So You Believe In Freedom?

[Paradox]

I'm pretty sure you all have seen the Iraq's 52 most wanted trading card deck. You know, the one with Saddam and his sons, etc., etc.? But have you seen this deck before? I'm curious as to what you capitalists have to say about this:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html

[amusing foibles]

Heh, I have two sets of the Iraq's most wanted cards.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:35 PM
I'm curious as to what you capitalists have to say about this:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html
How about : "Same shit, different day."

[dakewlguy]

The requested URL could not be retrieved

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html

The following error was encountered:

Unable to determine IP address from host name for home.iprimus.com.au
The dnsserver returned:

Server Failure: The name server was unable to process this query.

[t_wolves_fan]

Most of those were in the past.

They are certainly free to create, market, and sell this product.

[Paradox]

Most of those were in the past.

Does it make a difference? Just about every capitalist in this forum keeps bringing up the Soviet Union as an example of the failure of Communism, even though the Soviet Union was not Communist. And neither are any of the other countries brought up, such as China, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. The same thing is still happening today. The u$ in Colombia for example. They're fumigating the Colombian countryside. You may say that they're just destroying coca crops, but they're spraying subsistence crops of local villagers, and their water supply too. And what about all the people who are killed in the conflict? Most of them are killed by RIGHT-WING paramilitary forces, yet the u$ keeps pointing the finger at the left-wing rebels. Not only that, bush has used the "drug" war to gain access to oil in Colombia. They support Saudi Arabia. And they invaded Iraq on the lie that saddam had WMDs, yet it is THEY who are USING THEM. There is depleted uranium used in munitions, which they've been doing since the first war in Iraq. And this has led to higher radiation levels and an increase in birth defects, cancer, etc. They criticize "communist" countries such as Cuba, saying the people are poor, exploited, and oppressed. Yet at the SAME time, u$ companies, nike for example, are exploiting kids IN "communist" Vietnam and China. I don't see how most of those dictatorships backed by the u$ being in the past matters, because as is obvious, history repeats itself.

[Dyst]

Most of those were in the past.
Think. Do you, if so, why, not think that the US government (driven by a capitalist imperialistic foundation) would have done the same things over again if it where subject today? Yes! And they do.

[Paradox]

saddam had WMDs? And he would have used them? Hmm... Turns out he didn't have any. What a surprise. But somebody else is sure using 'em. Watch this:

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:03 PM

Most of those were in the past.

Does it make a difference? Just about every capitalist in this forum keeps bringing up the Soviet Union as an example of the failure of Communism, even though the Soviet Union was not Communist. And neither are any of the other countries brought up, such as China, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. The same thing is still happening today. The u$ in Colombia for example. They're fumigating the Colombian countryside. You may say that they're just destroying coca crops, but they're spraying subsistence crops of local villagers, and their water supply too. And what about all the people who are killed in the conflict? Most of them are killed by RIGHT-WING paramilitary forces, yet the u$ keeps pointing the finger at the left-wing rebels. Not only that, bush has used the "drug" war to gain access to oil in Colombia. They support Saudi Arabia. And they invaded Iraq on the lie that saddam had WMDs, yet it is THEY who are USING THEM. There is depleted uranium used in munitions, which they've been doing since the first war in Iraq. And this has led to higher radiation levels and an increase in birth defects, cancer, etc. They criticize "communist" countries such as Cuba, saying the people are poor, exploited, and oppressed. Yet at the SAME time, u$ companies, nike for example, are exploiting kids IN "communist" Vietnam and China. I don't see how most of those dictatorships backed by the u$ being in the past matters, because as is obvious, history repeats itself.
That's all fair enough criticism.

So please go buy all the decks you can handle.

[Urban Rubble]

Most of those were in the past.

So were Stalin's gulags and Mao's lagoai, does that negate the fact that they were putting people in concentration camps ?

It amazes me, you throw out a list of nearly 40 sadistic maniacs whom the U.S has blatantly supports, and all you can do is say "it was in the past" ? THIS SHIT STILL CONTINUES !!

Do a little research on Bush's pal, the president of Uzbekistan. The man is boiling political opponents alive with Bush's money !

[dakewlguy]

Ok it now loads for me. My response is that the USA has for the past 60 years been firmly opportunistic and out only to improve it's own power and influence. I don't see how the link is a criticism of Capitalism in general though.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Because capitalism encourages people to be upportunistic, to increase influence and power. It's a "civilized" dog-eat-dog system.

[dakewlguy]

A lot of other countries have managed to compete for economic success without resorting to supporting dictators in foreign countries and throwing away its morals.

The USA was in a unique position after WW2 as the sole superpower, this influenced it profoundly as did the Cold War. Both these things have been key in determining the USAs attitude to foreign policy. I argue these factors more than simple economic competitiveness are the cause of it supporting dictatorships and invading such a number of countries.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A lot of other countries have managed to compete for economic success without resorting to supporting dictators in foreign countries and throwing away its morals.

Mmm. Some governed colonies directly.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 08:42 PM
A lot of other countries have managed to compete for economic success without resorting to supporting dictators in foreign countries and throwing away its morals.

The USA was in a unique position after WW2 as the sole superpower, this influenced it profoundly as did the Cold War. Both these things have been key in determining the USAs attitude to foreign policy. I argue these factors more than simple economic competitiveness are the cause of it supporting dictatorships and invading such a number of countries.
Interesting though. The richest capitalist countries were either heavily funded by the US, or had colonies or governed in a fascist or near fascist way. A famous example of this is South Korea. The country lay ruined after the Korea war, yet with heavy US fundings and a tight government control on the population in favor of business, it recovered and emerged stronger then ever.

The US wasn't the only superpower after WW2. I argue that any capitalist who has the same power as the US, would have invaded other countries. I mean, the Dutch capitalists were also eager conquer Iraq and make hugh profits, but their military power, resources, political power doesn't allow them too.

(Even though the Dutch government and capitalists did complain to the US, because the new Iraqi "government" didn't give any contracts to Dutch companies. The Dutch establishment felt a bit betrayed, since Holland had supported, activly helped and joined the occupation forces.)

[dakewlguy]

Interesting though. The richest capitalist countries were either heavily funded by the US, or had colonies or governed in a fascist or near fascist way.
Countries in Europe, and Japan, were funded by the US for a time, but this was to rebuild the damage caused by WW2. If it was not for the war then these countries would have been as strong as they are now without US financial aid.


The US wasn't the only superpower after WW2. I argue that any capitalist who has the same power as the US, would have invaded other countries. I mean, the Dutch capitalists were also eager conquer Iraq and make hugh profits, but their military power, resources, political power doesn't allow them too.

Yes, it was. The USSR did not immediately emerge and for a decade or so the US was alone.

And as for any Capitalist country being able to invade if it had the same military strength, other countries would not have tolerated politically such action, and voted accordingly. If France had the military power to invade Syria, it still would not due to how hugely unpopular such action would be there. In the US on the otherhand a much more selfish culture is dominant. The unique characteristics of the US are what have caused it to have such selfish foreign policy in my opinion, it's emergance unscathed from WW2 and as the sole superpower, its huge inexperience with foreign diplomacy prior to WW2, and its physical isolation.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 11 2005, 08:02 PM

A lot of other countries have managed to compete for economic success without resorting to supporting dictators in foreign countries and throwing away its morals.

Mmm. Some governed colonies directly.
*Cough*

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cocktail+Feb 12 2005, 07:39 AM--> (Virgin Molotov Cocktail @ Feb 12 2005, 07:39 AM)
Virgin Molotov [email protected] 11 2005, 08:02 PM

A lot of other countries have managed to compete for economic success without resorting to supporting dictators in foreign countries and throwing away its morals.

Mmm. Some governed colonies directly.
*Cough* [/b]

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 01:25 PM
Most of those were in the past.

Yes, thats quite natural, because most of what has happened accually happened in the past.

[Intifada]

Do a little research on Bush's pal, the president of Uzbekistan. The man is boiling political opponents alive with Bush's money !


It is brilliant how right-wing fucknuts shut up instantly when Islam Karimov is brought up in a discussion about "freedom".

http://uzland.freenet.uz/fact/bush6.jpg

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Notice how cappies fail to reply to threads like this, they are spineless fucks. Remember that,

[Publius]

What do you want me to say? Oops?

[Urban Rubble]

No, I want you to explain the link between our "bastion of freedom" and a politician who boils people alive.

This is not "in the past", he is in power and killing people with our money right now.

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Pedro Alonso [email protected] 13 2005, 05:31 PM
Notice how cappies fail to reply to threads like this, they are spineless fucks. Remember that,

A lot of other countries have managed to compete for economic success without resorting to supporting dictators in foreign countries and throwing away its morals.

The USA was in a unique position after WW2 as the sole superpower, this influenced it profoundly as did the Cold War. Both these things have been key in determining the USAs attitude to foreign policy. I argue these factors more than simple economic competitiveness are the cause of it supporting dictatorships and invading such a number of countries.

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 13 2005, 06:53 PM
No, I want you to explain the link between our "bastion of freedom" and a politician who boils people alive.

This is not "in the past", he is in power and killing people with our money right now.
I want you to explain the link between "Capitalism" and one particular countries culture and political history.

The premise by some in this thread is that showing the USA's record is a critique of Capitalism more generally.

[Urban Rubble]

I want you to explain the link between "Capitalism" and one particular countries culture and political history.

The premise by some in this thread is that showing the USA's record is a critique of Capitalism more generally.

Where did I say this was a critique a Capitalism as a whole ? I'm fairly sure I did not.

All I want is for you guys to admit that the U.S (whom you all support and who is the leading Capitalist superpower) supports dictators and freedom rights abusers, as long as it suits them.

I find it absolutely fucking hilarious that people like yourself applaud the Bush administration for labelling countries like Cuba "Outposts of Tyranny" while they are simultaneously funding regimes FAR worse.

It's got little to do with Capitalism. It has everything to do with the hypocrisy of your kind.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 13 2005, 06:53 PM
No, I want you to explain the link between our "bastion of freedom" and a politician who boils people alive.

Dictators who don't believe in freedom (as well as their cohorts) get boiled alive. Those who do, don't.


This is not "in the past", he is in power and killing people with our money right now.

Killing who and under what circumstances ?

[Intifada]

The OSCE focuses only on establishment of democracy, the protection of human rights and the freedom of the press. I am now questioning these values.- President Karimov, after the OSCE criticized the 1999 parliamentary elections. Agence France-Presse, January 8, 2000.

Such people must be shot in the forehead! If necessary, I'll shoot them myself…! - President Karimov, upon the 1998 adoption of a highly restrictive religion law, warning parliament not to be soft on "Islamic extremists." Many peaceful Muslims have also been rounded up in the sweeps of "fundamentalists." BBC Monitoring report of Uzbek Radio second program, May 1, 1998.

I'm prepared to rip off the heads of 200 people, to sacrifice their lives, in order to save peace and calm in the republic…If my child chose such a path, I myself would rip off his head. - President Karimov reacting to acts of violence in Uzbekistan in March 1999. The government originally blamed the incidents, including a bus hijacking, on "criminals" and later on "Islamic extremists." Agence France-Presse, April 2, 1999.

