Common Enemies [Archive]

NovelGentry

26th May 2005, 19:25

Well, thats what capitalism is. I know people here have other definitions of capitalism, but I mean it as in laissez-faire capitalism.

Explain to me how under capitalism, laissez-faire or otherwise, everyone can work for themselves.

This is again, as pointed out in another thread, the political emancipation which capitalists perceive to equal social emancipation. Everyone may have a "right" to work for themselves, not everyone can, and thus the right to do so means very little, if anything at all. You achieve nothing in terms of equality on any meaningful scale.

I'm against being forced to help the 'masses', even those who are lazy and idle and evil.

No one is forcing you to work under communism -- not for the masses, not for yourself. The only force which would make you work in socialism is your own necessity.

Anyway do you think the divisions between capitalists & communists are greater than those between racists and anti-racists or against nationalists or against fascists?

I don't think you understand what communism is. Nor do I think you understand the weight of it's meaning, which Zingu here was attempting to point out. Although the philosophical aspects of "returning man to himself" is irrelevent to the economic means of how to achieve this, it is not irrelevent to economics itself. Quite the contrary, it is economic principles which deviate man from himself, economic in the sense that they are materially related to production and consumption. How we relate to that production and consumption determines quite accurately how alienated man is from various aspects of his world.

You seek to uphold a system which maintains this, more you will seek to uphold it even when it is obsolete and unnecessary to do so. That is reactionary and conservative bullshit, and we are as opposed to it as any other alienation and division of man from man.

On the contrary, the division of proletarians from the capitalists, is necessary -- as you have proven here, the capitalists have little interest to end the cause of this alienation and division, but instead, seek to uphold them. Thus, for obvious reasons, it must be left up to another class, one who's class interest it is to end them.

The propertied class and the proletarian class express the same human alienation. But the former feels comfortable and confirmed in it, recognizes this self-alienation as its own power and thus has the semblance of human existence. The latter feels itself crushed by this aleination, sees in it its own impotence and the reality of an inhuman existence.

DarkReaver13

26th May 2005, 19:30

Originally posted by MKS
By this view, you would still be contributing to the creation of poverty. Poverty, which is the cause of crime, prejudice, hunger, disease etc. Donating money to the poor is not enough. Socialism/communism seeks to create a classless society, to create equality. Your view would allow inequality and classes still to exist.
I don't see inequality as inherantly bad though; it's a fact of nature. People are different, different skills, values, experiences etc. As long as people have equal rights and the freedom to act within the confines of respecting others' rights, nothing is wrong. Taking away economic "classes" will still leave distinctions of intellctual, racial, ideological, physical, national and regional natures.

NovelGentry

26th May 2005, 19:50

I don't see inequality as inherantly bad though; it's a fact of nature.

Then we should never here you making any claim that capitalism or underlying states provide equality for their people. Hey but since it's a "fact of nature" -- why don't you just support feudalism? and slavery? Afterall... it's natural.

Taking away economic "classes" will still leave distinctions of intellctual, racial, ideological, physical, national and regional natures.

These divisions are not "natural" -- at least not respecting them for the purpose of oppressing others. There is no sign that we should naturally oppress one another based on race, ideology, nationality. Furthermore, communism abolishes national division. Regional differences which may spring fourth in different cultures is overcome through technological advancement. Race is overcome through mixed marriages, etc.

All divisions which you have made as apparent "natural" divisions have a means by which to dissolve or are completely determined by those in power. Nations do not HAVE to exist. Nor does intellectual division have to equate to a division of humanity. So on and so on.

You can make excuses for why you maintain economic inequality, but they are not valid. Because we are different in other aspects, which too can be overcome, does not mean we have to be different in all aspects.

DarkReaver13

26th May 2005, 19:55

Explain to me how under capitalism, laissez-faire or otherwise, everyone can work for themselves.

This is again, as pointed out in another thread, the political emancipation which capitalists perceive to equal social emancipation. Everyone may have a "right" to work for themselves, not everyone can, and thus the right to do so means very little, if anything at all. You achieve nothing in terms of equality on any meaningful scale.Who wouldn't be able to work for themselves?

No one is forcing you to work under communism -- not for the masses, not for yourself. The only force which would make you work in socialism is your own necessity.You're not working for your own necessity though are you? Socialism would enforce the redistribution of the things you create through work. If it's not forced then can you explain it to me?

Quite the contrary, it is economic principles which deviate man from himself, economic in the sense that they are materially related to production and consumption. How we relate to that production and consumption determines quite accurately how alienated man is from various aspects of his world.Don't know what you mean here. One has to work to survive and to gain values. If one doesn't work one cannot survive; (though you can in western society these days because of welfare support, which integrates people into a cycle of poverty).

You seek to uphold a system which maintains this, more you will seek to uphold it even when it is obsolete and unnecessary to do so. That is reactionary and conservative bullshit, and we are as opposed to it as any other alienation and division of man from man.I don't see how it divides man from man. Sounds rather abstract.

On the contrary, the division of proletarians from the capitalists, is necessary -- as you have proven here, the capitalists have little interest to end the cause of this alienation and division, but instead, seek to uphold them. Thus, for obvious reasons, it must be left up to another class, one who's class interest it is to end them.Well friend of mine runs a business. She spent 20 years, starting with no money (she immigrated from China) to create her business. I don't see how she's upholding alienation. I think she has achieved great success.

I don't see economic position dividing people. I get along with people of all categories of wealth. I don't like how communism seems to label the bougeoisie as some kind of anonymous and corrupt regime. They're people just like anyone else.

encephalon

26th May 2005, 20:02

I suppose the only area we will clash is on economics; I believe everyone has the right to work for themselves and to gain success through their efforts and virtues. You believe in equality; redistributing everything to eliminate "classes". However, we are presumably all against those people who are simply lazy; who refuse to work simply because they know they will get handouts anyway. Right?

If laziness were such a problem, nothing would have ever happened before capitalism.

You seem rather ignorant of the basics of communism for having been one so long.

DarkReaver13

26th May 2005, 20:21

If laziness were such a problem, nothing would have ever happened before capitalism.

You seem rather ignorant of the basics of communism for having been one so long.
? What's that got to do with communism at all?

Not much did happen before capitalism, not that we have capitalism now in the sense I mean.

NovelGentry

26th May 2005, 20:26

Who wouldn't be able to work for themselves?

I'm asking how everyone is capable of working for themselves at the same time. If everyone is able to work for themselves, they can all do it at the same time, right?

I don't see how this works under capitalism. Not with the way businesses exist, not with the way capital is divided. Everyone would get loans to start their own business then work for themselves? How would a single person mine? How would a single person build a skyscraper?

What you're saying makes no sense. It leads back to a primitive society, and furthermore, money becomes an even worse abstraction, since it'd probably do quite a bit of regional cycling and that's it. You might as well return to primitive trade capitalism.

It is not feasible for everyone to be their own boss, nor is it possible for everyone to take the role of capitalist today (who do not work). Capitalists survive off the labor of their employees and the money which the products they produce brings in. They do not produce themselves, it is certainly not possible for everyone to do this, because if everyone was doing this, there would be no one actually producing.

You're not working for your own necessity though are you? Socialism would enforce the redistribution of the things you create through work. If it's not forced then can you explain it to me?

What you are talking about is a welfare state. Socialism is not a welfare state. The most economically sound theories for socialism and those which ensure no exploitation are those which generally function around labor time. Where what you put in, is what you are allowed to take out, period. It is objectively determined.

How much is socially distributed can be determined regionally. At it's base it requires social production -- social distribution is progressive, and complete social distribution would not be achieved until communism.

Don't know what you mean here.

Obviously not.

I don't see how it divides man from man. Sounds rather abstract.

It creates a barrier between man and himself, a barrier which is not crossed, is not necessary, and for the most part, is harmful. If you carve and idol/fetish from your own hands, it is a product of you, you are the producer, are you not? It was made from your labor, there is nothing magical about it, you can make another one, you can make 12 more.... and yet you bow to worship it as something external from you.

The same occurs with private property, which we never respect as the labor of others, but as objects that exist regardless of that, and separate from that. Objects which must be acquired, objects that in essence have a "life of their own." Thus, the labor is alienated from man. In return, man's life, as a necessity to acquire that labor, is a constant effort to achieve something which is so simply a part of their own ability. Why must we acquire property? We make it. It is ours. It is not above us, separate from us, but submissive and dependent on us.

This removes us from what we are, it divides us from what we are, it turns humans into machines of production, and in our lives outside of that production we do little but worship the spirituality of these commodities -- which is upheld by private property, essentially, alienating us not only from the product, but from one another.

{Property} leads every man to see in other men, not the realization, but rather the limiation of his own liberty.

That is to say, it is we, people, man as a social being, our combined effort that makes our liberty possible, both our material ease of life, independent from constant necessity enforced by nature, but also as people with reason, capable of respecting one another and leading dignified and productive lives. Yet property inverts this. We no longer see our fellow man, and ourselves included, as a means to achieve this liberty, but only as a hinderance. We create property to "protect" ourselves from the very people who make what we need to survive. We create laws that attack the negative of man, to protect us from other men -- and yet we as men create these laws. We as men, generally, uphold these laws. And of those laws which are broken most frequently are those which protect our property, and those most frequently imprisoned are those most frequently in need.

Well my girlfriend's mum runs a business. She spent 20 years, starting with no money (she immigrated from China) to create her business. I don't see how she's upholding alienation. I think she has achieved great success.

It is not the blame of a single person.

I don't see economic position dividing people. I get along with people of all categories of wealth. I don't like how communism seems to label the bougeoisie as some kind of anonymous and corrupt regime. They're people just like anyone else.

The responsibility of the bourgeoisie does not fall in the creation of capitalism itself, that has material roots in the development of the productive forces. Our issue with the bourgeoisie, is how they seek to maintain it at all costs. No one is saying they are conscious of this (at least I'm not). I don't believe many are, and as I pointed out in one of my previous quotes, the propertied class is just as alienated as the proletariat, but where they find comfort, we find discomfort.

Capitalism is indeed an infringement on the freedom of all men. It is first and foremost an infringement on the freedom of the working class, who must recognize wage-slavery as an order of survival. It is too, however, an infringement on the freedoms of the ruling class who are forced to uphold the mechanisms of capitalism or face the same fate as the working class. Subsequently the infringement on the freedom of the ruling class looks to extend the infringement on the freedom of the working class, i.e., the members of the ruling class are no more free to stop exploiting those of the working class than those of the working class are to be free from that exploitation, by chance that if they did, they too would be subjected to such exploitation.

That last quote is from my book... if it sounds like I'm calling them an evil monster that lives in the closet ready to devour proletarian babies, I do apologize.

DarkReaver13

26th May 2005, 20:33

Originally posted by NovelGentry+--> (NovelGentry)Then we should never here you making any claim that capitalism or underlying states provide equality for their people. Hey but since it's a "fact of nature" -- why don't you just support feudalism? and slavery? Afterall... it's natural.[/b]
Huh? Feudalism and slavery aren't natural, they are people controlling and oppressing other people against their will. Capitalism doesn't ensure equality, it merely allows one to without having to cater for everyone else at the same time.

