Here is real capitalism

[Xvall]

This is real capitalism today. This is not a theory, this is the reality and practise. [sic]

http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000789.html

Yes, they are Somalians. So aspiring businessmen, if you really want to be capitalists, better move to Somalia.

[Osman Ghazi]

I don't know what you mean by this but as a sidenote, did you hear that Hussein Aideed (son of Muhamed Aideed, the 'bad guy' from Blackhawk Down) is third deputy prime minister? There are something like five other major warlords in the new government, (which has yet to leave Kenya.)

[Professor Moneybags]

You said yourself that this thread was stupid and you were right.

[wellis]

true cap true com <_< <_<
there is no such thing
people just go with the flow .if you are on the top then ok
other wise go and die.
that is life and it didnt change all 5000 years of written history
.....and without any consciousness and education it will never change
:ph34r:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 9 2004, 10:26 PM
This is real capitalism today. This is not a theory, this is the reality and practise. [sic]

http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000789.html

Yes, they are Somalians. So aspiring businessmen, if you really want to be capitalists, better move to Somalia.
You are seeing what you want to. What about the free market in the USA? Are you saying that Somalia and the USA are so similiar that the evils in Somalia also take place in the USA?

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:18 AM
You are seeing what you want to. What about the free market in the USA? Are you saying that Somalia and the USA are so similiar that the evils in Somalia also take place in the USA?
You are &#39;seeing&#39; something that doesn&#39;t exist. The United States does not have a free market. It is a society based generally on government subsidies, and a great deal of those subsidies go to corporations. Read up on real Capitalist literature, starting with the standard Adam Smith, and you will find that Capitalism and any modern day country today have nothing to do with eachother. Capitalism is not feasible, and could never be implemented.

[Professor Moneybags]

Capitalism is not feasible, and could never be implemented

This is rich coming from a communist. Why isn&#39;t it feasible ?

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, tell us why it is. After all, it doesn&#39;t exist, so the burden of proof rests on you to prove that it could work, no? Isn&#39;t that what you say about communism?

Besides, you still haven&#39;t told us your grand plan for the creation of an LFC society. I&#39;m interested to hear how you plan to topple the kleptocrats.

[Professor Moneybags]

Well, tell us why it is. After all, it doesn&#39;t exist, so the burden of proof rests on you to prove that it could work, no? Isn&#39;t that what you say about communism?

The trader principle works fine, as does the NIF, which is the basis of a civilized law, one which has been getting worse since it&#39;s abandonment.

Communism ? Slavery is all it has been both in theory and in practice.


Besides, you still haven&#39;t told us your grand plan for the creation of an LFC society. I&#39;m interested to hear how you plan to topple the kleptocrats.

Stop supporting them and you&#39;ll see how powerful they really are.

[Forward Union]

The trader principle works fine, as does the NIF, which is the basis of a civilized law, one which has been getting worse since it&#39;s abandonment.

so, really, you didn&#39;t answer the question did you?


Communism ? Slavery is all it has been both in theory and in practice.

What???? communism has never been put into practice, so how can you say the practice of communism included slavery is stupid enough. As for the theory?, care to point out how exactly the theory implements slavery? C&#39;mon cappie, back up your words, your blabbing your way through this...

[NovelGentry]

Communism ? Slavery is all it has been both in theory and in practice.

If indeed we accept the principle that communism is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" there are working examples of communism. The Open Source movement is one of them. In fact, you&#39;re probably using open source and you don&#39;t even know it. It&#39;s work is built upon free development from a community effort. The products it creates are freely downloaded and completely open to all for change. The GPL is the most communist like example of this, as it requires that any such changes to the software must be released back to the public. Thus there is no way to privatize what is being done. Do you have any reason why this cannot work in other markets? How about information, the internet is indeed a fountain of information, far exceeding the capacity and breadth of work in any library. Sites like Wikipedia, Project Gutenberg, etc make this information accessible. People contribute what they have to offer in terms of information or literature and people take from them with whatever need. These are two markets which are traditionally private under our pseudo-capitalism, yet given the material conditions (the internet) have been given the ability to thrive -- so much so that they now represent threats to their privatized counterparts.

[Osman Ghazi]

The trader principle

?Que?


as does the NIF,

Unless of course people have differing opinions on what is &#39;retaliation&#39; and &#39;initiation&#39;. Like say, most of the time. In fact, the NIF needs a lto of work, as it is rather ambiguous, and thus open to any interpretation.

Ironically enough, the only hitch in NIF comes when you have to initiate force (whether or not you call it retaliation.)


one which has been getting worse since it&#39;s abandonment.


Alas, amigo, the NIF never was. Thus, it was never abandoned. I can&#39;t remember an hour in history, let alone a day when someone didn&#39;t initiate force against someone else.


Stop supporting them and you&#39;ll see how powerful they really are.

Yes :lol: , because I support politicians. I have yet to vote, (no elections since my B-day) don&#39;t plan to vote, and have never given money to any politician. And yet, they are still there. Curious, very curious.

