalism is based upon individualism and only individuals may own property; it is not some rival form of collectivism. There is no "class ownership". Can you actually prove any of this ?

Firstly, I am not your dear boy. "Capitalism is based upon individualism?" How about a more expansive definition and not just a selection that helps you at the moment. It is infact a "rival" of collectivism; It encourages competition above cooperating. If there is no class ownership; why is their a ruling body that owns the majority of the worlds wealth? Actually, you are the one yet to prove anything.


You can't study it, because you can't even identify it (see above).
You commies will never understand it because your whole existence is bound up in collectivism and social metaphysics. There is no reality to you beyond the herd. "Class warfare" is all you know.

I identified it before you even started this, you still haven't, cough-hypocrite-cough. Herd? Are you seeing herds of commies again? You should see a doctor. Our reality is based in historical reality and not rhetoric. I am still waiting for your proof... Afteral, you calanged my definition, you must have proof right?

[Professor Moneybags]

Riiight, so you deny that under capitalism there has always be a set of rulers and a set of workers?

The "rulers" don't rule in the context you are probably referring to. This is equivocation. The "workers" don't always work, either.


I am afraid that is historical fact and if you deny it or the resulting conflicts, you are the one denying "metaphysical fact."

"The history of all hitherto society is the history of class struggles", right ? This might very well have been relavent to the pre-capitalist era, but not beyond. On the free market, there are no privileged "classes" and no protection of vested interests.


Firstly, I am not your dear boy. "Capitalism is based upon individualism?" How about a more expansive definition and not just a selection that helps you at the moment.

It is a system based upon individual rights, such as the right to own and dispose of one's own property and the right to live one's own life as one sees fit. Seeing as the majority of you here are always busy denouncing these things as evil, I though you would have already known this. Oh, and stop trying to imply that my definitions are changing- they're not.


It is infact a "rival" of collectivism; It encourages competition above cooperating.

Collectivism is not an essential characteristic of either competition or cooperation.


If there is no class ownership; why is their a ruling body that owns the majority of the worlds wealth?

There isn't. Contrary to what the tin-foil hat brigade will tell you, Bill Gates does not rule the world.


Our reality is based in historical reality and not rhetoric.

What is written in the communist mannifesto isn't an account of historical reality.


I am still waiting for your proof... Afteral, you calanged my definition, you must have proof right?

I don't need to prove anything. I am not the one asserting the positive.

[komon]

making money what ever it takes :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
and i think culture from pascual island can not answer anymore
money is power.oil is money now....think of shells(sea)and statues.
tommorow oxygen,and after.....no mankind,no power.thanks to capitalism and greed

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 24 2004, 02:50 PM
The "rulers" don't rule in the context you are probably referring to. This is equivocation. The "workers" don't always work, either.

Well, if you argue about what I am "probably referring to," then you are inventing a discussion.


"The history of all hitherto society is the history of class struggles", right ? This might very well have been relevant to the pre-capitalist era, but not beyond. On the free market, there are no privileged "classes" and no protection of vested interests.

Bullshit, you know corporations have more rights than individuals. The owners of production thereby have power though them and over the workers.


It is a system based upon individual rights, such as the right to own and dispose of one's own property and the right to live one's own life as one sees fit. Seeing as the majority of you here are always busy denouncing these things as evil, I though you would have already known this. Oh, and stop trying to imply that my definitions are changing- they're not.

Private property is not a right, it's a control mechanism of inheritance. This "right," was stolen from the people that lived in relative peace before this great system of rights came in and fucking murdered and robbed them all. Are you justifying that?
If you want me to stop questioning your definition, give a clear one.


There isn't. Contrary to what the tin-foil hat brigade will tell you, Bill Gates does not rule the world.


Right, the world is ruled by democracy or some shit. Explain why the interests of the people aren't represented then.


What is written in the communist mannifesto isn't an account of historical reality.

Yeah, that statement also has no proof.


I don't need to prove anything. I am not the one asserting the positive.

You are the one challenging my definition without proof and providing no alternative definition. I would say the burden is on you to make a rational point.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Is private ownership of yourself "bad" ? If the money and property you earn to futher your survival are subject to random confiscation, then your life is subject to random destruction.

Considering that this is a thread about capitalism and the private ownership of the means of production is one of its primary tenets, it does not take a genius to understand that the individual is not talking about private ownership of "yourself", Corky; but hey....Oobla dee, oobla da life goes on, yeah.


People cannot be owned as property because they are an end in themselves.

I take it you feel that slavery was just "commie propaganda" eh? :lol:


That's possibly the biggest leap in logic I've seen in all my time here.

Actually, these are:

"People cannot be owned as property because they are an end in themselves. "


"You can't own people other than yourself."




Even higher when "sweatshops" are removed by the do-gooders.

Good grief, you're a clown.

[Professor Moneybags]

making money what ever it takes :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

Is pragmatism, not capitalism.


and i think culture from pascual island can not answer anymore
money is power.

What kind of power ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Well, if you argue about what I am "probably referring to," then you are inventing a discussion.

So you were equivocating ?


Bullshit, you know corporations have more rights than individuals.

Show me where it is written in law and how this phenomenon is linked to LFC.


The owners of production thereby have power though them and over the workers.

It's pointless continuing this disussion; you can't put out a sentence without equivocating.

<snip the meaningless blather>


This "right," was stolen from the people that lived in relative peace before this great system of rights came in and fucking murdered and robbed them all. Are you justifying that?

