The Ten Planks of Communism

[Publius]

The Ten Planks stated by Marx:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/com-man.html

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance

We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). This private bank has an exclusive monopoly in money creation which in reality has ended the need for revenue from taxes. So why do they tax? To FOOL YOU into thinking they need them.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) madated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations. There is also the postal monopoly, AMTRACK and CONRAIL

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot...The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" .

[redstar2000]

You should be aware that the "10 points" in the Manifesto have been regarded as obsolete by Marxists since 1914.

Marx wrote those points in 1847 as a "program" for communists to advocate in the anticipated bourgeois revolution in Germany and elsewhere...the one that broke out in 1848.

It is true that many of them were ultimately incorporated (in one sense or another) into modern capitalism in the 20th century; when revolution threatens, "something must be done".

Clearly, the demands of communists are now far more ambitious than Marx could have foreseen in the middle of the 19th century. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

"Modern capitalism"

You mean mercantilism?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Publius have you ever paid any attention to any word at Revleft?

I could endlessly repeat, there is no government in communism, there are no taxes in communism, there is no state, you are not forced to do anything as long as you don't hurt others. But obviously you don't care. So what is the point of you staying here?

[Publius]

I could endlessly repeat that true capitalism involves no government intervention yet you still state that government/corporate collusion is "capitalism".

Why do you continue living?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:03 PM
You should be aware that the "10 points" in the Manifesto have been regarded as obsolete by Marxists since 1914.
Pretty much true...in the particulars. The general concept's still relevant I think.



Marx wrote those points in 1847 as a "program" for communists to advocate in the anticipated bourgeois revolution in Germany and elsewhere...the one that broke out in 1848.

Nah. Here's the lead-in to the 10 points:

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

The ten demands follow. (It's all at the end of Section II).

To summarize: first, the working class takes power ("raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class"), second, it will "use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie,". The ten demands mostly involve taking various pieces of capital.

That's what still relevant today: take political power and then,
step by step", economic power away from the capitalists.

Clearly this is talking about a workers' revolution; neither of those things typically happen in a bourgeois revolution.

Obviously the first part hasn't happened in the U.S. And the U.S. government isn't engaged in wiping out private capital obviously, whatever some paranoiacs may think, so whatever resemblance some of its actions may have to a partial fulfillment of some of the points, is not of any great significance. Publius has to stretch things greatly, anyway.

Publius, if that's how you choose to define capitalism, then it's never existed anywhere. All governments are involved in the economy, the difference is what class they serve by doing so.

However, the term "capitalism" wasn't invented by people of your ideology to describe your imaginary utopia. It was invented by Werner Sombart to describe the actually existing setup, and has been widely used by Marxists ever since to describe that society, or what Marx called "the capitalist mode of production."

If you want a word to describe your imaginary "no government intervention" society, make up your own ("free enterprise", maybe) and stop sliming other people's terminology.

Redstar, the only mention of an impending bourgeois revolution is in Germany...where "the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution." Ahem. February and October 1917, Russia, anybody?

That's towards end of Section IV.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Redstar, the only mention of an impending bourgeois revolution is in Germany...where "the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution." Ahem. February and October 1917, Russia, anybody?

Ahem, indeed...similar material conditions in Russia of 1917 and Germany of 1848, anybody?

This is a funny board, Publius...did you know that there's a political squabble (over Stalin) going on in the Lounge forum? :lol:

Meanwhile, Publius, is it your view that modern capitalism is really some up-dated version of mercantilism?

I don't honestly remember much about mercantilist ideology...didn't it have something to do with securing a favorable balance of trade as the "main objective" of national policy?

Is Alan Greenspan, card-carrying member of the Rand Cult (in his youth), presiding over the most inept "mercantilist" regime in recorded history?

Correct me if I'm wrong. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:23 AM
I could endlessly repeat that true capitalism involves no government intervention yet you still state that government/corporate collusion is "capitalism".

There is no such thing as what you think of "true capitalism". If no government intervenes in the acts of the biggest corporations, they will themselves intervene in the acts of smaller players -- and thus become a government.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by (R)evolution of the [email protected] 14 2005, 11:26 AM
There is no such thing as what you think of "true capitalism". If no government intervenes in the acts of the biggest corporations, they will themselves intervene in the acts of smaller players -- and thus become a government.
How is this any different from the claim that there is no government under communism ? Will the masses/majority not become and behave like a government (or mob) ? Who is going to intervene and hold them accountable for their actions ?