The ones who have to stop supporting them are those guys with guns; what do they call them? Oh, right. The army.

Seriously though. They have the power to make pretty much whatever they want illegal (within the accepted limits of a society.) Also, in the case of American kleptocrats, they have about 1.4 million guys with guns who depend on them to get paid, and thus essentially do whatever they want. They are enormously powerful, independant of my support for them.

[fernando]

Well we had something in the lines of pure capitalism in the late 18th and 19th century...it basicly meant a very small group was very rich and all the workers were practically dying, that is capitalism in it&#39;s purest form.

[Xvall]

You are seeing what you want to. What about the free market in the USA? Are you saying that Somalia and the USA are so similiar that the evils in Somalia also take place in the USA?

You missed the entire point of this stupid thread that is almost as stupid as the Here is real communism thread.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 13 2004, 03:18 AM

You are seeing what you want to. What about the free market in the USA? Are you saying that Somalia and the USA are so similiar that the evils in Somalia also take place in the USA?

You missed the entire point of this stupid thread that is almost as stupid as the Here is real communism thread.
The point I make is you found a government that is seriously anti-communist. You have found a system that is dictatorial and evil. Somewhere you have connected dots that I don&#39;t follow that equate this evil regime to everything free market.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by LuZhiming+Dec 11 2004, 01:40 AM--> (LuZhiming @ Dec 11 2004, 01:40 AM)
[email protected] 11 2004, 12:18 AM
You are seeing what you want to. What about the free market in the USA? Are you saying that Somalia and the USA are so similiar that the evils in Somalia also take place in the USA?
You are &#39;seeing&#39; something that doesn&#39;t exist. The United States does not have a free market. It is a society based generally on government subsidies, and a great deal of those subsidies go to corporations. Read up on real Capitalist literature, starting with the standard Adam Smith, and you will find that Capitalism and any modern day country today have nothing to do with eachother. Capitalism is not feasible, and could never be implemented. [/b]
Sir this is what I know:

1) I have a system of reward to motivate workers.
2) I have a management system that can track production, schedules, economy, efficiency, defects, inventory, etc.
3) I have a case examples of controlled vs free economy. UK in the 1970 (controlled) 1980 (free market), USA controlled (1970) vs free (1980), Poland, East Germany, China, etc. I have examples of economies incrementally going &#39;social&#39; and grinding to halt. I have examples of economies incrementally going free and exploding. Basically I &#39;know&#39; my economic system.

What communist have in regards to 1, 2, and 3?

Theory and that is all. That is the point I keep trying to hammer on all other threads. I want to a communist to &#39;show me the money&#39;. I am a shopper looking to buy and the salesmen here keep giving me more litrature and advetisment. I want to see the product perform.

[Osman Ghazi]

1) I have a system of reward to motivate workers.


The basic Marxist answer to this question is that humans actually enjoy productive work. If you think a job is necessary, or if you enjoy doing it, you will work hard at it. The classic example is the scientist, who desires to further science, whether or not he gets paid.

Now, there are questions though. Would that work for say, garbagemen? I don&#39;t know. Maybe there would have to be alternative ways of motivating them.


2) I have a management system that can track production, schedules, economy, efficiency, defects, inventory, etc.


So? In feudal times, they had a system to manage fields, tracking production, approximate nutrient value, etc. So fukcing what?

Will we magically lose this system if there is a revolution? Will we suddenly become so stupid that we cannot even measure what we produce? No, so why bring up this subject?


3) I have a case examples of controlled vs free economy

No, you really don&#39;t. &#39;Natural experiments&#39; don&#39;t prove anything because they aren&#39;t experiments. They don&#39;t have controls and variables. For example, I could say that production increased in the USSR and thus that socialism causes economic expansion. But it wouldn&#39;t make it true, would it?

Likewise, you could say that "controlled economies fail&#39; like the US in the 70&#39;s. But there are at least a thousand other reasons for it, not least the tripling in the price of oil.


. UK in the 1970 (controlled) 1980 (free market)

Again, there was a worldwide recession in the 70&#39;s caused by the formation of OPEC.


China

Yes, when your economy becomes capitalist for the first time, production increases. We knew that already.


I have examples of economies incrementally going &#39;social&#39; and grinding to halt.

Like?


I have examples of economies incrementally going free and exploding.

Like?


Basically I &#39;know&#39; my economic system.

I have no problem with the workings of capitalist economics. I know that capitalism &#39;works&#39; in the sense it was designed for. But when capitalism &#39;works&#39; humanity suffers, which is why I oppose it. All I know is, I want something better than what we have now, and communism is a realistic and ideal, if not a definate goal.

[Professor Moneybags]

so, really, you didn&#39;t answer the question did you?

What I said was good enough. You have no such comparison to fall back on.


What???? communism has never been put into practice, so how can you say the practice of communism included slavery is stupid enough.

You don&#39;t need to put it into practice to realise that it is slavery. Just like you don&#39;t need to put slavery into pratice to realise that it isn&#39;t a good idea.


As for the theory?, care to point out how exactly the theory implements slavery? C&#39;mon cappie, back up your words, your blabbing your way through this...