Originally posted by NovelGentry+--> (NovelGentry)These divisions are not "natural" -- at least not respecting them for the purpose of oppressing others. There is no sign that we should naturally oppress one another based on race, ideology, nationality. Furthermore, communism abolishes national division. Regional differences which may spring fourth in different cultures is overcome through technological advancement. Race is overcome through mixed marriages, etc.[/b]
Who said anything about oppression. I simply recognize that differences are unavoidable and they aren't negative. I want to see the ability to oppress eliminated and for people to be able to take full advantage of their differences instead. I don't know why I said "natures" I can't remember writing that, I just meant "distinctions".

[email protected]
All divisions which you have made as apparent "natural" divisions have a means by which to dissolve or are completely determined by those in power. Nations do not HAVE to exist. Nor does intellectual division have to equate to a division of humanity. So on and so on.
They aren't "divisions" they are just differences. Capitalism puts no one in power over anybody else. Nations don't have to exist no, but it'd take serious reforms and time to remove national boundaries.

NovelGentry
You can make excuses for why you maintain economic inequality, but they are not valid. Because we are different in other aspects, which too can be overcome, does not mean we have to be different in all aspects.
We don't have to be different in all aspects no. Differences aren't bad though, it's only bad when differences cause conflict through using thse differences as justification to oppress or take control. Racism is one such evil.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

26th May 2005, 20:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:55 PM

Explain to me how under capitalism, laissez-faire or otherwise, everyone can work for themselves.

This is again, as pointed out in another thread, the political emancipation which capitalists perceive to equal social emancipation. Everyone may have a "right" to work for themselves, not everyone can, and thus the right to do so means very little, if anything at all. You achieve nothing in terms of equality on any meaningful scale.
Who wouldn't be able to work for themselves?

No one is forcing you to work under communism -- not for the masses, not for yourself. The only force which would make you work in socialism is your own necessity.
You're not working for your own necessity though are you? Socialism would enforce the redistribution of the things you create through work. If it's not forced then can you explain it to me?

Quite the contrary, it is economic principles which deviate man from himself, economic in the sense that they are materially related to production and consumption. How we relate to that production and consumption determines quite accurately how alienated man is from various aspects of his world.
Don't know what you mean here. One has to work to survive and to gain values. If one doesn't work one cannot survive; (though you can in western society these days because of welfare support, which integrates people into a cycle of poverty).

You seek to uphold a system which maintains this, more you will seek to uphold it even when it is obsolete and unnecessary to do so. That is reactionary and conservative bullshit, and we are as opposed to it as any other alienation and division of man from man.
I don't see how it divides man from man. Sounds rather abstract.

On the contrary, the division of proletarians from the capitalists, is necessary -- as you have proven here, the capitalists have little interest to end the cause of this alienation and division, but instead, seek to uphold them. Thus, for obvious reasons, it must be left up to another class, one who's class interest it is to end them.
Well my girlfriend's mum runs a business. She spent 20 years, starting with no money (she immigrated from China) to create her business. I don't see how she's upholding alienation. I think she has achieved great success.

I don't see economic position dividing people. I get along with people of all categories of wealth. I don't like how communism seems to label the bougeoisie as some kind of anonymous and corrupt regime. They're people just like anyone else.
Your girlfriend's mum must be done away with as an anti-revolutionary in the comming revolution. Her bahavior is very clear, it is not acceptable, and she must be re-educated or be done away with.

NovelGentry

26th May 2005, 20:51

they are people controlling and oppressing other people against their will.

.... some of use feel the same way about capitalism. The point is you say that inequality is natural, so then inequality is "OK." So why isn't inequality in power OK? Why isn't inequality in ownership OK? You said it was natural to be unequal -- so why not fulfill it to the max?

Capitalism doesn't ensure equality, it merely allows one to without having to cater for everyone else at the same time.

On the contrary, it ensures inequality. It is based on the principle that there are people who own a great deal of wealth, and that there are others who do not. If this was not the case, capitalism couldn't exist. It need inequality to make any sense.

I want to see the ability to oppress eliminated and for people to be able to take full advantage of their differences instead.

Communism is the only perceivable way to achieve this.

I don't know why I said "natures" I can't remember writing that, I just meant "distinctions".

You said that the distinctions were natural. You believe nations are natural... as if nature somehow drew lines all over a map and said "this will be the US." While race is natural, it is also possible (naturally) to overcome race distinctions, and thus is not inherent.

They aren't "divisions" they are just differences.

But they are differences that are used to divide us. Have been for centuries -- that is not unique to capitalism. Capitalism pretends to overcome these divisions through political emancipation, taking a universal approach in it's state. People have a right to do lots of things... even a right to pay someone less than what their labor is worth to them.

Capitalism puts no one in power over anybody else.

Is that a joke?

Nations don't have to exist no, but it'd take serious reforms and time to remove national boundaries.

But man made them -- not nature. It was men who divided the land as they did, and as I have pointed out, you now worship it as something above that, something separate, not created by man, but something alien which now has to be overcome by man through great pain, time, and "serious reforms."

it's only bad when differences cause conflict through using thse differences as justification to oppress or take control. Racism is one such evil.

As is capitalism.

Professor Moneybags

26th May 2005, 21:19

Everyone may have a "right" to work for themselves, not everyone can, and thus the right to do so means very little, if anything at all.

The right to work for one's self is meaningless because not everyone can do it ? That doesn't make much sense.

No one is forcing you to work under communism -- not for the masses, not for yourself. The only force which would make you work in socialism is your own necessity.

Stop talking in riddles. We've been over this before.

You seek to uphold a system which maintains this, more you will seek to uphold it even when it is obsolete and unnecessary to do so.

That presupposes that "the system" actually does this in the first place. I'm waiting for proof.

Thus, for obvious reasons, it must be left up to another class, one who's class interest it is to end them.

Chronic dependence isn't in anyone's interest. But then, independent people tend to be difficult to rule.

Professor Moneybags

26th May 2005, 21:21

Then we should never here you making any claim that capitalism or underlying states provide equality for their people.

I assume he's talking about legal equality.

Hey but since it's a "fact of nature" -- why don't you just support feudalism? and slavery? Afterall... it's natural

Where is it "natural" ?

Professor Moneybags

26th May 2005, 21:31

On the contrary, it ensures inequality. It is based on the principle that there are people who own a great deal of wealth, and that there are others who do not.

Other than envy-soaked rhetoric from some of the others, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why this is "bad".

People have a right to do lots of things... even a right to pay someone less than what their labor is worth to them.

Their labour is worth what people are willing to pay for it. The moment you step in to "rectify" this, is the moment you declare yourself dictator- whether you care acknowledge it or not.

But man made them -- not nature. It was men who divided the land as they did, and as I have pointed out, you now worship it as something above that, something separate, not created by man, but something alien which now has to be overcome by man through great pain, time, and "serious reforms."

Why ?

Publius

26th May 2005, 21:53

Why Objectivism and not just libertarianism?

Why add all the hokey psuedo-philosphical crap?

Read this article, by the great Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

DarkReaver13

26th May 2005, 22:00

Originally posted by Publius
Why Objectivism and not just libertarianism?

Why add all the hokey psuedo-philosphical crap?

Read this article, by the great Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
Well I'm still reading up on it really.

I don't suppose you have read any of Ayn Rand's books? They aren't particularly "pseudo". It all makes sense so far.

I find philosophy interesting and important, more so than politics alone, so that's why I prefer Objectivism over simply Libertarianism.

Djehuti

26th May 2005, 22:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:25 PM
Well, thats what capitalism is. I know people here have other definitions of capitalism, but I mean it as in laissez-faire capitalism.

I am a capitalist not in the sense I am pro-materialism, I am a capitalist in that I am against the government stealing my money because it thinks it "knows" what is "best" for everyone. I'm not against helping people helping the poor, I'm against being forced to help the 'masses', even those who are lazy and idle and evil.

Anyway do you think the divisions between capitalists & communists are greater than those between racists and anti-racists or against nationalists or against fascists?

"Well, thats what capitalism is. I know people here have other definitions of capitalism, but I mean it as in laissez-faire capitalism."

Laizzes-faire capitalism would only create an even colder and more inhuman society.
What do you think it would achieve? Capitalism has since long passed the time where the market was a place where two equal actors met to freely trade products with each other. Today, the game of the market is a very complex game ruled by the law of value.

The objectivists view on market and capitalism is very idealistic and naive, but is is very far from reality.

"I am a capitalist in that I am against the government stealing my money because it thinks it "knows" what is "best" for everyone. I'm not against helping people helping the poor, I'm against being forced to help the 'masses', even those who are lazy and idle and evil."

I am a communist and thus also anti-goverment. But I very much believe that while capitalism exists, it also needs a state...otherwise we will have chaos. And anyway, the working class would never accept these changes you advocate.

Serious, it might sound nice as a hypothesis, but in reality it would just be the rule of the allready strong and mighty, and I think you understand this.

What would happen if we changed to 0% tax? Well, everyone would get some more money back in their wallets, some (the rich) more than others (the poor). There would not any longer be any public schools, hospitals, etc. Sure, you could buy a private insurance to get access to the hospitals, but what if you are poor? You don't think you could spare that money? You hope you wont get sick anyway. Or you might be a child of a alcoholic (like Iam) who buys alcohol for most of the wage...or maybe you are unemployed and don't have a wage? That might come as a surprice (there won't be any laws against fireing people as you wish either, I suppose) and you have not saved money for your time as an unemployed. Or if your grandmother (who have not saved much money for her pension, since she did not know that you would get rid of the old system) falls down from her stair and breaks her leg. Thats many thousand...where should she get those from? Yes, sure...the rich would freely give away their money! Sure! I am rich compared to the starving children in Africa and I have not given them much money, and few have. Sure some would give some, but that will not be enough. And the roads...should we pay a damn fine everytime we drive on a road?

What if its a very important road? The capitalist who owns the road could set a very high fine for using it. Btw, should you be allowed to have your own nuclear bomb in your home? I have accually met objectivists who thinks that you should, as long as you don't actually use it. And what about the environment? Why would a capitalist care? The first capitalist who stops caring about the environment would benefit from this, and others would have to follow. "Iam just one amongst many, what I do don't matter much anyway". And there is parks and stuff...what about those? Little money to be made there, except if you force everyone to pay money to walk in the park. Otherwise...burn it to the ground and build luxury appartments and other stuff that you could earn money on? And all the land and building that the state owns today, It would all go the the highest bidder, right? Yup, some rich capitalist would get first and buy half of Alaska and the rain forest, and every damn mine in the world. The same as always, someone comes first and sais "this is mine, but you can work here if you want". Hello?! We did we even accept that shit? And today it is a guy who has bought the stars! And sells the stars to other people! That is totally insane! But in that case there atleast aint some galactic military that can beat down anyone who questions these insane claims. But here on earth, there unfortunatly is (not a galactic one though). So if I say "dude, you don't own this forrest and this mine just because you where the first one to say so...now I will go in there and get some pretty diamonds for my foxy lade at home, get it mate?", he would call his pawn police who will beat the shit out of me. After that he would invest his riches he has taken in some nice enterprice and shit.

Yeah, I guess the police and the military will be private too? Some multi-billionaire star-wars fan would probably create his own police force in storm-trooper armor and stuff. That would be cool, but what if they are total assholes? And what about those who has not paid the police to protect them? Guess they could be killed of without anyone giving a fuck?

What about the law? Who would decide the law? Democracy is bad, because two individuals can opress one individual and force him to give away his money. The law would be put under the holy moral code that is the collected writings of Ayn Rand. I guess you could not change the law so that we'd have 5% tax? That would be very non-objectivist and a very evil and inmoral theft.