[LSD]

How is this any different from the claim that there is no government under communism ?

The difference is that while communism advocates a CLASSLESS agovernmental system, the kind of capitalism that anarcho-capitalists or Libertarians advocate requires that class structures remain, in fact this form of "anarchism" aims to intensify those class structures by removing any public oversight or political control mechanism.

Therefore, while in a communist society, all would be equal and hence no individual or group of individuals would have an advantage over another, nongovernmental capitalism has a group (read: the rich) with an obvious advantage over everyone else.


Will the masses/majority not become and behave like a government (or mob) ?

No.

The "masses/majority", by definition cannot be a "government" as a government is a small, elite group. Remember that old "pyramid model"... well if the top is the same size as the bottom... it's not a pyramid anymore.

But, yes, you're right. The majority would ultimately make the decisisons.

...hmmm, I think there's a name for that ...oh wait, yes Democracy.

[Professor Moneybags]

The difference is that while communism advocates a CLASSLESS agovernmental system, the kind of capitalism that anarcho-capitalists or Libertarians advocate requires that class structures remain, in fact this form of "anarchism" aims to intensify those class structures by removing any public oversight or political control mechanism.

I should imagine they don't even recongnize the concept of "class", let alone a desire to intensify it. Classes presuppose enforcement of a "caste" system. There is no such thing.


The "masses/majority", by definition cannot be a "government" as a government is a small, elite group.

That definition is incorrect. The term government does not presuppose a ruling body of any particular size. A apple is still an apple regardless of it's size. A government is still a government regardless of its size, too.

[LSD]

I should imagine they don't even recongnize the concept of "class", let alone a desire to intensify it.


Well, no.

But they would certainly admit that they do seek to maintatin economic inequalities as it is a nescessary element of any functioning capitalist society.

This inequality could not help but translate itself into politics if there were no government to regualte it.


Classes presuppose enforcement of a "caste" system. There is no such thing.

Well, I'm sure that after reading this board for a year you've realized that many disagree with that! :lol


That definition is incorrect. The term government does not presuppose a ruling body of any particular size. A apple is still an apple regardless of it's size. A government is still a government regardless of its size, too.

Government, n.
(...)
5. A governing body or organization, as:
a. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
b. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
c. The persons who make up a governing body.

Sorry, but in common usage a government is a small group. The self-rule of an entire citizenry is not a government, because no poltical body exists, and no organ exists outside of the people themselves.

[Publius]

A few points:

Greenspan moved away from Randian philosophy and has since regained his intelligence.

Who cares who the term was invented by? Shakespeare invented the word "assassin" but none says if you don't like Shakespeare you can't use a word he invented.

Of course absolute free-market capitalism has never existed (Though it's very close in many countries). Absolute free-market capitalism is anarcho-capitalism.

Mercantilism, as it's used today, isn't quite the same. Murray Rothbard defined mercantilism as "a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state."

Essentially, it's the state and business colluding in order to propagate each other. Business uses government to do things like smash up labor unions, create artificial monopolies, institute government-controlled cartels and arbitrarely enfore "trade laws". In return, government gets significant control over the operations of the business.

This ties into the classic definition in that the government should interfere with the market in order to achieve these goals of balance of trade and accumulation of bullion (And paying off political favors to friends in industry).

So in today's system there are "market capitalists" and "government capitalists". If you propser through the free-market laws, you are the former, if you propser by getting the Federalis to break up and hamper your competition and coddle and assist you, you are the latter.

Many of the problems in "modern capitalism" are caused by this collusion. Government and economy should stay seperate, for the good of us all.

[LSD]

Government and economy should stay seperate

Greenspan moved away from Randian philosophy and has since regained his intelligence.

So you're a capitalist who opposes Rand, but opposes any state influence over business at the same time.

I wonder then, what are your economic convictions?


Many of the problems in "modern capitalism" are caused by this collusion. Government and economy should stay seperate, for the good of us all.

Or better yet, we should abolish both, "for the good of us all".

We don't need leaders, be they political or economic, "mercantilist" or "capitalist".

