Socialist's Fall

[Right_is_right]

China adopted capitalism with the intention that they can create wealth so there is something to distribute among its people.
(I have always stressed that efficiency and organization is required for wealth to be created aside from the workers)

When the time comes for the wealth to be equally redistributed, the new rich class(includes many government officials) will be reluctant to give it away.

If you don't believe me, try it. Split your assets and capital 50/50 and give half of it to a bum on the street so that you are equal. If you can do that then try splitting it evenly with every bum in your city.
Without an incentive such as a gun pointed to your head, even a communist will find that hard.

Generally, the rich control the government in China sooooo.... they have effectively "fallen" from the communist ways with little hope of coming back. Its not easy throwing a revolution.

But look at the alternative. Without adopting capitalist style economics, there will be no wealth to distribute, and it might collapse like the USSR or starve like NKorea.

You're damned if you do and your damned if you don't if you follow communism.

[RedAnarchist]

Why would a socialist find that hard? Altruism is a very good quality to have. If you cannot help other human beings out, then you live only for yourself. Wealth doesnt create happiness. Helping a fellow human does. :)

[New Tolerance]

Given that this is an purely economic arguement, I'll criticize it:


China adopted capitalism with the intention that they can create wealth so there is something to distribute among its people.
(I have always stressed that efficiency and organization is required for wealth to be created aside from the workers)

When the time comes for the wealth to be equally redistributed, the new rich class(includes many government officials) will be reluctant to give it away.

If you don't believe me, try it. Split your assets and capital 50/50 and give half of it to a bum on the street so that you are equal. If you can do that then try splitting it evenly with every bum in your city.
Without an incentive such as a gun pointed to your head, even a communist will find that hard.

Generally, the rich control the government in China sooooo.... they have effectively "fallen" from the communist ways with little hope of coming back. Its not easy throwing a revolution.

It sounds like you are suggesting that there has to be some sort of "new rich class" to generate wealth. Otherwise wealth can not be created. Is this what you are saying? If so, why?


But look at the alternative. Without adopting capitalist style economics, there will be no wealth to distribute, and it might collapse like the USSR or starve like NKorea.

You're damned if you do and your damned if you don't if you follow communism.

The reason why the USSR collasped was because it attempted to combat the United States. Had there been no competition, it wouldn't have collasped when it did. Now, one might argue that this proves that the USSR's economy is no match for that of the US, this is true, however the reasons for it being true is not so obvious:

In 1917 the Bolsheviks inhereted a third world country struck in the 17th century that has also been deindustrialized by a decade of internal/external wars. Meanwhile, the US is already a first world country and is untouched by the war. In other words, the US has got a much better head start on economic terms than the USSR, further more. Two decades later, the USSR was deindustrialized again by WWII, while the US, again was untouched.

With these things considered, not only was the USSR able to rebuild itself into the world's 2nd largest economy, it was also able to continuous compete with the US for the next 40 years. Do you deny that this is a farely impressive economic achievement?

[cormacobear]

It wouldn't be very nice to give a homeless guy half my $50,000 debt. But once I can pay my bills every month he can have half of what's left.

Wealth is too often a goal, when elemnts of wealth are in themselves sufficient. Commodities and productivity can be advanced without collecting wealth or incurring debt, by simlpe steady re-investment. With is 'lazy money' it pools at the top and contributes virtually nothing to the society that created it. Hidden in capital gains and insured securities the collective wealth of the wealthy is increasingly not being reinvested for the advancement of society. So just an easy method of creating wealth is to invest it for them.

Maybe China should consider taking the money from the wealthy and investing in mine safety.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

What you are hypothetically asking us to do does not apply whatsoever to any person who lives in a Capitalist society. For example, I live in the United States. I am a college student, but let's say as an example that I am a regular working man. Now, since this country is obviously not Socialist, I have to be able to pay for shelter, for food, for the college education of my children, for my medical bills, etc. If I were to take my income and give half of it to somebody else, I have no chance of survival. On the contrary, in a Socialist country these costs are taken care of and we are all economically equal as it is. It isn't necessarily a question as to whether we would like to be able to help a homeless person by assisting them financially, it is that we are incapable of doing so because of the individualist nature of Capitalism as a mentality. As long as we live in a Capitalist society, we have to (at least to an extent) live by it in order to survive.

