End of the "That's not capitalism" argument.

[NovelGentry]

"Capitalism"

The system that generated Western economic growth evolved before it was recognized as a system or advanced as an ideology. There was plenty of ideological commitment to relevant economic ideas and institutions—private property, freedom from arbitrary confiscation or taxation, and the like—but the ideology was not based on the role these institutions served in any recognized system of economic life. It was 1776 before Adam Smith first produced the systematic rationale that furnished the basis of a laissez-faire ideology, and by then the basic Western economic institutions were in place and economic growth was well under way.... Neither the Communist Manifesto nor Capital (volume 1) employed the term capitalism, though Marx did use it in 1877 in correspondence. The Oxford English Dictionary lists its first use, apparently in the sense of the condition of possessing capital, by Thackeray in 1854; its first use in the sense of en economic system was in Better Times, a book by Douai in 1884. Marx’s followers developed the use of Capitalism in late nineteenth-century Marxist literature as a term of opprobrium for the economic system they wished to overthrow.

Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell, Jr., How The West Grew Rich xi (1986).

It would be believed by anyone who took the capitalist's word for it, particularly on this board, that capitalism itself is non-existent without Laissez-Faire. Often times we see them holding up the likes of Smith and Friedman as testaments that free market capitalism, one thatfollows the "leave to make" literal translation of Laissez-Faire, is and can only ever be the only valid form of capitalism. Certainly they would have it, if they could, that we stop using the term capitalist to label nations such as the US, nations of the EU, and yes, even China. Unfortunate for them, as the piece above points out, Laissez-Faire itself is in essence exclusive of the term capitalism in it's definition. In fact, the first recorded use of the term was not until over 50 years after the founder of Laissez-Faire economic's death.

How is it then that one can proclaim the use of the term capitalism with the monopolistic tone of Laissez-Faire. The answer is quite simpley, they can't. Instead capitalism is shown here as defined by a condition, the condition of possessing capital. A condition, while not strictly referenced as capitalism, was outlined and elaborated on by Marx himself.

Is it not with a sense of irony that the very capitalists who tell us not to use this term outside of Laissez-Faire were not even the ones to have coined it or brought it in to common usage? Let me then attempt to put fourth a definition we can all agree on, for the benefit of all arguments within this forum so that we may never need to hear the argument again.

Capitalism: A socio-economic system characterized by the existence and possession of capital, based on the foundation of saleable goods such as land, labor, and wares, with particular respect to the idea of private property.

Nothing more, Nothing less.

[Professor Moneybags]

Capitalism: A socio-economic system characterized by the existence and possession of capital, based on the foundation of saleable goods such as land, labor, and wares, with particular respect to the idea of private property.

Nothing more, Nothing less.

Alot of these characteristics are inessential. There was private property under feudalism, albeit defacto. How about :

Capitalism is an socio-economic system based on the recognition of individual rights, in which all property is privately owned.

[NovelGentry]

Well as far as "inessential" I'm not sure how you think the existence and possession of "capital" could be inessential to "capital"-ism. The second part is just examples, and third part is primarily thrown is as a basis for how the capital exists.

Care to explain why your definition does not even include the most essential part of capitalism, capital?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 7 2005, 03:37 PM

Capitalism: A socio-economic system characterized by the existence and possession of capital, based on the foundation of saleable goods such as land, labor, and wares, with particular respect to the idea of private property.

Nothing more, Nothing less.

Alot of these characteristics are inessential. There was private property under feudalism, albeit defacto. How about :

Capitalism is an socio-economic system based on the recognition of individual rights, in which all property is privately owned.
What are an individuals rights?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 7 2005, 03:37 PM

Capitalism: A socio-economic system characterized by the existence and possession of capital, based on the foundation of saleable goods such as land, labor, and wares, with particular respect to the idea of private property.

Nothing more, Nothing less.

Alot of these characteristics are inessential. There was private property under feudalism, albeit defacto. How about :

Capitalism is an socio-economic system based on the recognition of individual rights, in which all property is privately owned.
Alot of these characteristics are inessential.

The word you are looking for is 'superfluous'.

Capitalism is an socio-economic system based on the recognition of individual rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Capitalism has little to do with individual rights.

It is a system where the market (the means of manipulating capital) regulates its self, without the need for external management. "Individual rights" are a secondary, usually ignored, concern.