Torture in Uzbekistan (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/uzbek/index.htm#TopOfPage)

Deaths in Custody in Uzbekistan (http://hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/uzbek040403-bck.htm)

The guy is the ultimate fucktard and the US supports and funds him.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 14 2005, 01:29 AM

All I want is for you guys to admit that the U.S (whom you all support and who is the leading Capitalist superpower) supports dictators and freedom rights abusers, as long as it suits them.


Absolutely we have done it and continue to do it.

Because it ensured that the Soviet Union did not end up conquering the world, it was worth it.

That we continue to do it is a stain on our credibility.


However, people like you always ***** that we "support dictatorships". Fair enough, but when we go in and take such a dictatorship out, you turn around and ***** that we're forcing our beliefs on others and not allowing their right to "self-determination".

So, I have a question:

Say we pulled out of Iraq today and it became some sort of Islamic dictatorship on its own.

Would you be opposed to U.S. companies doing business with that state? I mean, they did choose to have an authoritarian, Islamic regime, so we've allowed them their right to self-determination, on the other hand that regime would certainly gain from our trade business.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

"It was worth it."

What did it cost you?

You didn't do the suffering fucker. You weren't tortured in one of the numerous US regimes torture institutions. Your family and friends weren't shot. You did not pay a price, you can not say: "it was worth it".

You are a worthless piece of scum, who is probaly another Dick Cheney or something. "Brave supporters of war from the homefront".

A question: Why don't you join in the liberation of Iraq? You do still call it a "liberation" right? I got confused when I saw how many Iraqies die and how hostile the American troops are towards Iraqis. A serious question; why don't you serve your country and join the Army as a frontline troop. Then you truely bring the happiness of American Democracy and Capitalism. I bet the Iraqi's are just jumping of joy for you to come.

[Urban Rubble]

Dictators who don't believe in freedom (as well as their cohorts) get boiled alive. Those who do, don't.

Genius response. Really, well thought out, informative, factual. Awesome.

Actually I was referring to the dictator of Uzbekistan who, with out money, is boiling political opponents as we speak. Any response to that or are you cool with your tax money being used for toture ?


Killing who and under what circumstances ?

Political opponents, leftists, radicals. Pretty much anyone who bothers him. Under what circumstances ? Why, the War on Terror of course !


Absolutely we have done it and continue to do it.

Fair enough, that's more honest than most people of your type. I commend you.


Because it ensured that the Soviet Union did not end up conquering the world, it was worth it.

Well, as someone else pointed out, as you were not a victim you have no right to say whether or not is was worth it.

And to say that we supported every one of these nutjobs as means of fighting the USSR is just plain idiotic. If you want to call greed and economic dominance a part of our Cold War fine, but even so, you'll be wrong. And even if that WAS the case, I don't think we have any right to subject millions of people to murder and torture simply because we're involved in a squabble with another empire. Shouldn't the people of Chile, Spain, Guatemala, El Salvador (and plenty of other nations) decide whether or not they want to be tortured and killed to support our war ?


Say we pulled out of Iraq today and it became some sort of Islamic dictatorship on its own.

Would you be opposed to U.S. companies doing business with that state? I mean, they did choose to have an authoritarian, Islamic regime, so we've allowed them their right to self-determination, on the other hand that regime would certainly gain from our trade business.

First off, turning a blind eye to genocide, supporting murderous dictators with guns and foreign aid (and in some cases troops and advisors) and fully participating in political repression is a bit more than "doing business". And I think you know that.

When CIA sponsored gunmen using American machine guns killed the president of Chile I think that goes beyond "trade business".

Your question is flawed because 1. It isn't clear that Iraq would become an Islamic dictatorship 2. There are countless other ways to inspire a free and democratic Iraq other than war 3. And most important, we are not discussing "trade" we are discussing the blatant support of murderous dictators. And not just trade, foreign aid, gun shipments and personnel.

But no, I would not oppose trade with an Islamic dictatorship. As long as it's ONLY trade and we're not funding their prison camps and supplying them rope to hang women with.

[Professor Moneybags]

Genius response. Really, well thought out, informative, factual. Awesome.

Actually I was referring to the dictator of Uzbekistan who, with out money, is boiling political opponents as we speak. Any response to that or are you cool with your tax money being used for toture ?

I'm okay with it being used to dispose of dictators and their lackey who initiate force against their own people as well as people in other countries. Bush isn't perfect by a long shot, but he's golden in comparison to the people who are getting bombed.


There are countless other ways to inspire a free and democratic Iraq other than war

Such as what ?

[Ele'ill]

Dropping flowers from those c-130 gunships.

[t_wolves_fan]

"It was worth it."

What did it cost you?

Nothing.


You didn't do the suffering fucker. You weren't tortured in one of the numerous US regimes torture institutions. Your family and friends weren't shot. You did not pay a price, you can not say: "it was worth it".

Interesting. None of you can point out in my thread how you're oppressed yet you feel the right to speak for others as being oppressed.

Same thing ain't it?

But yes, I will say it was worth it. Because while millions were tortured and killed, that is nothing compared to the billions who would have been tortured and killed much, much farther into the future had the Soviet Union either continued to exist or, worse, taken over the planet.

Do you get that? Would you have been happier if regimes like those of Lenin or Stalin won out and been allowed to run the show for any longer than they did?


You are a worthless piece of scum, who is probaly another Dick Cheney or something. "Brave supporters of war from the homefront".

I don't support Dick Cheney nor the war.


A question: Why don't you join in the liberation of Iraq? You do still call it a "liberation" right? I got confused when I saw how many Iraqies die and how hostile the American troops are towards Iraqis. A serious question; why don't you serve your country and join the Army as a frontline troop. Then you truely bring the happiness of American Democracy and Capitalism. I bet the Iraqi's are just jumping of joy for you to come.

See the above - I do not support this war. Your question is a logical fallacy anyway, because I can just as easily ask you why you don't go live in a communist country.

I mean, I'm sure China or North Korea would be happy to have you?

[t_wolves_fan]

Say we pulled out of Iraq today and it became some sort of Islamic dictatorship on its own.

Would you be opposed to U.S. companies doing business with that state? I mean, they did choose to have an authoritarian, Islamic regime, so we've allowed them their right to self-determination, on the other hand that regime would certainly gain from our trade business.

First off, turning a blind eye to genocide, supporting murderous dictators with guns and foreign aid (and in some cases troops and advisors) and fully participating in political repression is a bit more than "doing business". And I think you know that.

That's not what I meant, but let's go with it anyway - what's the difference? According to your side, you want the Iraqis to have "self determination". So, if it's their determination to install the next coming of the Taliban, what would be your problem with supporting the government they've chosen?


Your question is flawed because 1. It isn't clear that Iraq would become an Islamic dictatorship

That's irrelevant. You say you want self determination, I'm asking what would happen if that were the result.

In fact your qualification indicates you'd be unhappy if they did choose to install another Taliban. Would you be unhappy if they did? What would you do about it? Wouldn't doing something about it violate their right to self determination?

I'll burn down my own house if you actually answer these questions because I have never seen a left-winger address them.


2. There are countless other ways to inspire a free and democratic Iraq other than war

Like what? Bongo drums and patchouli oil?


3. And most important, we are not discussing "trade" we are discussing the blatant support of murderous dictators. And not just trade, foreign aid, gun shipments and personnel.

So you'd be hunky-dory with Halliburton going in and helping them build an oil pipeline (and making a little green on the side), so long as we're not providing anything military?

Is that what you're saying?


But no, I would not oppose trade with an Islamic dictatorship. As long as it's ONLY trade and we're not funding their prison camps and supplying them rope to hang women with.

Doesn't that violate their right to self determination? I mean if it's their custom to hang women who commit the awful crime of getting raped, who are you to judge?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Actually I did. I was in a "civil war" caused by the US and the USSR. Furthermore my parents work their asses off, but we are barely able to pay the bills. And I am forced to live under laws and authority with which I disagee. I am sure that you as a middle-class have a lot of these problems too. :lol:

It's funny though, I see a pattern here. The white person says that the suffering of the blacks aren't that bad. The man says that the suffering of women aren't that bad. The warmongerer says that the suffering of the warvictim isn't that bad. The heterosexual says that the suffering of the homosexuals isn't that bad. The upperclass says that suffering of the workingclass isn't that bad. I see a pattern here.

Anyway, the Communism is dead thread mysteriously dissapeared.

I had made this response, bit off topic.

I could give you countless examples of capitalist abuse in the era 1945-80. Cough* United Fruit Company. But the point is, that it's useless. You have a dogmatic believe in Capitalism. Nor does anything you say have any relevance to the workingclass struggle. I can imagine that you as a middle-class person have tremendous trust in Capitalism.

The point of life in Capitalism is making money. There are numerous ways to make money (crime, lottery, inheretance, business etc). When one starts a business the main goal is still to enriching themselve. The goal is not to maintain a company, or to deal with workers "fairly", to care for the enviroment. The goal is simply to make money. It's not for nothing that Capitalists have a deep bond with fascists or that enviromental/social groups are arch enemies with coorperations.

When someone disposes of waste in an "ethetical" way, it would cost millions of dollars. When one does that in an unethetical way, it only costs thousands of dollars. The unethical company is thus more cost efficient and can easily outcompetition the "ethical" company. The unethical company gets rewarded by more sales, the ethetical company goes bankrupt.

And this goes for everything in Capitalism. The company that pays the worker what he actually deserves, goes bankrupt when competing against companies that don't.

Spare me your namecalling. I have about zero interest in opinions of the upperclasses.

But I love your quotes though:


The environment can accept and digest a certain level of waste without much harm. Indeed the ozone layer over Antarctica is a good example - it can replenish itself in a few short years.

Just because some or most actors in capitalism act unethically does not make capitalism unethical.

Sucker!

[Urban Rubble]

That's not what I meant, but let's go with it anyway - what's the difference? According to your side, you want the Iraqis to have "self determination". So, if it's their determination to install the next coming of the Taliban, what would be your problem with supporting the government they've chosen?

Just because I'm not sending my armies to take them out of power by force does not mean I have to support them. In all likelihood, if it was my choice and they democratically elected these bastards, they can have them, I just won't be supporting them or doing business with them.


In fact your qualification indicates you'd be unhappy if they did choose to install another Taliban. Would you be unhappy if they did? What would you do about it? Wouldn't doing something about it violate their right to self determination?

I don't know why you keep throwing out that "self determination", you do understand that there are differing opinions within the leftist community ?

Your question has so many variables that it isn't worth addressing. I do not know the shape that this government has taken or what they are doing. In some cases I think intervention is justified, in others I do not. I do not think intervention was justified in Iraq, especially considering that we are allies with countries FAR worse (Saudi Arabia anyone?).


Like what? Bongo drums and patchouli oil?

Yeah you fucking asshole, because I don't agree with America's foreign policy I MUST be a hippie.


So you'd be hunky-dory with Halliburton going in and helping them build an oil pipeline (and making a little green on the side), so long as we're not providing anything military?

Again, it depends on what form this hypothetical government has taken. No, I don't think it's O.K. to support murderous dictators simply because it'll make us some cash.


Doesn't that violate their right to self determination? I mean if it's their custom to hang women who commit the awful crime of getting raped, who are you to judge?

You're borderline retarted.

I never said anything about self determination.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 18 2005, 01:13 AM

Genius response. Really, well thought out, informative, factual. Awesome.