The positive rights that are enforced under communism require involuntary servitude. I&#39;ve gone through this enough times already.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 05:13 PM
If indeed we accept the principle that communism is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" there are working examples of communism. The Open Source movement is one of them. In fact, you&#39;re probably using open source and you don&#39;t even know it. It&#39;s work is built upon free development from a community effort. The products it creates are freely downloaded and completely open to all for change. The GPL is the most communist like example of this, as it requires that any such changes to the software must be released back to the public. Thus there is no way to privatize what is being done. Do you have any reason why this cannot work in other markets?
This might be true in a voluntary context, but "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" implies the existence of positive rights, the problems of which I have mentioned enough times already.


How about information, the internet is indeed a fountain of information, far exceeding the capacity and breadth of work in any library. Sites like Wikipedia, Project Gutenberg, etc make this information accessible. People contribute what they have to offer in terms of information or literature and people take from them with whatever need. These are two markets which are traditionally private under our pseudo-capitalism, yet given the material conditions (the internet) have been given the ability to thrive -- so much so that they now represent threats to their privatized counterparts.

There would be nothing wrong with it if it was voluntary, but the problem, as I have mentioned, lies with the initiation of force. i.e. forced redistribution of wealth, seizure of property, positive rights etc.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Dec 14 2004, 08:20 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Dec 14 2004, 08:20 PM)
[email protected] 11 2004, 05:13 PM
If indeed we accept the principle that communism is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" there are working examples of communism. The Open Source movement is one of them. In fact, you&#39;re probably using open source and you don&#39;t even know it. It&#39;s work is built upon free development from a community effort. The products it creates are freely downloaded and completely open to all for change. The GPL is the most communist like example of this, as it requires that any such changes to the software must be released back to the public. Thus there is no way to privatize what is being done. Do you have any reason why this cannot work in other markets?
This might be true in a voluntary context, but "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" implies the existence of positive rights, the problems of which I have mentioned enough times already.


How about information, the internet is indeed a fountain of information, far exceeding the capacity and breadth of work in any library. Sites like Wikipedia, Project Gutenberg, etc make this information accessible. People contribute what they have to offer in terms of information or literature and people take from them with whatever need. These are two markets which are traditionally private under our pseudo-capitalism, yet given the material conditions (the internet) have been given the ability to thrive -- so much so that they now represent threats to their privatized counterparts.

There would be nothing wrong with it if it was voluntary, but the problem, as I have mentioned, lies with the initiation of force. i.e. forced redistribution of wealth, seizure of property, positive rights etc. [/b]
What the fuck... You are not argumenting anything, neither winning anything. All you do is quote someone who has made a contribution to the discussion, and "refer" to something you supposedly already have said... Weird. Most people has not read what you have written before, and just saying "I have proven it somewhere else" etc. just makes it look like you have nothing to argument with.

And a word of advice, please don&#39;t reply concerning this post, as it probably would strengthen that image. Not that you won&#39;t, but hey, at least I can try.

[NovelGentry]

There would be nothing wrong with it if it was voluntary, but the problem, as I have mentioned, lies with the initiation of force. i.e. forced redistribution of wealth, seizure of property, positive rights etc.

These are not things that will affect the working class in post-revolutionary establishment. I would presume all working class citizens would benefit from the overall increase in wealth redistributed from the upper classes and the bourgeoisie.

And to be quite frank, I&#39;m not interested in what the bourgeoisie think, nor do I care about what they want.

[Professor Moneybags]

Unless of course people have differing opinions on what is &#39;retaliation&#39; and &#39;initiation&#39;. Like say, most of the time. In fact, the NIF needs a lto of work, as it is rather ambiguous, and thus open to any interpretation.

I don&#39;t think there is any "abiguity" with the definition or the interpretation.


Ironically enough, the only hitch in NIF comes when you have to initiate force (whether or not you call it retaliation.)

You don&#39;t have to initiate force against anyone; it&#39;s totally unnecessary.


Alas, amigo, the NIF never was.

It is at the moment, partially.


Thus, it was never abandoned. I can&#39;t remember an hour in history, let alone a day when someone didn&#39;t initiate force against someone else.

When that someone is the government, then it becomes unacceptable.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 04:52 PM
Well we had something in the lines of pure capitalism in the late 18th and 19th century...it basicly meant a very small group was very rich and all the workers were practically dying, that is capitalism in it&#39;s purest form.
Historical context dropping at it&#39;s finest. I knew you punks couldn&#39;t resist it. :D

[Dyst]

Thus, it was never abandoned. I can&#39;t remember an hour in history, let alone a day when someone didn&#39;t initiate force against someone else.


When that someone is the government, then it becomes unacceptable.
What about war? Is for example the US government "unacceptable"? (I think so, but I wonder what you think.)

[Osman Ghazi]

Historical context dropping at it&#39;s finest. I knew you punks couldn&#39;t resist it.


So did I. Are you going to predict gravity next?