By the way, this would all mean a hell lot of decisions...Shit, I think I get a lot of papers and bills allready. In a laizzes-faire society I would not only get a million "pick our company as your whatever" papers, I would also get bills for thousands of stuff that I today don't even know that I actually pay via taxes. Hell, taxes pay for A LOT of things, more than we could possible imagine. Now I will have to pay for all this stuff myself? Well, atleast those stuff I think I will use.

Now Iam writing all kinds of stuff without actually thinking it through very much, though I do not think that you need to think very much to understand that objectivism and laizzes-faire capitalism is a totally insane idea in practise. Really, I understand If you think that it sounds morally right whatever, but REALITY PLEASE.

Cobra

26th May 2005, 22:22

Originally posted by DarkReaver13
However, are there no common enemies that we share? Presumably we all oppose authoritarianism, whether it be like Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, right down to the semi-authoritarian governments of the UK or USA.
Exactly, we must put an end to hierarchy.

Have you considered becoming an anarchist?

Anarchists have beliefs similar to your own, but extend their hatred of authority to the workplace. We spend most our time at work, why not put an end to authoritarianism at the workplace? If you beleive in freedom for all individuals then you should Definitely become an anarchist.

Publius

26th May 2005, 22:24

Well I'm still reading up on it really.

I don't suppose you have read any of Ayn Rand's books? They aren't particularly "pseudo". It all makes sense so far.

I find philosophy interesting and important, more so than politics alone, so that's why I prefer Objectivism over simply Libertarianism.

I've read (And own) Atlas Shrugged and Anthem.

I find the philosophy to be a joke.

Ayn Rand was a bad writer and an even worse philosopher.

DarkReaver13

26th May 2005, 22:25

Originally posted by Cobra
Exactly, we must put an end to hierarchy.

Have you considered becoming an anarchist?

Anarchists have beliefs similar to your own, but extend their hatred of authority to the workplace. We spend most our time at work, why not put an end to authoritarianism at the workplace? If you beleive in freedom for all individuals then you should Definitely become an anarchist.
Well I have considered it yes, but I think it would be to dangerous to have no order at all. I want to get rid of "rule by man" and replace it with "rule by rights". Anarchy could allow people to come into my home and knife me to death!

DarkReaver13

26th May 2005, 22:34

Originally posted by Publius
I've read (And own) Atlas Shrugged and Anthem.

I find the philosophy to be a joke.

Ayn Rand was a bad writer and an even worse philosopher.
Well I'd read the non-fiction before making your mind up, especially on such a rigid level. Trust me I HATED Rand when I first learned about her. I had a discussion on these forums at some point which mocked her and compared her with being a robot :lol:, but seriously now, I really think it's a great and very, very underrated philosophy. It's not a load of blabber like Kant or persuasive writing like Nietzche, it actually makes sense and you can apply it to reality and it works! Of course, her politics have yet to be put into practice, but the rest works.

It's not as strict as it seems to be at first, preaching all about selfishness and non-care for others. It doesn't mean it in an evil way. It means that we judge and reward people on their virtues not out of pity or false obligation.

Obviously it's not something that's easy to summarize.

I know exactly why people despise the philosophy so much, probably a unique perspective really since most communists don't suddenly become capitalists (though it wasn't sudden really it was over 6-8 months). Fine if you don't want to open your mind to it a bit, but the only way to find the truth is to disassociate ideologies with yourself first. Like when I was a communist I held it as if it was a personal attribute of myself which is why it was so hard to open up to other ideas.

My main focus now is not against communism though, but against White Nationalism on StormFront.

Publius

26th May 2005, 22:39

Well I'd read the non-fiction before making your mind up, especially on such a rigid level. Trust me I HATED Rand when I first learned about her. I had a discussion on these forums at some point which mocked her and compared her with being a robot :lol:, but seriously now, I really think it's a great and very, very underrated philosophy. It's not a load of blabber like Kant or persuasive writing like Nietzche, it actually makes sense and you can apply it to reality and it works! Of course, her politics have yet to be put into practice, but the rest works.

It's not as strict as it seems to be at first, preaching all about selfishness and non-care for others. It doesn't mean it in an evil way. It means that we judge and reward people on their virtues not out of pity or false obligation.

Obviously it's not something that's easy to summarize.

I know exactly why people despise the philosophy so much, probably a unique perspective really since most communists don't suddenly become capitalists (though it wasn't sudden really it was over 6-8 months). Fine if you don't want to open your mind to it a bit, but the only way to find the truth is to disassociate ideologies with yourself first. Like when I was a communist I held it as if it was a personal attribute of myself which is why it was so hard to open up to other ideas.

My main focus now is not against communism though, but against White Nationalism on StormFront.

I'm no philosopher, but even I find Objectivism fundamentally flawed.

I don't deny that there is an objective reality, but that man can know fully know the objective reality.

Tell me, objectively, what is the greatest song of all time?

It can't be done.

It's the same way with political systems. Logic tells me that libertarianism is the best. Logic tells these gentlemen that communism is the correct system.

Neither of us is necessarily, fundamentally illogical, we merely have different mental make-ups, different types and amounts of knowledge, different experiences and different attitudes that control our thought.

Two people can look at something and see two different things, and both be right.

This, very briefly, is the flaw with Objectivism; the fact that any one person or group of people is arrogant enough to think they have a total monopoly on reason, and are the epitome of logic.

Unless you know everything, you are not an objectivist.

Unless you can tell me, objectively, what the best color is, you're not an objectivist.

Djehuti

26th May 2005, 22:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:33 PM
Huh? Feudalism and slavery aren't natural, they are people controlling and oppressing other people against their will. Capitalism doesn't ensure equality, it merely allows one to without having to cater for everyone else at the same time.

We don't have to be different in all aspects no. Differences aren't bad though, it's only bad when differences cause conflict through using thse differences as justification to oppress or take control. Racism is one such evil.
"Huh? Feudalism and slavery aren't natural,"

Feudalism and slaveri are just as "natural" as capitalism, no more no less. The dawn of capitalism was not some free agreement or something if you think so.

The birth of the capitalist mode of production was a bloody piece of history, coercion, violence and opression. First later people begun to see the changes that had been forced through to be the natural way of order, just as the slaves saw slave society as "natural" and the peasants in the feodal society saw the feodal system as "natural". The ruling class' way of seing things eventually becomes the way of seeing things for all in the society. But guess what? This is the natural order of things and everything changes.

"they are people controlling and oppressing other people against their will."

And you are saying that I am not being opressed and controlled against my will?
Are you saying that this...game...this rotten society is what I want? And that I could change it if I wanted? Iam not alone...we are many, millions. Sometimes we have risen and revolted, so far we have been beated down. Revolts will keep coming...as they always have. Sooner or later capitalism will be overthrown.

By the way...when I want a job, I either have to ask someone who happens to own something to produce with, to let me produce stuff for this person in exchange for a wage that I very much need. This is not some free agreement, this is wage slavery. And it is a sick and ineffective system...To produce should not be a gift given from above...Neither should it be something I do because I have to...to survive. My creativeness is stolen from me. And the more I produce, the richer my employer gets...and he is not even interested in what I produce...he gives the fuck, as I do. Neither I or he who decides are interested in what I create! It is insane... Products are not produced because of their use value, it is produced because it can be sold. If there is more money to be gained by producing luxury cars or nuclear bomb than food or AIDS-medicine for poor starving africans (who cant pay anyway), luxury cars or nuclear bombs is what will be produced. What a waste of resources....what a waste of my labour. And it is not just about the production...it is about consumtion and the whole society...every thing...every relation...so alienated. We worship these products, and we don't even understand that WE have created them...we wiev it rather as the opposite...it is all backwards. And then I get hungry and buy a burger, but the girl in the burger-shop also sells me a smile...a false smile so that I would buy more...she is not even human, she is like a robot...and so am I...while I work, just doing the same moves all over again...the same things, always. 8 hours a day...
And when I come home Iam just bloody tired....hand over a bear and let me watch some buffy and get some sleep, so that I can work tomorrow. Even when Iam not working, my energy is reproduced so that I can work...insane, insane, insane....Everything, the whole society is insane..everywhere...everything.

We really need that revolution soon...

DarkReaver13

26th May 2005, 22:51

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)I don't deny that there is an objective reality, but that man can know fully know the objective reality.

Tell me, objectively, what is the greatest song of all time?

It can't be done.

Unless you know everything, you are not an objectivist.

Unless you can tell me, objectively, what the best color is, you're not an objectivist.[/b]
Ah but none of these things are part of Objectivism. Colours and song preferences are in the realm of aesthetics rather than ethics, and these aren't objectively definable. Rand does suggest they are in some way, but I disagree here. I haven't got to her writings on the subject yet though.

Originally posted by [email protected]
It's the same way with political systems. Logic tells me that libertarianism is the best. Logic tells these gentlemen that communism is the correct system.

Neither of us is necessarily, fundamentally illogical, we merely have different mental make-ups, different types and amounts of knowledge, different experiences and different attitudes that control our thought.
If you use man's life qua man as the standard though, you can define the best system. Reason (thinking and making judgements) is required to live, you need to be free from force to be able to think and act. Capitalism is the only system which enforces the rights required to fulfil these criteria.

Publius
Two people can look at something and see two different things, and both be right.

This, very briefly, is the flaw with Objectivism; the fact that any one person or group of people is arrogant enough to think they have a total monopoly on reason, and are the epitome of logic.
They can't both be right though. If I look at a a chair, it's a chair, you can't change that. Whether I like chairs or not depends on whether I value it or not in a given situation.

These are the sorts of things I came up with in my 50+ pages of debate against Objectivism. In the end .. I was wrong.

Cobra

26th May 2005, 23:01

Originally posted by DarkReaver13
I think it would be to dangerous to have no order at all.
Not this again…

Anarchy is order.

Hierarchy is chaos. As long as hierarchy exists there will be chaos. The Roman Empire, The British Empire, The American Empire, and all other empires did not bring peace. They brought death. The powerful like to have wars in order to become more powerful.

I want to get rid of "rule by man" and replace it with "rule by rights".
I think your mind is up in the clouds.

A right is just a completely abstract concept and does not actually exist in the real world. Men (by men I also mean women) actually exist and are the most important thing there is.

Forget about all that philosophical nonsense and think about the real world.

Anarchy could allow people to come into my home and knife me to death!
People could walk into your home and knife you to death in any system you live in. The cops wouldn’t come until after you’re dead. The only person you can rely on to defend yourself is you. Cops are worthless, and they are a waste of tax dollars.

Publius

26th May 2005, 23:01

No you weren't.

Let me just say this.

Rand found Rachmanioff to be 'rational', but not Bach or Mozart.

If you liked them, you were expelled from the group.

Seriously.

It was also a requirement of objectism to smoke.

Tell me, how can rights exist without a God to dictate them?

Prove to me that rights exist.

Zingu

26th May 2005, 23:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:25 PM

Well I'm not against that, I'm against the means which he advocated.

I am a capitalist not in the sense I am pro-materialism, I am a capitalist in that I am against the government stealing my money because it thinks it "knows" what is "best" for everyone. I'm not against helping people helping the poor, I'm against being forced to help the 'masses', even those who are lazy and idle and evil.

Karl Marx would be rolling in his grave if he saw what happened in Russia.