How can anything be "stolen" without first being owned ? And "robbery in the name of property rights" ? :lol: Don&#39;t you...erm...see any problem with this argument ?


Right, the world is ruled by democracy or some shit. Explain why the interests of the people aren&#39;t represented then.

This is question begging and who are "the people" ?


You are the one challenging my definition without proof and providing no alternative definition. I would say the burden is on you to make a rational point.

Evasion...

[Wiesty]

came here because this is where all the cappies site to rot, its like those movies where the dectective goes to the jail to get anwsers or somtin like that
anyways

any straight forward awnsers?
(not arguemented)

[JudeObscure84]

Well first of all the United States doesn&#39;t even practive free market economics anymore than the USSR ever practiced socialism. The two major parties practice, corporatism.

[komon]

Is pragmatism, not capitalism.
if you think money is power then i agree



What kind of power ?
the one according to you

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 25 2004, 02:34 PM
Well, if you argue about what I am "probably referring to," then you are inventing a discussion.

So you were equivocating ?
It seems you are inventing a discussion.


Bullshit, you know corporations have more rights than individuals.

Show me where it is written in law and how this phenomenon is linked to LFC.

Why should I? You know it is the truth and if you don&#39;t, say so or refute my statement. I am not going waste time proving to you that the Earth is round; stop trying to divert attention and if you really aren&#39;t aware of these issues, you need to learn some basic history/sociology.


It&#39;s pointless continuing this disussion; you can&#39;t put out a sentence without equivocating. <snip the meaningless blather>


Alright; why don&#39;t you just say you want to give-up if you can&#39;t provide a rational argument? The only reason this discussion is so abstract is because you have not provided any concrete premises for your assertions.


This "right," was stolen from the people that lived in relative peace before this great system of rights came in and fucking murdered and robbed them all. Are you justifying that?

How can anything be "stolen" without first being owned ? And "robbery in the name of property rights" ? :lol: Don&#39;t you...erm...see any problem with this argument ?

Hmm; avoiding the question are we? I think you understand that by "stolen," I was implying they were deprived of the material resources they needed to survive. Also, you really should have understood that I was mocking your assertion of "property rights."


Right, the world is ruled by democracy or some shit. Explain why the interests of the people aren&#39;t represented then.

This is question begging and who are "the people" ?

I don&#39;t see why you couldn&#39;t assume one of the two more common definitions; being either humanity in general or the largest group of our society, the production and service workers.
I know the rulers like to think they are the only significant people in the world but they are just as ignorant as most capitalists; Affording themselves a sort of superiority complex just to justify their ill treatment of others. In the end, they are all fucking themselves; the wealthy rulers either live in fear of losing their status or otherwise waste their lives by other unproductive and self-serving means. Just as envious capitalists wish they could do.


You are the one challenging my definition without proof and providing no alternative definition. I would say the burden is on you to make a rational point.

Evasion...

Right, I am evading. This system of "debate" must work out really well for you; you just challenge someone&#39;s statement without any proof and attempt to waste time breaking down everything they specify without presenting any legitimate premise of your own.
Sadly, your distractionary illusion is as transparent as your unsubstantiated assertions and to put it plainly, I know what you are doing. Please come back when you learn how to have a discussion; I am still waiting to hear your true definition of capitalism.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 07:29 PM

What kind of power ?
the one according to you
Which is...?

[Professor Moneybags]

Why should I?

Because you have claimed it is.


You know it is the truth and if you don&#39;t, say so or refute my statement. I am not going waste time proving to you that the Earth is round; stop trying to divert attention and if you really aren&#39;t aware of these issues, you need to learn some basic history/sociology.

Oh I see. So the idea that LFC "grants" corporations more rights than individuals is "self evident" is it ? If you are arguing against my point of view, you&#39;re fighting a straw man. I have asked you where any supporter of LFC advocates the position that corporations should have more rights individuals and how LFC "causes" this to happen. You have failed to do either, so I can assume it is nonsense.


Hmm; avoiding the question are we?

I have avoided nothing. There was no question asked.


I think you understand that by "stolen," I was implying they were deprived of the material resources they needed to survive.

This is a prime example of dropping historical context.


I don&#39;t see why you couldn&#39;t assume one of the two more common definitions; being either humanity in general or the largest group of our society, the production and service workers.

This presupposes an inherent conflict of interest and an unquestioned "greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number" morality.

<snip the rest of the straw>


Right, I am evading. This system of "debate" must work out really well for you; you just challenge someone&#39;s statement without any proof and attempt to waste time breaking down everything they specify without presenting any legitimate premise of your own.
Sadly, your distractionary illusion is as transparent as your unsubstantiated assertions and to put it plainly,

If someone makes a positive assertion, i.e. "Zimbabwe is a capitalist country", "Santa/tooth fairy exists" etc. it is up to them to prove it. It is not up to the skeptic to disprove it. You claimed that Africa was mostly capitalist without proof. It is not my responsibility to disprove your groundless assertion any more than I have to disprove the existence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. My assertions cannot be unsubstantiated because I haven&#39;t made any. I was the skeptic in this case.


I know what you are doing.

I&#39;m not fooled by your verbal actobatics. I know what you are doing too. And I can hazard a guess as to why...

[DaCuBaN]

There is actually a difference between employing them voluntarily and coercing them

Not when the choice is to work or die: That&#39;s capitalism.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 28 2004, 07:54 PM

Why should I?

Because you have claimed it is.


You know it is the truth and if you don&#39;t, say so or refute my statement. I am not going waste time proving to you that the Earth is round; stop trying to divert attention and if you really aren&#39;t aware of these issues, you need to learn some basic history/sociology.

