Why Do Cappies come here and argue?

[*Hippie*]

I was wondering why someone who is against leftist beliefs would come here and want to argue with us. Chances are they will not change our minds about anything and we won't be able to show them the truth.

So what is the point? What do you Capitalists get out of it? Wouldn't your time be better spent somewhere else? It seems the capitalism/socialism debate is just the same old arguments being made over and over and it just goes around in circles.

[Publius]

I was wondering why someone who is against leftist beliefs would come here and want to argue with us. Chances are they will not change our minds about anything and we won't be able to show them the truth.

So what is the point? What do you Capitalists get out of it? Wouldn't your time be better spent somewhere else? It seems the capitalism/socialism debate is just the same old arguments being made over and over and it just goes around in circles.

Know your enemy.

When I first came I argued like the recent arrivals, eerily so, but now I've learned a lot more about communism and STILL find it as fallacious and repugnant, but I understand it far better.

I find the communist perspective interesting, if wholly repugnant.

[Capitalist Turkey]

basically for fun, learning, insight, ect...

[David]

i came here to try to understand how the hell communism could work large scale without using force.

[fernando]

I tried hanging on capitalists boards sometimes and try to mix discussions between that board and this board, was quite interesting sometimes. Besides capitalists eventhough I dont always agree with them might sometimes even have good ideas.

[Capitalist Turkey]

Yep, you never know what you will learn by talking to people will differing viewpoints.

[Ultra-Violence]

I was wondering why someone who is against leftist beliefs would come here and want to argue with us. Chances are they will not change our minds about anything and we won't be able to show them the truth.

So what is the point? What do you Capitalists get out of it? Wouldn't your time be better spent somewhere else? It seems the capitalism/socialism debate is just the same old arguments being made over and over and it just goes around in circles.

I completely agree with you on this its always the same arguments and we always
prove our point and thier is so few left boards out thier. why not just stick on thier meeseage boards were they can talk about better ways to expliot poeple! than to come here and just keep getting beat up and proven wrong! :hammer:

[HankMorgan]

Communism doesn't seem like it should work and historically it hasn't. Yet there are many people who are willing to die and kill for these ideas. Either I'm missing something and just don't understand or there is one huge case of mental illness. Fascinating.

[quincunx5]

why not just stick on thier meeseage boards were they can talk about better ways to expliot poeple! than to come here and just keep getting beat up and proven wrong!


From what I've seen here, most of the problem stems from misconception of capitalism. The fools attribute all the problems of the world to just capitalism, when most of the time it's bad government. The fact that many of you support expansion of government is highly disturbing to me.

Oh please, some of my best points have gone unanswered.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:20 AM


why not just stick on thier meeseage boards were they can talk about better ways to expliot poeple! than to come here and just keep getting beat up and proven wrong!


From what I've seen here, most of the problem stems from misconception of capitalism. The fools attribute all the problems of the world to just capitalism, when most of the time it's bad government. The fact that many of you support expansion of government is highly disturbing to me.

Oh please, some of my best points have gone unanswered.
What.

Half of this board is made up by anarchists.

And communism is a stateless society.

I think you are misinterpreting us!

[Political_Punk]

Yes, I too want to learn as much as I can by all the major political ideologies...

No matter what side you're on, if you've already made up your mind and don't want to learn about the opposers, you are simply ignorant.

From my understanding what communism boils down to is "force to help the greater good". There is absolutely nothing wrong w/ charity, and I fully support the idea, but I don't support forced stealing from group and giving to another.

Also, I am quite shocked to hear that many communists don't believe in human rights...
again, why would I want to live in a society where the majority could decide to submit genocide upon whatever group I live in?

[quincunx5]

"From each according to ability, to each according to need" is not anarchy.
Anarchy only works with capitalism.

[banned rebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:38 PM
"From each according to ability, to each according to need" is not anarchy.
Anarchy only works with capitalism.
thats the main reason i came here. to figure out how the hell anarchist communism could work. seems like an oxymoron to me.