The individual was still alienated in the "Soviet state" in Russia and Eastern Europe. That same "idolation" of alienation as Gent said (yes, that is the word now that I re-read what I got the excerpt from) still existed in the Soviet Union.

The same attitudes of capitalism therefore were still there in the Soviet Union. "Laziness and idle" are capitalist attitudes since of this alienation that was still in grip of the Russian proletariat; Russia was state-capitalist!

But, if the Russian proletariat where allevated to the status of being free of commidity fetishism, then the accusations of "Socialism making people lazy" would be non-existant

DarkReaver13

26th May 2005, 23:19

Originally posted by Djehuti
Feudalism and slaveri are just as "natural" as capitalism, no more no less. The dawn of capitalism was not some free agreement or something if you think so.
No political system is "natural".. Capitalism never truly "dawned".. the system we have now is a mixed economy; half socialist, half capitalist.

And you are saying that I am not being opressed and controlled against my will?
Are you saying that this...game...this rotten society is what I want? And that I could change it if I wanted? Iam not alone...we are many, millions. Sometimes we have risen and revolted, so far we have been beated down. Revolts will keep coming...as they always have. Sooner or later capitalism will be overthrown.
Well in modern western society there is much more "need" to work than there would be in a pure capitalist society, to get the same amount of wealth. Because you have to pay endless taxes which rarely have significant return value.

In any society you are "forced" by nature to some extent, because it takes effort to stay alive. In pure capitalism you engage in voluntary contracts with employers to earn money, or you sell products which you have made / acquired to make a profit. In normal jobs you are exchanging your time and work in exchange for money which is of greater value to you. If your time is of more value then you can quit and find a more appropriate means of getting money.

DarkReaver13

26th May 2005, 23:26

Originally posted by Cobra+--> (Cobra)I think your mind is up in the clouds.

A right is just a completely abstract concept and does not actually exist in the real world. Men (by men I also mean women) actually exist and are the most important thing there is.

Forget about all that philosophical nonsense and think about the real world.[/b]
A right doesn't exist in the real world sure, but neither do the images in our brain. We rely on concepts to survive. A right is something we all need to survive and socially interact peacefully. I have a right to life, as do all other people who choose life over death. If I don't, then no one else does either and it's okay to go around killing everyone.

Cobra
People could walk into your home and knife you to death in any system you live in. The cops wouldn’t come until after you’re dead. The only person you can rely on to defend yourself is you. Cops are worthless, and they are a waste of tax dollars.
I agree they are a waste of tax dollars currently. However, if there is no enforcement, there is no reason why one shouldn't come and knife me. Anything goes, there wouldn't be any retaliation or deterrant against violence and wholesale murder. I really have no real theoretical knowledge of Anarchism though, so if you want to elaborate then by all means do.

DarkReaver13

26th May 2005, 23:33

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)No you weren't.

Let me just say this.

Rand found Rachmanioff to be 'rational', but not Bach or Mozart.

If you liked them, you were expelled from the group.

Seriously.

It was also a requirement of objectism to smoke.[/b]
Ha, well I wouldn't agree with her there then. Then again, do you mean she found them irrational people or found their music irrational? The former is possible but the latter I disagree with.

Publius
Tell me, how can rights exist without a God to dictate them?

Prove to me that rights exist.
Rights, like any concept are based on reality.

"Man survives by reason, and in order to do so, he must be free from the initiation of force. Society can be greatly beneficial to the individual because of mutual protection, division of labor, and economies of scale. But it is only beneficial to the extent that the individual is still free to act and survive according to his own reason.

A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.

Individual rights state explicitly the requirements for a person to benefit rather than suffer from living in a society. They codify man's protection from the initiation of force, as required by his rational nature. Being required by man's rational nature, rights are not arbitrary or negotiable. They are absolute requirements for life within a society. Rights are absolute."

romanm

26th May 2005, 23:41

I know exactly why people despise the philosophy so much, probably a unique perspective really since most communists don't suddenly become capitalists (though it wasn't sudden really it was over 6-8 months). Fine if you don't want to open your mind to it a bit, but the only way to find the truth is to disassociate ideologies with yourself first. Like when I was a communist I held it as if it was a personal attribute of myself which is why it was so hard to open up to other ideas.

Ayn Rand isn't really considered serious philosophy by people in philosophy departments. She is outside serious discussions of epistemology, logic, and metaphysics. People relate to her work in the same way the relate to self-help books. It was always inevitable that some one would raise their hand and ask about Any Rand in intro. to philosophy courses. And, it was always hard trying to subtly tell them that she was full of shit without offending or embarrasing them.

DarkReaver13

27th May 2005, 00:01

Originally posted by romanm
Ayn Rand isn't really considered serious philosophy by people in philosophy departments. She is outside serious discussions of epistemology, logic, and metaphysics. People relate to her work in the same way the relate to self-help books. It was always inevitable that some one would raise their hand and ask about Any Rand in intro. to philosophy courses. And, it was always hard trying to subtly tell them that she was full of shit without offending or embarrasing them.
Yah I know. Shame. That's what you get for straying from the norm these days.

I've read Kant's work and Nietzche's. Nietzche's was quite interesting in some places, but Kant.. dear oh dear. This so called "mainsteam" philosopher is full of absolute waffle! It's like something written to deliberately confuse and mislead.

So, I don't care much for institutionalized philosophers.

DarkReaver13

27th May 2005, 00:08

Originally posted by Zingu
Karl Marx would be rolling in his grave if he saw what happened in Russia.

The individual was still alienated in the "Soviet state" in Russia and Eastern Europe. That same "idolation" of alienation as Gent said (yes, that is the word now that I re-read what I got the excerpt from) still existed in the Soviet Union.

The same attitudes of capitalism therefore were still there in the Soviet Union. "Laziness and idle" are capitalist attitudes since of this alienation that was still in grip of the Russian proletariat; Russia was state-capitalist!

But, if the Russian proletariat where allevated to the status of being free of commidity fetishism, then the accusations of "Socialism making people lazy" would be non-existant
The USSR was socialist and totalitarian. Communism requires state control - therefore communism IS statism. Wealth wouldn't just magically redistribute itself perfectly equally, and it certainly can't be distributed equally by the government.

DarkReaver13

27th May 2005, 00:32

Just to go back to the thread topic..

Do you think lefties are more against capitalists like myself or fascists & racists like those on SF?

Obviously the original goal of communism is to eliminate economic classes, but surely fascists and racists and the like are more threatening to this goal?

Cobra

27th May 2005, 02:11

Originally posted by DarkReaver13
if there is no enforcement, there is no reason why one shouldn't come and knife me. Anything goes, there wouldn't be any retaliation or deterrant against violence and wholesale murder. I really have no real theoretical knowledge of Anarchism though, so if you want to elaborate then by all means do.
Just because people are not “forced” to not kill each other doesn’t mean that they will. Not everyone is a mass murderer. At any given time only a small percentage of the population would want to kill you. And if everyone had a gun in their home the chances of being murdered would be extremely small.

The purpose of Anarchy is to put an end to the relationship between slave and master and eliminate all forms of hierarchy. Under an anarchist system, no individual has power over any other individual.

Anarchy is order because it is the only system in which there is a perfect balance of power. Power rests with each individual, but does not extend beyond that. This balance allows for all individuals to live in harmony without the threat of being attacked by hordes of soldiers.

Anarchy is also the only system that allows for personal freedom. As long as you’re not upsetting the balance of power, you can do whatever you want. There is no authority bossing you around telling you what to do and how you should live your life.

If you want to learn more about anarchy I suggest reading the writings of Max Stirner (http://www.nonserviam.com/stirner/index.html) and Mikhail Bakunin (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/index.htm).

NovelGentry

27th May 2005, 07:25

I assume he's talking about legal equality.

As I have already said, political emancipation. We seek civil/social emancipation.

Where is it "natural" ?

He is the one who said inequality is natural, not me.

Other than envy-soaked rhetoric from some of the others, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why this is "bad".

It maintains the type of alienation which you then questioned "why" to. Although not specifically alienation as it appears through national division, but alienation from labor, alienation from one another. Whether it is bad is strictly moral, all I'm staking claim in is that it is unequal and pointless. But of course you're speaking of "legal equality" -- and since for you that automagically equates to equality, you don't see it as an issue.

Their labour is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

And the capitalists give the workers less than what people are willing to pay for it.

Why ?

I don't know why you maintain this sort of alienation. I've been trying to figure it out, maybe you'd like to reread the entire thread and all the posts I said so your responses can start being directed at the right people.

Professor Moneybags

27th May 2005, 14:41

Why Objectivism and not just libertarianism?

Why add all the hokey psuedo-philosphical crap?

Because we're not the ones peddling pseudo-philosophical crap. I would have thought having you ass handed back to you at capitalism magazine's forum might have taught you that.

Read this article, by the great Murray N. Rothbard: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

An article full of context-dropping and hyperbole does little to assert his greatness.

Link (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult2.html)

Professor Moneybags

27th May 2005, 14:47

Yeah, I guess the police and the military will be private too?

You're really knowledgeable about this objectivsm stuff aren't you ?

:rolleyes:

Now Iam writing all kinds of stuff without actually thinking it through very much,

No shit. :lol:

Professor Moneybags

27th May 2005, 14:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 09:24 PM
I've read (And own) Atlas Shrugged and Anthem.

I find the philosophy to be a joke.
I read your laughable attempt to refute this "joke" on capmag.com's forum. Pity it's down, otherwise I'd post the link. What do you find so funny about it ?

Professor Moneybags

27th May 2005, 15:23

I don't deny that there is an objective reality, but that man can know fully know the objective reality.

There's nothing else to know.

Logic tells me that libertarianism is the best. Logic tells these gentlemen that communism is the correct system.

Wrong. These systems are polar opposites of each other. How can they both be right ?
Libertarianism claims that individualism and capitalism are the best.
Communism claims that collectivism and common ownership are the best.

Collorary :

Person A claims that 2+2= 4
Person B claims that 2+2=5

Are they both right ? No. Are their views both valid ? No. One is right, the other wrong.

This, very briefly, is the flaw with Objectivism; the fact that any one person or group of people is arrogant enough to think they have a total monopoly on reason, and are the epitome of logic.

Then what are you doing ? Be consistent. You can't say "objectivism isn't true"; you will have to concede that objectivism is true for an objectivist.

Unless you know everything, you are not an objectivist.

You don't need to know everything to know something.

Unless you can tell me, objectively, what the best color is, you're not an objectivist.

"Best color" for what ?

Professor Moneybags

27th May 2005, 15:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:01 PM
Rand found Rachmanioff to be 'rational', but not Bach or Mozart.

If you liked them, you were expelled from the group.

Seriously.

Cite.

It was also a requirement of objectism to smoke.

Cite.

Tell me, how can rights exist without a God to dictate them?

Prove to me that rights exist.

I think the people at capmag's forum explained that to you once.

Professor Moneybags

27th May 2005, 15:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:41 PM
Ayn Rand isn't really considered serious philosophy by people in philosophy departments.
Take a look at what is :

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern

She is outside serious discussions of epistemology, logic, and metaphysics. People relate to her work in the same way the relate to self-help books. It was always inevitable that some one would raise their hand and ask about Any Rand in intro. to philosophy courses. And, it was always hard trying to subtly tell them that she was full of shit without offending or embarrasing them.