Oh I see. So the idea that LFC "grants" corporations more rights than individuals is "self evident" is it ? If you are arguing against my point of view, you&#39;re fighting a straw man. I have asked you where any supporter of LFC advocates the position that corporations should have more rights individuals and how LFC "causes" this to happen. You have failed to do either, so I can assume it is nonsense.

Very well; I will give you a list of examples with the condition that you first provide your definition of capitalism. This will help avoid any loopholes you might happen to bring up.



Hmm; avoiding the question are we?

I have avoided nothing. There was no question asked.


I think you understand that by "stolen," I was implying they were deprived of the material resources they needed to survive.

This is a prime example of dropping historical context.


I don&#39;t see why you couldn&#39;t assume one of the two more common definitions; being either humanity in general or the largest group of our society, the production and service workers.

This presupposes an inherent conflict of interest and an unquestioned "greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number" morality.

<snip the rest of the straw>

I am going to omit responses to these statements because they don&#39;t contribute to our discussion. You avoided many of my points anyway.


...It is not my responsibility to disprove your groundless assertion any more than I have to disprove the existence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. My assertions cannot be unsubstantiated because I haven&#39;t made any. I was the skeptic in this case.

Groundless? I don&#39;t believe you have any good reasoning to call my statements groundless; if you don&#39;t, then this is quite the hypocritical statement, isn&#39;t it?
You have made assertions which I addressed as assertions and you have not denied it until now; that seems rather convenient.
As a skeptic, you have to provide reasoning for your criticism; otherwise you are just asking pointless questions and wasting time.



I know what you are doing.

I&#39;m not fooled by your verbal actobatics. I know what you are doing too. And I can hazard a guess as to why...

"verbal actobatics," eh? I kind-of like that description, it is almost a complement. I would say thank you but alas, I am simply keeping track of your tactics and pointing out the inconsistencies in your "logic".
Why won&#39;t you "hazard a guess as to why" I am doing this? Do you know it is because you are avoiding direct discussion of the issues?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:02 PM
Not when the choice is to work or die: That&#39;s capitalism.
That&#39;s metaphysical reality.

[Professor Moneybags]

Very well; I will give you a list of examples with the condition that you first provide your definition of capitalism. This will help avoid any loopholes you might happen to bring up.

This (http://capitalism.org/faq/capitalism.htm) should be an adequate for now.


I am going to omit responses to these statements because they don&#39;t contribute to our discussion. You avoided many of my points anyway.

What have you just done ?


Groundless? I don&#39;t believe you have any good reasoning to call my statements groundless; if you don&#39;t, then this is quite the hypocritical statement, isn&#39;t it?
You have made assertions which I addressed as assertions and you have not denied it until now; that seems rather convenient.
As a skeptic, you have to provide reasoning for your criticism; otherwise you are just asking pointless questions and wasting time.

I was just questioning your sacred cows. i.e. that LFC is a "default" system which most of the world practices.


I would say thank you but alas, I am simply keeping track of your tactics and pointing out the inconsistencies in your "logic".

There aren&#39;t any inconsistencies. If you can find them, point them out.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 29 2004, 09:06 PM

Very well; I will give you a list of examples with the condition that you first provide your definition of capitalism. This will help avoid any loopholes you might happen to bring up.

This (http://capitalism.org/faq/capitalism.htm) should be an adequate for now.


That is a horribly inaccurate and incomplete definition that seems to be made more for propaganda purposes than to be used as a reliable source of information but I will have to make complete that point a bit latter.

I suppose I should plan on finding that information now…


I am going to omit responses to these statements because they don&#39;t contribute to our discussion. You avoided many of my points anyway.

What have you just done ?

Okay, if you must waste time with this, here goes:


I have avoided nothing. There was no question asked.
Well, there was and you didn&#39;t even try to prove this by showing the content.


This is a prime example of dropping historical context.
Once again, no proof or even reasoning.


This presupposes an inherent conflict of interest and an unquestioned "greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number" morality.
How so? Make a coherent point. Relate your evaluation directly to the words I used so I don&#39;t have to assign a meaning, which you can deny later.



I was just questioning your sacred cows. i.e. that LFC is a "default" system which most of the world practices.

Riiight... You avoided most of my points there and when in our exchange did I even imply that "LFC is a "default" system?" I don&#39;t even recall addressing that.



I would say thank you but alas, I am simply keeping track of your tactics and pointing out the inconsistencies in your "logic".

There aren&#39;t any inconsistencies. If you can find them, point them out.

Wow, I would never claim that "there aren&#39;t any inconsistencies" in my logic. Though I don&#39;t see any, I know I am imperfect, being a human being. You have a rather high opinion of yourself it seems. Not to be picky but you then said "If you can find them," which suggests they exist; I guess neither of us is perfect.
I have pointed out the inconsistencies in your "logic" in my past posts. I don&#39;t see any reason to repeat myself; the claims are there, address them if you like.

[Professor Moneybags]

That is a horribly inaccurate and incomplete definition that seems to be made more for propaganda purposes than to be used as a reliable source of information

I&#39;m sorry it&#39;s not the charicature you are used to, but that is what I advocate, not the status quo.

[Osman Ghazi]

But we aren&#39;t arguing against LFC, because it doesn&#39;t exist and never will. What we are arguing against is real world capitalism, not the fairy tale you profess to love.