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:55 PM
Who cares who the term was invented by? Shakespeare invented the word "assassin" but none says if you don't like Shakespeare you can't use a word he invented.
You don't have the right to arbitrarily redefine the word, however.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:55 PM
A few points:

Greenspan moved away from Randian philosophy and has since
...decided that economic interventionism is the way forward ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Well, no.

But they would certainly admit that they do seek to maintatin economic inequalities as it is a nescessary element of any functioning capitalist society.

This inequality could not help but translate itself into politics if there were no government to regualte it.

You're treating economic inequality as if it was political inequality.


Government, n.
(...)
5. A governing body or organization, as:
a. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
b. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
c. The persons who make up a governing body.

Sorry, but in common usage a government is a small group.

Then why doesn't it say so in the dictionary definition you've posted ? I doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

[Publius]

He's a very smart libertarian trying to do an impossible task.

I don't agree with most of his actions but I understand there is none else who can do the job better than he can.

I disagree with the concept of the Federal Reserve but since it does exist and is likely to for the near future, I would like somone like him in charge of it.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 10:04 PM




So you're a capitalist who opposes Rand, but opposes any state influence over business at the same time.

I wonder then, what are your economic convictions?

There is dissension among free market capitalists, particularly among objectivists and libertarians. An objectivist is a libertarian but a libertarian isn't necessarily an objectivist.

One is a philosophy that requires adherence to an economic system, the other is an economic system.

I'm a classic liberal, think Adam Smith, with some modern pragmatism thrown in.


Or better yet, we should abolish both, "for the good of us all".

We don't need leaders, be they political or economic, "mercantilist" or "capitalist".

Abolishing either would be a very bad idea. Sounds scary to an anti-statist such as myself but it's the truth.

[LSD]

You're treating economic inequality as if it was political inequality.

No, I'm saying that economic inequality inevitable leads to political inequality, especially if the political sphere is significantly weakened.

Can you honestly deny that, in the absense of an organized government, a capitalist society would result in the rich exerting far more political authority than the poor?

Hell, even with an organized government they do that!


Abolishing either would be a very bad idea.

Why?


Sounds scary to an anti-statist such as myself but it's the truth.

"anti-statist", eh?

So you oppose a political body composed of democratically elected representatives exerting authority in the manner in which they were publically and transparently chosen to do so ....

... but you support the "free market" in which a select group of the fortunate, the clever, the manipulative, and the downright lucky make decisions with no accountability, transparency, or public oversight.


Explain to me how that's better...

[Publius]

Why?

A government is needed (Or at least beneficial) to rights.

Rights include the right to property.


So you oppose a political body composed of democratically elected representatives exerting authority in the manner in which they were publically and transparently chosen to do so ....

Democracy isn't always a good thing.

Thankfully, this is a republic.

Yes, I don't like the idea that people can elect leaders who will do things in the interest of the public like kill Jews or throw Japanese-Americans in camps. Popularity means nothing.


... but you support the "free market" in which a select group of the fortunate, the clever, the manipulative, and the downright lucky make decisions with no accountability, transparency, or public oversight.

There is accountability. If you do something the consumer doesn't like, the consumer doesn't buy your product. That's accountability.

Transparency? Why is that a good thing?

Public Oversight? Publically traded companies have public oversite and EVERY company trades it's goods or services in the free-market where anyone is free to buy or not buy your product.

That's the democracy you so desired. Voting with your dollars.

[LSD]

A government is needed (Or at least beneficial) to rights.

Yes, I don't like the idea that people can elect leaders who will do things in the interest of the public like kill Jews or throw Japanese-Americans in camps. Popularity means nothing.

hmm...


Rights include the right to property.

Because you say so, right? :lol:


There is accountability. If you do something the consumer doesn't like, the consumer doesn't buy your product. That's accountability.

That's not accountability.

Ever heard of monopolies or oligopolies. You honestly believe that without government oversight, companies wouldn't make secret deals in a second with one another.

Accountability, my ass.


Public Oversight? Publically traded companies have public oversite and EVERY company trades it's goods or services in the free-market where anyone is free to buy or not buy your product.

Yes, but I don't know what that company is doing behind closed doors.

I just know I can or cannot by product X. I don't know how product X is being made, how company X's workers are being treated, how the "price" was determined, etc... and I certainly have no influence over such things.

But wait.... the immortal capitalist argument:

that's the democracy you so desired. Voting with your dollars.