That's because Ayn Rand proved that contemporary philosphers were full of shit. That explains why they try so desperately to keep it quiet in order to avoid any serious discussion of the issue.

Professor Moneybags

27th May 2005, 15:42

And you are saying that I am not being opressed and controlled against my will?

As twolves fan once said, the closest most of you people will get to being coerced is your parents telling you to take the trash out.

By the way...when I want a job, I either have to ask someone who happens to own something to produce with, to let me produce stuff for this person in exchange for a wage that I very much need. This is not some free agreement, this is wage slavery.

^ Crap refuted here. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5843)

<snip the rest of the self-pitying nonsense>

Professor Moneybags

27th May 2005, 15:49

As I have already said, political emancipation. We seek civil/social emancipation.

Impossible without coercion.

It maintains the type of alienation which you then questioned "why" to. Although not specifically alienation as it appears through national division, but alienation from labor, alienation from one another.

I'm not alienated from anyone. Neither is anyone else I know. What do you mean by this ?

And the capitalists give the workers less than what people are willing to pay for it.

The contract isn't between the worker and the consumer, if we're talking about sales prices.

I don't know why you maintain this sort of alienation. I've been trying to figure it out, maybe you'd like to reread the entire thread and all the posts I said so your responses can start being directed at the right people.

I haven't got a clue what this "alienation" is supposed to be or why it is significant. It sounds all very mystical...

Cobra

27th May 2005, 19:29

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 27 2005, 02:49 PM

It maintains the type of alienation which you then questioned "why" to. Although not specifically alienation as it appears through national division, but alienation from labor, alienation from one another.

I'm not alienated from anyone. Neither is anyone else I know. What do you mean by this ?

I don't know why you maintain this sort of alienation. I've been trying to figure it out, maybe you'd like to reread the entire thread and all the posts I said so your responses can start being directed at the right people.

I haven't got a clue what this "alienation" is supposed to be or why it is significant. It sounds all very mystical...
I can’t speak for the other dude but here’s how I understand it.

According to Marxist philosophy, alienation has to do with the human “self”. Your “self” is not complete without constantly interacting with other people. Through this interacting can get your “self” and become a complete person.

People are alienated from one another -mostly because of the divisions of labour, but also due to superficial things such as race and nationality. A result of this is, supposedly, everyone lives wretched lonely lives and never become complete selves.

The Marxist concept of alienation is basically the opposite of the liberal idea of the individual. At least that’s how I understand it.

But I’m just trying to interpret the writings of other people. You should probably just read from the source:

http://www.marxists.org/subject/alienation/index.htm

NovelGentry

27th May 2005, 19:37

Impossible without coercion.

You've given no reason for this except that it's "human nature" to be greedy. It's the only argument you really can give, because in the end that is what social equality will depend on, humans.

I'm not alienated from anyone. Neither is anyone else I know. What do you mean by this ?

As I already pointed out, here or in another thread, people see people as a hinderance to their liberty, not as the means to achieve it. This is obvious in individualist philosophies that seek to protect the "individual" right over any collective or group right.

Yet it is other men who you are dependent on for the lifestyle you live, for the productive measures which make your life what it is. You rely on these men for their labor, and they rely on you for yours, together, society as a whole has the means to liberate itself, divided, we can only see ourselves as limitations to one anothers liberty.

This is the essence of private property itself, to protect what is "yours" from someone else.

The contract isn't between the worker and the consumer, if we're talking about sales prices.

But you said it's dependent on what someone will pay. If the workers owned the means of production and made the products themselves, would the consumers not pay as much just because there's no capitalist? doubtful.

I haven't got a clue what this "alienation" is supposed to be or why it is significant. It sounds all very mystical...

Commodity fetish, private property, religion, nations, all alienated creations of man. Man creates something, material or otherwise, and then sets it as something separate from himself which must be overcome. The creation no longer serves man, but the man serves the creation.

Professor Moneybags

27th May 2005, 20:27

You've given no reason for this except that it's "human nature" to be greedy.

That's not the reason I gave.

It's the only argument you really can give, because in the end that is what social equality will depend on, humans.

I have given the argument that social equality, like those positive rights welfare statists are fond of, requires involuntary actions from other people, or "duties" if you like, with legal punishment waiting for those who don't provide them.

How, for instance, do you become "free from religion" without banning it and thus violating freedom of speech/freedom of action in the process ? The problem with this "higher" form of freedom is that it undermines the "lower" forms of freedom.

As I already pointed out, here or in another thread, people see people as a hinderance to their liberty, not as the means to achieve it.

I certainly don't see other people in that way.

This is obvious in individualist philosophies that seek to protect the "individual" right over any collective or group right.

Well that might have something to do with that fact that the individual is the smallest divisional unit and that a collective is comprised of individuals, not the other way round.

Yet it is other men who you are dependent on for the lifestyle you live,

Dependent, no. Interdependent, yes.

You rely on these men for their labor, and they rely on you for yours, together, society as a whole has the means to liberate itself, divided, we can only see ourselves as limitations to one anothers liberty.

How are we limiting each other's liberty ? How are we divided ? "Class", whether such a term is valid or not, does not explain it; there is no caste system preventing social or economic interaction.

This is the essence of private property itself, to protect what is "yours" from someone else.

It's a safeguard against coercion from others.

But you said it's dependent on what someone will pay. If the workers owned the means of production and made the products themselves, would the consumers not pay as much just because there's no capitalist? doubtful.

It's down the consumer, I'm afraid. This is beginning to sound very utilitarian.

Commodity fetish, private property, religion, nations, all alienated creations of man. Man creates something, material or otherwise, and then sets it as something separate from himself which must be overcome. The creation no longer serves man, but the man serves the creation.

After much deliberation, I've come to the conclusion that communism is a religion.

NovelGentry

27th May 2005, 21:10

I have given the argument that social equality, like those positive rights welfare statists are fond of, requires involuntary actions from other people, or "duties" if you like, with legal punishment waiting for those who don't provide them.

But we propose that they will be voluntary, and not forced. Thus your argument is essentially "people will not volunteer." WHY?

How, for instance, do you become "free from religion" without banning it and thus violating freedom of speech/freedom of action in the process ? The problem with this "higher" form of freedom is that it undermines the "lower" forms of freedom.

The lower forms of freedom are not freedom. You continue to think political emancipation is social emancipation. Because the state says you are free to worship as you choose does not mean that other people do. This is what you don't understand. The state universally respects religion of various types, and therefore allows for those religions to infringe against one another in the social/civil sphere. I choose not to believe in God, but I'm am not able to be free of other's belief in God -- I still have to deal with the social existence of religion which continues to oppose my beliefs, and continues to affect my life, as my life is not independent from the social whole.

I certainly don't see other people in that way.

Then why must private property exist? If they are not hindering your liberty and your right to life, why must you protect everything you own with that abstraction? "Because without private property, without the protection of that, they will just take everything, people will be greedy and leave others with nothing!!!!" No? Is that not what you think? There must be a reason you feel it necessary to ensure your "property rights." There must be a reason you feel it is necessary to ensure you have freedom of religion, and freedom of speech... why do you need to protect these things if you do not believe people will take it away?

Well that might have something to do with that fact that the individual is the smallest divisional unit and that a collective is comprised of individuals, not the other way round.

But that is now how we live, work, produce, function. We do all of these things socially. We are not individual. This is the alienation which I speak of, and this is why you are capable of seeing others as a hinderance to your liberty, because you are separated and alienated from society as a whole, dividing everyone into their own individual whim and desires.

We recognize the social total, the dependence on one another, and that socially we are the solution to finding liberty. What is freedom without the means to survive, what does it mean to you? You cannot find liberty through individualism unless you are indeed the only individual on earth. There is no means as an individual amongst a social total that you can achieve what we achieve as that social total. You cannot build the things we do, you cannot ensure the quality of life that we can do, freedom of speech means nothing if there is no one to hear it... etc... etc.

Dependent, no. Interdependent, yes.

Fair enough.

How are we limiting each other's liberty ? How are we divided ? "Class", whether such a term is valid or not, does not explain it;

I didn't say we are or even would or ever have limited each other's liberty (although there are obvious instances where that is, was, and may be the case in the future). I said that individualist outlook is dependent on the idea that we do. There is no other point to upholding individual rights if you do not believe someone is going to infringe on them, it's a completely logical contradiction.

We are divided in a number of ways, but the primary division of us is through labor, that is the division of labor.

there is no caste system preventing social or economic interaction.

Of course there is, the difference is that it is now more civil than it is political, where previously it was more political than it is civil. But a state which provides universal political emancipation has no realm in civil emancipation, more it recognizes both civil freedom and lack there of by ensuring politically that it has no role either way.

It's a safeguard against coercion from others.

So what you're saying is, you see your fellow man as a hinderance to your liberty?

After much deliberation...

I doubt that very much.

anomaly

27th May 2005, 23:05

Moneybags, you seem to enjoy posting here, especially since you claim to be one of those selfish, money-lovin' objectivists. Honestly, if your only wants in this world concern yourself, why do you bother arguing on this forum? Go out and buy yourself something nice!

Seriously, though, objectivism is idiotic. I too have struggled through Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and found very nearly every page to be a pile of complete bullshit. Objectivism is based upon selfishness while capitalist theory itself has its roots in the cause for personal freedom. I find this contradictory, since over the course of history, privatization of the means of production has resulted in less individual freedom, not more. Capitalism itself is obviously a system of complex slavery, a system in which the worker must do more work than is neccesary, wasting human resources, in order to produce a great surplus, all to receive a meager wage. This surplus the worker creates inevitably leads to economic recession, yet overproduction cannot stop if left to private industry. The government, that body hated by all objectivists, must step in and try to curb production. In fact, it was the US government, not some benevolent CEO, that established minimum wage, a standard that was supposed to ensure the right to life for every Amnerican worker but lately has failed to do so (in other words, we should raise minimum wage). Objectivism is contradictory, plain and simple. The end result of objectivism, as even Ayn Rand eluded to in her shitty novel, is an oligarchy, one in which everything is ruled by money, and a terribly small percentage of rich people have complete authority over poor workers. Honestly, if you're going to be a capitalist, which is a bad decision anyway, pick Adam Smith as your genius of choice. Atleast he argued the utility of capitalism rather than its freedom. In fact, even calling Ayn Rand a 'genius' is highly debateable. After all, she was an avid smoker who just couldn't foresee her eventual demise due to lung cancer! Some genius!

And so we see that Ayn Rand, and by extension her philosophy of objectivism, was anti-freedom and obviously anti-democratic. She despised the working class, and saw them as only tools for the use of the rich. But if you despise democracy, want the rich to rule, and hate the thought of labor rights, by all means choose objectivism as your philosophy.

Publius

28th May 2005, 00:36

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 27 2005, 01:41 PM

Because we're not the ones peddling pseudo-philosophical crap. I would have thought having you ass handed back to you at capitalism magazine's forum might have taught you that.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

I've never been to Capitalism magazine's forums.

An article full of context-dropping and hyperbole does little to assert his greatness.

Link (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult2.html)

I'll read it.

Publius

28th May 2005, 00:41

I read your laughable attempt to refute this "joke" on capmag.com's forum. Pity it's down, otherwise I'd post the link. What do you find so funny about it ?

Yes, I'm quite convinced you have me confused with someone else.

I post on other forums, but not under this name, and not on capmag.com.