[Publius]

I completely agree with you on this its always the same arguments and we always
prove our point and thier is so few left boards out thier. why not just stick on thier meeseage boards were they can talk about better ways to expliot poeple! than to come here and just keep getting beat up and proven wrong! :hammer:

Hahaha

[quincunx5]

"Communism, as I have often complained, is the very denial of society in its foundation, which is the progressive equivalence of functions and capacities. The communists, toward whom all socialism tends, do not believe in equality by nature and education; they supply it by sovereign decrees which they cannot carry out, whatever they may do. Instead of seeking justice in the harmony of facts, they take it from their feelings, calling justice everything that seems to them to be love of one's neighbor, and incessantly confounding matters of reason with those of sentiment." - Proudhon (First known person to call himself an anarchist)

[Freedom Works]

Yes, I too want to learn as much as I can by all the major political ideologies...
I recommend you check out http://mises.org to learn more about capitalism and economics.

"[Classical] Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts." - Ludwig von Mises

[timbaly]

Originally posted by *Hippie*@Aug 14 2005, 12:12 PM
I was wondering why someone who is against leftist beliefs would come here and want to argue with us. Chances are they will not change our minds about anything and we won't be able to show them the truth.
You can easily ask leftists like ourselves why we bother to come to this forum and argue with the capitalists here. I come to argue with the capitalists just for the sake of healthy debate, I think it makes you realize what your real beliefs are when you are confronted to and forced to defend them in an argument.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 15 2005, 01:55 AM

Yes, I too want to learn as much as I can by all the major political ideologies...
I recommend you check out http://mises.org to learn more about capitalism and economics.

"[Classical] Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts." - Ludwig von Mises
Ah yes, I am familiar w/ that site...

BTW, what an excellent quote... it makes so much sense...

Capitalists beliefs are based on the laws of economics (ie- supply and demand, the natural state of any economy no matter how big or small).

As compared to communism where they use the purely emotional "evil, greedy capitalists" argument against capitalism.

[KC]

As compared to communism where they use the purely emotional "evil, greedy capitalists" argument against capitalism.


Actually, quite the opposite.

[Freedom Works]

What an insightful post. Such a compelling argument, I think I'll become a collectivist right here and now!

-_-

[KC]

Why should I respond with an intelligent post when he says something so completely ignorant and stupid?

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:55 AM



As compared to communism where they use the purely emotional "evil, greedy capitalists" argument against capitalism.


Actually, quite the opposite.
huh, the opposite?

capitalists criticize communists as being evil and greedy?? ummm... not from what I've seen and read, at all.

no, from what I've heard they criticize them for the necessary force involved in working for the "greater good" (stealing from one group to give to another).

Would you explain what you mean?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:38 AM
"From each according to ability, to each according to need" is not anarchy.
Anarchy only works with capitalism.
It is anarchism.

You see, in order to have anarcho communism, the working class needs to seize the means of production. After seizing them, the working class can manage it themselves. They don't need stupid states or some dumbfuck bossing them around.

[KC]

As compared to communism where they use the purely emotional "evil, greedy capitalists" argument against capitalism.

The word evil is never used in a pro-communist discussion, and if it is then it shouldn't be. Evil is a personal opinion and an emotion. When we talk about theory we don't talk about emotion but about logic.

Capitalists' beliefs are based on economics. Communists' beliefs are based on dialectical materialism and marxism. No "purely emotional argument" is/should be used.

Please point out where Marx used emotion to support his beliefs.

[Mujer Libre]

I've also said repeatedly why "anarcho-capitalism" is oxymoronic; to which nobody has posted a viable response.
Hmmm...

[saint max]

Sweet, so I get to chose from emotion or rationality. I love the market place of ideology...

As a post-left anarchist, I come of these boards also antagonistically. I view Capitalism and Communism as ideologies as both heads and tails to the same coin, social/civilized order...as it were. Both are part of an economics and both bore me to death. I come from a Leftist tradition, but I see the abject failure of dialectical materialism and historical, consistant incorrectness of Marx. It is my interest to hopefully create and explore other naratives for a more radically subjective destructive force. And probably, what most others are'nt willing to admit, I'm bored, and its another way to waste time (cheaper than a movie, and I have coffee at home!) And If it's possible to help keep Leftists infatuated with internet discussions and fetishizing cyber-relationships, so they can continue irrelevance, cool.

It would be a lot easier to 'make total fucking destroy' (as the kids say) if I didn't have to step over red flags to do it.

cheers,
-max

ps: and perhaps I can help deconstruct ideological pathology eh?

[KC]

but I see the abject failure of dialectical materialism and historical, consistant incorrectness of Marx.