[Seuno]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:32 PM
China adopted capitalism with the intention that they can create wealth so there is something to distribute among its people.
(I have always stressed that efficiency and organization is required for wealth to be created aside from the workers)

When the time comes for the wealth to be equally redistributed, the new rich class(includes many government officials) will be reluctant to give it away.

If you don't believe me, try it. Split your assets and capital 50/50 and give half of it to a bum on the street so that you are equal. If you can do that then try splitting it evenly with every bum in your city.
Without an incentive such as a gun pointed to your head, even a communist will find that hard.

Generally, the rich control the government in China sooooo.... they have effectively "fallen" from the communist ways with little hope of coming back. Its not easy throwing a revolution.

But look at the alternative. Without adopting capitalist style economics, there will be no wealth to distribute, and it might collapse like the USSR or starve like NKorea.

You're damned if you do and your damned if you don't if you follow communism.
Giving money to an incompetent person maybe throwing good money to the fire. Organized educatedly socialized charity is wiser....About their bourgeois communism: according to Marx this is not the final goal of human socialization, only a midpoint to a wiser and more stable secular social structure, acceptance of spiritual freedom with a control on the theological competition, and a common regulation for acceptable education.

[Iepilei]

The biggest tragedy in modern society is believing that only two methods are possible; especially in something as unpredictable as economics.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by thread description
Wealth is very hard to give up

Not ever having had any, I wouldn't know. :P

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

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:32 PM
China adopted capitalism with the intention that they can create wealth so there is something to distribute among its people.
(I have always stressed that efficiency and organization is required for wealth to be created aside from the workers)

When the time comes for the wealth to be equally redistributed, the new rich class(includes many government officials) will be reluctant to give it away.



Generally, the rich control the government in China sooooo.... they have effectively "fallen" from the communist ways with little hope of coming back. Its not easy throwing a revolution.

But look at the alternative. Without adopting capitalist style economics, there will be no wealth to distribute, and it might collapse like the USSR or starve like NKorea.

The USSR and China turned State Capitalist pretty early on, depending on what type of Communist you ask.

The USSR and China were definately state capitalist by 1960, even earlier to my own beliefs, Maoists would say the USSR and China turned such after around Mao's and Stalin's deaths. But, really, The Soviet Union was really Socialist..for about a week. :rolleyes:
The workers never really held much power in the USSR or China, if any at all (I'm going to draw fire from the Leninists for that remark). Unlike in the Paris Commune where the workers actually were in control; not the intellectual elite of the Leninist/Maoist Communist Party.


A few articles related to State Capitalism:

The New Class- The Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_class)

Deformed Workers' State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers_state)

Degenerated Workers' State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers_state)

State Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:32 PM


If you don't believe me, try it. Split your assets and capital 50/50 and give half of it to a bum on the street so that you are equal. If you can do that then try splitting it evenly with every bum in your city.
Without an incentive such as a gun pointed to your head, even a communist will find that hard.


Most of them can't, since everything they own is still their parents' property.

:P

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
Most of them can't, since everything they own is still their parents' property.

Playing the age card, eh? :o

How's your Alzheimer's Disease progressing?

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

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:32 PM
When the time comes for the wealth to be equally redistributed, the new rich class(includes many government officials) will be reluctant to give it away.
I hope you don't think that workers should make "earnest appeals" to the members of the ruling class to, out of the good of their hearts, give their wealth away and establish communism.

If you are implying that the new "leaders" that are present after the revolution will be reluctant to give up their power, then I totally agree with you.

Which is, after all, why I am against the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (a transition from 'after the revolution' to 'stateless communism') as well as superstitions such as "leadership" and authoritarian entities such as vanguard parties.