I&#39;ll ask again, how do you intend to bring about LFC?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 01:15 PM
But we aren&#39;t arguing against LFC, because it doesn&#39;t exist and never will. What we are arguing against is real world capitalism, not the fairy tale you profess to love.

I&#39;ll ask again, how do you intend to bring about LFC?
Thanks; I was meaning to bring that up. I&#39;m just forgetful. Good to have comrades around :hammer:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 01:15 PM
But we aren&#39;t arguing against LFC, because it doesn&#39;t exist and never will. What we are arguing against is real world capitalism, not the fairy tale you profess to love.
Yes, it can exist as it has come very close to existing, at the expense of a few inconsistencies. Unlike communism, capitalism actually works.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 30 2004, 05:38 PM
Thanks; I was meaning to bring that up. I&#39;m just forgetful. Good to have comrades around :hammer:
Why wouldn&#39;t it work and why can&#39;t it exist ?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 1 2004, 05:28 AM
Yes, it can exist as it has come very close to existing, at the expense of a few inconsistencies. Unlike communism, capitalism actually works.
You can easily say that communism has come very close to existing too.

And I doubt very much that LFC will ever exist.
If the demands of the working class that have been made in the past 200 years and furthered the US from LFC had not been fulfilled, surely rebellion would&#39;ve ensued.

The unrivaled power of monopolies and the ensuing neglect of the working peoples&#39; demands would be the downfall of capitalism. But this wouldn&#39;t happen. This is why:

The reason why most leftists don&#39;t care much for the distinction between LFC and what exists today is because the two are essentially the same. The government "regulations" that exists today are part of a political arm of the economic ruling class that is used to deceive people into believing that their needs are being carried out by a representative government. This is in the interest of the corporate class. If it were not for the sedating effects of these government regulations, the aforementioned rebellion would take place once the government regulations were abolished. This abolition would never occur, though, since the existence of the government regulations inherently acts in the interest of the ruling class, so it would be against its interests to abolish it.

[Professor Moneybags]

You can easily say that communism has come very close to existing too.

Like...where ?


And I doubt very much that LFC will ever exist.
If the demands of the working class that have been made in the past 200 years and furthered the US from LFC had not been fulfilled, surely rebellion would&#39;ve ensued.

The "demands" were supplied by the market, not legislative whims.


The unrivaled power of monopolies and the ensuing neglect of the working peoples&#39; demands would be the downfall of capitalism. But this wouldn&#39;t happen.

How many times must I tell you than monopolies are not possible unless someone actually bans competition ?


The reason why most leftists don&#39;t care much for the distinction

To pretend we&#39;re living in it now...I know.


between LFC and what exists today is because the two are essentially the same.

No, they are not. Not by any stretch of the imagination; your property rights are not respected, nor is your right to life. These are all important aspects of LFC, which socialists have spent their time trying to wipe out and have only caused chaos as a result.


The government "regulations" that exists today are part of a political arm of the economic ruling class

There is no "economic ruling class". Economic power only buys, it is political power that forces and can thus be used to rule. I do not possess the right to enslave my neighbour just because I have more money than he does.

<snip the conspiracy theories/other crap>

[JudeObscure84]

How can so many people lack knowledge in basic economics ?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Like...where ?

Cuba and The USSR were/are just as close to communism as anyplace has been for LFC.


The "demands" were supplied by the market, not legislative whims.

The legislature doesn&#39;t have "whims", they strictly act in the interests of the capitalists.


How many times must I tell you than monopolies are not possible unless someone actually bans competition ?

If a company dominates and saturates the market, there is no need to "ban competition" to phase it out completely.


No, they are not. Not by any stretch of the imagination; your property rights are not respected, nor is your right to life. These are all important aspects of LFC, which socialists have spent their time trying to wipe out and have only caused chaos as a result.

The "disrespect" of those "rights" secures the power of the bourgeoisie.


There is no "economic ruling class". Economic power only buys, it is political power that forces and can thus be used to rule. I do not possess the right to enslave my neighbour just because I have more money than he does.

To be a member of the economic ruling class, one must own capital. Which neither you or neighbor do, I&#39;m sure.

The buying power of capital allows the economic elite to won the means of production of society. With that, they essentially control everything.

Tell me, if the entire working class and I had as much power as the entire bourgeoisie, why wouldn&#39;t we just force them to share their money? We have larger numbers, right? According to your logic, we have more social and political power, no?

How exactly is it in the interest of the public as a whole to allow them to be in the losing end of a massive rift in economic wealth?

Answer: It&#39;s not. Why? Because they are subjugated into that subordinate class by capital.

[Professor Moneybags]

Cuba and The USSR were/are just as close to communism as anyplace has been for LFC.

You are now admitting that those places were close to communism then. Well, what can I say ? If that&#39;s "nearly communism", I can imagine what the full version is going to be like.


The legislature doesn&#39;t have "whims", they strictly act in the interests of the capitalists.

They act in the interests of whoever is going to vote for them. If they are unscrupulous to think that advocating socialism is going to get them votes, they will advocate socialism.


If a company dominates and saturates the market, there is no need to "ban competition" to phase it out completely.

The problem is now that capitalism is "too productive", is it ?


The "disrespect" of those "rights" secures the power of the bourgeoisie.

So destroying the basis of capitalism secures the power of the capitalist ? Are we going to head into that silly "stealing in the name of property rights" territory again ?


To be a member of the economic ruling class, one must own capital. Which neither you or neighbor do, I&#39;m sure.

They don&#39;t "rule", as I have just explained.


Tell me, if the entire working class and I had as much power as the entire bourgeoisie, why wouldn&#39;t we just force them to share their money?