Actually I was referring to the dictator of Uzbekistan who, with out money, is boiling political opponents as we speak. Any response to that or are you cool with your tax money being used for toture ?

I'm okay with it being used to dispose of dictators and their lackey who initiate force against their own people as well as people in other countries. Bush isn't perfect by a long shot, but he's golden in comparison to the people who are getting bombed.


There are countless other ways to inspire a free and democratic Iraq other than war

Such as what ?
You mean the people who are getting blown up by United States troops, then being called either "Collateral Damage" or insurgents? Maybe this has just gone right over your head, but if it were just a few fucking insurgents the war would be over. It is most of the country. Here is another news flash for you: People arent collateral damage you stupid fuck.

[t_wolves_fan]

Actually I did. I was in a "civil war" caused by the US and the USSR. Furthermore my parents work their asses off, but we are barely able to pay the bills. And I am forced to live under laws and authority with which I disagee.

That's not true, you're allowed to leave at any time you'd like.

So why don't you? You ask why I don't go fight in Iraq, now I ask you why you don't leave if you hate the system so much?


It's funny though, I see a pattern here. The white person says that the suffering of the blacks aren't that bad. The man says that the suffering of women aren't that bad. The warmongerer says that the suffering of the warvictim isn't that bad. The heterosexual says that the suffering of the homosexuals isn't that bad. The upperclass says that suffering of the workingclass isn't that bad. I see a pattern here.

You'd maybe be right if not for two things: BLACKS are not saying blacks have it that bad, only certain members of the black community and their white supporters are saying they have it oh so bad. WOMEN are not saying women have it that bad, certain women and their male supporters are saying they have it oh so bad. Same with gays and same with the lower class.

And I was in the lower class, so on those issues I know exactly of what I speak.



I could give you countless examples of capitalist abuse in the era 1945-80. Cough* United Fruit Company. But the point is, that it's useless.

Yep, pretty much useless because the actions of the United Fruit Company do not define capitalism, no matter how much you dogmatically stick to the logical fallacy that they do. For every United Fruit Company there is a company that came into an impoverished 3rd world country and gave people jobs they would have never before had and which are starting their societies on the road to modernity. It happened in the U.S. - we were Europe's sweat shop for 100 years. You would apparently like to pretend that if only we went into Mayanmar and Madagsacar and paid them all $45,000 a year (while at the same time setting all our salaries at $45,000 a year) they'd live exactly like we would and be able to produce all the same things we can just as efficiently; which is of course another logical fallacy.


You have a dogmatic believe in Capitalism. Nor does anything you say have any relevance to the workingclass struggle. I can imagine that you as a middle-class person have tremendous trust in Capitalism.

I'm no more dogmatic in support of capitalism than you are in support of communism or socialism or anarchy or whatever left-wing cause it is you favor. You seem to like to think my support for a system makes me a dogmatic brainwashed loon; while your support of a different system, just as fervent as my support, somehow makes you an enlightened, open-minded free-spirit. HA! You're just as closed-minded on this topic as I've ever been.


The point of life in Capitalism is making money.

Then explain why people choose low-paying professions such as teaching, soldiering, fire fighting, or public service.


There are numerous ways to make money (crime, lottery, inheretance, business etc). When one starts a business the main goal is still to enriching themselve. The goal is not to maintain a company, or to deal with workers "fairly", to care for the enviroment. The goal is simply to make money. It's not for nothing that Capitalists have a deep bond with fascists or that enviromental/social groups are arch enemies with coorperations.

Ahhh, the innocence of youth, where you can make broad generalizations, have nothing but your convictions to back it up, and be just happy with that (unless you're older than 21, in which case it's just plain stupidity or ignorance).

If the goal of starting a company is nothing more than making money, then please explain technology. Why are companies going after new, lower-polluting and more efficient technologies which just happen to protect the environment? According to your assertion, they would have no reason to do this. Yet they do. Strike one. Why would companies create profit-sharing plans or provide benefits to give their employees a stake in the company? According to your assertion, they wouldn't. Strike two. Why do some capitalists such as George Soros, Warren Buffett or Ted Turner support Democrats or left-wing ideas and candidates? According to your assertion, shouldn't they should all support Bush? Strike three.

Really, learn that reality exists beyond your broad and simple generalizations.

I'd love to see you refute any of the above.


When someone disposes of waste in an "ethetical" way, it would cost millions of dollars. When one does that in an unethetical way, it only costs thousands of dollars. The unethical company is thus more cost efficient and can easily outcompetition the "ethical" company. The unethical company gets rewarded by more sales, the ethetical company goes bankrupt.

Why are so many companies adopting clean technology? (http://www.earthwire.org/wssd/archive.cfm?categoryid=173&year=2002)

Why are new companies being created that make money off of producing clean technology? (http://www.p2pays.org/ref/09/08853.htm#CLEAN)

Why did this private fleet switch to green diesel? (http://www.greendieseltechnology.com/news186.html)

The fact is clean technology is actually usually cheaper to use than the old methods, it's simply the capital expense to switch production methods. Hence, a new company that uses cheaper, more efficient clean technology actually has an advantage over established companies that pollute - especially since they can market themselves as more environmentally-friendly.

What do these facts do to your assertions?


And this goes for everything in Capitalism. The company that pays the worker what he actually deserves, goes bankrupt when competing against companies that don't.

Really. And this is true across all companies and all industries? What is your evidence for this?


Spare me your namecalling.

LOL! As if you don't resort to the same?


I have about zero interest in opinions of the upperclasses.

Isn't such closed-mindedness indicative of someone who is dogmatic in their beliefs?

I'm not upperclass by the way (though my parents might be considered so), I'm middleclass.

Frankly I'm not surprised you're in the lower-class, what with the lack of intelligence and thought in your arguments.


But I love your quotes though:


The environment can accept and digest a certain level of waste without much harm. Indeed the ozone layer over Antarctica is a good example - it can replenish itself in a few short years.

Just because some or most actors in capitalism act unethically does not make capitalism unethical.

Sucker!

WOW! Calling me a sucker sure went a long way towards provind my points wrong. With a well-constructed and thought-out argument such as that, I just don't know how I can compete.



http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/procserv/img/laughter.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

That's not what I meant, but let's go with it anyway - what's the difference? According to your side, you want the Iraqis to have "self determination". So, if it's their determination to install the next coming of the Taliban, what would be your problem with supporting the government they've chosen?

Just because I'm not sending my armies to take them out of power by force does not mean I have to support them. In all likelihood, if it was my choice and they democratically elected these bastards, they can have them, I just won't be supporting them or doing business with them.

I didn't ask about you personally - certainly it's your right to not support countries whose policies with which you disagree; I'm asking about the U.S. government or U.S. corporations. Would you protest against a company that did business in a country that elected a taliban-like regime?



In fact your qualification indicates you'd be unhappy if they did choose to install another Taliban. Would you be unhappy if they did? What would you do about it? Wouldn't doing something about it violate their right to self determination?

I don't know why you keep throwing out that "self determination", you do understand that there are differing opinions within the leftist community ?

Yes, if I am not accurately reflecting your opinion then please clarify. But, the fact is, those on the left generally complain that we should leave Iraq now, indicating they think the Iraqis should be left in charge of their own destiny (either that or the international community, which to date hasn't seemed to be interested in helping out, leaving the Iraqis as the only option).


Your question has so many variables that it isn't worth addressing.

That was easy.


I do not know the shape that this government has taken or what they are doing. In some cases I think intervention is justified, in others I do not. I do not think intervention was justified in Iraq, especially considering that we are allies with countries FAR worse (Saudi Arabia anyone?).

Fair enough, hell I agree with you on this one!




So you'd be hunky-dory with Halliburton going in and helping them build an oil pipeline (and making a little green on the side), so long as we're not providing anything military?

Again, it depends on what form this hypothetical government has taken. No, I don't think it's O.K. to support murderous dictators simply because it'll make us some cash.

Is it really support? If a taliban-like regime wants to build a pipeline and asks Halliburton to do it, you'd be opposed to Halliburton accepting the contract?



Doesn't that violate their right to self determination? I mean if it's their custom to hang women who commit the awful crime of getting raped, who are you to judge?

You're borderline retarted.

I never said anything about self determination.

Of course you couldn't, because if you believe nations had the right to self-determination instead of U.S. imperialism, you'd be quite the hypocrite if you criticized their domestic policies, wouldn't you?

[t_wolves_fan]

Well, as someone else pointed out, as you were not a victim you have no right to say whether or not is was worth it.

Were you a victim? If not, why are you commenting on it?

It seems to me a lot of folks on this board are commenting on it, yet judging by their profiles they were 4 when the Berlin Wall came down.


And to say that we supported every one of these nutjobs as means of fighting the USSR is just plain idiotic.

No, actually it's the plain truth. Maybe when you get to senior year high school you'll fiigure that out.


If you want to call greed and economic dominance a part of our Cold War fine, but even so, you'll be wrong. And even if that WAS the case, I don't think we have any right to subject millions of people to murder and torture simply because we're involved in a squabble with another empire. Shouldn't the people of Chile, Spain, Guatemala, El Salvador (and plenty of other nations) decide whether or not they want to be tortured and killed to support our war ?

In a perfect world, yes. In a life-and-death struggle against the USSR, no.

Did the USSR let people in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Albania, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Georgia, Ukraine, and all the other former Soviet Republics whose names I can't spell decide their own fate?



First off, turning a blind eye to genocide, supporting murderous dictators with guns and foreign aid (and in some cases troops and advisors) and fully participating in political repression is a bit more than "doing business". And I think you know that.

You mean turning a blind eye to genocide like the UN is famous for doing?

Yes, I mean allowing only normal foreign trade to occur. No military aid, no training of death squads, no bases, no intelligence, no anything.


When CIA sponsored gunmen using American machine guns killed the president of Chile I think that goes beyond "trade business".

Exactly.


Your question is flawed because 1. It isn't clear that Iraq would become an Islamic dictatorship

Really. You think if we pulled out the insurgents, who are on record saying that man has no right to create his own law separate from God's law, would not win the resulting civil war?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What gives anyone the right to subdue others without their approval? Is this Capitalist freedom?

I find this to be such an utterbullocks argument. Suppose that the "Founding Fathers" and the American workingclass, peasantry had moved away instead of fighting for their "independancy", then the US wouldn't have existed. Just for the fun of it, where would a person with my political opinion move to?

Obviously you are not a black, gay, female, workingclass warvictim. So you can not relate to their feelings.

United Fruit Company made hugh profits, as a Capitalist company it has "succeeded". Why do the actions of United Fruit Company go against the principles of Capitalism? And really which country got kicked into wealthy modernity thanks to western companies?

What is the talk about 45.000 year wages. I have no illusions about that. Inflation would catch up within a day.

Why do companies research technology? Big Bucks! New products, new technologies, new production methods mean increase in profit!

Why do companies research enviromental friendly cars? Because we will run out of oil and then they want to be able to continue selling us cars after oil runs out. Another reason is that there is public concern for the enviroment - labbeling your car enviromental friendly, putting an electric engine spurs up the sales! Good public relations = money!

Or as you said it:


especially since they can market themselves as more environmentally-friendly.

Money!!!