:lol:

Come on, now. Do I really have to explain the obvious fallacy with this age-old analogy.

IF I HAVE MORE MONEY THAN YOU, I HAVE MORE VOTES THAN YOU. That's not democracy, that's oligarchy.


Transparency? Why is that a good thing?

:blink:

I think I'll let that one speak for itself.

:unsure:

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 11:34 PM




I think I'll let that one speak for itself.



hmm...

Agreed.

It's a pretty shitty compromise. People are bad. Government is comprised of people. Government is bad.

So follows the logic.

But if you were able to restrict government and use it to control the people and use the people to control the government, you would get a system where neither could infringe on rights without the other being compliant.

Essentially, if people are going to be bad, they're going to be bad REGARDLESS of the system, a representive, constitutional republic just helps to defend people from government and government from people.



Because you say so, right?

More accurately, because the Constitution says so.

But yes, you are partially correct. I own things because I state that I own them. If I didn't assert my ownership rights, I wouldn't own anything.


That's not accountability.

Ever heard of monopolies or oligopolies. You honestly believe that without government oversight, companies wouldn't make secret deals in a second with one another.

Accountability, my ass.

Name for me one monopoly not created by governemt intervention.


Yes, but I don't know what that company is doing behind closed doors.

I just know I can or cannot by product X. I don't know how product X is being made, how company X's workers are being treated, how the "price" was determined, etc... and I certainly have no influence over such things.

Organizations exist that tell you that stuff.

And you do influence that stuff. If you didn't buy Pepsi, Pepsi wouldn't exist and wouldn't be able to do any of that.


Come on, now. Do I really have to explain the obvious fallacy with this age-old analogy.

IF I HAVE MORE MONEY THAN YOU, I HAVE MORE VOTES THAN YOU. That's not democracy, that's oligarchy.

First off, that isn't oligarchy.

Secondly, so what? Why is "one person, one vote" the best system? Because the MAJORITY says so? Don't make me laugh.


I think I'll let that one speak for itself.

Sounds good to me.

[LSD]

Agreed.

It's a pretty shitty compromise. People are bad. Government is comprised of people. Government is bad.

So follows the logic.

But if you were able to restrict government and use it to control the people and use the people to control the government, you would get a system where neither could infringe on rights without the other being compliant.

The problem is not "people are bad", they aren't, they're just people.

The problem is people with power "are bad", which is a much more serious one.



Essentially, if people are going to be bad, they're going to be bad REGARDLESS of the system, a representive, constitutional republic just helps to defend people from government and government from people.


True enough, but an even better idea, would be if there was no government to defend the people from!

Honestly, the people can rule themselves without a group of old white men to "intermidate".




Because you say so, right?

More accurately, because the Constitution says so.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase then:
Because a group of dead, white, male, rich, sexist, racist, slave-owning, bigots said so, right?

I can measure my respect for the "US Constitution" in the crack of my ass.


Name for me one monopoly not created by governemt intervention.

Standard Oil


Organizations exist that tell you that stuff.

And you do influence that stuff. If you didn't buy Pepsi, Pepsi wouldn't exist and wouldn't be able to do any of that.

Ahh, but what if I'm broke?

Where's my "influence" now?


First off, that isn't oligarchy

Yes, it is:

"Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families


Secondly, so what? Why is "one person, one vote" the best system?

Because all members of a society are entitled to equal rights as members of that society and by virtue of being human beings.

I would remind you that your precious "constitution" said something very similar... what was that again....


Because the MAJORITY says so? Don't make me laugh.

Yes I suppose you would find democracy rather laughable, I belive Mussulini felt the same way.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 15 2005, 12:05 AM




The problem is not "people are bad", they aren't, they're just people.

The problem is people with power "are bad", which is a much more serious one.

So isn't giving everyone equal power bad? Won't everyone use their power (Or more accurately, everyone's lack of power) to meet their own ends. Yep.



True enough, but an even better idea, would be if there was no government to defend the people from!

Honestly, the people can rule themselves without a group of old white men to "intermidate".

Really? I don't think so.


I'm sorry, let me rephrase then:
Because a group of dead, white, male, rich, sexist, racist, slave-owning, bigots said so, right?

I can measure my respect for the "US Constitution" in the crack of my ass.