[Guest1]

The "initiation of force" you talk about would not be made by the government, it would be made by the majority of society against the government and those it represents, and furthermore it would not really be "initiation", it&#39;s basically self defense. When someone is robbing you, do you not have the right to use force to take what you lost back?

As for a real world example, check out the FSF, and GNU/Linux for an example of how communist production and gift economies would work.

A quote I love "when a new technology rolls over you, if you&#39;re not part of the steamroller, you&#39;re part of the road". Communism is technologically inevitable. The development of technology is reaching a point already where its further advancement is hampered by, and a danger to, the Capitalist mode of production.

Anyone ever heard of Internet 2? It&#39;s already implemented in a few small experimental areas. A few universities, etc... The corporations don&#39;t want to open it up yet, because thanks to its blazing speed (literally 1000 times as fast as today&#39;s net), it has already been "hijacked" by "unsavoury elements". In otherwords, people are using it to liberate technology and "intellectual property". Entire movies and games shared in seconds, programming cooperation done in realtime, instant high-quality video and audio. All of these things are technologies we can deploy worldwide on a massive scale, but not as long as Capitalist modes of production are employed.

The time is almost here for human development to move to the next step. Away from imaginary bounries we have made up for ourselves. They were once necessary, now they only hinder us.

[Professor Moneybags]

The "initiation of force" you talk about would not be made by the government, it would be made by the majority of society against the government and those it represents, and furthermore it would not really be "initiation", it&#39;s basically self defense.

Initiating force in self-defence is a contradiction in terms.


When someone is robbing you, do you not have the right to use force to take what you lost back?

You&#39;re the one doing the robbing, though, not the taking back.


inevitable.

There is no such thing as inevitable.


The development of technology is reaching a point already where its further advancement is hampered by, and a danger to, the Capitalist mode of production.

How is it a danger ?

[Xvall]

There is no such thing as inevitable.

What about things like death and stupidity?

[Osman Ghazi]

Initiating force in self-defence is a contradiction in terms.


Really? You seem to call the concept of &#39;initiation of force for self-defence&#39; &#39;retaliation.&#39; You also seem to justify the concept of retaliation. So I don&#39;t get why you&#39;re disagreeing with him.


You&#39;re the one doing the robbing, though, not the taking back.


Oh, so taxation isn&#39;t robbery. Good thing that we cleared that up.


How is it a danger ?

Because people won&#39;t pay for things they can get for free. Duh.

[Professor Moneybags]

These are not things that will affect the working class in post-revolutionary establishment.

They will occur initially, that is bad enough. There is no law to prevent them afterwards either, so you cannot guarantee that. You have also evaded this issue of positive rights, which require coercion.


I would presume all working class citizens would benefit from the overall increase in wealth redistributed from the upper classes and the bourgeoisie.

And to be quite frank, I&#39;m not interested in what the bourgeoisie think, nor do I care about what they want.

You presume wrong. The benefit would last until inflation caught up (about five minutes).

[Professor Moneybags]

Really? You seem to call the concept of &#39;initiation of force for self-defence&#39; &#39;retaliation.&#39; You also seem to justify the concept of retaliation. So I don&#39;t get why you&#39;re disagreeing with him.

If I&#39;m retaliating with force, then I&#39;m not initiating it, am I ? I am responding to an attack, not making an attack.


Oh, so taxation isn&#39;t robbery. Good thing that we cleared that up.

What are you talking about and where did I imply that ?


Because people won&#39;t pay for things they can get for free. Duh.

I still don&#39;t see how this makes it a danger. Goods are still being exchanged voluntarily (as opposed being taken by force).

[NovelGentry]

You presume wrong. The benefit would last until inflation caught up (about five minutes).

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

The value-decrease in the dollar we don&#39;t have?

On the issue of positive rights, it&#39;s something you assume to be a problem among working class people, when indeed it is not. The only one who&#39;s gonna get positive rights stomped on is the bourgeoisie -- and once again I don&#39;t pretend to care about what they think or want.

[Osman Ghazi]

If I&#39;m retaliating with force, then I&#39;m not initiating it, am I ?

Yes, you are. You seem to view the situation like Newton&#39;s third law, you know, &#39;For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction&#39;, but that&#39;s paraphrasing. You seem to think that the retaliation is the natural extension of the initiation of force. However, anybody can see that you can choose to retaliate or not. Therefore, if you make the concious decision to use force, you are initiating force&#33;


What are you talking about and where did I imply that ?


:rolleyes: You said that nothing was being robbed from people, and that there was nothing to take back. Obviously then, you concede that that was wrong?


I still don&#39;t see how this makes it a danger. Goods are still being exchanged voluntarily (as opposed being taken by force).

But there isn&#39;t any profit in it.

[Professor Moneybags]

On the issue of positive rights, it&#39;s something you assume to be a problem among working class people, when indeed it is not.

If I have to pay for something I am not receiveing and without my permission, then it is a problem.


The only one who&#39;s gonna get positive rights stomped on is the bourgeoisie -- and once again I don&#39;t pretend to care about what they think or want.