Then explain why people choose low-paying professions such as teaching, soldiering, fire fighting, or public service.

Because not everybody is interested in devoting their lives to money. And ofcourse these people are punished by low wages. The real bastards become CEO's, senators, governors. Why would anyone want to be social under Capitalism? It only leads to a poverty stricken existence in a buy-buy society. Capitalism effectivly discourages any social behaviour.

"You want to be a teacher?! Fine, but you'll life on the edge for the rest of your life!"

I don't participate in the distinctions "left-wing", "rightwing". They are meaningless. Kerry is considerd leftwing, will he fuck up the workingclass? Yes! No millionaire has earned his fortune by working 6 dollars an hour, obviously they have screwed workers. So fuck'm.


And this goes for everything in Capitalism. The company that pays the worker what he actually deserves, goes bankrupt when competing against companies that don't.


Really. And this is true across all companies and all industries? What is your evidence for this?


What?! The company that makes the least costs, but makes the largest profits - wins the competition struggle. Would you be suprised that Coca Cola murders unionists? Yes, you would. But I am not.


I have about zero interest in opinions of the upperclasses.

I'm not upperclass by the way (though my parents might be considered so), I'm middleclass.

Note that I said upperclasses. Call me dogmatic if you want, but I politically I am only interested in what benefits the workingclass.

Like I said, and so many of my comrades have said. The different classes have different interesses. We can not relate to each other. You have no idea what's like to live on the brink of poverty. We are seperated and there is nothing more fitting to show then this:


Frankly I'm not surprised you're in the lower-class, what with the lack of intelligence and thought in your arguments.


This snobbish attitude is characteristic for the upperclasses. See you on the other side of the barricades. On the good side: you have a vast propaganda machine which is pretty effective in controlling the workingclass - on the bad side: the workingclass might find out!

No war between Nations! No peace between Classes!

[Professor Moneybags]

Like I said, and so many of my comrades have said. The different classes have different interesses.

Not all of them rational, either; Communism isn't in the interest of any "class".


We can not relate to each other. You have no idea what's like to live on the brink of poverty.

Like it would make any difference if he had. Living in poverty does not grant one automatic knowledge as to it's cause or a solution.


This snobbish attitude is characteristic for the upperclasses.

But you're not upper class, so what can we attribute your arrogance to ?

[Paradox]

You mean turning a blind eye to genocide like the UN is famous for doing?

Or like the u$ during the Rwanda genocide?

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...RJ8OVF&b=228409 (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=228409)


People have explained U.S. failures to respond to specific genocides by claiming that the United States didn't know what was happening, that it knew but didn't care, or that regardless of what it knew, there was nothing useful to be done. I have found that in fact U.S. policymakers knew a great deal about the crimes being perpetrated. Some Americans cared and fought for action, making considerable personal and professional sacrifices. And the United States did have countless opportunities to mitigate and prevent slaughter. But time and again, decent men and women chose to look away. We have all been bystanders to genocide.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Not all of them rational, either; Communism isn't in the interest of any "class".

Interesting. It's in the interest of the workingclass to abolish the classes and I think that we could take over more handy features of Communism. But ofcourse, we shouldn't let our struggle lead by a single theory, but rather develop as we get practical experience.


Like it would make any difference if he had. Living in poverty does not grant one automatic knowledge as to it's cause or a solution.

True. But as a member of the workingclass, one knows the problems. You have no idea what those problems are and you can not relate to it. So it would be extremely hard for you to think of a solution or even understand our course of thought. That makes the difference.


But you're not upper class, so what can we attribute your arrogance to ?

:D

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:08 AM

You mean turning a blind eye to genocide like the UN is famous for doing?

Or like the u$ during the Rwanda genocide?

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...RJ8OVF&b=228409 (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=228409)


People have explained U.S. failures to respond to specific genocides by claiming that the United States didn't know what was happening, that it knew but didn't care, or that regardless of what it knew, there was nothing useful to be done. I have found that in fact U.S. policymakers knew a great deal about the crimes being perpetrated. Some Americans cared and fought for action, making considerable personal and professional sacrifices. And the United States did have countless opportunities to mitigate and prevent slaughter. But time and again, decent men and women chose to look away. We have all been bystanders to genocide.
:lol:

So Rwanda was all the U.S.'s fault huh?

The U.S. knew, and should have done something, true, and yet apparently to you the U.N. has no responsibility at all.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz.

[t_wolves_fan]

What gives anyone the right to subdue others without their approval? Is this Capitalist freedom?

No. It's foreign policy.

The USSR didn't practice capitalism and it subdued others without their approval, for instance.


I find this to be such an utterbullocks argument. Suppose that the "Founding Fathers" and the American workingclass, peasantry had moved away instead of fighting for their "independancy", then the US wouldn't have existed. Just for the fun of it, where would a person with my political opinion move to?

That's not the U.S.'s problem. If you don't like it, move. It's not up to the U.S. to find you a home that you like.


Obviously you are not a black, gay, female, workingclass warvictim. So you can not relate to their feelings.

LOL. You claim I can't speak to any of the issues because I don't fit any of your descriptions.

So, using your logic, I ask you this question: Since you're not a capitalist, how can you claim to know what capitalists think, know, or want?

I know I'm going to enjoy the response to that one.


United Fruit Company made hugh profits, as a Capitalist company it has "succeeded". Why do the actions of United Fruit Company go against the principles of Capitalism?

UFC succeeded because of warped capitalism, in that the market was not truly free (it was helped out by U.S. foreign policy).


And really which country got kicked into wealthy modernity thanks to western companies?

India is on its way, China is on its way, many eastern European nations are on their way thanks to foreign investment, and several others are on their way. The fact they aren't there yet doesn't mean their quality of life is not improving.


Why do companies research technology? Big Bucks! New products, new technologies, new production methods mean increase in profit!

But these new production methods also improve the environment! Which you said capitalist companies have no interest in doing!


Why do companies research enviromental friendly cars? Because we will run out of oil and then they want to be able to continue selling us cars after oil runs out.

Sounds win-win to me. People like and want cars. Environment can't support cars forever. Capitalism finds a solution - produce cars that don't harm the environment as much.


Another reason is that there is public concern for the enviroment - labbeling your car enviromental friendly, putting an electric engine spurs up the sales! Good public relations = money!

Or as you said it:


especially since they can market themselves as more environmentally-friendly.

Money!!!

Again, I don't see the problem here.

You complain that capitalist companies have no interest in protecting the environment. I point out that as customers demand environmental protection, and as environmentally-friendly production and products become more efficient, cheaper and easier to produce, and more in demand, capitalist companies shift production to be more environmentally friendly.

You've dropped the environment complaint and now you're only upset that they have the audacity to make money.

Are you really just opposed to people making money?

:unsure:


T
Because not everybody is interested in devoting their lives to money.

But you just said capitalism only cares about making money! Which is it?



What?! The company that makes the least costs, but makes the largest profits - wins the competition struggle.

Aye carumba. You really don't get it do you.

Winner, companies are capable of staying in business and competing even when their profits are not as high as those of their competitors. Just because company A has higher profits than company B in a given year does not mean company B will automatically shut down.

Are you under the impression that Coca Cola and Pepsi have the exact same profits? That seems to be what you are saying.



Note that I said upperclasses. Call me dogmatic if you want, but I politically I am only interested in what benefits the workingclass.

Which makes you dogmatic and closed-minded.


Like I said, and so many of my comrades have said. The different classes have different interesses. We can not relate to each other. You have no idea what's like to live on the brink of poverty. We are seperated and there is nothing more fitting to show then this:

Like I have said, your simplistic generalizations are logical fallacies. These are not either-or situations, no matter how much you desperately wish they were. Those in the lower class do not agree on everything. Those in the upper class do not agree on everything. THAT IS PROVEN in every election because lower class voters do not vote lockstep for the same party.

Do you understand that? Does that sink in at all?

Do you get that a lower class environmentalist can relate to an upper class environmentalist? A lower class pro-choicer can relate to an upper class pro-choicer?



No war between Nations! No peace between Classes!

LOL. I'm sure that slogan looks good written on the cover of your trig book.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I wasn't talking about foreign policy, but rather about governments in general. Nor, do you adress my point. You point out to the USSR for some reason and expect me to defend it. Weird fellow. What gives a government the right to put authority over an individual, without his/her permission? What gives anyone that right?


That's not the U.S.'s problem. If you don't like it, move. It's not up to the U.S. to find you a home that you like.

You brilliantly evade my point. My point was, that when someone is treated unfair, he shouldn't flee, but stay and fight. I pointed out to the US. The US wouldn't even have existed, if the "Founding Fathers" and the American workingclass, peasantry had fled away instead of fighting. The US exists thanks to anti-governmental rebellion.



So, using your logic, I ask you this question: Since you're not a capitalist, how can you claim to know what capitalists think, know, or want?

I know I'm going to enjoy the response to that one.

Enjoy!

Interesting point. Obviously I can't watch into their minds and see what they are thinking, but judging for their course of actions, I think it would be quite accurate to say: they want money and power!

Just like you can judge from the course of actions of par example gay activists that they want a fair treatment.


UFC succeeded because of warped capitalism, in that the market was not truly free (it was helped out by U.S. foreign policy).

How is that different today? Why would that change in the future?


India is on its way, China is on its way, many eastern European nations are on their way thanks to foreign investment, and several others are on their way. The fact they aren't there yet doesn't mean their quality of life is not improving.

Interesting. That I ask one thing and you provide another. I asked you for an example of a nation which is stinking rich and modernity thanks to Western companies.

The Indian workingclass is poor. China thanks it's economic growth to strict governmental control and it's massive resources in terms of humans, land, potential market. The East-European countries economies are growing thanks to heavy involvement from the EU and structures that they have left from the Soviet era. Funny that every example that you cite, contradicts your love for "free" markets.


But these new production methods also improve the environment! Which you said capitalist companies have no interest in doing!

Quote me. I said that the motive is money and power. If they need to be hippies to make money, then they will be hippies. If they need to be fascists to make money, then they will facists. Money and power is for the Capitalist always the (underlying) factor.


Sounds win-win to me. People like and want cars. Environment can't support cars forever. Capitalism finds a solution - produce cars that don't harm the environment as much.

Is Capitalism necessary in developping enviromental friendly transportation means? I don't think so. Enviromental activists, innovative individuals already made enviromental friendly fuels without capitalistic interests. The diesel engine was even designed with the possibility to use non-oil products. We could switch all diesel engines now to non-oil products. But it isn't going to happen.

Is Capitalism harmfull to the nature? Take a glimpse out of your window. The oil-company lobbies are pretty strong. They will naturally oppose a too quik transition to non-oil products. If we had a system inwhich money was of no interest, then there would have been a much larger push to apply enviromental friendly cars. Overall Capitalism is more harmfull to nature, then good.


Are you really just opposed to people making money?

I am an Anti-Capitalist. But the whole Capitalist debate is one for another thread.


But you just said capitalism only cares about making money! Which is it?


Capitalism is merely the system. Not everyone within the sytem agrees with the advocated lifestyle.


Winner, companies are capable of staying in business and competing even when their profits are not as high as those of their competitors. Just because company A has higher profits than company B in a given year does not mean company B will automatically shut down.