[NovelGentry]

Enigma, I wouldn't say that, "private property" is considered an individual right. There's lots of things that individual rights don't cover. The reason they're called individual rights is not because they give the individual rights, but because they focus only on the right of single individuals.

The problem is they confuse individual rights for freedom, and ignore that you can maintain individual rights while maintaing other forms of rights.

Again, most of this boils down to commie vs. cappie difference on what private property is. They're other arguments like lack of freedom of speech, religion, etc, are founded in authoritarian control only.

[Professor Moneybags]

The problem is they confuse individual rights for freedom, and ignore that you can maintain individual rights while maintaing other forms of rights.

How is this possible without contradicting them ?

[NovelGentry]

Well how would affording, for example, gay rights, contradict any individual rights? Gay rights are not individual rights, is this not correct?

Again, on the terms of freedom, there's a thin line to be crossed. The right to enslave another human being should never be assumed to have anything to do with freedom, regardless of whether it is an individual right or not. The problem is of course that you don't see it as enslavement, so once again, a fundamental disagreement is why we will never convince one another.

[praxus]

Gay rights don't exsist, just because someone is gay does not give him/her a special set of rights. They have the same rights as everyone else.

[Publius]

So is laissez-faire capitalism more, less, or equally 'capitalistic', based on your definition:

Capitalism: A socio-economic system characterized by the existence and possession of capital, based on the foundation of saleable goods such as land, labor, and wares, with particular respect to the idea of private property.

America, like the EU and to a lesser extent, China, are capitalist countries, but that last part of you definition, the one about private property, is not as "respected" in these countries as it would be under laissez-faire capitalism due to various laws. So the only form of capitalism that fully fits this definition is lessez-faire.

Yes, they are all capitalism, but they aren't the same.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 08:34 PM
Gay rights don't exsist, just because someone is gay does not give him/her a special set of rights. They have the same rights as everyone else.
The right to marry?

[NovelGentry]

So is laissez-faire capitalism more, less, or equally 'capitalistic', based on your definition:

Holy shit, you spelled it correctly.


Yes, they are all capitalism, but they aren't the same.

I don't remember ever saying they were the same, but they are the same in one respect, and it is that aspect of them which we argue against above all others.

[Publius]

The right to marry?

There is no "right" to marry.

[Publius]

Yes, I am good.

So basically, this thead exists to prove a point in which we don't even disagree on? Great one.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 09:28 PM


The right to marry?

There is no "right" to marry.
Yes there is. Read your fuckin laws.

Heterosexuals have a right to marry.

Then dumbass stated that homosexuals shouldn't get "special" rights and should be treated the same. If he wants to treat them the same, they why not give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.

[Publius]

My fuckin' laws state there is a right to marry? I thought they only dealt with fornication?



What I was meaning to say is, you don't have a right to get married, any church can deny you a marriage ceremony and the state should play absolutely no role in marriage at all.

Tell me where this marriage "right" is? Is it in the bill of rights? Like you've read them.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What I was meaning to say is, you don't have a right to get married, any church can deny you a marriage ceremony and the state should play absolutely no role in marriage at all.

You are wrong. The church isn't necessary a part in marriage ceremonies. Church recognition of marriage isn't necessary. The state however does play a vital role in marriage. Without staterecognition of your marriage you will not get certain (tax) beneftis.

Edit: Thus comes up the issue again. Homosexuals aren't given the same rights or "freedom" as heterosexuals. Effectivly they are second-rate citizens.

[praxus]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 7 2005, 07:45 PM
The right to marry?
Of course they have the right to marry, but that has nothing to do with the fact that their Gay only that their human.

[encephalon]

Capitalism is an socio-economic system based on the recognition of individual rights, in which all property is privately owned

1. You make an assumption that individual rights are based on property alone.

2. The ownership of private property by one can negate the individual right to live of another, or many others. Or is the right to staying alive not a right under your definition of capitalism?

3. Private Property negates free speech, which many if not most people consider to be a right. I should be free to spread CSS decryption algorithms, whether in speech or text, yet I cannot legally do so. I should be free to write a book, and in it have pepsi, but if pepsico dislikes said book and does not give me permission to use their brand legal action can be taken against me. Yet I did nothing but describe my own environment.

4. if all property is already owned, then no property can be obtained, and therefore the right negated to those who lack ownership. The right to private property in your version of capitalism relies on infinite abundance of attainable property.