Could you explain this more? I'd love to hear this.

[Freedom Works]

You see, in order to have anarcho communism, the working class needs to seize the means of production. After seizing them, the working class can manage it themselves. They don't need stupid states or some dumbfuck bossing them around.

They don't? A business can work without any hierarchy? Sorry, this is incredibly naive.

Anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron, not anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is the only true anarchism.

"Socialism must either be a system where the state doesn't exist (utopian communism) or a command economy centrally directed. That's why an anarchist who advocates "redistribution" is a contradiction. There can be no redistribution without a state, and anarchists don't believe in the legitimacy of the state."

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 15 2005, 07:15 AM

They don't? A business can work without any hierarchy? Sorry, this is incredibly naive.

Anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron, not anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is the only true anarchism.

"Socialism must either be a system where the state doesn't exist (utopian communism) or a command economy centrally directed. That's why an anarchist who advocates "redistribution" is a contradiction. There can be no redistribution without a state, and anarchists don't believe in the legitimacy of the state."
I want to smash my head into the keyboard because people like you frustrate me.

I would explain you how spanish collectives made by the anarchists in the spanish civil war worked, but I guess you would cover your ears and cry I AM DEAF if tried to expalin it to you.

Most anarchists believe in a very decentralized federalism, where opinions come from tehe buttom instead than from above. So yeah, anarchism isn't TOTAL CHAOS.

You could still be an idiot and hear what capitalist shitsticks say about it though.

[anomaly]

I too wonder what draws cappies to this board. Most are either completely stubborn or willfully ignorant.

As far as anarchism goes, capitalism, because of the stress on hierarchy, cannot create anarchism. Anarchism is no rulers. This is why only anarcho-communism will do. It is the only society that stresses an end to hierarchy. Anarcho-capitalism? Huh? That just means we have no government, instead we're ruled by tyrannical business executives! Because of the hierarchy, it is not anarchism. Of course, an Ayn Rand disciple would be far too stubborn to listen to this.

[Freedom Works]

I want to smash my head into the keyboard because people like you frustrate me.
People who use logic to disprove ignorant theories? Oh they sure are a bother!


I would explain you how spanish collectives made by the anarchists in the spanish civil war worked, but I guess you would cover your ears and cry I AM DEAF if tried to expalin it to you.
The hierarchy is:
Majority
^
Minority


I too wonder what draws cappies to this board. Most are either completely stubborn or willfully ignorant.
I find it fun to learn ways to argue against stupid things.


As far as anarchism goes, capitalism, because of the stress on hierarchy, cannot create anarchism.
Capitalism has voluntary heirarchy.


Anarchism is no rulers.
It has no involuntary rulers. And if they aren't involuntary, how are they really rulers at all?


This is why only anarcho-communism will do. It is the only society that stresses an end to hierarchy.
Anarcho-capitalism stresses an end to involuntary hierarchy.


Anarcho-capitalism? Huh? That just means we have no government, instead we're ruled by tyrannical business executives!
So ignorant, it makes me believe you went to a government indoctrination center. They cannot have involuntary rule without some degree of legitimacy, otherwise it would be overthrown. If Microsoft starts enslaving people, people will stop giving their money to Microsoft.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:32 AM
I too wonder what draws cappies to this board. Most are either completely stubborn or willfully ignorant.

As far as anarchism goes, capitalism, because of the stress on hierarchy, cannot create anarchism. Anarchism is no rulers. This is why only anarcho-communism will do. It is the only society that stresses an end to hierarchy. Anarcho-capitalism? Huh? That just means we have no government, instead we're ruled by tyrannical business executives! Because of the hierarchy, it is not anarchism. Of course, an Ayn Rand disciple would be far too stubborn to listen to this.


You do not understand the definition of anarchy, sorry.

"an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose"

Any kind of hierachy that may exist under anarcho-capitalism doesn't remove it from being considered anarchy, as that has no bearing on the definition. There is absolutely no mention of hierarchy relating to anarchy. You may have your own fabricated definition, but that is not what's been on the books for thousands of years.

Anarchy is simply the abscense of any political authority. There is certainly no political authority under anarcho-capitalism, period. That would mean, no gov't regulation, no taxes... no outside force affecting the parties involved.
If you were to move into the mountains and were to come about other similar individuals, you would be living under anarcho-capitalism, b/c of your trading of goods via money, or bartering.