Not per se immediatly. More and more companies are taken over, go bankrupt and less companies remain, increasing their (economic) power. Making it easier for the surviving companies to tackle down (new) competitors. Eventually either Cola or Pepsi goes down.


Which makes you dogmatic and closed-minded.

Why would I be interested in the interest of the upperclasses? Or why would I even be interested in a sytem which causes so many people to suffer? Does interest in the liberation of the oppressed make me closed-minded?


Like I have said, your simplistic generalizations are logical fallacies. These are not either-or situations, no matter how much you desperately wish they were. Those in the lower class do not agree on everything. Those in the upper class do not agree on everything. THAT IS PROVEN in every election because lower class voters do not vote lockstep for the same party.

I was talking about class interest. We from the workingclass are all in the same shit. That is "tragicly" what bonds us. You from the upperclas, have interest in the status-quo. You gain from this sytem, inwhich most wealth that someone creates doesn't go to him, but to his boss and the manager. Obviously you don't want this situation to change in your disadvantage, that is what bonds you with your class.

There is nothing more fitting to show the distinction between classes then this:

Frankly I'm not surprised you're in the lower-class, what with the lack of intelligence and thought in your arguments.

That little quote tells so much. Obvioulsy, you do feel that connection with your class and disgust for the workingclass. Either the workingclass are all extremely dumb or all poorly educated.


LOL. I'm sure that slogan looks good written on the cover of your trig book.

Actually it looks best, when written on a banner in a strike, demonstration, occupation, squatting. But thanks for asking. :P

http://www.geocities.com/saybirmen2/savasakarsit.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

I wrote a point-by-point response that got so long I think it crashed the server. :o


First, I noted the Soviet occupation of eastern Europe to show that not only capitalist countries exert authority over other nations against their will.

You ask what gives a government the right to exert authority over others. My response is that said authority should be limited along the lines Hobbes and Rawls spoke of - to maintain law and order, free trade, and to provide for defense. It should also, to a limited degree, help those who cannot help themselves.

I wonder if you will pose the same question to the communists on the board, who claim that production and rules should be decided bya vote of the "collective" - all you need to do is ask what gives the collective a right to exert authority over its citizens. In my mind, there is no difference.

You say you have the right to fight against a system you do not like, just like they did in 1776. Fair enough, but then you should expect to be treated like the British treated those revolutionaries in 1776. Don't sit here and claim your right to fight against the state and then complain that the state is violating your rights when you do so.

There are several nations that are rich thanks to free trade with western corporations - South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and to a lesser degree Indonesia and Malaysia. You say China is growing thanks to its government, but then you should stop and ask why it is increasingly liberalizing its business environment and moving towards privatization.

Your arguments about capitalism and the environment are rather odd. Here is your quote, by the way: ""When one starts a business the main goal is still to enriching themselve. The goal is not to maintain a company, or to deal with workers "fairly", to care for the enviroment."

With this statement, you seem to claim that the only capitalists that exist are the rich, who are concerned with making money and nothing else. You seem to ignore that capitalism is our economic system, but it is not our political system. That is why most environmentalists, advocates for labor and the poor are also capitalists. You seem to argue that concern for the environment or the poor and capitalism are mutually exclusive (another simplistic generalization) - they aren't. I can be for capitalism and for government regulation that protects the environment at the same time. I can be a capitalist and for government programs for the poor at the same time. Hell even most union members are capitalists, at least the ones I've met are.

That is the beauty of capitalism and our political structure - people are free to speak on the environmental dangers of certain industries. This in turn creates public demand for cleaner products and production methods, which means businesses will adapt to consumer demands. The environment has been degraded under capitalism, but as our understanding and sophistication have improved, we've created less pollution and will continue to do so in the future.

Your assertions about corporations are absurd. You claim that by definition one company must go bankrupt or get bought if its profits are not as high as competitors. Coke and Pepsi have been around since the late 1800s and they seem to be doing fine. Most insurance companies and brokerage houses have been around since even before that, and yet they are still in business. This is another example of a simplistic generalization about something you really don't know very much about.

No, not everyone within the sytem agrees with the advocated lifestyle. That's fine becuase they're free to do so! You're under no circumstances required to own a Hummer or even a car. You're not required to purchase products that package their goods wastefully. You can even freaking invest in mutual funds made up only of environmentally-friendly compaines!

Does your system offer me the same choice?

You ignore my point that the classes are not united on very many issues at all, which is understandable because you have nothing to refute it with, except more simplistic generalizations.

Tell me why so many poor people, especially in the south, voted for George W. Bush? If they all thought the same, wouldn't we reasonably expect them to vote for Kerry or even Nader?

Answer that question, please.

Finally, I do not look down on lower-class people simply because they are lower-class. I have too many family members in the lower-class to do that. Yes, a lot of rich people look down on the lower-class. So what? Virginians look down on Marylanders, does that mean we need to get rid of states? Lots of blacks look down on whites, shall we paint everyone the same color?

The only time I look down on people of the lower class is when they deserve it, which you most certainly do, by doing dumb things like asserting that companies must by defition go bankrupt if their profits are not as high as their competitors or that capitalism is mutually exclusive from environmentalism.

Maybe when you get to senior-year economics, you'll figure out that very few things are so simplistic as you imagine, sport.

:redstar2000:

[Paradox]

So Rwanda was all the U.S.'s fault huh?

The U.S. knew, and should have done something, true, and yet apparently to you the U.N. has no responsibility at all.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz.

The UN was guilty as well, of course. I was just pointing out the u$ was guilty as well. You wanted to point out the UN for taking no action when genocide occurs, well, the u$ is just as guilty. Remember how the peacekeeping troops ripped up their berets in disgust, because the UN wouldn't let them stop the genocide (which the u$ voted against)? That was very understandable.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

You should click back and just copy your entire text, then save it into a .txt file which you temporarily store on your desktop.

Obviously I am against all governments, so it's a pointless argument.


You ask what gives a government the right to exert authority over others. My response is that said authority should be limited along the lines Hobbes and Rawls spoke of - to maintain law and order, free trade, and to provide for defense. It should also, to a limited degree, help those who cannot help themselves.

Third evasion. You just explain, how you view the task of governments should be. You don't explain why it's "right" for a government or individual to subdue others without a mutual agreement. There is no such problem in Communism or Anarchism.


I wonder if you will pose the same question to the communists on the board, who claim that production and rules should be decided bya vote of the "collective" - all you need to do is ask what gives the collective a right to exert authority over its citizens. In my mind, there is no difference.

Yes, I get regurarly in arguments with communists and anarchists. You should look outside OI, there are plenty of arguments.

A collective is not a government, it's a voluntarily cooperation between free individuals. There is no authority above you or over you. If you disagree with the collective you can simply just stop your cooperation and even start up a project of your own. Meanwhile you will be provided in your basic needs. That is the society that anarchists and many communists strive too. Without states, classes and capital. Sans oppression!


You say you have the right to fight against a system you do not like, just like they did in 1776. Fair enough, but then you should expect to be treated like the British treated those revolutionaries in 1776. Don't sit here and claim your right to fight against the state and then complain that the state is violating your rights when you do so.

I don't expect any fair treatment from the state, nor will I particpate in "fair-play". That means that I should use everything in my range of posssiblities against the state and for the progress of class-struggle. Using the elements and faults of the state against itself. Thus using the hypocricy about "freedom" against them.


There are several nations that are rich thanks to free trade with western corporations - South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and to a lesser degree Indonesia and Malaysia. You say China is growing thanks to its government, but then you should stop and ask why it is increasingly liberalizing its business environment and moving towards privatization.

South Korea was a fascist dictatorship. Singapore thanks it's growth to it's strategic position. Hong Kong was a British colony, one of the few ports for the British in the area and the British entrance gate into China. The Malaysian workingclass is poor. I'll make you a deal. The newly "liberated" Afghanistan. Let's see how long it takes, before it comes back to it's development and wealth level of 1978.

Interesting though, why do so many governments liberalize even though, they encounterd their biggest economic growths during their years of strict governmental control. My answer would be strong pressure from the governments of Western countries and pressure of organisations such as WTO, World Bank to liberalize trade. The modern equilevant of the 1854 Matthew Perry is a trade embargo or even military action.

Furthermore, a lot of governmental officials from third world countries are corrupt, they are willing to lend hugh sums of money from Western countries, if you give them a "gift". Ofcourse when a country is in deep shit, due to unpayable loans, they are left to the mercy of the Western Governments, WTO, World bank. These often show themselves willing to "forgive" the loan on the condition that the country in question liberalizes their economy.


With this statement, you seem to claim that the only capitalists that exist are the rich, who are concerned with making money and nothing else. You seem to ignore that capitalism is our economic system, but it is not our political system. That is why most environmentalists, advocates for labor and the poor are also capitalists. You seem to argue that concern for the environment or the poor and capitalism are mutually exclusive (another simplistic generalization) - they aren't. I can be for capitalism and for government regulation that protects the environment at the same time. I can be a capitalist and for government programs for the poor at the same time. Hell even most union members are capitalists, at least the ones I've met are.

Capitalists are those who own the means of production and can live of it. On the other hand there are ideological capitalists like you. So no, not all capitalists are stinking rich. Obviously economics have a lot of influence on politics. For a great deal economical capitalists even dictate our political system. It's not for nothing, that there has never been a workingclass president in the US. Never a president who would put the workingclass before the upperclasses. For a great deal this is true: "Money is Power".

Ofcourse a capitalist can exist who concerns for the enviroment and even feels sorry for the workingclass. These are the people who donate 10 bucks a month to GreenPeace and expect that to be the "keyfactor" to a clean world. What distincts a capitalist from "real" enviromentalists and workingclass strugglists (lack of vocabulary) is that a Capitalist puts capitalism before the enviroment and workingclass. He/she is more concerned for business then the enviroment or the workingclass.

Yes, I know those union members. Always too concerned to strike, because that might damage their boss. Never demanding more wage then the inflation. Their unionleaders are often befriended with the capitalists and after they retire they often get a nice job at the board of some company. These are the same unions that are easily bribed, to the point that a large number of New Yorkian unions were controlled by the maffa.


That is the beauty of capitalism and our political structure - people are free to speak on the environmental dangers of certain industries. This in turn creates public demand for cleaner products and production methods, which means businesses will adapt to consumer demands. The environment has been degraded under capitalism, but as our understanding and sophistication have improved, we've created less pollution and will continue to do so in the future.

Doesn't that sound nice. Workingclass people can not afford a new 30.000 euro car with an electric/gasoline engine. No matter how much they are concerned for the enviroment. Thus the demand stays for cheap (polluting) cars. You as a middle-classer can afford expensive enviromental-friendly cars. The demand for enviromental friendly cars comes from the ruling and middle-class, not from the workingclass.

"Unfortunatly" the majority is workingclass, so a majority still demands cheap polluting cars. That explains why the workingclass keeps on buying polluting products, even though they are concerned for the enviroment. We simply can not afford to be too enviromental-friendly.

This is a disgusting side of Capitalism. No matter how enviromental friendly I live, if one guy with a lot of money decides to build a polluting factory in my area, all my efforts to make my enviroment more healthy would be pretty much futile.

On the other hand. Once in a while some employee of a company comes forward to the press to reveal the horrible polluting secrets. That person is immediatly put under protection and goes into hiding. Often they and their families are threatend, beaten, firebombed and even killed. Yeah, I love free speech in Capitalism.