[bolshevik butcher]

China addopted capitalism because people saw a way to make money, anything else's a lie.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 22 2005, 10:20 PM
With these things considered, not only was the USSR able to rebuild itself into the world's 2nd largest economy, it was also able to continuous compete with the US for the next 40 years. Do you deny that this is a farely impressive economic achievement?
Is this the same USSR that wasn't really communist ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Now, since this country is obviously not Socialist, I have to be able to pay for shelter, for food, for the college education of my children, for my medical bills, etc. If I were to take my income and give half of it to somebody else, I have no chance of survival. On the contrary, in a Socialist country these costs are taken care of and we are all economically equal as it is.

And where do you think the money is coming from to cover these costs ? It wouldn't be from other people by any chance, would it ?

[New Tolerance]

Is this the same USSR that wasn't really communist ?


It wasn't communist, but he implies that it is, I'm merely criticizing his argument in his own language.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 23 2005, 09:35 PM

Now, since this country is obviously not Socialist, I have to be able to pay for shelter, for food, for the college education of my children, for my medical bills, etc. If I were to take my income and give half of it to somebody else, I have no chance of survival. On the contrary, in a Socialist country these costs are taken care of and we are all economically equal as it is.

And where do you think the money is coming from to cover these costs ? It wouldn't be from other people by any chance, would it ?
I don't see how that is relevant to this question. By the time economic equality has been achieved and these services have become available for everybody, 1) the money wouldn't be taken from anybody because Socialism doesn't implement a tax system and 2) even if you do still consider the form Socialism uses for collecting revenue and distributes wealth a type of taxation, more money would not be taken from some people and less from others so once again, your point is completely irrelevant to the topic of the post. But to answer your question, no, this money isn't "taken" from people.

[Hiero]

If you don't believe me, try it. Split your assets and capital 50/50 and give half of it to a bum on the street so that you are equal. If you can do that then try splitting it evenly with every bum in your city.
Without an incentive such as a gun pointed to your head, even a communist will find that hard.


Thats a stupid comparasion.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It comes from the same lane as "if you are for equal wealth, why do you have a pc then?".

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:43 AM

If you don't believe me, try it. Split your assets and capital 50/50 and give half of it to a bum on the street so that you are equal. If you can do that then try splitting it evenly with every bum in your city.
Without an incentive such as a gun pointed to your head, even a communist will find that hard.


Thats a stupid comparasion.
It's not stupid, it's merely asking folks to put their theory into practice.

It's the same thing as telling a chickenhawk to go sign up to serve in Iraq.

[Professor Moneybags]

I don't see how that is relevant to this question. By the time economic equality has been achieved and these services have become available for everybody,

And how will this be achieved, if not by force ?


1) the money wouldn't be taken from anybody because Socialism doesn't implement a tax system

Then how would you ensure equality ?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 25 2005, 04:11 PM

I don't see how that is relevant to this question. By the time economic equality has been achieved and these services have become available for everybody,

And how will this be achieved, if not by force ?


1) the money wouldn't be taken from anybody because Socialism doesn't implement a tax system

Then how would you ensure equality ?
I don't see any Communists/Socialists that are denying that the transformation might require the use of force on the wealthy class. Of course they won't want to give up their money, they've lived their life oppressing the lower class, why would they be interested in economic equality?

And to answer your second question, income is distributed through the government, there is no "tax". Everyone receives basically the same wage through that institution. Ensuring economic equality isn't that much of an issue after the initial social changes have been made.

[The Sloth]

And how will this be achieved, if not by force ?

Of course it will be achieved by force, silly.

I suggest that you refrain from using that word, though...libertarians have a tendency to formulate theories regarding "freedom from force/coercion," yet, when an individual is being ripped off, fucked over, etc. they proclaim "it was his choice to take that job and thus in his best interest."

I've seen 75-year old grandmothers waking up at 7 a.m. to work every morning...are they not being coerced by the alternatives?

As if the alternatives -- starvation, homelessness, abject poverty -- are not a form of "coercion."

Correct?