You are misusing the term "power" again.


We have larger numbers, right? According to your logic, we have more social and political power, no?

No. Nowhere have I ever suggested that. You have no more political power than any other man.


How exactly is it in the interest of the public as a whole to allow them to be in the losing end of a massive rift in economic wealth?

There is no "losing end" and wealth is not a static quantity, so inequality doesn&#39;t matter.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

They act in the interests of whoever is going to vote for them. If they are unscrupulous to think that advocating socialism is going to get them votes, they will advocate socialism.

Not true.
Neither the legislator or their feeble constituency has any power. If the legislators choose to advocate socialism, they&#39;ll be outta there in a second.


The problem is now that capitalism is "too productive", is it?

So you agree that monopolies phase out competition?


So destroying the basis of capitalism secures the power of the capitalist ? Are we going to head into that silly "stealing in the name of property rights" territory again ?

I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about, but the premise of the rights granted to the socially and racially oppressed served the interests of the bourgeoisie because it sedated the public and created the illusion of equality and freedom.


They don&#39;t "rule", as I have just explained.

No, you haven&#39;t. And I&#39;m sure that you can&#39;t.


You are misusing the term "power" again.

No, I&#39;m not.


No. Nowhere have I ever suggested that. You have no more political power than any other man.

According to your logic, the working class, the majority, as a whole would have more political power than the corporate class, no?


There is no "losing end" and wealth is not a static quantity, so inequality doesn&#39;t matter.

Yes, there is a losing end.
Almost everyone.
And it&#39;s very unlikely that these people will acquire capital.

[Latifa]

Is private ownership of yourself "bad" ? If the money and property you earn to futher your survival are subject to random confiscation, then your life is subject to random destruction.

I prefer to think of it this way: I do not own myself, I am myself. How can you &#39;own&#39; yourself??


People cannot be owned as property because they are an end in themselves.
I know a certain Martin Luther King who might tell you otherwise.

[Professor Moneybags]

Not true.
Neither the legislator or their feeble constituency has any power.

Just the power to jail and shoot you dead for non-compliance.


If the legislators choose to advocate socialism, they&#39;ll be outta there in a second.

That&#39;s why they sneak it in through the back door by doing it gradually i.e. "boiling the frog".


So you agree that monopolies phase out competition?

I never suggested that.


I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about, but the premise of the rights granted to the socially and racially oppressed served the interests of the bourgeoisie because it sedated the public and created the illusion of equality and freedom.

There is no illusion of freedom and I don&#39;t see why there is any need for economic equality, never mind the need to create "illusions" of it.


No, you haven&#39;t. And I&#39;m sure that you can&#39;t.

You all seem to have this chronic need to for me to disprove your stupid assertions. I don&#39;t need to prove these people don&#39;t rule, you need to prove that they do. Just saying ain&#39;t good enough.


According to your logic, the working class, the majority, as a whole would have more political power than the corporate class, no?

"Classes" don&#39;t really exist, but no. No individual has any more power than any other individual, there are no "collective rights".


Yes, there is a losing end.
Almost everyone.
And it&#39;s very unlikely that these people will acquire capital.

You have not substantiated this claim.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 01:19 AM

People cannot be owned as property because they are an end in themselves.
I know a certain Martin Luther King who might tell you otherwise.
Did MLK want people owned as property ? Neither do I.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Dec 8 2004, 03:22 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Dec 8 2004, 03:22 PM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 01:19 AM

People cannot be owned as property because they are an end in themselves.
I know a certain Martin Luther King who might tell you otherwise.
Did MLK want people owned as property ? Neither do I. [/b]
Well aren&#39;t you a funny guy? Correct your grammar mistakes and I will would be happy to answer your questions, Professor.

EDIT: The capitalism.org definition of capitalism is not adequate. It doesn&#39;t actually say anything about capitalism except that about was about the preservation of individual rights. Well, which rights? Certainly not the right not to work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop&#33;

[Osman Ghazi]

Okay, definitavely, which countries at which points were wholly or nearly capitalist?


LFC, which socialists have spent their time trying to wipe out and have only caused chaos as a result.


Perhaps it is the LFCers trying to wipe out socialism that causes the chaos, hmm? :P


No individual has any more power than any other individual

Bullshit. Only if you have a bunch of money saved up can you run for office.

Now, would you care to explain how I have as much political clout as the President? After all "No individual has any more power than any other individual", right?
:lol: :rolleyes:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I believe it mostly boils down to this. If you want me to go through each point you&#39;ve made, I&#39;ll do it, but I don&#39;t believe it&#39;s necessary.


"Classes" don&#39;t really exist, but no. No individual has any more power than any other individual, there are no "collective rights".

There are collective political interests, are there not? Wouldn&#39;t you say that it was in the collective political interest of all slaves to end slavery?

[Professor Moneybags]

It doesn&#39;t actually say anything about capitalism except that about was about the preservation of individual rights.

That&#39;s all there is to it. What were you expecting ? Some plan for revolution ?


Well, which rights? Certainly not the right not to work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop &#33;

Try reading the section labeled "rights".

[Professor Moneybags]

Okay, definitavely, which countries at which points were wholly or nearly capitalist?

Probably the US and the UK in the 19th century (go on, enter historical context dropping mode and tell us how "bad" things were in these places. As if anywhere else was better at the time).

As for today, try and find the capitalism list at the CATO institute.


Bullshit. Only if you have a bunch of money saved up can you run for office.

Yet again confusing (or deliberately obfuscating) economic and political power.