The "bourgeoisie" are the least likely to "need" or use the goods and services offered as positive rights.

[Professor Moneybags]

Yes, you are. You seem to view the situation like Newton&#39;s third law, you know, &#39;For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction&#39;, but that&#39;s paraphrasing. You seem to think that the retaliation is the natural extension of the initiation of force.

I&#39;m saying that it is the correct response.


However, anybody can see that you can choose to retaliate or not. Therefore, if you make the concious decision to use force, you are initiating force&#33;

No, I am not and your arguments are beginning to stink of moral relativism.


:rolleyes: You said that nothing was being robbed from people, and that there was nothing to take back. Obviously then, you concede that that was wrong?

I was not talking about taxation. Private property is not the product of taxation. You have switched the context.


But there isn&#39;t any profit in it.

That is irrelevent.

[NovelGentry]

If I have to pay for something I am not receiveing and without my permission, then it is a problem.

You simply don&#39;t understand how this works, which is your problem. Your view of socialism is this insanely authoritarian body that takes all your money and gives it to the poor (or keep it for themselves). There is a different way than what you saw in the USSR and what you see in Cuba, one which is far fairer than capitalism and STILL is able to provide for people.


The "bourgeoisie" are the least likely to "need" or use the goods and services offered as positive rights.

What makes you say this?

[Professor Moneybags]

There is a different way than what you saw in the USSR and what you see in Cuba, one which is far fairer than capitalism and STILL is able to provide for people.

Such as what ? No jiggery-pokery. Tell me how your ideas are any different.


What makes you say this?

Who is less likely to apply for welfare cheques and "free" healthcare. The rich, or the poor ? Of couse, the "rich" often sponge in different ways, but that&#39;s another story.

[NovelGentry]

Such as what ? No jiggery-pokery. Tell me how your ideas are any different.

That would take quite awhile, I suggest you wait until my book is done. I don&#39;t have the time or patience to type it in full here. When it&#39;s done it will be released in PDF form, and you can throw some debate that way, for now, settle on the fact that the people will hold all political power (means of production, legislative power, and overall executive power). Minor executive power would be given to the administration for day to day things that need to be set in motion to keep society functioning as best as possible.


Who is less likely to apply for welfare cheques and "free" healthcare. The rich, or the poor ? Of couse, the "rich" often sponge in different ways, but that&#39;s another story.

We&#39;re talking about post revolution here, are we not? If we are there would be no rich or poor, the old rich would be equalized with all, and the old poor&#39;s conditions would significantly improve. Much like early on in Cuba, I don&#39;t see the major problem being that people can&#39;t afford things, I see it being more an issue of not having certain things to go around. Although, unlike Cuba, I don&#39;t think food production would be an issue. Cuba&#39;s previous agricultural focus was on sugar cane, the US has housed (and continues to house) much more of the current means necessary to supply food to the nation.

Your positive rights only make sense in a society where such groups are oppressed to the point where they need them.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 16 2004, 12:54 PM
Initiating force in self-defence is a contradiction in terms.
Let&#39;s take a look at what I said:


The "initiation of force" you talk about would not be made by the government, it would be made by the majority of society against the government and those it represents, and furthermore it would not really be "initiation", it&#39;s basically self defense.
See? All that masturbating to Ayn Rand has rotted your brain.


You&#39;re the one doing the robbing, though, not the taking back.
Really? Where does profit come from?


There is no such thing as inevitable.
Many things are inevitable :lol: Obviously, I mean barring natural disasters and the like. But for the purposes of this conversation, I&#39;m making a projection based on historical and current trends. In statistics, we drop outliers from the equation, most human beings only really need to be 99.99% sure of a trend.


How is it a danger ?
Not merely cause it is free, but also because it is developing a more efficient form of production than Capitalism. Namely a gift economy, known in the activist community, as Communism. Furthermore, challenges to notions and myths such as "property" are being raised by rapid technological development.

The Free-Software Movement (GNU/Linux) gives an example of a collective, Communist mode of production and its inherent efficiency, and peer-to-peer networks (developed under Communist modes of production) also show just how natural it is for us to move towards gift economies the moment technology makes it possible, and the efficiency of this Communist mode of distribution.

An example of Capitalism beginning to slow down and attempt to kill technological development (that is rapidly making it useless), is Internet 2, which could be a massive technological revolution for mankind on the scale of the industrial revolution, considering it would bring to the forefront a network that is literally thousands of times faster than the current internet.

Which would make Communist modes of production and distribution even more efficient and lead to an explosion of technological advances more rapid than anything we&#39;ve seen recently.

It would also likely mean the further degeneration and collapse of artificial profit structures that rely on a lack of free alternatives. The movie industry, the music industry, the game industry, the software industry, these are all just the first in a line of dominoes because they are most interconnected to the technology today. But the technology could also be harnessed for organizing material gift economies on the ground, very easily. As well as revolutionary groups and movements.

As a result, corporations have been very reluctant to deploy it. Their excuse? That where it has been deployed, it has quickly been hijacked by "unsavoury elements", sharing full movies and software in seconds. That&#39;s the reality of the net though.