[Seuno]

But to answer your question, no, this money isn't "taken" from people.[/b]

This is a question of free-will, good-will and acceptance. Not the question is there taxation or not. Bourgeois are bourgeois for the proletariat, that's a little sarcasm from Marx. Anyone who feels they shall lose rather than gain in helping the people would be opposed to finacial equality. They do not think there shall be less crime, disease and social tension, they only know that they shall lose money. Their fear can not allow them to let go of this never ending run for money, that is their trained capitalist survival instinct. "Never the less" is their battle cry.

[Professor Moneybags]

Anyone who feels they shall lose rather than gain in helping the people would be opposed to finacial equality.

And any man who lives by his own effort is going to have something to lose because they will have to provide for those who don't.


Their fear can not allow them to let go of this never ending run for money, that is their trained capitalist survival instinct.

The same could be said about suicide bombing. People are willing to fly planes into buildings under the delusion that "paradise" is just round the corner.

[Professor Moneybags]

Of course it will be achieved by force, silly.

I suggest that you refrain from using that word, though...libertarians have a tendency to formulate theories regarding "freedom from force/coercion," yet, when an individual is being ripped off, fucked over, etc. they proclaim "it was his choice to take that job and thus in his best interest."


Define "ripped off" and "fucked over". These are terribly subjective terms.


I've seen 75-year old grandmothers waking up at 7 a.m. to work every morning...are they not being coerced by the alternatives?

As if the alternatives -- starvation, homelessness, abject poverty -- are not a form of "coercion."

Poverty is a default state. If you're starving on a desert island, are you being "coerced" then ? By whom ? How is homelssness "coercion" ? Care to explain that one ?

[encephalon]

Poverty is a default state.

wow.

[Professor Moneybags]

Of course they won't want to give up their money, they've lived their life oppressing the lower class,

Proof ?


why would they be interested in economic equality?

Only those who don't live by their own efforts have something to gain from economic equality.


And to answer your second question, income is distributed through the government, there is no "tax".

That is a defacto tax- a 100% defacto tax. You work, the government decides what you get and how much money you may or may not own. Would you like being treated like some kid on an allowance ? Or would you rather be treated like adult, exchanging labour or goods for money ?

[Seuno]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 26 2005, 09:21 AM

Of course they won't want to give up their money, they've lived their life oppressing the lower class,

Proof ?


why would they be interested in economic equality?

Only those who don't live by their own efforts have something to gain from economic equality.


And to answer your second question, income is distributed through the government, there is no "tax".

That is a defacto tax- a 100% defacto tax. You work, the government decides what you get and how much money you may or may not own. Would you like being treated like some kid on an allowance ? Or would you rather be treated like adult, exchanging labour or goods for money ?
"A proof is a proof is a proof..when you have proof it is proven" Jean Cretien xPriminster of Canada.

What is the basis of capitalist economic elevation (elevation as a verb)? It is the positive relation to the bank and credit system via ownership of property. What is rent of this land property? The power to extract money value as the exchange value for labour value is found in rent. If you do not have the credit validity for a loan of that size (usually 5% of the propertys' money value and assurity of a secured personal income), then you are not privledged to land property ownership. If you rent, what you pay in rent goes to the equity value as payment to the owners mortgage. The land property owners money or financial value goes up, the renter goes down. That is financial oppression. Then you shall say 'they can educate themselves and become more valuable and save to down payment for a house'. That would be true if intent worked as good as reality, but unfortunately reality works much harder against, than for, the worker. This can be proven by comparing the previous hundred years of the number of owners to the number of renters.

In anwser to your next would-be-refutation, the communist manifesto fo 1848 says nothing of a 100% tax but a heavily graduated tax from small percentages for the proletariat to higher percentages for the higher earner. It also says something to the effect that all should 'earn their living', much like this so called democratic capitalist nation. In fact, all proletariats are treated as some kid on an allowance, it is called a wage.

[The Sloth]

Define "ripped off" and "fucked over". These are terribly subjective terms.