5. This version of capitalism has been done before. It led led to the roman revolution, the overthrow of the republic, and the establishment 100 years later of imperial rome based on exploitation of economically conquered lands, which agitated the barbarians (the third world of the time) until they over-ran rome itself. The gross effect of capitalism is the centralization of property into fewer and fewer hands the longer it continues without massive expansion and exploitation of property newly acquired, leading to greater and greater desperation by the exploited working class. Such was Rome, and such is now.

[NovelGentry]

Well I can only assume from statements such as the following that you do disagree:


But we (I assume), as true capitalists are against this because we support lessaiz-faire capitalism.

State capitalism is also true capitalism.


Lessez-faire capitalism is capitalism. Anything different is not capitalism or more accurately, is less capitalistic and more socialistic.

Granted you did slide the more accurately in there, but I'm not sure what makes you think it's more socialistic. Russia had something of a demi-capitalism before the October revolution which included the remnants of feudal society with a quasi-free market and a provisional government. It was less "capitalistic" and more fedual. Or was that socialism too?

Even still, you say it's only "less capitalistic" and never refute your "not capitalism" claim. Maybe we disagree afterall?

Edit: Let me just add this reaffirmation which was made directly after the previous quote:


Anything other than lessez-faire capitalism does not deserve to be called capitalism, at least in my opinion.

Well for one, I suppose you could have changed your mind since then. Afterall, that was when you still didn't know how to spell it. Maybe you found out and actually read some stuff and discovered the terms of Laissez-Faire never actually said anything about the term "capitalism."

I blame this on the education system though. Do they still teach people that "Laissez-Faire" translates to "Free Market"?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by praxus+Feb 7 2005, 10:27 PM--> (praxus @ Feb 7 2005, 10:27 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 7 2005, 07:45 PM
The right to marry?
Of course they have the right to marry, but that has nothing to do with the fact that their Gay only that their human.[/b]
They don't have a right to marry under US laws.

But you said that Gays were demanding attention and that they should stop demanding special treatment. This is an absurd statement.

Ever wondered, why there were hugh marches of African Americans in the 60's? They were marching, because they were being severly discriminated. They didn't march, because they were "attention-freaks".

Putting it into contrast:

Every oppressed person wants his/her oppression to end. Starting from asking the system to end oppression, going more radical the longer and severlier the oppression is.

Eventually the oppressed of this world will stop asking and fight the sysem in a life and death struggle. Better to die standing, then living on your knees. Occassionaly glimpses of the oppressed anger shows on the surface in the shape of riots, acts of defiance, marches.

[Publius]

They taught me that it was Russian for "Shove it up your ass commie". I didn't go to a good school.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Atleast give an argument back. Stop your pseudo-funnyness. Leave the board if you don't engage in serious political debates. I bet there are numerous forums for clowns to practice.

[Publius]

Atleast give an argument back. Stop your pseudo-funnyness. Leave the board if you don't engage in serious political debates. I bet there are numerous forums for clowns to practice.

I engage in serious debate all the time.

I'm sorry that you think the Kommiez 4 Che board you post on in the ne plus ultra of political thought, but really, get over yourself.

If you can't take the slightest bit of humor with your politics/economics, perhaps the problem isn't my and my smart ass but you and your dull one.


I was making that post as a reconcilation over the debate. After his post I realized there was really no difference in terms, merely in intent.

Don't have a heart attack, you probably don't have health insurance because a capitalist screwed you over.

[Professor Moneybags]

Well how would affording, for example, gay rights, contradict any individual rights? Gay rights are not individual rights, is this not correct?

I don't know which aspect of "gay rights" you are talking about, but if no force isn't involved then it "gay rights" are perfectly acceptable.


Again, on the terms of freedom, there's a thin line to be crossed. The right to enslave another human being should never be assumed to have anything to do with freedom, regardless of whether it is an individual right or not.

I never said it was.


The problem is of course that you don't see it as enslavement, so once again, a fundamental disagreement is why we will never convince one another.

Enslavement requires the initiation of force, as does any other aggressive action. You are arguing that people can be enslaved without force being used.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:52 PM

Atleast give an argument back. Stop your pseudo-funnyness. Leave the board if you don't engage in serious political debates. I bet there are numerous forums for clowns to practice.