Sorry, Capitalism may have once been useful to get us here, but the technological development it has spawned is now moving to the point where it can no longer be developed properly so long as Capitalism is in play. They continue to fight a flood that it&#39;s not necessary to fight. It is time to move on, in order to properly harness the true technological potential of humanity.

[Professor Moneybags]

The "initiation of force" you talk about would not be made by the government, it would be made by the majority of society against the government and those it represents, and furthermore it would not really be "initiation", it&#39;s basically self defense.

See? All that masturbating to Ayn Rand has rotted your brain.

You think that whether an action is defined as an "initiation of force" or not, is dependent on the number of people actually doing it ?

Who&#39;s brain did you say was rotting, again ?


Really? Where does profit come from?

Profit is not robbery, as nothing not been stolen.


Not merely cause it is free, but also because it is developing a more efficient form of production than Capitalism. Namely a gift economy, known in the activist community, as Communism.

That isn&#39;t communism. Communism is "open source whether you like it or not".
(The issue of "consent" seems to be either absent or skipped over in every one of your arguments, I notice.)


Furthermore, challenges to notions and myths such as "property" are being raised by rapid technological development.

No, my dear boy, voluntarily doing something for free and having your work stolen are two completely different things. You advocate the latter while attempting to disguise it as the former.

<snip the rest of the nonsense>

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 20 2004, 12:53 PM
You think that whether an action is defined as an "initiation of force" or not, is dependent on the number of people actually doing it ?
Once again, let&#39;s take a look at what I actually said, shall we?


The "initiation of force" you talk about would not be made by the government, it would be made by the majority of society against the government and those it represents, and furthermore it would not really be "initiation", it&#39;s basically self defense.
See? Furthermore, meaning these are two seperate points. Not "thus".


Profit is not robbery, as nothing not been stolen.
Someone puts in labour to produce the product, you sell it, then supposedly give them the value of their labour. Except that you take from the sale more than the person who produced it. Your profit comes from ripping that person off. Basically, to take a term from Ayn Rand&#39;s followers, you tax them. If you didn&#39;t tax them there would be no profit for you.

There&#39;s your theft.


That isn&#39;t communism. Communism is "open source whether you like it or not".
(The issue of "consent" seems to be either absent or skipped over in every one of your arguments, I notice.)
Free software is free whether you like it or not. Someone who takes a piece of free software and edits it, must pass it on as free to others so they can edit it.

And technology is making sharing "whether you like it or not" a reality. How much success do you think corporations will have shutting down music and file sharing? :lol:

I avoided the issue of consent, because frankly, just as with music, I don&#39;t care.

In the initial stages, there will be no consent from the ruling class, the small minority of professional thieves in society. Too bad. The majority will take back what is rightfully theirs, and there will be no revolution without the vast majority&#39;s consent. As for the minority of thieves, they will have options.

Work in a gift economy, giving what they produce to all those who give to the community, who in turn give them what they need as a recognition of their contribution

Refuse to work with others, and go off on their own to grow food for themselves and take care of themselves

Pick up a gun and fight to the death to attempt to re-establish slavery


Of course, considering they will have no more armies, and money will be worthless slips of paper, they will have to convince every person they wish to fight with them. Which is highly unlikely. Workers won&#39;t be convinced, and former Capitalists, well, it&#39;s a little tough to go the front lines if you&#39;re used to having others do your work for you.


No, my dear boy, voluntarily doing something for free and having your work stolen are two completely different things. You advocate the latter while attempting to disguise it as the former.
Well, no one will have their work stolen anymore, that&#39;s the point. We will end the institutionalized thievery and the masses will reclaim the fruits of their labour.

But the point is, I said technology is challenging property because people are sharing music, software, etc... and all the shit the industry is pulling about calling it "stealing" is not working.

People aren&#39;t buying it, and they don&#39;t care.

As will be the case when they rise up to seize what is rightfully theirs and people like you come to tell them it&#39;s immoral.

[Professor Moneybags]

Someone puts in labour to produce the product, you sell it, then supposedly give them the value of their labour. Except that you take from the sale more than the person who produced it. Your profit comes from ripping that person off.

Nope. No one is ripped off unless the contractual agreement between employer and worker said that the person who produced it was to be the owner of it.



I avoided the issue of consent, because frankly, just as with music, I don&#39;t care.

I wonder, do you carry this same philosophy over to your sexual relationships ?


As will be the case when they rise up to seize what is rightfully theirs and people like you come to tell them it&#39;s immoral.

I&#39;ll tell them it&#39;s stealing, like it is. No number of revolutions is going to change that fact.

[h&s]

Nope. No one is ripped off unless the contractual agreement between employer and worker said that the person who produced it was to be the owner of it.
Why is the capitalist the owner of the product? What has he done to it? Has he dug up the raw materials? Has he worked on the raw materials at all? The workers are the only people who have made the product what it is; therefore it is rightfully theirs.