Your assertions about corporations are absurd. You claim that by definition one company must go bankrupt or get bought if its profits are not as high as competitors. Coke and Pepsi have been around since the late 1800s and they seem to be doing fine. Most insurance companies and brokerage houses have been around since even before that, and yet they are still in business. This is another example of a simplistic generalization about something you really don't know very much about.

Do fewer companies remain? Are the remaining companies increasingly stronger? Do monopolies form up? There is something as outcompetitioning your concurrent.


No, not everyone within the sytem agrees with the advocated lifestyle. That's fine becuase they're free to do so! You're under no circumstances required to own a Hummer or even a car. You're not required to purchase products that package their goods wastefully. You can even freaking invest in mutual funds made up only of environmentally-friendly compaines!

Isn't that lovely. I dare you to stop participating in the system for a month. Stop paying your taxes, don't listen to cops, walk nude in the street, dont obey state authority - have fun in prison. No we are not required to own a hummer, but we are required to participate in the system.

That's another interesting point. The unequal distribution of wealth. Not only are we workingclass very limited in our possiblities to "invest", but a small minority owns so much, that our "investments" are pretty much futile.


Does your system offer me the same choice?

Sure, you can "invest" in enviromental friendly projects, by activly participating in it and voting on building an enviromental projects in your collective.


You ignore my point that the classes are not united on very many issues at all, which is understandable because you have nothing to refute it with, except more simplistic generalizations.

I didn't claim the workingclass to be united, I said that the workingclass has the same interests. It is in the interest of the workingclass to stop capitalism, to stop pollution of our enviroments. But most workingclass do not realize this.


Tell me why so many poor people, especially in the south, voted for George W. Bush? If they all thought the same, wouldn't we reasonably expect them to vote for Kerry or even Nader?

I didn't claim that they all thought the same. I said the same interests. A lot of the workingclass doesn't realize how damaging Capitalism is. Rather then that they just get pissed when companies polute their neighboorhoods, they loose their jobs, or when they find out that they didn't get any salaryraises, but the board of directors got another 15%. But they don't know the cause of it all.

Kerry and Nader are rich bastards, who come up for the interests of the upperclasses. The elections aren't much of a choice anyway. You get the choice between 2 candidates who have a chance to win and both represent the same economic system. So what the Germans elected Hitler, they thougth that it was in their interest. But obviously it wasn't.


Finally, I do not look down on lower-class people simply because they are lower-class. I have too many family members in the lower-class to do that. Yes, a lot of rich people look down on the lower-class. So what? Virginians look down on Marylanders, does that mean we need to get rid of states? Lots of blacks look down on whites, shall we paint everyone the same color?

I love you. You know that? :wub:

You are basicly saying: I do not hate the workingclass, because I have a lot of family there and even a few friends. Hating them would be emberassing. But still I hate the rest of the workingclass.

How do we deal with racism? We end it. We from the workingclass are all in the same shit, it would be better for us as a group to end Capitalism.


Maybe when you get to senior-year economics, you'll figure out that very few things are so simplistic as you imagine, sport.

Maybe, when you have to work in the factories, live on the brink of poverty, live in a shitty house, you'll figure out that few things are so simplistic as you imagine, sport.

Edit: I do not know how or why. But there seems to be two replies to this thread to be in another. Quite good replies really.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ic=33483&st=120 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33483&st=120)

[t_wolves_fan]

Third evasion. You just explain, how you view the task of governments should be. You don't explain why it's "right" for a government or individual to subdue others without a mutual agreement. There is no such problem in Communism or Anarchism.

First of all, nobody in the United States, save small children, is here without agreeing to be here. Once you're old enough to figure out how to run away, you're here out of your own volition.

Second, if we're talking about the U.S. intereference in sovereign affairs during the Cold War, the answer based on cold, hard self interest is that we had a right to stop those countries from going communist. It's as simple as that. I am certain you don't accept that, so we'll have to agree to disagree.



A collective is not a government, it's a voluntarily cooperation between free individuals. There is no authority above you or over you. If you disagree with the collective you can simply just stop your cooperation and even start up a project of your own. Meanwhile you will be provided in your basic needs. That is the society that anarchists and many communists strive too. Without states, classes and capital. Sans oppression!

You say I will be "provided" with my basic needs. How will they be "provided"? Who will decide what are and are not my basic needs?

If I decide a new Ferarri is one of my basic needs, do I get it? From whom do I get it? If I don't, who is stopping me and why?

Isn't a person or collective or agency or group of people who are deciding what constitutes my private needs and providing them for me a government?


I don't expect any fair treatment from the state, nor will I particpate in "fair-play". That means that I should use everything in my range of posssiblities against the state and for the progress of class-struggle. Using the elements and faults of the state against itself. Thus using the hypocricy about "freedom" against them.

Fair enough. Then I assume you will not be complaining about cops violating your right to free speech, arrest without cause, or trial by jury; because you'll have no right to do so.

Fair enough?


Interesting though, why do so many governments liberalize even though, they encounterd their biggest economic growths during their years of strict governmental control.

This being the case, why do you favor eliminating governments? You're arguing against your own case here.


My answer would be strong pressure from the governments of Western countries and pressure of organisations such as WTO, World Bank to liberalize trade. The modern equilevant of the 1854 Matthew Perry is a trade embargo or even military action.

Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

If the economies of these nations were doing so well, why would they care what the WTO or World Bank said? If capitalism is all about making money, why would the chief capitalists demand liberalization?

True, the World Bank was run poorly in the past but the fact is they've reformed their operations, especially in the last few years.


Furthermore, a lot of governmental officials from third world countries are corrupt, they are willing to lend hugh sums of money from Western countries, if you give them a "gift". Ofcourse when a country is in deep shit, due to unpayable loans, they are left to the mercy of the Western Governments, WTO, World bank. These often show themselves willing to "forgive" the loan on the condition that the country in question liberalizes their economy.





With this statement, you seem to claim that the only capitalists that exist are the rich, who are concerned with making money and nothing else. You seem to ignore that capitalism is our economic system, but it is not our political system. That is why most environmentalists, advocates for labor and the poor are also capitalists. You seem to argue that concern for the environment or the poor and capitalism are mutually exclusive (another simplistic generalization) - they aren't. I can be for capitalism and for government regulation that protects the environment at the same time. I can be a capitalist and for government programs for the poor at the same time. Hell even most union members are capitalists, at least the ones I've met are.

Capitalists are those who own the means of production and can live of it. On the other hand there are ideological capitalists like you. So no, not all capitalists are stinking rich. Obviously economics have a lot of influence on politics. For a great deal economical capitalists even dictate our political system. It's not for nothing, that there has never been a workingclass president in the US. Never a president who would put the workingclass before the upperclasses. For a great deal this is true: "Money is Power".

This doesn't address the point I made above at all.


Ofcourse a capitalist can exist who concerns for the enviroment and even feels sorry for the workingclass. These are the people who donate 10 bucks a month to GreenPeace and expect that to be the "keyfactor" to a clean world. What distincts a capitalist from "real" enviromentalists and workingclass strugglists (lack of vocabulary) is that a Capitalist puts capitalism before the enviroment and workingclass. He/she is more concerned for business then the enviroment or the workingclass.

If this were true, why do capitalist environmentalists favor such expensive regulations? Your claim makes no sense at all.


Doesn't that sound nice. Workingclass people can not afford a new 30.000 euro car with an electric/gasoline engine. No matter how much they are concerned for the enviroment. Thus the demand stays for cheap (polluting) cars. You as a middle-classer can afford expensive enviromental-friendly cars. The demand for enviromental friendly cars comes from the ruling and middle-class, not from the workingclass.

But I thought the upper and ruling class cared only about money and not the environment. You just said, "a Capitalist puts capitalism before the enviroment and workingclass." In the pursuit of money, wouldn't a capitalist rather have a cheap, polluting car than an expensive, non-polluting car?

Every product starts off expensive because of the new technology and high production cost. Gradually demand forces prices down.


"Unfortunatly" the majority is workingclass, so a majority still demands cheap polluting cars. That explains why the workingclass keeps on buying polluting products, even though they are concerned for the enviroment. We simply can not afford to be too enviromental-friendly.

One would think that if you can't afford a hybrid and you're really that concerned about pollution, you'd take the bus. Hell in Europe you have transit systems we can only dream of. Why not put your money where your mouth is?


This is a disgusting side of Capitalism. No matter how enviromental friendly I live, if one guy with a lot of money decides to build a polluting factory in my area, all my efforts to make my enviroment more healthy would be pretty much futile.

The good side is that you and other environmentally-friendly types can refuse to buy its products and demand government action to force the polluter to clean up.


On the other hand. Once in a while some employee of a company comes forward to the press to reveal the horrible polluting secrets. That person is immediatly put under protection and goes into hiding. Often they and their families are threatend, beaten, firebombed and even killed. Yeah, I love free speech in Capitalism.

Yeah, it happens constantly.

You can't take rare events and claim they define the system.



Do fewer companies remain?

No. There are thousands of soda companies, hundreds of insurance companies, etc. etc. etc. Every technological advance brings new companies and new competition.


Are the remaining companies increasingly stronger? Do monopolies form up? There is something as outcompetitioning your concurrent.

How many monopolies are there? In Europe you have a few, but that's because they're state-owned industries. About the only monopolies we have in the U.S. are utilities, and that's because the government has created them through regulation.

We have about 15 airlines, 15 major insurance companies (and dozens of small ones), 10 major brokerage firms (and hundreds of small ones), 2 major soda companies (and thousands of small ones), about 10 major restaurant chains (and millions of independent ones), 3 major domestic car companies (and about 10 foreign ones), our media is being consolidated, but the internet is wiping out its effects.

So, how many monopolies do we have? Please provide me with a list.





Everything you've mentioned is the political system, not the economic system. All of those restrictions could exist without capitalism.

But I'll go ya one farther - I don't even work for a private company. I work for a non-profit association.

So, you see, it can be done.

[QUOTE]That's another interesting point. The unequal distribution of wealth. Not only are we workingclass very limited in our possiblities to "invest", but a small minority owns so much, that our "investments" are pretty much futile.

That's a fair argument, to a point. However I'd not support a system that guarantees equality of outcomes.


Sure, you can "invest" in enviromental friendly projects, by activly participating in it and voting on building an enviromental projects in your collective.

I can already do that, so give me a reason I need to change the system.

Out of curiosity, could I start a collective that isn't environmentally-friendly and pollutes like hell? If I did, who would stop me?

Anyone who stops me, you realize, would be fulfilling the duties of a government.



I didn't claim the workingclass to be united, I said that the workingclass has the same interests. It is in the interest of the workingclass to stop capitalism, to stop pollution of our enviroments. But most workingclass do not realize this.

Ahhh, I see. They all have the interests you claim they have, they just aren't as enlightened as you are to realize it.

What if they genuinely disagree with you? Is it possible?



I didn't claim that they all thought the same. I said the same interests.

If they all had the same interests they would have all voted for the same candidate. Don't people vote for people who represent their interests?

Or do you refuse to give people enough credit to do so because you're so much smarter than they are?