In terms of today, we have the Third World conditions which need no elaboration as far as being "fucked over" goes.

In terms of today, we have the conditions in America which vary greatly. For example, an adult living in New York City (whose apartment, on average, will cost about $1 mil) works in Burger King for $6-something an hour, obviously unable to sustain himself and live in some kind of dignity. A Mexican day-laborer working 60 hr/week jobs, getting paid $3/hr is, of course, in a far worse situation, as the "fucked over" factor is at a much more severe level. We also have the middle class individual whose income is acceptable yet, due to superstitions such as "leadership" and hierarchal/authoritarian "management," his dignity is still sacrificed. "Fucked over."

Whatever the case may be, his exists in a relationship that is parasitic; his lack of property, in a simplified scenario, more or less allows his "superiors" to live at his expense. "Fucked over."

Being "fucked over" is obvious in terms of property, although the relationship is important as well: the relationship you find yourself in is one of "command and obey," hierarchal and authoritarian to the core...needless to say, this does not do much in terms of improving self-esteem, independence, free-thinking without the reliance on others' orders, etc. so, in reality, that is another aspect of being "fucked over."

Now, in your a-libertarian society, I get the feeling there will be a lot more of those aforementioned Mexicans and a lot of preservation of the old systems of authority. Although "preservation" is a generous term, to the point of charity...realistically, there will not only be a "preservation," but also an intensification of this shit.

Basically, whenever an individual lives at your expense and you don't receive an equal compensation in the relationship -- economic and otherwise -- it is called being "fucked over." Under communism every individual exists at the expense of society, although, of course, the existence is equally reciprocated by all members, and, thus, this "expense" is not sharper/more beneficial to certain social sectors (such as the international "private sector" of today).


Poverty is a default state.

And capitalism does not "cause" but maintains it.


If you're starving on a desert island, are you being "coerced" then ?

You must elaborate on your question. What exactly are you asking?


How is homelssness "coercion" ? Care to explain that one ?

Because if the alternative to "not doing what is ordered" is homelessness, and because almost no individual will desire homelessness, and because homelessness is an adverse circumstance to find oneself in, the alternative can be considered "coercion." The alternative of homelessness is thus a threat to one's well-being in many different respects.

Recently, I've had a similar discussion with a libertarian...he said that homelessness is not coercion because many homeless folks desire that state of existence. Very well, then; maybe the only "social program" libertarians should support is one that cultivates an appreciaton for one's own abject poverty.

You may still protest my interpretation of coercion, but re-read my above explanation to your "how is homelessness 'coercion'" question, and then consider the following, a scenario surely you will consider to be coercive:

"Putting a gun to another's head" is coercion because the alternative to "not doing what is ordered" is death, and because almost no individiaul will desire death, and because death is an adverse circumstance to find oneself in, the alternative can be considered "coercion." The alternative of death is thus a threat to one's well-being in many different respects.

[Tom Joad]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 26 2005, 03:59 AM
And any man who lives by his own effort is going to have something to lose because they will have to provide for those who don't.
Because, as we all know, if you work hard you will magically move up to the top. There are never abuses in the fascist power structure of corporations. The very abuses that accuse us of executing are merely the abuses that we are trying to correct. Your assumptions are far too great, and you see things far too simplistically in a system that has created needless complications for itself. Ideally, in a capitalist society, one can work hard and move up the social ladder whilst competing with others and thus leading to progress.
Now, I have only begun to state the pragmatic problems with capitalism, but to list such and analyze such would take far too long; instead, I will merely offer you with an idealistic "hole" in your whole grand scheme -- why go through all of this? In the words of Ayn Rand (dear, sweet, irony thou knowst no bounds!), you are devising a system that requires people to constantly prove their worth to society as well as constantly and continually buying their places back. Honestly, what's the point in going through all of this trouble when we can be working together? This isn't about laziness, nor about me wanting more stuff than you. This is about pure equality -- to each according to his need, from each according to his ability. In a stateless, classless society this requires doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Instead of using one talent to exploit the weaknesses of those around, the working members of society use all talents so that they can fill in the gaps of others.