I&#39;ll tell them it&#39;s stealing, like it is.
Do you really think we&#39;ll listen to you? :D

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 21 2004, 03:42 PM
Why is the capitalist the owner of the product? What has he done to it? Has he dug up the raw materials? Has he worked on the raw materials at all? The workers are the only people who have made the product what it is; therefore it is rightfully theirs.

Let&#39;s abolish the division of labour and produce everything ourselves. That way, all surplus value will fall in the hands of the labourer. The only person in this world who is exploited, in economic sense, is the capitalist, since all income stems from profit. Not from wages.

[praxus]

Why is the capitalist the owner of the product? What has he done to it? Has he dug up the raw materials? Has he worked on the raw materials at all? The workers are the only people who have made the product what it is; therefore it is rightfully theirs.

The capitalist is the owner of it because the laborer, of his own volition traded his labor in return for payment. This means the capitalist owns both the raw materials and the end result of the labor applyed to it.



# Pick up a gun and fight to the death to attempt to re-establish slavery

If fighting for a society where one man&#39;s need does not turn another to a slave, where one is free of the coercive powers of the state and the rest of the society, where man has his rights endowed to him by his nature and his desire to live, if this is slavery, then what may I ask is "freedom"?

Is it the power to point guns at whom ever you please because you "need" something? Is it the "right" to share in profits that are not yours? Is it the right to loot and pillage in the name of "society"? If this is what you call "freedom", I don&#39;t want your "freedom".

[Professor Moneybags]

Why is the capitalist the owner of the product? What has he done to it? Has he dug up the raw materials? Has he worked on the raw materials at all?

What about the house you live in or the car you drive ? Does that belong to the people who dug up the raw materials for it ?


Do you really think we&#39;ll listen to you? :D

I don&#39;t really care. I answer force with force.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 06:31 PM
Is it the power to point guns at whom ever you please because you "need" something? Is it the "right" to share in profits that are not yours? Is it the right to loot and pillage in the name of "society"? If this is what you call "freedom", I don&#39;t want your "freedom".
Push them hard enough and the psychotic nature of their ideals become clear.

[h&s]

What about the house you live in or the car you drive ? Does that belong to the people who dug up the raw materials for it ?
Amazing argument. The commodoties we own have been sold to us.


I don&#39;t really care. I answer force with force.
Hmm, in a fight who do you think will win: The mass of the proletariat or a few money-grabbing borgeoise scum?

[praxus]

Amazing argument. The commodoties we own have been sold to us.

So has the labor been sold to the capitalist.


Hmm, in a fight who do you think will win: The mass of the proletariat or a few money-grabbing borgeoise scum?

What makes you think the masses would be for Communism?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I&#39;m inclined to disagree strongly with this:

The commodoties we own have been sold to us.

Actually, the primary difference is that I possess my car, my toothbrush, and so on - I am entitled to these things by my use thereof. However, it is labour that lays its hands upon the means of production and creates wealth - the "title" of the bourgeois owners rests on the power of violence, rather than the sensible matter of possesion (In fact, I expect most would be loathe to lay their hands upon the assembly lines&#33;). In other words, who happens to be have been sold this or that is irrelevent - the entire system of buying and selling rests on the violent power of those who profit from buying and selling - the reality of using my toothbrush, or flipping a burger is far removed from the abstractions and constructions of our grand capitalist narrative.


What makes you think the masses would be for Communism?

Je suis les masses.
Tu es les masses.
Il est les masses
Elle est les masses.
Nous sommes les masses.
Vous êtes les masses.
Etc.

[praxus]

Actually, the primary difference is that I possess my car, my toothbrush, and so on - I am entitled to these things by my use thereof. However, it is labour that lays its hands upon the means of production and creates wealth - the "title" of the bourgeois owners rests on the power of violence, rather than the sensible matter of possesion (In fact, I expect most would be loathe to lay their hands upon the assembly lines&#33;). In other words, who happens to be have been sold this or that is irrelevent - the entire system of buying and selling rests on the violent power of those who profit from buying and selling - the reality of using my toothbrush, or flipping a burger is far removed from the abstractions and constructions of our grand capitalist narrative.

So if I use my friends baseball bat I&#39;m entitled to keep it as my own? If I borrow a friends car am I not entitled to that?

Why is labor any different then any other commodity? Because it "creates wealth" as you put it? How? Even if it did produce wealth, why is the laborer not entitled to trade it to the capitalists in exchange for payment?


Je suis les masses.
Tu es les masses.
Il est les masses
Elle est les masses.
Nous sommes les masses.
Vous êtes les masses.
Etc.

Nice non-sequiter.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So if I use my friends baseball bat I&#39;m entitled to keep it as my own? If I borrow a friends car am I not entitled to that?