Now, would you care to explain how I have as much political clout as the President?

He only gets one vote too, Kazi.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:38 PM
There are collective political interests, are there not? Wouldn&#39;t you say that it was in the collective political interest of all slaves to end slavery?
That assumes that you are trying to end slavery. Given that positive rights recieve much cheerleading from this group, I find that unlikely.

[cormacobear]

So if you feel that Kazi has the same power as the U.S. president, then when Kazi calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq it&#39;s going to happen.....I think not.

In Capitalist countries economic power is political power. Simply look at the average income of an American, and then look at the average cost of a campaign for public office. Then try and convince somone that the weathly don&#39;t weild a dissproportionate amount of political innfluence over the majority.

The quality of life index tells us that without a doubt the living conditions of the average U.K. citizen were dramatically better prior to industrialization, declineing dramatically untill legislation protecting Unions, and limiting working hours were established.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 9 2004, 01:38 PM


Well, which rights? Certainly not the right not to work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop &#33;

Try reading the section labeled "rights".
Awww. That&#39;s sweet. So if your boss started weaning off your wages to the point you had to work all day, 7 days a week you&#39;d be perfectly content? For the purpose of the question, lets pretend you live in a Chinese slum.

[Osman Ghazi]

He only gets one vote too, Kazi.

Yes, but he actually gets to vote on real issues. You see, I only get to vote on which douchebags get to vote on things. Seriously though, you couldn&#39;t possibly claim that I have as much political power as GW.


As to the instances of capitalism, was it capitalism before the Reform Bill of 1832, or only after? Or was it not until the repeal of the Corn laws (1846, I think)?


Yet again confusing (or deliberately obfuscating) economic and political power.


Perhaps you are the one dividing the two when they are the two faces of the same coin, i.e. power, the ability to do what you want.

[Professor Moneybags]

In Capitalist countries economic power is political power. Simply look at the average income of an American, and then look at the average cost of a campaign for public office. Then try and convince somone that the weathly don&#39;t weild a dissproportionate amount of political innfluence over the majority.

So why isn&#39;t Bill Gates running the country ?


The quality of life index

Cite the source.


tells us that without a doubt the living conditions of the average U.K. citizen were dramatically better prior to industrialization, declineing dramatically untill legislation protecting Unions, and limiting working hours were established.

I hope you intent to explain this in more detail.

I&#39;m sure things were much better back in the days of 50% infant mortality and 30 year lifespans. Quality of life improved long before unions gained any significant power.

In the closet of every socialist is a primitivist screaming to be let out.

[Professor Moneybags]

Awww. That&#39;s sweet. So if your boss started weaning off your wages to the point you had to work all day, 7 days a week you&#39;d be perfectly content?

I was unlucky enough to work for one that stupid, I&#39;d leave and find one that didn&#39;t. Let&#39;s stick to non-floating abstractions, shall we ?


For the purpose of the question, lets pretend you live in a Chinese slum.

Let&#39;s not bother, seeing as you&#39;d still have the same rights as everyone else, assuming China had adopted the LFC system.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 9 2004, 08:16 PM
Yes, but he actually gets to vote on real issues. You see, I only get to vote on which douchebags get to vote on things. Seriously though, you couldn&#39;t possibly claim that I have as much political power as GW.


So you want everyone to have as much say as the president. How do you intend to go about doing that, given that there are over 250,000,000 people in the US ?


Perhaps you are the one dividing the two when they are the two faces of the same coin, i.e. power, the ability to do what you want.

I&#39;m getting fed up of explaining the difference to you.

[DaCuBaN]

LFC is a "default" system which most of the world practices.

This would of course be fales; one could easily argue that LFC is the absence of a "system" - but it wouldn&#39;t do anything, it wouldn&#39;t bring anyone closer to understanding their adversary - in fact, it&#39;s a totally pointless argument.


I&#39;m getting fed up of explaining the difference to you.

I&#39;m getting sick of reading your one-liner responses to every thread you participate in. You seldom raise any new information, and verge on flaming most the time. Please, as someone who see&#39;s LFC as where the UK/US will end up in the next twenty years, try to be more descriptive of your ideas and thoughts.

That said, I&#39;m not sure you&#39;ve actually explained anything to anyone in the entirity of the above page... You&#39;ve sat there and tried to "shoot down" other posters with banalities such as:


Let&#39;s stick to non-floating abstractions, shall we ?

Let&#39;s not bother

In the closet of every socialist is a primitivist screaming to be let out.

Which amounts to little more than flaming, yet again. What really takes the biscuit for me of course, is your "turn-tail" on a subject we once discussed; which nations could be considered LFC:


Probably the US and the UK in the 19th century

Dont&#39; make me dig up the quotes where you refused to admit that UK/US c19th century was the closest the world had seen to LFC. Suffice to say PM, you&#39;re great at sabotaging discussion - even those that may prove in your benefit.

[Osman Ghazi]

hope you intent to explain this in more detail.


Me too. These are only half-truths. In some respects, like calorie intake for the average citizen, the Industrial revolution worsened the situation. I would not say at all that things were dramatically better before the Industrial Revolution. Perhaps before the enclosure movement, though. Still, you either worked from sun-up to sun-down on a farm (around 12 hours) or in a factory, (maybe 13 or 14.)


So why isn&#39;t Bill Gates running the country ?


Why would he ever want to? He might get shot or something. &#39;Running the country&#39; probably doesn&#39;t have much appeal for most billionaires. Securing your fortune with close political ties on the other hand...