Furthermore, that definition is simply another reason why "anarcho-communism" is a contradiction in terms. AC actually has a common standard to work for "greater good", and as such, goes against any true definition of anarchy.

[Black Dagger]

You do not understand the definition of anarchy, sorry.

Ditto. Your 'definition' of 'anarchy' is based on what an internet dictionary or hell, ANY dictionary is telling you that 'anarchy' is. Unfortunately what's missing from your definition of the term, is context... history. What is the historical use of the term, anarchist, anarchism, anarchy and so forth? Not how these words have been defined by anti-anarchist forces, governments, capitalists, marxists and so forth, but how these concepts are used and defined within the anarchist movement.
The problem for you is quite a... large one.

Your appropiation of the label 'anarchist' is quite cleary that, an appropiation. What this means is that your definition of anarchism and anarchist and so forth is ahistorical. You're making up a new 'meaning' of the term, with an anti-anarchist bourgeoise definition as your foundation, 'anarchy is chaos, anarchy is a society without any political authority' etc., this definition is of course so minimal, so devoid of detail that you can quite easily/conveniently slide your pro-capitalist shite within its bounds, and hey presto! You're an 'anarchist'! Then what do you do? You have the arrogance to declare historical anarchists as 'un-anarchist' or non-anarchists, because their definition of anarchism etc. conflicts with the new one you've invented for your contemporary movement.

It is quite cleary you who does not 'understand' the definition, i suggest reading the works of anarchists, try Pierre-Joseph Proudhon for example, the first self-described anarchist, wanna hazard a guess as to whose definition of 'anarchy' he supports? Yours or ours? (hint: he was an anti-capitalist :rolleyes: ). Ditto for the rest of his contempories and the anarchists that followed him/them.

Their definition of anarchism is the one used by the historical anarchist movement (the anarchist movement that predates 'yours'), your definition and understanding of the concept of anarchism has no historical or contemporary basis within that movement, or within the history of anarchist thought. Therfore, asserting that your definition/understanding of the term/concept is the valid one, and that 'ours' is the invalid one, is a completely illogical position. Anarchists (not 'anarcho'-capitalits) have established and developed these concepts, you are merely appropiating and transforming our terms to suit your agenda.

For you to assert that somehow your understanding of the concept of anarchism is the 'correct' one is to ignore the fact contemporary 'anarchist' capitalists, and their ideology, emerged after anti-capitalist anarchism. Therefore, your position is not only ahistorical but temporally impossible.

Go play with the right-'libertarians', and leave anarchists alone.


Any kind of hierachy that may exist under anarcho-capitalism doesn't remove it from being considered anarchy, as that has no bearing on the definition.

What kind of a person bases their knowledge of the world, of nuanced and complex ideas, concepts and so forth, what is called 'anarchism' or anarchist philosophy, on sentence definitions written in partisan dictionaries?
How about reading up on the history of anarchism as a social-economic philosophy? Too much work? Although i can understand your apprehension, doing said research would make it very clear to that anarchism and capitalism are directly incompatible, oops.



There is absolutely no mention of hierarchy relating to anarchy.

Yes, in the single-line definition of a complex and nuanced philosophical-social-economic concept, this was omitted, oh well, the dictionary- rather than say anarchists themselves- is of course, the most accurate, well researched, academic and informative source of information. :rolleyes:

Use your brain, just briefly, please.



You may have your own fabricated definition, but that is not what's been on the books for thousands of years.

And of course, the definition/understanding of anarchists, post in the past and present is the 'fabricated' one, not the single-line definition regurgitated by a partisan bourgeois dictionary.



Anarchy is simply the abscense of any political authority. There is certainly no political authority under anarcho-capitalism, period. That would mean, no gov't regulation, no taxes... no outside force affecting the parties involved.

An 'anarcho'-capitalist 'revolution' would not abolish class division, therefore there would still be an immense gap between the capitalist ruling class and everyone else, but now there is also 'no government'. But in a capitalist society the government is the protector of private property, through laws/regulations, the police and the army. Without the state, the capitalists will be forced to hire militias to defend their property from the angry poor/alienated people.