See, you&#39;ve provided a lovely example for me - your friend has title to the baseball bat in their usage of it. Even if your friend had found the bat in the gutter (That&#39;s actually where I found my bat - a big aluminum fucker - in the gutter.), it is "his" because he makes use of it, and likewise his car (Though, personally, I&#39;m of the opinion that for any individual to posses a car of their own, outside of some unusual circumstance, is supremely wasteful.) Welcome to the common sense guide to "Whose shit is this?&#33;" Now, how does this differ from bourgeoisie property? Well, if your nice friend were a capitalist, as a condition of using his bat, he&#39;d "get", that is, he would "own" every homerun you hit&#33; Ridiculous? Supremely&#33;

Of course, this situation can only evolve if there is an artificial deficiency of baseball bats created. In the reality of a post-capitalist society, if you really want a baseball bat, there&#39;s no reason there shouldn&#39;t be enough to go around. Or, if by some strange chance there isn&#39;t (Mysterious bat-fire?) the communitty might hold the bats in common, and decide democraticly how they might be used (Most likely, according to whoever is playing baseball on a given day). Thus, any individual is able to hit home runs, and they are not claimed as the rightful property of the greedy bastard sitting on the stand and getting one hell of a batting average off yr hard work.

I *heart* sports analogies.


. . .


"Do you see the analogy? We&#39;re the Oilers, the world bank the Flames&#33; Ten seconds remain in the seventh game of the best of seven series - Jesus saves Gretsky scores. The workers slave the rich get more. One wrong move we risk the cup - so play the man not the puck . . ."

[Guest1]

Great. I have little to add, except to remind our cappie friends, as you have, that the abolition of property does not mean sharing toothbrushes, it is th abolition of Capitalist property, factories, farms, land, etc...

[praxus]

See, you&#39;ve provided a lovely example for me - your friend has title to the baseball bat in their usage of it. Even if your friend had found the bat in the gutter (That&#39;s actually where I found my bat - a big aluminum fucker - in the gutter.), it is "his" because he makes use of it, and likewise his car (Though, personally, I&#39;m of the opinion that for any individual to posses a car of their own, outside of some unusual circumstance, is supremely wasteful.) Welcome to the common sense guide to "Whose shit is this?&#33;" Now, how does this differ from bourgeoisie property? Well, if your nice friend were a capitalist, as a condition of using his bat, he&#39;d "get", that is, he would "own" every homerun you hit&#33; Ridiculous? Supremely&#33;

From what facts of reality are your basing your little version of property rights?

[h&s]

So has the labor been sold to the capitalist.
Did I say that? Just because the capitalist has stolen from the workers doesn&#39;t mean that we have to retrun everything to each other after the revolution because the capitalist stole it from us - that method of stealing will be outlawed and we&#39;ll start from fresh.


What makes you think the masses would be for Communism?
What makes you think they&#39;ll be for capitalism once they learn the truth about it?

[praxus]

Did I say that? Just because the capitalist has stolen from the workers doesn&#39;t mean that we have to retrun everything to each other after the revolution because the capitalist stole it from us - that method of stealing will be outlawed and we&#39;ll start from fresh.

So your saying the laborer can&#39;t of his own free will exchange his labor for money?



What makes you think they&#39;ll be for capitalism once they learn the truth about it?

What makes you think, that they will think your bull shit is the truth?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 22 2004, 03:43 PM
Hmm, in a fight who do you think will win: The mass of the proletariat or a few money-grabbing borgeoise scum?
Don&#39;t start another "my daddy can beat up your daddy" argument, but this is the 21st century; an age of push-button annihilaton.

Sorry, but the idea that the power you wielded was equal to the number of people in your army is an anachronism that went out with 19th century.

[Professor Moneybags]

Just because the capitalist has stolen from the workers

This is a false premise. Stealing implies something taken without permission.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, if I put this gun to yr head, and deamnd yr money, am I stealing? I mean, really, you&#39;re giving me the money of yr own free will, are you not?

Really, consider social context. No event or individual exists within a vaccum.

[Professor Moneybags]

So, if I put this gun to yr head, and deamnd yr money, am I stealing? I mean, really, you&#39;re giving me the money of yr own free will, are you not?

No, you are threatening me with violence if I don&#39;t comply. The labourer in the example was not threatened.


Really, consider social context. No event or individual exists within a vaccum.

The initiation of force isn&#39;t right under any context.

[h&s]

No, you are threatening me with violence if I don&#39;t comply. The labourer in the example was not threatened.

If they don&#39;t work they don&#39;t live. Its a silent threat.

[Professor Moneybags]

If they don&#39;t work they don&#39;t live

Unable to tell a metaphysical fact from a man-made threat ?


Its a silent threat.

There is no such thing. If I don&#39;t eat, I don&#39;t live. That is a metaphysical fact, not a threat.

[synthesis]

And they say communists are stuck in a fantasy world.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 07:09 PM
And they say communists are stuck in a fantasy world.
You clearly are if you disagree with my above post.

[synthesis]

The idea that you will dismiss starvation by lack of opportunity for employment due to the &#39;whims of the market&#39; as a &#39;metaphysical fact&#39; signifies that you and your type are far more detached from reality than any communist could ever be.

[Osman Ghazi]

Too true. The market is a social construct. Starvation from not eating may be a metaphysical fact, but starvation because you don&#39;t have a job is merely a product of this particular society (and most of the preceding ones.)