Professor Moneybags

28th May 2005, 09:21

But we propose that they will be voluntary, and not forced. Thus your argument is essentially "people will not volunteer." WHY?

Let people opt-out and keep their private property, then we'll see how voluntary it is.

The lower forms of freedom are not freedom. You continue to think political emancipation is social emancipation.

Does that mean that freedom of speech is not freedom ?

Oh dear. I can see where this is leading...

Because the state says you are free to worship as you choose does not mean that other people do. This is what you don't understand. The state universally respects religion of various types, and therefore allows for those religions to infringe against one another in the social/civil sphere. I choose not to believe in God, but I'm am not able to be free of other's belief in God -- I still have to deal with the social existence of religion which continues to oppose my beliefs, and continues to affect my life, as my life is not independent from the social whole.

Psychobabble. You're an advocate of dictatorship.

Then why must private property exist? If they are not hindering your liberty and your right to life, why must you protect everything you own with that abstraction? "Because without private property, without the protection of that, they will just take everything, people will be greedy and leave others with nothing!!!!" No? Is that not what you think? There must be a reason you feel it necessary to ensure your "property rights." There must be a reason you feel it is necessary to ensure you have freedom of religion, and freedom of speech... why do you need to protect these things if you do not believe people will take it away?

People will and do. What's stopping them ? Go ahead and get rid of property rights. I'm sure there won't be any thieves willing to take advantage of this arrangement. :rolleyes:

But that is now how we live, work, produce, function. We do all of these things socially. We are not individual.

Yes we are. There is no collective mind or body and thus no collective labor.

What is freedom without the means to survive, what does it mean to you?

You already have it.

You cannot find liberty through individualism unless you are indeed the only individual on earth.

Why not ? How will my liberty be resticted ?

You cannot build the things we do,

We ? You mean individuals ?

freedom of speech means nothing if there is no one to hear it... etc... etc.

Does that mean if you say something, I'm going to be forced to listen ?

There is no other point to upholding individual rights if you do not believe someone is going to infringe on them, it's a completely logical contradiction.

There are plenty of people willing to infringe them. How is it a logical contradiction ?

So what you're saying is, you see your fellow man as a hinderance to your liberty?

Not unless they violate my rights.

Professor Moneybags

28th May 2005, 09:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:36 PM
I think you have me confused with someone else.

I've never been to Capitalism magazine's forums.
Someone with the same name as you who happened to have very similar arguments. <_<

Professor Moneybags

28th May 2005, 09:45

Honestly, if your only wants in this world concern yourself, why do you bother arguing on this forum?

It's a hobby. I'm not here to "convert" anyone.

Seriously, though, objectivism is idiotic. I too have struggled through Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged

Liar.

and found very nearly every page to be a pile of complete bullshit. Objectivism is based upon selfishness while capitalist theory itself has its roots in the cause for personal freedom. I find this contradictory, since over the course of history, privatization of the means of production has resulted in less individual freedom, not more.

Non-sequitur.

Capitalism itself is obviously a system of complex slavery,

Slavery involves the initiation of force. Did you skip over that part ?

<snip the rest of the drivel>

The government, that body hated by all objectivists,

???

In fact, it was the US government, not some benevolent CEO, that established minimum wage,

What complete fools we are ! Here we were, thinking that mechanisation and production lead to prosperity, when all we needed to do was legislate that prosperity into existence.

All that hard work, when all we needed to do was pass a law. :rolleyes:

a standard that was supposed to ensure the right to life for every Amnerican worker but lately has failed to do so (in other words, we should raise minimum wage).

Then I guess the minimum wage is a failiure, then. Why don't they just raise it to $1,000,000 an hour so we can all be millionaires ?

Objectivism is contradictory, plain and simple.

List the contradictions. Or better still, read the book.

The end result of objectivism, as even Ayn Rand eluded to in her shitty novel, is an oligarchy,

You must have been reading a different Atlas Shrugged. In the one I own, Galt was offered the position of dictator and turned it down.

one in which everything is ruled by money, and a terribly small percentage of rich people have complete authority over poor workers.

Which they achieved by...uh...running away ?

In fact, even calling Ayn Rand a 'genius' is highly debateable. After all, she was an avid smoker who just couldn't foresee her eventual demise due to lung cancer! Some genius!

Okay, let's follow the philosophy of a freeloader who fathered two illegitimate children instead.

And so we see that Ayn Rand, and by extension her philosophy of objectivism, was anti-freedom

You have yet to prove this.

and obviously anti-democratic

Correct. Unlimited democracy does not equal freedom.

She despised the working class, and saw them as only tools for the use of the rich. But if you despise democracy, want the rich to rule, and hate the thought of labor rights, by all means choose objectivism as your philosophy.

I was right. You haven't read it at all. All of your knowledge is probably second hand. You can fool some of the people some of the time and all that...

NovelGentry

28th May 2005, 17:58

Let people opt-out and keep their private property, then we'll see how voluntary it is.

It's rather obvious you don't even understand the nature of what we propose. This is not a door to door collection "we're here to take your private property." It is the people who drive the car, at least the vast majority of them, or else it is meaningless (and more than likely won't succeed).

More, this kinda goes along my original point. You obviously feel that people have some inherent thinking that makes them wish to maintain that private property -- no doubt it it the same kind of thinking you have, that is "protects them from coercion."

Does that mean that freedom of speech is not freedom ?

I'm not sure how one can consider it to be when you can get fired from your job because of what you posted on your blog.

Psychobabble. You're an advocate of dictatorship.

I do not deny this. I am 100% for the class dictatorship of the proletariat. What kind of communist would I be if I was not?

People will and do. What's stopping them ? Go ahead and get rid of property rights. I'm sure there won't be any thieves willing to take advantage of this arrangement.

Well for starters private property is not just something which is immediately abolished. The destruction out of it grows from post-revolutionary society in very much the same way the destruction of the state does. We seek to maintain private property until the causes which sprung it into existence have been overcome... initially, we just seek to change the owners.

As far as stealing... well it's quite difficult to steal something that belongs to you.

Yes we are. There is no collective mind or body and thus no collective labor.

That's rather naive, but very much in line with the alienation I was talking about. "I don't make cars, I just machine some of the parts used in them." No doubt this is the kind of isolated labor you're thinking about. That his labor is directed towards those parts, and to what purpose they serve means absolutely nothing. But then I would ask you, who does make a car? No one if this is how you look at labor, and yet the car is still made.

You already have it.

Well maybe next time you'd be so kind as to answer the actual question.

Why not ? How will my liberty be resticted ?

You misunderstand I think. I'm not saying you cannot find liberty as an individual unless you are the only one on earth, I'm saying you cannot find liberty through individualism unless you are the last one on earth.

No doubt you will respond that "no, I know what you meant." -- so in that case, the answer has already been established in previous posts.

We ? You mean individuals ?

Yes. Singular you cannot build what multiple we can. Your current way of life is dependent on individuals not an individual. I broader terms I meant the working class, but certainly that is a large number of individuals.

Does that mean if you say something, I'm going to be forced to listen ?

You certainly read into things too much. The point was a very simple point, reread it, this time a bit slower, and come back when you think you've got the point I was trying to make.

There are plenty of people willing to infringe them. How is it a logical contradiction ?

It's not if that is what you believe. But previously you were fairly keen on saying you don't think about people in that sense.

I think it's fairly well established that you see people as those limitations rather than as a solution to your liberty. No need to beat it to death anymore.

Not unless they violate my rights.

You said the point of private property is that it is a safeguard against coercion... but you also claimed you do not see people as a hinderance to your liberty... is someone coercing you not a hinderance to your liberty?

Professor Moneybags

28th May 2005, 20:14

You obviously feel that people have some inherent thinking that makes them wish to maintain that private property

The inherent thinking that no one wants to waste their time working only to have their money and property they have earned taken by someone else without their consent.

-- no doubt it it the same kind of thinking you have, that is "protects them from coercion."

Fancy wanting to be protected from coercion...

I'm not sure how one can consider it to be when you can get fired from your job because of what you posted on your blog.

Don't change the subject. Freedom of association is another one of those "lower" freedoms you want eradicated no doubt.

initially, we just seek to change the owners.

That's what theives generally do, too.

As far as stealing... well it's quite difficult to steal something that belongs to you.

Thieves see other people's money and property as belonging to them, just as slavemasters see slaves as belonging to them, just as rapists...well, let's not go there...

But then I would ask you, who does make a car? No one if this is how you look at labor, and yet the car is still made.

By individuals working cooperatively, not as one collective "body".

Well maybe next time you'd be so kind as to answer the actual question.

You have a mind don't you ? That's what you use to survive.

I'm not saying you cannot find liberty as an individual unless you are the only one on earth, I'm saying you cannot find liberty through individualism unless you are the last one on earth.

How come ?

You certainly read into things too much.

It pays to read between the lines.

The point was a very simple point, reread it, this time a bit slower, and come back when you think you've got the point I was trying to make.

Yes or no ?

You said the point of private property is that it is a safeguard against coercion...

Yes, but how is legalizing that coercion going to stop me seeing other people as a threat to my liberty ?

but you also claimed you do not see people as a hinderance to your liberty... is someone coercing you not a hinderance to your liberty?

Not everyone, only those who violate my rights. Not everyone is coercing me.

NovelGentry

28th May 2005, 20:46

The inherent thinking that no one wants to waste their time working only to have their money and property they have earned taken by someone else without their consent.

So fear? Yeah... I suppose that could develop out of alienation.

Fancy wanting to be protected from coercion...

If you feel you must be.

Don't change the subject. Freedom of association is another one of those "lower" freedoms you want eradicated no doubt.

I'm not changing the subject. You wanted to know whether or not I think we have freedom of speech, the answer is no, as I thought was implied by my statement.

That's what theives generally do, too.

Well no, theives tend to take what is not theirs. We intend to take back the wealth of the working class, but if it was currently owned by us we wouldn't have to take it back. Thus, we do intend to change owners... we intend to give it back to it's rightful owners.

Thieves see other people's money and property as belonging to them, just as slavemasters see slaves as belonging to them, just as rapists...well, let's not go there...

Indeed... I feel the same way about the capitalists.

By individuals working cooperatively, not as one collective "body".

What is a body if not a number of smaller things working cooperatively for the sakes of one another and for the whole?

You have a mind don't you ? That's what you use to survive.

This sounds rather idealistic. The mind does not survive without the body, and the body does not survive without producing it's own necessities through it's capability.

How come ?

Because it is contradictory towards the nature of your being, which is social. Unless maybe you're completely isolated from the rest of the world and maintain your own existence etc... but this is not how the world works, and is certainly not how the overwhelming majority of people (if not everyone) works.

Looking to individualism as the solution to your liberty means you believe wholeheartedly you are self-sustaining -- if you do not believe this you cannot really consider yourself free of others and their decisions. Thus, the only way to obtain liberty while these social relations maintain existence is through that social whole, to be liberated as a social whole -- socialism.

It pays to read between the lines.

And it's rather unfair to put words into someone's mouth.

Yes or no ?

I'm changing the subject? I don't see why I should respond to your question if you are unable to even derive the proper point of my statements. It's not a very difficult point, try reading it in context.

Yes, but how is legalizing that coercion going to stop me seeing other people as a threat to my liberty ?

I don't know... maybe you should ask someone who's interested in legalizing coercion.