[Professor Moneybags]

Because, as we all know, if you work hard you will magically move up to the top.

Earning a living has nothing to do with "moving to the top".


There are never abuses in the fascist power structure of corporations.

Corporations are not governments any more than your household is.


The very abuses that accuse us of executing are merely the abuses that we are trying to correct. Your assumptions are far too great, and you see things far too simplistically in a system that has created needless complications for itself.

Such as ?


Ideally, in a capitalist society, one can work hard and move up the social ladder whilst competing with others and thus leading to progress.
Now, I have only begun to state the pragmatic problems with capitalism, but to list such and analyze such would take far too long;

You haven't explained anything and you haven't given any examples.


In the words of Ayn Rand (dear, sweet, irony thou knowst no bounds!), you are devising a system that requires people to constantly prove their worth to society as well as constantly and continually buying their places back.

Where did Ayn Rand write this ?


Honestly, what's the point in going through all of this trouble when we can be working together? This isn't about laziness, nor about me wanting more stuff than you. This is about pure equality -- to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.

:lol: No no no, Tommy. This has got nothing to do with "working together". The only people who benefit from pure equality are those who don't contribute. Creating an elaborate collective "effort pot" in which we all throw our labour in to is a wonderful way of obfuscating who has done/earned what. Who benefits from that system ? Those who do nothing.

The alternative is to live by your own efforts (that way, there will be no obfuscation) and to engage in voluntary associations with others via contractual agreement.


In a stateless, classless society this requires doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Instead of using one talent to exploit the weaknesses of those around, the working members of society use all talents so that they can fill in the gaps of others.

Exploitation, in other words. Dear, sweet, irony thou knowst no bounds.

[Professor Moneybags]

In anwser to your next would-be-refutation, the communist manifesto fo 1848 says nothing of a 100% tax but a heavily graduated tax from small percentages for the proletariat to higher percentages for the higher earner.

"Each according to his ablilites to each according to his need" is a defacto 100% tax.

<snip the rest of the drivel>

[pandora]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 27 2005, 12:10 PM


There are never abuses in the fascist power structure of corporations.

Corporations are not governments any more than your household is.

Did Ayn Rand write this ?

Professor Moneybags I know you&#39;[re nuts and want to take civilization back three thousand years but this is ridiculous&#33; Give me a break the average company has CEO&#39;s earning hundreds of millions of dollars a board of directors, share holders,

What by Jeeves are you talking about&#33; I live with five people and we each pay our own bills.

I must beg your own question, did Ann Rynd write this? Because it reeks of her lack of logical conclusions. Did you study logic in school, or did they close the library for lack of funds? :lol:

By the way how do you explain the fact that CAFTA the new NAFTA will mostly screw over small farmers who work much harder than you ever have in your life.

The situation of most small farmers proves your arguement as to each will earn as to his abilities is bull honkey&#33; Why then are their so many corpulent rich people who are unable to do much of anything and whom have never worked a day in their life, while the majority of the poor work their behinds off :rolleyes:

[Professor Moneybags]

as the "fucked over" factor is at a much more severe level.

There is no "fucked over" factor. They are all working voluntarily.

Ah, now I understand. Being "fucked over" involves being handed a wage packet instead of a blank cheque.


We also have the middle class individual whose income is acceptable yet, due to superstitions such as "leadership" and hierarchal/authoritarian "management," his dignity is still sacrificed. "Fucked over."

So merely being told what to do by your employee is being "fucked over" ?


Whatever the case may be, his exists in a relationship that is parasitic; his lack of property, in a simplified scenario, more or less allows his "superiors" to live at his expense. "Fucked over."

Non sequitur.


You must elaborate on your question. What exactly are you asking?

Don&#39;t give me that; you said "starvation, homelessness, abject poverty" were forms of coercion. So you&#39;re a desert island, starving, homeless and living in poverty. So someone must be coercing you. Who ?