A lot of the workingclass doesn't realize how damaging Capitalism is. Rather then that they just get pissed when companies polute their neighboorhoods, they loose their jobs, or when they find out that they didn't get any salaryraises, but the board of directors got another 15%. But they don't know the cause of it all.

Sure they do.



You are basicly saying: I do not hate the workingclass, because I have a lot of family there and even a few friends. Hating them would be emberassing. But still I hate the rest of the workingclass.

Ummm...no. You need to work on your english some more. I said I look down on the lower-class when they do something stupid, just like I look down on upper-class people who do stupid things. That does not mean I look down on all lower-class people. You have used yet another simplistic generalization.


How do we deal with racism? We end it.

Oh, I see. Pass a law against it and it'll go away, huh?


Maybe, when you have to work in the factories, live on the brink of poverty, live in a shitty house, you'll figure out that few things are so simplistic as you imagine, sport.

I've done that. Didn't work in a factory but a McDonald's. Does that count?

So, since I've experienced exactly what you've experienced, and I disagree with you, what do you think that makes me? Am I too stupid to figure out the things you're enlightened enough to know; or do you think I've applied critical thought?

[Professor Moneybags]

True. But as a member of the workingclass, one knows the problems. You have no idea what those problems are and you can not relate to it.

How would you know ?


So it would be extremely hard for you to think of a solution or even understand our course of thought. That makes the difference.

I've already commented on your course of thought.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 25 2005, 03:53 PM

True. But as a member of the workingclass, one knows the problems. You have no idea what those problems are and you can not relate to it.

How would you know ?


So it would be extremely hard for you to think of a solution or even understand our course of thought. That makes the difference.

I've already commented on your course of thought.
I love these responses that go, "You don't know what it's like so you can't comment."

It's a pathetic attempt to shut down debate and not have to think. After all, if you view the other person as having no basis from which to speak, you need not listen to them, and therefore you need not consider their points.

I'm pretty sure my lower-class credentials are solid. My parents were on the verge of being homeless before and after I was born. My father was unemployed or underemployed for a good chunk of my early childhood. I wore hand-me-down clothes and we relied on the bus or a broken-down, cheap used car.

For me, these conditions lasted well into middle school. I've known the humiliation of being poorer than the other kids. Even today, my wife and I pull down lower-end salaries in one of the most expensive places on earth in which to live.

Frankly this argument is even worse than the, "They don't know what they are voting for/supporting/doing because they haven't figured it out yet..." line. It's another way to shut off debate and insulate yourself from opposing ideas - just claim that you're enlightened and those who disagree are brainwashed or exploited.

Big, fat, fucking YAWN.

[Ele'ill]

A general assumption is that many poor and working class are begging for a revolution and embrace the idea of 'class war' on a political level. This assumption is not accurate as it assumes these poor and working class individuals are 'left' and not 'right'.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

No Mariel. If it were so, then there wouldn't have been capitalism. The "masses" would have overthrown Capitalism a long time ago.

See, it's in a person's best interest to have a good health, but that doesn't mean that a person is aware of that. It's in the workingclass best interest to ditch this system, but they are not aware of that.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

First of all, nobody in the United States, save small children, is here without agreeing to be here. Once you're old enough to figure out how to run away, you're here out of your own volition.


But then again, with this attitude the US wouldn't even have existed. So, what should someone do when he disagrees with state authority?


Second, if we're talking about the U.S. intereference in sovereign affairs during the Cold War, the answer based on cold, hard self interest is that we had a right to stop those countries from going communist. It's as simple as that. I am certain you don't accept that, so we'll have to agree to disagree.


Right granted by who? And don't the people of those nations have a right to support whatever government they want? Where is the liberty?

Then again, you show that US "democracy" isn't about democracy, but it's about guns. The US isn't on some "liberating" tour of the world as it claims, it's simply another exploiting power. It's not better then the British empire was.


You say I will be "provided" with my basic needs. How will they be "provided"? Who will decide what are and are not my basic needs?

If I decide a new Ferarri is one of my basic needs, do I get it? From whom do I get it? If I don't, who is stopping me and why?

Isn't a person or collective or agency or group of people who are deciding what constitutes my private needs and providing them for me a government?

You will decide what your basic needs are. You will simply go to the local distribution center or if you can't walk, someone will deliver it.

The Ferrari question. Yes, whenever you make stupid requests like, you have to keep in mind that your or some other collective has to work their asses off to provide you in unnecessary luxery. In case you don't care about that, there is also a big chance that the workes laugh at you and tell you to take the public transport. But no worries, you can built your own ferrari. I bet a hardworking cappie like you, doesn't mind that?

Did you read the article on anarchism? I doubt it.


Fair enough. Then I assume you will not be complaining about cops violating your right to free speech, arrest without cause, or trial by jury; because you'll have no right to do so.

No, I will use that against the state. I will point out that "justice" of the state is nothign but a hypocricy. I will be complaining my butt off. Who grants these rights anyway?


This being the case, why do you favor eliminating governments? You're arguing against your own case here.


No, I am not. A decentralized network of collectives is very well capable of running an efficient economic model.


Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

How about the embargo of Cuba?


If the economies of these nations were doing so well, why would they care what the WTO or World Bank said? If capitalism is all about making money, why would the chief capitalists demand liberalization?

Because in order to make more money, a capitalist needs new markets. New markets are to found abroad. To trade internationally, you will encounter the Western world, WTO and World Bank, who demand you to open up your borders, or to be excluded from international trade.


With this statement, you seem to claim that the only capitalists that exist are the rich, who are concerned with making money and nothing else. You seem to ignore that capitalism is our economic system, but it is not our political system. You seem to argue that concern for the environment or the poor and capitalism are mutually exclusive (another simplistic generalization) - they aren't. I can be for capitalism and for government regulation that protects the environment at the same time. I can be a capitalist and for government programs for the poor at the same time. Hell even most union members are capitalists, at least the ones I've met are.

Economics have a lot of influence on politics. No, I don't think that concern for the poor and enviroment and being a capitalist are mutually exclusive. These are the people who donate 10 bucks a month to GreenPeace! Don't forget about GreenPeace! But a Capitalist is more concerned for business then for labor and enviroment. Labor, enviroment and business clash all the time. Capitalists are not prepared to give up their profits for labor and enviroment. It's not a wonder that governments have to force businesses to be enviromental friendly.

Sure, you can be for government programs and restrictions. But doesn't this restrict someone's liberty? Doesn't this require a large controlling and bureacratic body to monitor the Capitalists? Doesn't this make the controllers highly vunerable for corruption?


That is why most environmentalists, advocates for labor and the poor are also capitalists.

Give proof.


True, the World Bank was run poorly in the past but the fact is they've reformed their operations, especially in the last few years.


Why the big change? And have they changed?


If this were true, why do capitalist environmentalists favor such expensive regulations? Your claim makes no sense at all.

You really have to show me this mythical group of "capitalist enviromentalists". Most enviromentalists I know are anti-capitalist.


But I thought the upper and ruling class cared only about money and not the environment. You just said, "a Capitalist puts capitalism before the enviroment and workingclass." In the pursuit of money, wouldn't a capitalist rather have a cheap, polluting car than an expensive, non-polluting car?

Sure, they are concerned for the enviroment to a certain degree. But would the CEO of par example BP stop his pollution immediatly to save the enviroment, or does he care more for his business.

Cars are statussymbols. Whetever someone buys a Hummer of a Smart, it has to look pretty and expensive. We don't see CEO's driving in Ford Escorts do we?


Every product starts off expensive because of the new technology and high production cost. Gradually demand forces prices down.

Isn't this gradual course too slow? Especially in the coming years, with Chinese demand for cheap cars. I fear that we choke the enviroment meanwhile.


One would think that if you can't afford a hybrid and you're really that concerned about pollution, you'd take the bus. Hell in Europe you have transit systems we can only dream of. Why not put your money where your mouth is?

The public transportsystem in Europe are being liberalized. Unsuprsingly their prices go up instantly and their quality decreases dramaticly. It's often cheaper and more convenient to take the car. Unfortunatly, but not suprising people do favor convienience and moneysaving above taking care for the enviroment. No, a majority of the workingclass cares more for their little bit of money and convienience then the nature.

Our public transportation system here couldn't take it anyway. It already jammed when some 400.000 wanted to go to Amsterdam to protest.


The good side is that you and other environmentally-friendly types can refuse to buy its products and demand government action to force the polluter to clean up.

Interesting that you already admitted that the enviromental friendly actions of ten thousands of workingclass people can become futile in an instant, when one milllionair decides to put a polluting plant down.

I am not rich, I can not afford to live enviromental friendly. Every enviromental friendly product is more expensive. And how would I demand the government to take action?


That's a fair argument, to a point. However I'd not support a system that guarantees equality of outcomes.

How do you mean? I do not claim that people are equal or should be treated equal. Every individual is different and has different needs. What I want is equal opportunities. Currently a rich kid has much more opportunities in live then a workingclass kid. Plus I want full autonomy over my own life. A workingclass individual is restricted in his choices in life, by his ammount of money.


You can't take rare events and claim they define the system.

Is it truely a rare event? This happens every time that an employee comes forward with "terrible" secrets from the company that he/she worked at. Why do these things occur and how and why would they change in the future?


How many monopolies are there? In Europe you have a few, but that's because they're state-owned industries. About the only monopolies we have in the U.S. are utilities, and that's because the government has created them through regulation.


What state-owned company? They are still monopolies right?


We have about 15 airlines, 15 major insurance companies (and dozens of small ones), 10 major brokerage firms (and hundreds of small ones), 2 major soda companies (and thousands of small ones), about 10 major restaurant chains (and millions of independent ones), 3 major domestic car companies (and about 10 foreign ones), our media is being consolidated, but the internet is wiping out its effects.


You just provided a list. It's extremely easy for the major companies to make deals with each other on prices. And once in a while one of the major companies goes bankrupt or is taken over. So that fewer major companies are left over.


Everything you've mentioned is the political system, not the economic system. All of those restrictions could exist without capitalism.

But I'll go ya one farther - I don't even work for a private company. I work for a non-profit association.

So, you see, it can be done.

The political and economic system influence each other a lot. Largely the political system serves for the economic system. It's not for nothing that there has never been a workingclass president. Or that the US keeps on invading other countries for economic interest.

You still participate in the system, you buy stuff of other companies. The only way to quit participating in the economic system is if you could live without buying anything ever.


Out of curiosity, could I start a collective that isn't environmentally-friendly and pollutes like hell? If I did, who would stop me?

Yes, you could. But on the other hand people are not stupid, if you keep poisening them, they would probaly stop you. This fits in the same lane as "if there are no laws, what keeps someone from raping". Obviously the people themselves. People don't become helpless sheeps when you abolish laws. I can say to you that rape in the Spanish collectives was extremely low.


Anyone who stops me, you realize, would be fulfilling the duties of a government.

Only if I start taxing you and dictate your entire life.


I can already do that, so give me a reason I need to change the system.

Actually my argument was that you had the more liberty on this matter in Anarchism. In capitalism your ability to "invest" is limited by your ammount of money, only rich guy could make the efforts of millions futile.

Furthermore there is the matter of motive. There is nothing to gain in Anarchism from polluting. In Capitalism polluting often means cheap production and thus higher profits.


What if they genuinely disagree with you? Is it possible?