I engage in serious debate all the time.

I'm sorry that you think the Kommiez 4 Che board you post on in the ne plus ultra of political thought, but really, get over yourself.

If you can't take the slightest bit of humor with your politics/economics, perhaps the problem isn't my and my smart ass but you and your dull one.


I was making that post as a reconcilation over the debate. After his post I realized there was really no difference in terms, merely in intent.

Don't have a heart attack, you probably don't have health insurance because a capitalist screwed you over.
I am humorless when I am debating politics, as should you. The problem is that 4/5 of your posts seems to be made for "humor porpuses".

Nor do you seriously debate politics. You ignore every point made by your opponents. You just keep forwarding new points. Repeating the same arguments, which have been refuted every time. Turning in circles.

How many times did you say Communist Country. How many times was it refuted. How many times did you continue to repeat Communist Country.

Nor is it clear to me what the porpuse of your visit to "Kommiez 4 Che board" is. According to you were are 12 year old rebellion kids. Why would such a "worthy" capitalist as you spent so much time debating and telling jokes to 12 year olds. Do you lack a social life?

Really. What is the point of you posting here. You do not try to convince us of capitalism, nor do you try to understand the leftist ideologies. So what are you doing here?

BTW: I have health insurance, it's compulsory here. But expensive. And I have an excellent heart condition.

[praxus]

But you said that Gays were demanding attention and that they should stop demanding special treatment. This is an absurd statement.


Really, where?


They don't have a right to marry under US laws.

Since when were we discussing the law?

[Professor Moneybags]

1. You make an assumption that individual rights are based on property alone.

That's not what I said.


2. The ownership of private property by one can negate the individual right to live of another,

You can't "live off another" without their consent, that's slavery.


or many others. Or is the right to staying alive not a right under your definition of capitalism?

You have the right to your own life and the right to live by your own efforts and engage in voluntary transactions with other people.


3. Private Property negates free speech, which many if not most people consider to be a right.

It doesn't. Even owning nothing does not prevent you from saying as you please.


I should be free to spread CSS decryption algorithms, whether in speech or text, yet I cannot legally do so. I should be free to write a book, and in it have pepsi, but if pepsico dislikes said book and does not give me permission to use their brand legal action can be taken against me. Yet I did nothing but describe my own environment.

But it's their brand and their invention, not yours. Again, you have the right to your own life.


4. if all property is already owned, then no property can be obtained, and therefore the right negated to those who lack ownership. The right to private property in your version of capitalism relies on infinite abundance of attainable property.

Look into the sky. There's a big universe out there.


5. This version of capitalism has been done before. It led led to the roman revolution, the overthrow of the republic, and the establishment 100 years later of imperial rome based on exploitation of economically conquered lands, which agitated the barbarians (the third world of the time) until they over-ran rome itself.

But those kind of invasions involved the initiation of force. They weren't economically conquered- they were militarily conquered.

<Snip attempt to re-write history>

[Professor Moneybags]

State capitalism is also true capitalism.

State capitalism doesn&#39;t exist; the government/state owning everything isn&#39;t capitalism.

[praxus]

5. This version of capitalism has been done before. It led led to the roman revolution, the overthrow of the republic, and the establishment 100 years later of imperial rome based on exploitation of economically conquered lands, which agitated the barbarians (the third world of the time) until they over-ran rome itself.

So I suppose the Barbaric tribes of Gaul, Germania, and Spain were all peace loving people, that never fought over land, power, slaves, and exploited their conquests?

[Publius]

Why should you be humorless when debating politics? Is it a sacrosanct topic or something?

Rather sweeping generalizations there. Does something have you riled up?

I don&#39;t try to convince you? I do, and it isn&#39;t likely to happen.

I do come hear to learn about the leftsist ideology and honestly, I&#39;ve learned a lot about it.

I&#39;m not any closer to becoming a leftist but I&#39;m much more knowledgable on the topic.

Honestly, stop pretending like you and your ilk are so much damn better than everyone and learn to have a laugh. I wouldn&#39;t be having these jokes at your expense if you weren&#39;t such easy targets.

Your humorless debate style and obtuse, circular logic make funny topics.

[NovelGentry]

As far as gay rights and the initiation of force. Let&#39;s see what kind of force the IRS initiates when a gay couple under a civil union and married in a church accepting of it decides to file joint taxes as a married couple.