Because if the alternative to "not doing what is ordered" is homelessness, and because almost no individual will desire homelessness, and because homelessness is an adverse circumstance to find oneself in, the alternative can be considered "coercion."

We&#39;ve been through this several times already. You cannot tell the difference between a voluntary and a coerced action (see below). To you, reality is coercive.


You may still protest my interpretation of coercion, but re-read my above explanation to your "how is homelessness &#39;coercion&#39;" question, and then consider the following, a scenario surely you will consider to be coercive:

"Putting a gun to another&#39;s head" is coercion because the alternative to "not doing what is ordered" is death, and because almost no individiaul will desire death, and because death is an adverse circumstance to find oneself in, the alternative can be considered "coercion." The alternative of death is thus a threat to one&#39;s well-being in many different respects.

Collorary : "Having to eat" is coercion because the alternative to "not eating" is death, and because almost no individual will desire death, and because death is an adverse circumstance to find oneself in, the alternative can be considered "coercion." The alternative of death is thus a threat to one&#39;s well-being in many different respects.

Your problem isn&#39;t with capitalism, it&#39;s with reality itself and I&#39;m sorry to say that communism won&#39;t shield you from it.

[Tom Joad]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 27 2005, 04:17 AM

You must elaborate on your question. What exactly are you asking?

Don&#39;t give me that; you said "starvation, homelessness, abject poverty" were forms of coercion. So you&#39;re a desert island, starving, homeless and living in poverty. So someone must be coercing you. Who ?
Nobody. And yes, those three things are forms of coercion when given as the sole alternative.

[synthesis]

Don&#39;t give me that; you said "starvation, homelessness, abject poverty" were forms of coercion. So you&#39;re a desert island, starving, homeless and living in poverty. So someone must be coercing you. Who ?

Leave it to Professor Moneybags to ignore the difference between a state of nature and a state of civilization.

Then again, I suppose it goes with the whole libertarian idea that anyone who isn&#39;t working can just go forage for food in the dumpsters of the concrete jungle :rolleyes:

[The Sloth]

There is no "fucked over" factor. They are all working voluntarily.

"Voluntarily" in the sense that they are settling for the absolute minimum declared by the status quo, and "voluntarily" in the sense that the alternative is starvation and homelessness.


Ah, now I understand. Being "fucked over" involves being handed a wage packet instead of a blank cheque.

Being "fucked over" involves having an individual live at your expense without reciprocating compensation.


So merely being told what to do by your employee is being "fucked over" ?

Using the word "merely" suggests that it is the only thing I discussed.

It depends on what "being told" means..."being told" to accept the absolute minimum is equal to "being fucked over."


Non sequitur.

Oh, I forgot...in an (a)libertarian society, property does not exist at anyone&#39;s expense and the definition of "parasitic" belongs in the hands of the (self-anointed) definers.


Don&#39;t give me that; you said "starvation, homelessness, abject poverty" were forms of coercion. So you&#39;re a desert island, starving, homeless and living in poverty. So someone must be coercing you. Who ?

Again, I don&#39;t understand the question, although I do understand where you are trying to take this quibble.

Let me correct you: I said the *alternative* of "starvation, homelessness, [and] abject poverty" is coercion. If I am given a choice between two things, and one of them I find to be against my self-interest, yet the other one leaves me in a position of "starvation, homelessness and abject poverty," then I was coerced into accepting the former and accepting my lowly position.

Now, I need to ask: in your scenario, how did I end up starving in the desert? Was it something I personally wanted? Or was it some kind of stipulation placed on my salary by my employer? Don&#39;t think as if these "little details" are unimportant.


We&#39;ve been through this several times already.

And every time it seems as if you introduce a quibble.


You cannot tell the difference between a voluntary and a coerced action (see below). To you, reality is coercive.

When this reality consists of the aforementioned, it is certainly coercive. Maybe you need to find a new word that doesn&#39;t vulgarize its genuine meaning in real-world applications.