See, it's in a person's best interest to have a good health, but that doesn't mean that a person is aware of that. It's in the workingclass best interest to ditch this system, but they are not aware of that.


If they all had the same interests they would have all voted for the same candidate. Don't people vote for people who represent their interests?


So, what the German workingclass and peasantry voted on Hitler. Even though the guy favored the business.

No, people differ in opinion on what is in their best interest. Many American workingclass genuinly believe(d) that Al'Qaida and Iraq were bound to attack them. So naturally you choose then the guy who says to stop them.


Or do you refuse to give people enough credit to do so because you're so much smarter than they are?


Interesting that you pull "arrogance" forward, when you said this:


Frankly I'm not surprised you're in the lower-class, what with the lack of intelligence and thought in your arguments.

A glimpse of your true self.


I've done that. Didn't work in a factory but a McDonald's. Does that count?

So, since I've experienced exactly what you've experienced, and I disagree with you, what do you think that makes me? Am I too stupid to figure out the things you're enlightened enough to know; or do you think I've applied critical thought?

Didn't you say that your parents were rulingclass?

Sure, you can disagree with me. My point was that if you aren't workingclass you can not understand the motive for class-struggle.

Above all, cut the crap. I am interested in the workingclass. Billions live in absolute poverty, billions have no autonomy over their lives, what are the prospects for Capitalism changing that?

[Ele'ill]

No Mariel. If it were so, then there wouldn't have been capitalism. The "masses" would have overthrown Capitalism a long time ago.

See, it's in a person's best interest to have a good health, but that doesn't mean that a person is aware of that. It's in the workingclass best interest to ditch this system, but they are not aware of that


I am not sure what you are saying 'no' to in the first part.

It is in their best interest to ditch this system and replace it with what? How do you know that it is in fact in their best interest?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I said no to this:


A general assumption is that many poor and working class are begging for a revolution and embrace the idea of 'class war' on a political level. This assumption is not accurate as it assumes these poor and working class individuals are 'left' and not 'right'.

if it was targeted at me. No, I don't assume that.

It's in their best interest to ditch this system and replace it with anarcho-communism. No, I don't know it for sure. But that's what I think.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 26 2005, 09:35 AM




But then again, with this attitude the US wouldn't even have existed. So, what should someone do when he disagrees with state authority?

They can accept it, they can revolt, or they can leave.


Then again, you show that US "democracy" isn't about democracy, but it's about guns. The US isn't on some "liberating" tour of the world as it claims, it's simply another exploiting power. It's not better then the British empire was.

The recent developments in Egypt seem to suggest otherwise.


The Ferrari question. Yes, whenever you make stupid requests like,

Who are you to decide what my basic needs are? I thought basic needs would be determined individually? Are you under the impression that even a majority of people are going to make "smart" estimates of their basic needs once they find out everything is free?


you have to keep in mind that your or some other collective has to work their asses off to provide you in unnecessary luxery. In case you don't care about that, there is also a big chance that the workes laugh at you and tell you to take the public transport. But no worries, you can built your own ferrari. I bet a hardworking cappie like you, doesn't mind that?

Hmmm...so now I am at the mercy of the collective as to what goods and services I might get? How is that any different than being at the mercy of what I can afford?

It isn't, in my estimation.



No, I will use that against the state. I will point out that "justice" of the state is nothign but a hypocricy. I will be complaining my butt off. Who grants these rights anyway?

You are the raving hypocrite here. You are claiming that you hate the state and will fight against it. Then, when the state does what it has to do to defeat you in your fight (which it has a right to do), you'll complain that the state isn't fighting fair.

Nobody grants rights - rights are protected by the state. You can't claim to be deserving of protection of rights by the state you are fighting against!


No, I am not. A decentralized network of collectives is very well capable of running an efficient economic model.

Based on everything I have seen, I think the exact opposite would occur.

Without control, what would stop me from strip-mining every mountain and clear-cutting every forest?

If your answer is that collectives would prevent me, then that's government action - plain and simple. You can't refute that no matter how much you try.


Because in order to make more money, a capitalist needs new markets. New markets are to found abroad. To trade internationally, you will encounter the Western world, WTO and World Bank, who demand you to open up your borders, or to be excluded from international trade.

Isn't that fair? The western governments ARE the WTO and World Bank. If you want their money, isn't it fair you open up markets to them for investment?

And out of curiosity, how could your country buy the Western state's products if they purposefully hold your wages to extremely low levels?


conomics have a lot of influence on politics. No, I don't think that concern for the poor and enviroment and being a capitalist are mutually exclusive.

You're reversing yourself then. You previously claimed capitalists care nothing for the environment or the poor, remember.


These are the people who donate 10 bucks a month to GreenPeace! Don't forget about GreenPeace! But a Capitalist is more concerned for business then for labor and enviroment. Labor, enviroment and business clash all the time. Capitalists are not prepared to give up their profits for labor and enviroment. It's not a wonder that governments have to force businesses to be enviromental friendly.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring my points. You're ignoring demand for environmentally-friendly products. You're ignoring environmentally-friendly advancements that are not dictated by government - which are many.

And, in a way, government-dictated environmental standards are an extension of the market by other means. The citizenry demands environmentally-friendly products, so they use government to shift production. In this way, consumer choice and democratically-determined government requirements are an effective one-two punch.


Sure, you can be for government programs and restrictions. But doesn't this restrict someone's liberty? Doesn't this require a large controlling and bureacratic body to monitor the Capitalists? Doesn't this make the controllers highly vunerable for corruption?

It can, if done incorrectly. But considering your system would allow me to never work a day in my life and still have all my needs cared for, I hardly think it matters.

It will not restrict liberty if market forces are used, such as pollution trading systems. These allow people to continue to produce externalities (pollution), they just have to pay for the cost to society. Fair enough.



That is why most environmentalists, advocates for labor and the poor are also capitalists.

Give proof.

Gladly. (http://www.ti.org/faqs.html)

" Free market capitalist economics is arguably the most powerful tool ever used by civilization. As the world's leading exemplar of free market economics, the US has a special obligation to discover effective ways of using the power of market forces to help save the environment.

--Al Gore"



You really have to show me this mythical group of "capitalist enviromentalists". Most enviromentalists I know are anti-capitalist.

Do you think maybe that's because you generally hang out with people who are anti-capitalists to begin with?



The public transportsystem in Europe are being liberalized.

Why? Is the majority of the public demanding it?


Unsuprsingly their prices go up instantly and their quality decreases dramaticly. It's often cheaper and more convenient to take the car. Unfortunatly, but not suprising people do favor convienience and moneysaving above taking care for the enviroment. No, a majority of the workingclass cares more for their little bit of money and convienience then the nature.

This contradicts previous arguments that the lower-class has totally different and united interests than the upper-class!


Our public transportation system here couldn't take it anyway. It already jammed when some 400.000 wanted to go to Amsterdam to protest.

Ummm...generally when there is a large event, the infrastructure will get jammed. It's completely impractical to build any kind of infrastructure that always prevents jams during intense demand.


Interesting that you already admitted that the enviromental friendly actions of ten thousands of workingclass people can become futile in an instant, when one milllionair decides to put a polluting plant down.

Sure, on occasion it'll happen.


I am not rich, I can not afford to live enviromental friendly. Every enviromental friendly product is more expensive. And how would I demand the government to take action?

Public transportation is less expensive than driving. Believe me, I know.

You can always write your representative or organize a protest.


Is it truely a rare event? This happens every time that an employee comes forward with "terrible" secrets from the company that he/she worked at. Why do these things occur and how and why would they change in the future?

I seriously doubt these things happen every time. I don't defend poor behavior by management, but I fail to see how that would change in any other system, because it's inevitable.



You just provided a list. It's extremely easy for the major companies to make deals with each other on prices. And once in a while one of the major companies goes bankrupt or is taken over. So that fewer major companies are left over.

When companies collude on prices they almost always get caught or one of the companies cheats. Look at OPEC.

I already explained that consolidation happens but over time as new technology appears, new companies appear that start the process all over again. I can't make you undertsand that, I guess.


The political and economic system influence each other a lot. Largely the political system serves for the economic system. It's not for nothing that there has never been a workingclass president. Or that the US keeps on invading other countries for economic interest.

Yes, economic system does influence the political system. Did it ever occur to you that publicly or state-owned production was what the Soviet Union practiced? I mean my God, complain about capitalist political systems all you want, but we never murdered tens of millions of our own citizens.

There actually have been Presidents who began life as working-class. Learn your U.S. history before you try comment on it.


You still participate in the system, you buy stuff of other companies. The only way to quit participating in the economic system is if you could live without buying anything ever.

This might shock you, but you can do that in the United States. It's just that very, very few people choose to do so.


Yes, you could. But on the other hand people are not stupid, if you keep poisening them, they would probaly stop you.

How?



Furthermore there is the matter of motive. There is nothing to gain in Anarchism from polluting. In Capitalism polluting often means cheap production and thus higher profits.

There's no motive not to either. Polluting is easier. Never underestimate people's desire to do what's easiest.



What if they genuinely disagree with you? Is it possible?

See, it's in a person's best interest to have a good health, but that doesn't mean that a person is aware of that. It's in the workingclass best interest to ditch this system, but they are not aware of that.

You didn't answer my question. What if people know it's in their best interests to have those things but think capitalism is the best way for them to achieve it?


So, what the German workingclass and peasantry voted on Hitler. Even though the guy favored the business.

With all due respect, that fact does not instill my confidence that the lower-class would run the show very well, now does it?



Didn't you say that your parents were rulingclass?

I said they're upper middle-class now but were very definitely lower-class through most of my childhood.


Above all, cut the crap. I am interested in the workingclass. Billions live in absolute poverty, billions have no autonomy over their lives, what are the prospects for Capitalism changing that?

Fankly, much much better than the prospects that your system would be any better.

I cut out a lot for brevity. If I missed something you want to specifically address, let me know.

[Ele'ill]

Who are you to decide what my basic needs are? I thought basic needs would be determined individually? Are you under the impression that even a majority of people are going to make "smart" estimates of their basic needs once they find out everything is free

This is a major grievance I have with revolutionary thinking. The state 'wrongly' provides certain individuals with privlage, they have the centralized power ect.. However a disturbingly large portion of revolutionary movments assume that after centralization of power is abolished, that they some how hold the right to decide on such things, or decide on the lack of such things, which leads to the next point ..



Without control, what would stop me from strip-mining every mountain and clear-cutting every forest?

Apparently under anarchism private defense forces or 'militias' would be errected for just this purpose. Preventing others from doing things they deem threatening or non-community oriented. Which basically leaves those on the radical left in power. Yes, power.



These are the people who donate 10 bucks a month to GreenPeace! Don't forget about GreenPeace! But a Capitalist is more concerned for business then for labor and enviroment. Labor, enviroment and business clash all the time. Capitalists are not prepared to give up their profits for labor and enviroment. It's not a wonder that governments have to force businesses to be enviromental friendly.

What are you doing that is more worth while than ten dollars a month? These are the people that will be standing next to you when this revolution occurs. You burn your bridges and shut down your mind to other organizations you become a fanatic whom is standing by themself, in the wake of a dark shadow called the angry state.


Granted I am not 100% sure who I was quoting and re-quoting throughout my response but I suppose that doesn't really matter.