*Notes that you ARE free to lave anytime you want*

Not that I think you SHOULD leave but if you hate this place so much, why stay? If I was living in a communist country I wouldn't care about changing it, I would get the hell out.



Standard Oil

BZZZZZT!!

Never had more than 88% of the market share, therefore, it wasn't a monopoly. A monopoly has to be the sole proprietor of a good or service AND has to reduce output while increasing price.

Standard Oil fits neither part of this description.

Also, it was the free-market that reduced it's market share from a high of 88% to 64% in 1911, the year in which the anti-trust case was settled.

If it was the government that broke down Standard Oil, why is it they were already faltering before the government got involved? The free-market.


Ahh, but what if I'm broke?

Where's my "influence" now?

You don't have any.


"Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families

First off, it isn't "government" in the strict sense.

Secondly, it isn't ran by a few people. Everyone with money has influence, some just have more.


Because all members of a society are entitled to equal rights as members of that society and by virtue of being human beings.

I would remind you that your precious "constitution" said something very similar... what was that again....

Equal rights yes. I agree to that. But equal votes? That's a democracy. We are not a democracy. Read the Constitution.



Yes I suppose you would find democracy rather laughable, I belive Mussulini felt the same way.

Logical fallacy: Guilt By Association

[LSD]

Logical fallacy: Guilt By Association

Guilt by Analogy!

HAHA!!!!!!!


So isn't giving everyone equal power bad? Won't everyone use their power (Or more accurately, everyone's lack of power) to meet their own ends. Yep.

No because, it all "evens out", as it were.

One person with all the power seeking his individual "end" is dangerous, so are 40 people will all the power seeking their individual "ends".

But the idea that if a society is empowered, everyone will "naturally" abandon all community and humanity is ludicrous.



*Notes that you ARE free to lave anytime you want*

1. I do not live in the United States of America.
2. I would NEVER live in United States of America
3. I DO NOT live in United States of America.


Not that I think you SHOULD leave but if you hate this place so much, why stay? If I was living in a communist country I wouldn't care about changing it, I would get the hell out.]

see 1 through 3 above.


First off, it isn't "government" in the strict sense.

Secondly, it isn't ran by a few people. Everyone with money has influence, some just have more.

If political government is abolished and economic capitalism maintained, then yes, it is effectively government.


Equal rights yes. I agree to that. But equal votes? That's a democracy. We are not a democracy. Read the Constitution.

1. I do not live in the United States of America.
2. I would NEVER live in United States of America
3. I DO NOT live in United States of America.

I believe in democracy, regardless of what your Constitution may or may not say.



Ahh, but what if I'm broke?

Where's my "influence" now?You don't have any.

:lol:

Well, at least we agree on something!

I suppose you really couldn't get out of that one... but then I guess you don't see anything wrong with that either...

[Professor Moneybags]

No, I'm saying that economic inequality inevitable leads to political inequality, especially if the political sphere is significantly weakened.

Can you honestly deny that, in the absense of an organized government, a capitalist society would result in the rich exerting far more political authority than the poor?

How ?

[LSD]

um... there's no government. There's a capitalist economy. I have lot's of money, you do not.

I don't like you.

I kill you.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 15 2005, 04:06 PM
um... there's no government. There's a capitalist economy. I have lot's of money, you do not.

I don't like you.

I kill you.
The absence or presence of "a capitalist economy" is not going to prevent you from killing me as nothing will be illegal and there would be no police to stop you either. :rolleyes:

I don't favour anarcho-capitalism anyway, so the point is moot.

Now tell me, what's going to prevent you and your gang killing me under your variant of anarchism ?

[LSD]

The absence or presence of "a capitalist economy" is not going to prevent you from killing me as nothing will be illegal and there would be no police to stop you either.

The point is that as long as a materialist/consumarist economy exists, someone with "money" will be always able to influence the decisions of others.

That is, even if there are agreed upon rules or "laws" on how such a society would operate, as long as inequality in influence existed, in this case economically based, those rules would only apply to those unable to "buy off" others.


Now tell me, what's going to prevent you and your gang killing me under your variant of anarchism ?

As with any anarcho-capitalist society, murder would be forbidden.

The difference is that without systemic institutionalized inquality, this prohibition would apply across the board.