Quality of life improved long before unions gained any significant power.


This is a mostly true statement. The Commision Acts of 1799 and 1800 made it illegal to organise for better pay or shorter hours. This was only repealed in 1824. And still, in 1837 there was a famous incident in which labourers who attempted to form a union lodge were arrested and &#39;transported&#39; (similar to deportation?).

Major improvements to quality of life followed the repeal of the corn laws, which made food much more affordable, though wages declined slightly due to this.


Probably the US and the UK in the 19th century (go on, enter historical context dropping mode and tell us how "bad" things were in these places. As if anywhere else was better at the time).


Robber Barons (http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Articles/carnegie/DeLong_Moscow_paper2.html)

I found this interesting article about the Robber Barons. It is actually about the connection between wealth concentration and economic growth, but he uses the Robber Barons as an example and has gathered quite a bit of information about a few of them.

Also, explain more about the UK. The 1800&#39;s was the period when income tax and public education were introduced. Britain was also a semi-feudal state where even the capitalists had little or no representation prior to 1832, and you know, there&#39;s the fact that it was filled with Kings and Lords and Knights and all those other things not generally associated with LFC. Even after the second Reform Bill of 1867, only about 70% of adult men could vote. Full suffrage didn&#39;t come until 1928.

Also, were these not periods in which the government subsidized rail-building through the handing over of large tracts of land at cheap prices to would-be railroad tycoons?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 9 2004, 08:50 AM
That assumes that you are trying to end slavery. Given that positive rights recieve much cheerleading from this group, I find that unlikely.
Yes, we are trying to end slavery.

But do you concede that social groups have common political interests?
If so, then wouldn&#39;t an egalitarian economy obviously be in the common political interest of the public as a whole? It would certainly land us more money than we have now.

And seeing as economic wealth is directly related to political power, it would also allow us freedom from capitalist tyranny.

[Professor Moneybags]

I&#39;m getting sick of reading your one-liner responses to every thread you participate in. You seldom raise any new information, and verge on flaming most the time.

I&#39;m getting sick of repeating myself over and over again. If that sound like flaming then that&#39;s too bad.


Please, as someone who see&#39;s LFC as where the UK/US will end up in the next twenty years, try to be more descriptive of your ideas and thoughts.

When did I claim that ?


Let&#39;s stick to non-floating abstractions, shall we ?

What that means is let&#39;s stick to abstractions that have at least some basis in reality.


In the closet of every socialist is a primitivist screaming to be let out.

That is an accurate statement. When the subject of the industrial revolution was bought up last time, it was denounced as being worse that the primitivism that preceded it.


Which amounts to little more than flaming, yet again.

What I say does actually have meaning (see above), if you bother to think about it.


What really takes the biscuit for me of course, is your "turn-tail" on a subject we once discussed; which nations could be considered LFC:

Dont&#39; make me dig up the quotes where you refused to admit that UK/US c19th century was the closest the world had seen to LFC.

Uh, sorry Cuban, but I have never said any such thing, so by all means, do dig these quotes out.

I&#39;ve rejected the historical context dropping (you know, the idea that a returning to 19th century politics will somehow drag us all back into 19th century technology and 19th century living conditions. People who believe this fail to properly integrate knowledge and their minds work on the basis of association), but nothing else.


Suffice to say PM, you&#39;re great at sabotaging discussion - even those that may prove in your benefit.

You haven&#39;t addressed any of the issues yourself, I notice.

[Professor Moneybags]

This is a mostly true statement. The Commision Acts of 1799 and 1800 made it illegal to organise for better pay or shorter hours.

I&#39;m unaware of this act, but it is unconstitutional.


I found this interesting article about the Robber Barons. It is actually about the connection between wealth concentration and economic growth, but he uses the Robber Barons as an example and has gathered quite a bit of information about a few of them.

The term is still a misnomer. There was nothing being stolen (no, labour was bought, not stolen), so they can&#39;t be robber-anythings.


Also, were these not periods in which the government subsidized rail-building through the handing over of large tracts of land at cheap prices to would-be railroad tycoons?

From what I understand, most of the lands were commons.

[Professor Moneybags]

Yes, we are trying to end slavery.

In word, but not in deed.


But do you concede that social groups have common political interests?
If so, then wouldn&#39;t an egalitarian economy obviously be in the common political interest of the public as a whole? It would certainly land us more money than we have now.

No and no it wouldn&#39;t.


And seeing as economic wealth is directly related to political power,

It isn&#39;t.


it would also allow us freedom from capitalist tyranny.

Who is tyranizing you and how ?

(There&#39;s plenty of one-liners there for Cuban to complain about.)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If you don&#39;t wanna have this discussion, don&#39;t. But if you do, give me some actual rebuttals.


In word, but not in deed.

Why?


No and no it wouldn&#39;t.

Yes and yes it would.


It isn&#39;t.

Yes it is.


Who is tyranizing you and how ?

If you read my posts and made an effort at understand logic you would see that capital negates workers ownership of the product of their labor. It centralizes wealth in the hands of the few and denies that control of one&#39;s labor is necessary for liberty.

Because the granting of the workers&#39; rights to their labor to the workers themselves would clearly be in the political interest of the majority of people, and this is not done, the power does not belong to the majority. If it did, the majorities&#39; political interests would be catered to, no?

[synthesis]

I was unlucky enough to work for one that stupid, I&#39;d leave and find one that didn&#39;t. Let&#39;s stick to non-floating abstractions, shall we ?

And they call communists naive...