Not everyone, only those who violate my rights. Not everyone is coercing me.

But everyone is a threat to your liberty in another sense. Everyone is fending for the same things you are fending for. You seem to only see it as a protection from coercion, but it is too a means, and as such you are fending for that means. The more money you make, the more swing you have... so you fend for that wealth, not just because it is a means by which you are safeguarded against coercion, but because if you do not maintain it (privately) it is the means by which they will exact coercion.

Because if they have it, and you need it... they've got the best chance of making the best out of that situation. In this sense, everyone is a threat to your liberty because even if they are not attempting to coerce, they are fending for the same material wealth to be free from coercion.

While fear of coercion or desire to coerce may explain greed, the fear of others taking the means to oppose that away from you quite aptly explains competition.

Professor Moneybags

29th May 2005, 14:45

So fear? Yeah... I suppose that could develop out of alienation.

It develops out of common sense. Just like your putting on your safety belt whilst driving your car.

I'm not changing the subject. You wanted to know whether or not I think we have freedom of speech, the answer is no, as I thought was implied by my statement.

That's not what I asked. I said will it be protected under your regime. Somehow, doubt it.

Well no, theives tend to take what is not theirs.

Which is what you intend to do.

We intend to take back the wealth of the working class,

They already own it, albeit individually.

but if it was currently owned by us we wouldn't have to take it back. Thus, we do intend to change owners... we intend to give it back to it's rightful owners.

What gives you the right to it ?

What is a body if not a number of smaller things working cooperatively for the sakes of one another and for the whole?

False anology.

Because it is contradictory towards the nature of your being, which is social.

It doesn't contradict that.

Thus, the only way to obtain liberty while these social relations maintain existence is through that social whole, to be liberated as a social whole -- socialism.

Socialism, as I have said before undermines legal and political equality. How is that liberation ?

I'm changing the subject? I don't see why I should respond to your question if you are unable to even derive the proper point of my statements.

Why are you being so evasive ? Got something to hide ? Yes or no ?

Yes, but how is legalizing that coercion going to stop me seeing other people as a threat to my liberty ?

I don't know... maybe you should ask someone who's interested in legalizing coercion.

I am.

<snip the psychobabble>

NovelGentry

29th May 2005, 15:17

It develops out of common sense. Just like your putting on your safety belt whilst driving your car.

"False Analogy" -- somehow I fail to see how the prospect of slamming into another object at a speed faster than the human body was naturally designed to be able to travel at can be equated to fear that someone will coerce you.

That's not what I asked. I said will it be protected under your regime. Somehow, doubt it.

Well actually your exact question was: "Does that mean that freedom of speech is not freedom ?" -- which tends to imply whether I thought it was actually an aspect of freedom. I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at now. On this particular subject, you've done little more but bounce around the issue itself by a) misinterpreting my original statements b) asking questions that have nothing to do with even what your original question appears to be.

Which is what you intend to do.

Well this, as we both know, depends completely on the argument of "who's labor is it... the one who labors or the one who hires him." -- as do the next two quotes. So if you want to argue that point, bring it up.

False anology.

It wasn't an analogy, it was a question.

It doesn't contradict that.

It takes two to tango -- or in this case, more than two. All we can know for sure is that individualists aren't very good at sex.

Socialism, as I have said before undermines legal and political equality. How is that liberation ?

Legal and Political equality are aspects of life created by, upheld by, and modified by man. Giving social equality to man, and thus granting him total equality, will in turn grant men legal and political with one another.

You do not have legal and political equality, other than in word. Further, the vast majority of people (and I can bring up quotes from this board to prove this) believe that your legal and political equality, in word alone, equates to social equality. That everyone has an "equal chance."

What you have is the word of legal and political equality, combined with social inequality, the kind that makes it more likely for black people to get the death penalty... the kind that makes it more likely for a rich person to become president. That is not legal and political equality.

Why are you being so evasive ? Got something to hide ? Yes or no ?

Well this is the problem. I see it as you who is being evasive, ignoring the original point by trying to change the issue at hand. And no, I have nothing to hide, I never have, and I probably never will.

I am.

You really do argue like a neocon, protest warrior, etc... even if you are libertarian. You establish what your opponent is... if they make anything near a valid point you evade it by turning it into an argument about their standards... and then if they try to explain to you their side of it, you completely ignore it and tell them what they are. As if you know... as if you have any clue whatsoever as to what we stand for. You'll even design a word to pin on the type of argument, and then just say "snip <insert word>" to evade those.

<snip your snip evasion>

Professor Moneybags

30th May 2005, 10:49

"False Analogy" -- somehow I fail to see how the prospect of slamming into another object at a speed faster than the human body was naturally designed to be able to travel at can be equated to fear that someone will coerce you.

The prospect of someone breaking into our houses is the reason we lock our doors when we go out. The prospect of slamming into another car is the reason we wear seatbelts.

Well actually your exact question was: "Does that mean that freedom of speech is not freedom ?" -- which tends to imply whether I thought it was actually an aspect of freedom. I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at now.

Maybe I'm after an answer to the question : "Does that mean that freedom of speech is not freedom ?", which you continue to evade.

Seeing as the right to freedom of speech is seemingly made invalid or must be witheld in favor of what you seem to think are "higher" freedoms ("social emancipation", as you call it), what is the answer ?

On this particular subject, you've done little more but bounce around the issue itself by a) misinterpreting my original statements b) asking questions that have nothing to do with even what your original question appears to be.

Your statements have not been misinterpreted. You have evaded questions such as the one above for a reason and it doesn't take much imagination to guess why.

Well this, as we both know, depends completely on the argument of "who's labor is it... the one who labors or the one who hires him."

Labor is exchanged. This is a pointless issue.

It wasn't an analogy, it was a question.

It was both. All actions and thoughts are performed by individuals, thus collectives only operate through individuals. If I was to shoot you, would I take the blame or would the country/community/collective I happened to be part of take it instead ?

Legal and Political equality are aspects of life created by, upheld by, and modified by man. Giving social equality to man, and thus granting him total equality, will in turn grant men legal and political with one another.

You have yet to give an example of how this is true. Real-world or otherwise.

You do not have legal and political equality, other than in word. Further, the vast majority of people (and I can bring up quotes from this board to prove this) believe that your legal and political equality, in word alone, equates to social equality. That everyone has an "equal chance."

At whose expense ? Someone must be compelled to give you that chance; legal equality is already been breached.

What you have is the word of legal and political equality, combined with social inequality, the kind that makes it more likely for black people to get the death penalty...

They only handed out the death penalty to people who commited serious crimes last time I checked. Some irrational people are going to be prejudiced, but how do you intend to solve that ? Mind control ? Or are we going to be seeing an era of "illegal words" and "illegal thoughts" ?

the kind that makes it more likely for a rich person to become president. That is not legal and political equality.

It is, I'm afraid. You have just as much a right to life as anyone else.

You really do argue like a neocon, protest warrior, etc... even if you are libertarian. You establish what your opponent is... if they make anything near a valid point

Such as what ? Believe me, I've heard them all.

you evade it by turning it into an argument about their standards... and then if they try to explain to you their side of it,

What "other side" is there to subjucating negative rights to positive rights, other what what I've said here a dozen times before ?

What "other side" am I supposed to suspect there is, when you keep evading my questions ?

you completely ignore it and tell them what they are. As if you know... as if you have any clue whatsoever as to what we stand for.

I know what you stand for and it's not what you seem to think you stand for.

Publius

30th May 2005, 14:10

Someone with the same name as you who happened to have very similar arguments. <_<

Great minds think alike, as the say.

:)

But it tis a strange occurance.

RedAnarchist

30th May 2005, 14:17

Great minds? <_<

Now youre the one being arrogant, and with an added touch of granduer delusions.

Publius

30th May 2005, 14:23

Great minds? <_<

Now youre the one being arrogant, and with an added touch of granduer delusions.

No, you're still the one being an arrogant ass.

I was being facetious.

I guess humor will be overthrown in the revolution as well, because pinkos are some humorless bastards.

RedAnarchist

30th May 2005, 14:24

Pinko?

Still living in the 1950's, Publius?

NovelGentry

30th May 2005, 18:20

The prospect of someone breaking into our houses is the reason we lock our doors when we go out. The prospect of slamming into another car is the reason we wear seatbelts.

One constitutes death, the other is a loss of replaceable objects.

Maybe I'm after an answer to the question : "Does that mean that freedom of speech is not freedom ?", which you continue to evade.

Well no, the reason I didn't answer that is because I misread your original question, and thought you were asking whether or not we had freedom of speech under capitalism.

I do believe freedom of speech is a "freedom" but it is a useless freedom if there is no one else alive, that was my point. Furthermore, it is lacking under a system where money can effectively buy you whatever speech you so choose by those who are subordinated to you, either through labor, or through political means. For example, the influence Karl Rove no doubt has on George W. Bush.

If I answer your question, it is bound to lead to further deviation from these points. I will answer is, but no doubt you will carry this on to some other point.

Your current question is, "Seeing as the right to freedom of speech is seemingly made invalid or must be witheld in favor of what you seem to think are "higher" freedoms ("social emancipation", as you call it), what is the answer ?" -- it doesn't very well give me many options. You've already eliminated the idea that I do not withhold freedom of speech, as a condition of the question. This is a bit unfair to me.

To answer the general point you are trying to make. There are freedoms which I believe are more important than freedom of speech, however, I do not intend to withold it.

Your statements have not been misinterpreted. You have evaded questions such as the one above for a reason and it doesn't take much imagination to guess why.

The evasion has occured on your side only. It was you who dodged the original point, I merely expected if you were not capable or obliged to address my points, that I should have no cause to address yours.

Labor is exchanged. This is a pointless issue.

Indeed it is exchanged, but I do not consider the threat which occurs if you refuse to exchange it to have any equality or balance to it.

But the question is not so much about whether or not labor is exchanged, but whether or not the exchange value, determined by the capitalist, is proper for the amount of labor given. Some labor is exchanged, unfortunately, it is not the full value of the labor.

It was both. All actions and thoughts are performed by individuals, thus collectives only operate through individuals. If I was to shoot you, would I take the blame or would the country/community/collective I happened to be part of take it instead ?

Here you go again. And yet I am the one who evades. Are you going to answer my question or not?

The issue at hand is that there is nothing collective about shooting someone -- aside from the creation of the gun, but the act itself is not a collective act. The act of building a car for example is a collective act. As is the act of growing food. As is the act of creating any other of the necessary means of life. No one held the gun while you pulled the trigger.

You have yet to give an example of how this is true. Real-world or otherwise.

Do you deny that political emancipation, in the form of written laws, judicial equality, etc, is not the creation of man? If man is to achieve social emancipation, to give anything but political emancipation would destroy that social emancipation. Does this mean it's not possible... no... but I am quite clearly stating that political emancipation will be assured on the condition that social emancipation is in existence. More, I'm stating political emancipation can only be assured on that condition.

Real world examples are not in existence, as we've never realized social emancipation in any part of the world, at least not to my knowledge. As far as theoretical examples, that seems quite unnecessary, but for a compare/contrast example, look at it this way.

If in civil life white men/women see black men/women as their civil/social equals, why would they establish a law that contradicts this? In contrast with capitalism which offers political emancipation, the law states that white men and black men are equal, but as is clearly visible, in civil life we do not all consider this to be true, and as such, a black man facing a jury with even the slightest bit of that prejudice, is not going to see the "equality" which he supposedly has -- unless of course they have something that overcomes that racial bias... for example... money.