That is, no one would be able to exploit their "wealth" or "property" to, say, hire a private army, or employ an assasin, or stockpile weapons, or build up a compound.

Without the incentives of money-based economics, raising a personal force of any size would be next to impossible. As long as everyone is "taken care of", no one will have a reason to kill for you, or to "look the other way" were someone else to.

You see, social inequalities always translate if there isn't a buffer to prevent it. In modern "mixed-economies" that buffer is a political government, usually a "democratic" one, in which, theoretically at least, one's political influence is seperate from ones economic power.

In reality, of course, we know that this line rarely holds.


I don't favour anarcho-capitalism anyway, so the point is moot.

No, Publius does and he brought up the topic, but you did ask:


No, I'm saying that economic inequality inevitable leads to political inequality, especially if the political sphere is significantly weakened.

Can you honestly deny that, in the absense of an organized government, a capitalist society would result in the rich exerting far more political authority than the poor?


How ?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 15 2005, 04:59 PM

No, I'm saying that economic inequality inevitable leads to political inequality, especially if the political sphere is significantly weakened.

Can you honestly deny that, in the absense of an organized government, a capitalist society would result in the rich exerting far more political authority than the poor?

How ?
What planet are you from?

[colombiano]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 15 2005, 03:59 PM

No, I'm saying that economic inequality inevitable leads to political inequality, especially if the political sphere is significantly weakened.

Can you honestly deny that, in the absense of an organized government, a capitalist society would result in the rich exerting far more political authority than the poor?

How ?

How ?
It is very simple .
The Golden Rule
"Who ever has the Most Gold Makes the Rule"

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!+Feb 17 2005, 05:11 PM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard! @ Feb 17 2005, 05:11 PM)
Professor [email protected] 15 2005, 04:59 PM

No, I'm saying that economic inequality inevitable leads to political inequality, especially if the political sphere is significantly weakened.

Can you honestly deny that, in the absense of an organized government, a capitalist society would result in the rich exerting far more political authority than the poor?

How ?
What planet are you from? [/b]
Answer the question.

[Professor Moneybags]

As with any anarcho-capitalist society, murder would be forbidden.

The difference is that without systemic institutionalized inquality, this prohibition would apply across the board.

That is, no one would be able to exploit their "wealth" or "property" to, say, hire a private army, or employ an assasin, or stockpile weapons, or build up a compound.

When did murder require a stockpile of weapons or a private army ?


Without the incentives of money-based economics, raising a personal force of any size would be next to impossible. As long as everyone is "taken care of", no one will have a reason to kill for you, or to "look the other way" were someone else to.

Taking away money isn't going to make murder go away. How many murders do you honestly think are over money ?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 20 2005, 02:52 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 20 2005, 02:52 PM)
Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 17 2005, 05:11 PM

Professor [email protected] 15 2005, 04:59 PM

No, I'm saying that economic inequality inevitable leads to political inequality, especially if the political sphere is significantly weakened.

Can you honestly deny that, in the absense of an organized government, a capitalist society would result in the rich exerting far more political authority than the poor?

How ?
What planet are you from?
Answer the question. [/b]
I don't even know, why I keep responding to you. You aren't workingclass, nor do you put up intellectual challenges.

This is pretty much the most obvious scenario to happen in your imaginary "laissez fairez capitalism". A rich guy hires other guys in to supress others. Thus he excercizes political authority by means of money.

Hell, he could even hire a personal army to enslave people. You are probaly going to deny this with another lame remark. "Political inequality doesn't lead to oppression".

We do not share a basis of debate or even have anything in common. Go debate with your fellow middle-class capitalist apologists or something.

[Professor Moneybags]

I don't even know, why I keep responding to you.

Because you've lost the argument before you've even started ?


You aren't workingclass,

How do you know ?


nor do you put up intellectual challenges.

Pull the other one. :lol: The intellectual level of your debate has been immortalized in my signature.


This is pretty much the most obvious scenario to happen in your imaginary "laissez fairez capitalism". A rich guy hires other guys in to supress others. Thus he excercizes political authority by means of money.

A lynch mob can do pretty much the same thing without money. (Just as your comrades did whilst silencing the protest warriors. Imagine what they would be like without the police there !) I've said before : I'm not an anarcho capitalist, so the point is moot.


Hell, he could even hire a personal army to enslave people. You are probaly going to deny this with another lame remark. "Political inequality doesn't lead to oppression".