[Professor Moneybags]

If you read my posts and made an effort at understand logic

You don&#39;t understand logic. If you did, you would realise that positive rights equals slavery.


you would see that capital negates workers ownership of the product of their labor.

The "product" was never theirs to begin with. Their labour was exchanged for money, just like any exchange of goods.


one&#39;s labor is necessary for liberty.

:lol: No kidding, Sherlock, so remind me again why are you are advocating positive rights that demand that my labour be controlled by those who "need" it.


Because the granting of the workers&#39; rights to their labor to the workers themselves would clearly be in the political interest of the majority of people, and this is not done, the power does not belong to the majority. If it did, the majorities&#39; political interests would be catered to, no?

Yes it would, but that there are few "technicalities" aren&#39;t there ? (See above.)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 02:31 AM
And they call communists naive...
Are you arguing that I wouldn&#39;t be allowed to do such a thing ? Let&#39;s hear it.

[Osman Ghazi]

The term is still a misnomer. There was nothing being stolen (no, labour was bought, not stolen), so they can&#39;t be robber-anythings.


:rolleyes: You didn&#39;t read the essay, did you? You should, it&#39;s really good on it&#39;s own, irrespective of the fact that it illustrates why the robber barons were called that. Just in case, you don&#39;t want to read it, I&#39;ll provide you with an illustrative example:

Two of the most famous robber barons, Colis Huntington and Jay Leland, were hired to manage the construction of the Central Pacific Railroad. I think they served on the Board of Directors of the Central Pacific Railway Company. (This actually shoots down the &#39;LFC in America&#39; argument because even though it cost &#036;80 million (today, about &#036;7 billion) to build, not one cent of private money was used. The federal government put up &#036;24 million and state and municipal governments funded the rest.) Not to mention the fact that they were given over 9 million acres of land.

Now, Huntington and Leland have another company, Central Pacific Credit and Construction or something like that. This company is contracted to build the railway, which takes all &#036;80 million of the public&#39;s money. The railroad itself is a piece of crap that is near financial ruin by the time it&#39;s complete, and Huntington and Leland just walk away at the end with 30 million in profits from their contruction company, plus the salary they were paid to build a crappy railroad.

Now, the only reason they got the contract in the first place was because they bribed politicians, something which all the robber barons had in common. So, to sum up, they got a government contract through bribery, purposely mismanaged public funds and were rewarded with 15 million dollars each. And that isn&#39;t robbery...?


I&#39;m unaware of this act, but it is unconstitutional.


No, not when you are monarchy and not an LFC republic. That&#39;s why I was surprised that this could ever be called capitalism, least of all by you. I mean, if these countries are the closest thing to capitalism, then a lot of other countries become &#39;capitalist&#39; too, by your own definition. I mean, this is the period in which the first factory acts were passed, making child labour less common. Also, this is the time when mayors were able to revive the old medieval right of controlling wages, i.e. the first minimum wage laws. In fact, I don&#39;t see how this period could ever be considered capitalist by someone with your rigid defintion. Certainly other countries have come closer?

And by the by, I found the CATO institute site quite unnavigable. I couldn&#39;t find anything on which countries were the &#39;most capitalist&#39;.


From what I understand, most of the lands were commons.

Well, your talking about the UK here, whose railway developement I know much less about. However, I doubt it. The commons mostly ceased to exist by 1800. The enclosure movement started in the 1760&#39;s, I think.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The "product" was never theirs to begin with. Their labour was exchanged for money, just like any exchange of goods.

If their labor belongs to them, the product of their labor belongs to them.

Capital negates this right.

I&#39;m not necessarily saying that a guy who manufactures a chair, for example, is entitled to the chair. The lumberjacks, the teamsters, the designers, etc. all deserve a part. The guy who made the machinery also obviously deserves something. But the guy who uses the accumulated worth of others&#39; labor to buy all this stuff and subjugate others&#39; labor deserves nothing.


No kidding, Sherlock, so remind me again why are you are advocating positive rights that demand that my labour be controlled by those who "need" it.

If you&#39;re a farmer in capitalism, do you think you receive the actual worth of the products you provide? No. That means that in capitalism, your labor as a farmer would be controlled by the guy who owns the means of production.

I advocate that your labor be controlled by yourself instead. But no need to thank me. =D

[praxus]

If their labor belongs to them, the product of their labor belongs to them.

So if I own a car and someone buys it for me. Now let&#39;s say that person makes a whole lot of money off of that car by delivering pizza&#39;s. Does the first person have a right to the money that the second man gained through delivering pizza&#39;s with a car he now owns?

Obviously the answer is no. The same goes for labor. When you apply for a job you are trading your labor in exchange for money and benefits, just like the first person in my example is trading the car for a certain sum of money.


I&#39;m not necessarily saying that a guy who manufactures a chair, for example, is entitled to the chair. The lumberjacks, the teamsters, the designers, etc. all deserve a part. The guy who made the machinery also obviously deserves something. But the guy who uses the accumulated worth of others&#39; labor to buy all this stuff and subjugate others&#39; labor deserves nothing.

Who determines who get&#39;s what? By what standard?


If you&#39;re a farmer in capitalism, do you think you receive the actual worth of the products you provide? No. That means that in capitalism, your labor as a farmer would be controlled by the guy who owns the means of production.

This is the fallacy of begging the question. You are assuming that the labor theory of value is true in order to prove that they have the right to the wealth of the capitalists without proving that the labor theory of value is true. Even if it was true, it does not change the fact that the labor of the laborer was traded to the capitalist by their own volition.