How is a system in which all the wealth is controlled/owned by a small minority, with the power to control people's lives, directly with violence-via militias/private 'security' forces, and of their labour, by owning the means of production, how is that a society 'without any political authority'? It would be in the best interests for the capitalists, the crime lords and so forth, to set-up some kind of organistion, to 'divide up' territory, so as to minimise conflict between capitalists, and crime lords and between capitalists themselves. Perhaps something along the lines of a 'business council', set-up to make sure that nothing impedes the flow of profits in their local area, think a mercantilist city-state of sorts. The members of the council being the 'captains of industry' and so forth, maybe even some crime bosses on their too for the sake of oligarchical unity.

Such a society would clearly have a 'political authority', as would any 'anarcho'-capitalist system. If you have a society with an overt and powerful economic authority, in 'anarcho'-capitalism-> the capitalists, the development of a political authority to protect the interests of this economic authority is practically inevitable. Failing a 'business council' of sorts, there could be localised dictatorships of crime bosses, of capitalist-backed militia forces and so forth. Why? Because the state is what protects the property of capitalists, without the state, property is vulnerable. Because property is vulnerable the capitalists must take steps to protect their property, leading to the evolution of the new political authority.

Moreover, in an 'anarcho'-capitalist society, who enforces property/business 'law'? A private police force? That would be an overt political authority! A company that enforces law, can legitimately kill people, arrest and detain people! You don't think the capitalists (and the crime bosses) would not invest in such companies, in order to ensure their own safety? And perhaps the peril of their rivals? More overt political authority.

[Freedom Works]

Not how these words have been defined by anti-anarchist forces, governments, capitalists, marxists and so forth, but how these concepts are used and defined within the anarchist movement.
You cannot be as ignorant as you sound with that statement! Just because "the anarchist movement" incorrectly used a term does not mean that that becomes the de facto meaning from here on out. If you look at what the ACTUAL meaning is, not what has become attached to the word (such as with swastika)
An - without arch - ruler (a ruler being someone who exercises political governance)
Nothing more, nothing less.


Moreover, in an 'anarcho'-capitalist society, who enforces property/business 'law'? A private police force? That would be an overt political authority! A company that enforces law, can legitimately kill people, arrest and detain people! You don't think the capitalists (and the crime bosses) would not invest in such companies, in order to ensure their own safety? And perhaps the peril of their rivals? More overt political authority.
That would not be "policital authority". Without a "government", there can not be "political authority". And before you go blathering on about how it would work, why don't you read up on capitalism as a social-economic philosophy? Too much work? Although I can understand your apprehension, doing said research would make it very clear that true anarchism and true capitalism are directly related. Capitalism can only truly exist without a "government".

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:32 AM
I too wonder what draws cappies to this board. Most are either completely stubborn or willfully ignorant.

As far as anarchism goes, capitalism, because of the stress on hierarchy, cannot create anarchism. Anarchism is no rulers. This is why only anarcho-communism will do. It is the only society that stresses an end to hierarchy. Anarcho-capitalism? Huh? That just means we have no government, instead we're ruled by tyrannical business executives! Because of the hierarchy, it is not anarchism. Of course, an Ayn Rand disciple would be far too stubborn to listen to this.
I wonder why you guys are so uptight about banning any dissenting views in the other sections of this BBS. Well, as in real communism, I suppose any dissenters are either censored or eliminated...rather sad and pathetic though. :rolleyes:

I sincerely wanted to gain as much insight as I could just to see what made you lefties tick - but it seems I hit a nerve, and I was kicked out. Doesn't do much for your integrity level I gotta say...



Oh, and I'm not saying you don't have the right... do what you like, but if you simply say "well, b/c we don't like hearing you cappies everywhere". Well, why not, if we're respectful (which I was) why wouldn't you want to learn and have your ideas challenged? Or are you afraid we will poke too many holes in your theories?

I am on the BBS on freetalklive.com - you may have ANY opinion, so long as you are not disrspectful. They actually encourage opposing views.

Regardless of your personal views, cant' you all agree w/ the greater freedom you get on an unrestricted board is simply more entertaining/educational than the restrictions and control you face on one such as this?

[Freedom Works]

No! That would be too logical!

[saint max]

QUOTE
Max: but I see the abject failure of dialectical materialism and historical, consistant incorrectness of Marx.



Lazar: Could you explain this more? I'd love to hear this.