So what's stopping your gang from enslaving people and doing as it pleases ? If mob politics doesn't result in political inequality, what does ?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Capitalism divides the workingclass, the workers are divided against their oppressors and easily overwon. But if they unite they can defeat any slave taking mob. There is no reason for an anarchist to take someone else as a slave. But there are enough reasons for a capitalist to take slaves.

How I know that you aren't workingclass?

Your complete unability to to understand the position of the workingclass. You classifying every workingclass man as lazy or dumb. A workingclass person would never say that Money doesn't equal power.

Why I don't want to keep bothering argumenting with you? You don't offer any intellectual challenges. Nor are you workingclass, thus pretty much irrelevant to the workingclass struggle.

Yes, advocating "unfair-play" really proves my unintellectualism. I mean all wars and struggles are based on fairplay. :rolleyes: If I had something stupid as Money doesn't equate power, that would have been unintellectual.

[LSD]

When did murder require a stockpile of weapons or a private army ?

The question was why [in the absense of an organized government, a capitalist society would result in the rich exerting far more political authority than the poor?

While a "stockpile of weapons or a private army" certainly is bot nescessary for political authority, I think we can both agree, it helps.


A lynch mob can do pretty much the same thing without money.

You're missing the point.

While a "lynch mob" certainly can do a great deal of damage, it can do so only because of numbers.

That is, every member of that mob is equal in terms of destructive potential.

On the other hand, in capitalist "Anarchy", individuals can accumulate great personal destructive potential leading to a power gap in their favour.


I've said before : I'm not an anarcho capitalist, so the point is moot.

Yeah... but you raised the issue, so you can't back out now!

[Professor Moneybags]

Capitalism divides the workingclass, the workers are divided against their oppressors and easily overwon. But if they unite they can defeat any slave taking mob.

Or become one themselves.


How I know that you aren't workingclass?

Your complete unability to to understand the position of the workingclass.

You mean I don't buy the bullshit about being "oppressed" by someone I work for voluntarily ?


You classifying every workingclass man as lazy or dumb.

No, I'm not. Never have done.


A workingclass person would never say that Money doesn't equal power.

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.


Yes, advocating "unfair-play" really proves my unintellectualism. I mean all wars and struggles are based on fairplay. :rolleyes:

Might makes right, does it ? It's all coming out now... :lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

When did murder require a stockpile of weapons or a private army ?

The question was why

I wasn't talking about "political authority", I was talking about murder.


You're missing the point.

While a "lynch mob" certainly can do a great deal of damage, it can do so [b]only because of numbers.

That is, every member of that mob is equal in terms of [i]destructive potential.

Equally venerable to attack and enslavement too.


Yeah... but you raised the issue, so you can't back out now!

I'll do what I like.

[LSD]

I wasn't talking about "political authority", I was talking about murder.

No you asked a question:

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags @ Feb 15 [email protected] 03:59 PM

No, I'm saying that economic inequality inevitable leads to political inequality, especially if the political sphere is significantly weakened.

Can you honestly deny that, in the absense of an organized government, a capitalist society would result in the rich exerting far more political authority than the poor?


How ?

I answered it.

Does this mean you accept my answer?


I'll do what I like.

:lol:

What are you, 6?

[Right_is_right]

The "masses/majority", by definition cannot be a "government" as a government is a small, elite group. Remember that old "pyramid model"... well if the top is the same size as the bottom... it's not a pyramid anymore.

But, yes, you're right. The majority would ultimately make the decisisons.

...hmmm, I think there's a name for that ...oh wait, yes Democracy.

So in other words, communism is democratic anarchy. This will not work.

When there is a disagreement, and argument, the people will be split into different factions holding different opinions. If, the minority faction(s) believes strongly enough in its argument, it is likely they will decide to form their "own democracy" so that they can do things their way.

This will gradually create more and more "democracies" within the communism, which will make democracy obsolete, since people can always form their own majority by ignoring the people who have other opinions.

It will not be democratic anarchy anymore. It will just be anarchy where everyone does whatever they want regardless of the opinions of others. I hope you can understand why people will start disregarding each other's opinions. When people see it happen, they will think its okay for them to do the same.

The problem is there is no structure, nothing to hold the minority accountable to the majority so these splits will happen.