You think if OJ Simpson was a poor kid from the Bronx he would have gotten off?

Civil/social emancipation ensures political emancipation, political emancipation without that ensures nothing but a ghost of a concept written on a piece of paper, found in a book somewhere.

At whose expense ? Someone must be compelled to give you that chance; legal equality is already been breached.

Not so, Particularly in terms of legal equality. Why must someone give you a chance if you are legally supposed to be provided with an impartial jury? A jury of your peers... no? To consider a white-middle class man the peer of a poor black man is insane -- at least in this society. Even you should be able to admit that.

Those who already have a chance, should be compelled to have the same chance as those who do not... put the executives of enron in front of a mixed race lower-class jury, and see what ensues.

No doubt you will say "lawyers can dismiss jury members... there's no way to ensure that without taking away the freedom and rights of both prosecutor and defendent..." But where is the equality in that when the rich can afford the best of lawyers, and more, jury specialists...

No one must be compelled to bring the poor to the level of the rich, but in terms of legal and political emanciaption, the rich should be compelled to the level of the poor.

They only handed out the death penalty to people who commited serious crimes last time I checked.

Well last time you checked must have been awhile ago. They also hand it out to people accused/tried through forced confessions from mentally handicapped people. They also hand it out to people with incompetent lawyers who fall asleep and do drugs during their trial. They also hand it out black people more than white people -- the samples of which includes the same number of trials, and compared trials of similar weight and evidence. They also hand it out to people, who even if all these other things are in check or on the better of the two sides, are completely innocent.

In short, they only hand out the death penalty to those who are convicted of serious crimes -- in order to analyze the validity of this legal approach, we must look at the conviction, which includes far more aspects than the act which was committed.

Some irrational people are going to be prejudiced, but how do you intend to solve that ? Mind control ? Or are we going to be seeing an era of "illegal words" and "illegal thoughts" ?

We seek to build a society where irrational people are an extreme minority -- as opposed to a system where it is "OK to be irrational."

Mind control would be nice, but it is a bit unnecessary as is illegal words and illegal thoughts. As a Marxist, we believe this irrationality is born out of the existing inequality and material reality. Alienation has far more aspects to it than just consciousness vs. unconsciousness; this is one of them.

It is, I'm afraid. You have just as much a right to life as anyone else.

Of course... it's written on a piece of paper, it must be true! (that was sarcasm by the way).

Such as what ? Believe me, I've heard them all.

Let me use a quote to explain why I believe I have made something of a valid point and your evasions are your necessary means of avoiding it:

You have evaded questions such as the one above for a reason and it doesn't take much imagination to guess why.
...
What "other side" am I supposed to suspect there is, when you keep evading my questions ? -- Professor Moneybags

You cannot or will not address a grand majority of points I've made, presently or in the past. That honestly doesn't bother me so much... what bothers me more is you refuse to accept what I say as my position when it goes against your understanding of what I am. I am the "evil communist." So I must be lying when I say that freedom of speech will not be withheld... maybe I am... to be completely accurate, I believe freedom of speech will be withheld in socialist society (not communist). I say this because I believe that freedom of speech is being withheld now, and I personally intend to withold it in the very same fashion.

For example to speak out against the economic system will cost you your place in it... your job. If you oppose socialist production with capitalist propaganda, you will lose your job and thus your means to survive.

Is this infringement on the freedom of speech? You tell me. If it is, then you cannot claim capitalism has achieved such an ideal.

I know what you stand for and it's not what you seem to think you stand for.

You think you know what I stand for, and you're quite anxious to scream it from the rooftops so that others will think the same. In reality you have very little understanding of what I stand for, and to be quite honest, I'm not sure you have the mental capacity to understand it.

Professor Moneybags

31st May 2005, 17:28

The prospect of someone breaking into our houses is the reason we lock our doors when we go out. The prospect of slamming into another car is the reason we wear seatbelts.

One constitutes death, the other is a loss of replaceable objects.

Overriding negative rights with positive rights could mean both.

Well no, the reason I didn't answer that is because I misread your original question, and thought you were asking whether or not we had freedom of speech under capitalism.

We do, or at least we did until the war.

I do believe freedom of speech is a "freedom" but it is a useless freedom if there is no one else alive, that was my point. Furthermore, it is lacking under a system where money can effectively buy you whatever speech you so choose by those who are subordinated to you,

No one is subordianted to you. No one "has" to work for you or provide you with a microphone regardless of how much money you do or don't have. It's still voluntary.

Your current question is, "Seeing as the right to freedom of speech is seemingly made invalid or must be witheld in favor of what you seem to think are "higher" freedoms ("social emancipation", as you call it), what is the answer ?" -- it doesn't very well give me many options. You've already eliminated the idea that I do not withhold freedom of speech, as a condition of the question. This is a bit unfair to me.

The arrangement you propose is unfair. You mention that freedom of speech meaningless unless we all have access to some means of conveying that speech. Does that mean we are all going to have to provide each other with money (or whatever) to pay for, or provide that freedom ? Does this mean that I'm going to have to subsidize people who's views I don't like ? Not merely tolerate, but subsidise them ? Would you mind Bush raiding your bank account to fund his election campaign ? Is that fair ?

<snip evasions>

(State what I have evaded and I will respond.)

Indeed it is exchanged, but I do not consider the threat which occurs if you refuse to exchange it to have any equality or balance to it.

There is no threat. If there is, then it isn't voluntary.

But the question is not so much about whether or not labor is exchanged, but whether or not the exchange value, determined by the capitalist, is proper for the amount of labor given.

Ultimately, that is for the consumer to decide, not the laborer.

Some labor is exchanged, unfortunately, it is not the full value of the labor.

Which is determined by who ?

Here you go again. And yet I am the one who evades. Are you going to answer my question or not?

Restate the question I have allegedly evaded, then you can answer my question.

Do you deny that political emancipation, in the form of written laws, judicial equality, etc, is not the creation of man?

I never said otherwise.

If man is to achieve social emancipation, to give anything but political emancipation would destroy that social emancipation. Does this mean it's not possible... no... but I am quite clearly stating that political emancipation will be assured on the condition that social emancipation is in existence. More, I'm stating political emancipation can only be assured on that condition.
Real world examples are not in existence, as we've never realized social emancipation in any part of the world, at least not to my knowledge. As far as theoretical examples, that seems quite unnecessary, but for a compare/contrast example, look at it this way.

If in civil life white men/women see black men/women as their civil/social equals, why would they establish a law that contradicts this?

We don't have laws biased against ethnic groups (although we have affirmative action, which is biased in favor of certain groups), but racism still persists...

In contrast with capitalism which offers political emancipation, the law states that white men and black men are equal, but as is clearly visible, in civil life we do not all consider this to be true, and as such, a black man facing a jury with even the slightest bit of that prejudice, is not going to see the "equality" which he supposedly has

Which is going to be stopped, how ?

-- unless of course they have something that overcomes that racial bias... for example... money.

Do you honestly think that having money makes everyone assume you're innocent. In cases of theft, perhaps but not in other cases. There is no logic behind this argument.

You think if OJ Simpson was a poor kid from the Bronx he would have gotten off?

Possibly. I've lost count of the number of people who have had fines pardoned because they couldn't pay them. I've seen ridiculously lenient sentences handed to armed robbers for the same reason.

Civil/social emancipation ensures political emancipation,

We've established that this has never happened, but how does this work in practice ?

Not so, Particularly in terms of legal equality. Why must someone give you a chance if you are legally supposed to be provided with an impartial jury? A jury of your peers... no? To consider a white-middle class man the peer of a poor black man is insane -- at least in this society. Even you should be able to admit that.

Those who already have a chance, should be compelled to have the same chance as those who do not... put the executives of enron in front of a mixed race lower-class jury, and see what ensues.

You're equivocating again. I'm not talking about "giving someone a chance" in a court case- that entails no obligation on my part (other than that justice be done, which is in my own interest), I'm talking about positive rights. I'm talking about being used as a slave to provide others with basic (and not so basic) needs. That entails a considerable obligation on my part.

Well last time you checked must have been awhile ago. They also hand it out to people accused/tried through forced confessions from mentally handicapped people.

That is already illegal.

They also hand it out black people more than white people -- the samples of which includes the same number of trials, and compared trials of similar weight and evidence.

Again, how is this going to be remedied and how is it going to be put into practice ? Do you honestly think that you can legislate racism out of existence ?

We seek to build a society where irrational people are an extreme minority -- as opposed to a system where it is "OK to be irrational."

I intend to do the same, although I intend to do it economically as well as socially.

Mind control would be nice, but it is a bit unnecessary as is illegal words and illegal thoughts. As a Marxist, we believe this irrationality is born out of the existing inequality and material reality.

I trust you have evidence to support this.

Of course... it's written on a piece of paper, it must be true! (that was sarcasm by the way).

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit- appropriate considering that murdering anyone is illegal, regardless of who you are. (Any "Bush is a murderer" replies will be ignored.)

Let me use a quote to explain why I believe I have made something of a valid point and your evasions are your necessary means of avoiding it:

Two can play at that game :

"It was you who dodged the original point, I merely expected if you were not capable or obliged to address my points, that I should have no cause to address yours."

You cannot or will not address a grand majority of points I've made, presently or in the past.

I could say the same about you.

That honestly doesn't bother me so much... what bothers me more is you refuse to accept what I say as my position when it goes against your understanding of what I am. I am the "evil communist."

-You dress slavery up as "social freedom" (and then evade my questions concerning this issue because you know that slavery (i.e. compulsory "duty-based" work) is precisely what it entails. Don't worry, you've got plenty of company in that area).
-You imply that wanting to keep the fruits of your labor for yourself and protecting them from thieves (via laws) is some sort of neurosis. It's a safe bet that you have locks on your doors, however.
-You believe in violating the rights of individuals.

Evil ? Where would I get an idea like that ?

So I must be lying when I say that freedom of speech will not be withheld... maybe I am... to be completely accurate, I believe freedom of speech will be withheld in socialist society (not communist). I say this because I believe that freedom of speech is being withheld now,

It is, but not in the way that you imply.

and I personally intend to withold it in the very same fashion.

For example to speak out against the economic system will cost you your place in it... your job.

You mean the government will step in a terminate your employment ? Or do you mean that calling the person you work for an "exploiter" (an absurd claim- the employee is as much an "exploiter" and as the employer) and threatening to sieze his company, claiming that it is (somehow) "yours" isn't fair grounds for dismissal ?

If you oppose socialist production with capitalist propaganda, you will lose your job and thus your means to survive.

(Did you get that backwards ? No matter.)

So what you want is to bully your way through life, call people whatever you like and then claim you have a "right" to be looked upon as something other than a thug. Is isn't going to happen.

Is this infringement on the freedom of speech? You tell me.

Is the government taking any action to stop or punish you ? No ? Well I guess your freedom of speech isn't being infringed then. (Which is more than I can say for some of your fellow travellers here, who are more than willing to use physical violence against those whom they percieve to have the "wrong opinion". Judging from what you've just said, I doubt your behaviour will be much different- And that's just freedom of speech we're talking about.)

You think you know what I stand for, and you're quite anxious to scream it from the rooftops so that others will think the same.

If you can refute my evaluations, then go ahead.

<snip the patronizing drivel>