Collorary : "Having to eat" is coercion because the alternative to "not eating" is death,

Correct; I may be some kind of ascetic, starving myself for religious reasons, yet, if I find some sense, the alternative of "death" will coerce me into embracing logic.


and because almost no individual will desire death, and because death is an adverse circumstance to find oneself in, the alternative can be considered "coercion."

Yes, the alternative certainly is "coercive" (see above)


The alternative of death is thus a threat to one&#39;s well-being in many different respects.

Correct.

Now, since we have finished with the word games, it&#39;s time for you to examine the implications of your ideas if they are to be applied to the real world. And the implicatiosn have already been discussed, so I&#39;ll stop here with the eternal quote:

<snip the rest of the drivel>

[Professor Moneybags]

Nobody. And yes, those three things are forms of coercion when given as the sole alternative.

Sorry, Tommy, you screwed up again. Coercion presupposes an aggressor and a victim. If there is no aggressor, then there is no coercion. Unless you consider reality to be coercive, in which case my participation in this exchange ends here.

[Professor Moneybags]

Leave it to Professor Moneybags to ignore the difference between a state of nature and a state of civilization.

:lol: He thinks that "work or starve" is an "unnatural state" that is "inflicted" on us.

Go to that desert island I mention and see for yourself how "unnatural" it is.

[Professor Moneybags]

"Voluntarily" in the sense that they are settling for the absolute minimum declared by the status quo, and "voluntarily" in the sense that the alternative is starvation and homelessness.

So it is voluntary after all. Well I never...


Being "fucked over" involves having an individual live at your expense without reciprocating compensation.

If parasitism is such a concern to you, I trust you won&#39;t be wanting to replace the status quo with communism, socialism, positive rights, welfare states or any other something-for-nothing system/scheme.


Oh, I forgot...in an (a)libertarian society, property does not exist at anyone&#39;s expense

No, it all has to be earned and bought. Voluntarily.


and the definition of "parasitic" belongs in the hands of the (self-anointed) definers.

There has been no change in definition.


Again, I don&#39;t understand the question, although I do understand where you are trying to take this quibble.

Let me correct you: I said the *alternative* of "starvation, homelessness, [and] abject poverty" is coercion.

Yes, the same must apply on the dessert island too.


If I am given a choice between two things, and one of them I find to be against my self-interest, yet the other one leaves me in a position of "starvation, homelessness and abject poverty," then I was coerced into accepting the former and accepting my lowly position.

By whom ? There is no one else on the desert island coercing you. You must find food by your own efforts or starve. By your definition, this is coercion- without anyone present to do the coercing.


Now, I need to ask: in your scenario, how did I end up starving in the desert? Was it something I personally wanted?

Reality doesn&#39;t care what you wanted.


Or was it some kind of stipulation placed on my salary by my employer? Don&#39;t think as if these "little details" are unimportant.

They are irrelevent because if the employer didn&#39;t exist you would still be in the same position.


When this reality consists of the aforementioned, it is certainly coercive. Maybe you need to find a new word that doesn&#39;t vulgarize its genuine meaning in real-world applications.

Like you have the ability to alter nature. I&#39;ve told you, you&#39;re wasting your time- get rid of capitalism, the "work or starve" system still holds, unless you put into place some artificial system by which others are forced to work for you.


Correct; I may be some kind of ascetic, starving myself for religious reasons, yet, if I find some sense, the alternative of "death" will coerce me into embracing logic.

Evidently not, as these debates prove.


Now, since we have finished with the word games, it&#39;s time for you to examine the implications of your ideas if they are to be applied to the real world.

Yeah, and we&#39;ve seen that the "alternatives" result in rampant parasitism and turn out to be more coercive that the system you&#39;re trying to replace.

There&#39;s only one kind of person who argues against the idea of living by your own efforts- those who wish to live off others&#39; efforts.

[1936]

the original post - It would be hard to give your money out to all the bums...because we are in capatilsm, wed then efficently have the quality of life not much greater then the bums

But if the situation was everyone give up the wealth and therfor we can share a above average standard of living, any noble communist would have no trouble doing this.