Although Dialectics likes to think it's darwin, the material conditions of more than two-thirds the earth's humyn population have not forced them to become enraged and exert their class consious will. Instead worker-producers (the Prol) have been transformed into worker-servers-consummers in the 1st world. And almost all producer-work transported to the global south. However, not in full interest to keep it there, and perhaps to recreate LA, and "hopefully" contune modernization (and post-modernization) of everything.

Also I think De Beauvier (sp?) and other existentialists and even post-modernists accurately confront Dialectical Materialism's "orgin of all value" when they assert that it is not labor, but freedom. Perhaps even the need for a party, a vangaurd, or cadre etc, may throw dialectical materialism's sacred cows (class, history, science) into turmoil.

Marxism and other Modern Left ideologies did a fine job at reform, at an 8 hour work day, at rights granted by the state for people constructed as Others...etc. But on the other hand Marx failed to see any value in primitive peoples struggles against colonization, in peasents, and not until revision, in anti-slavery, anti-imperialism. And often this same economic-reductionism continues today, failing to understand the radical subjectivity and ontology of a multi-tude.

In regards to history, beyond anarchist-communistic orgasms (which has it's skeletons too,) is there any place where communism has been self-organized by worker-producers, who desire to abolish class-society? And all the other attempts by well meaning murders and authoritarians, have any of them decentralized into small soviets and communes run autonomously because The State withered away?

If history was on our side, don't you think we'd be living in some workers paradise by now, dealing with myself and other counter-revolutionary anti-civilizationists?

[Black Dagger]

After such a long post, you're only going to reply to these two small sections?



Just because "the anarchist movement" incorrectly used a term does not mean that that becomes the de facto meaning from here on out.

Unfortunately for your argument, the anarchist movement is what gives the real historical context/meaning to the word anarchist, they are the people calling themselves anarchists! They are the ones defending the term, identifying with it, as i stated in my last post, for you to claim that the anarchist themselves are the ones who dont understand 'anarchy', and that you, and other contemporary capitalists do, is ahistorical and temporally illogical.

A dictionary is not meant to be the way to understanding complex concepts, but rather the basic meaning of fairly uncontroversial words, if a term is controversial, the usefulness of a dictionary definition falls dramatically. Do you go to university? high school? Do you base the arguments in your essays/papers on dictionary definitions? Or do you do research, read-up on the concepts in the words of the innovators of those concepts, learn about the history behind the concepts etc...? or do you simply look at the dictionary, and extrapolate from that single-line or maybe two, a whole system of social organisation?

In the case of anarchism you're doing the latter.



If you look at what the ACTUAL meaning is, not what has become attached to the word (such as with swastika)
An - without arch - ruler (a ruler being someone who exercises political governance)
Nothing more, nothing less.

Problem: Anti-capitalist anarchists are the people who gave the term, 'anarchist' its meaning in the 19th century. Their anti-capitalist beliefs entail the definition of anarchism as an anti-capitalist philosophy, as it is this core feature that has remained with all anarchists that followed.

You don't seem to be understand that the real meaning of words is not found in pages of a dictionary. Yes, there is a word 'anarchy'- this word means 'without rulers' or 'without authority', this word was then used by 19th century anarchists to describe their beliefs. Before this ocurred the term 'anarchy' had no contextual meaning, it did not refer to any specific economic-social organisation of society. It was just a word. Anarchists then gave the word a specific meaning, anarchism/anarchy became a word that meant literally 'no rulers', but also implied a specific socio-economic philosophy. And one that was decidedly ANTI-capitalist.



That would not be "policital authority".

How is a company funded by a tiny minority of capitalists and crime lords, and used to enforce 'law and order', to kill, imprison, and arrest people, not a political authority? It is an example of economic and military power being exercised to control the lives of other people. The people of that society will have to submit to the authority of a police force that protects the interests of capital and the crime bosses. How is that a society 'without rulers', using your vulgar definition of anarchism?



Without a "government", there can not be "political authority".

What a narrow definition of 'political authority' and 'government'. So when a small elite rules over society, economically, with violence in the form of private-armies and police and legally- by controlling the people who enforce law, this small elite has no 'political authority' or control over that society? How is that a society 'without rulers', using your vulgar definition of anarchism?
Abolishing the state does not mean and end to political authority, as long as private property still exists, as long as capitalism still exists. In a capitalist society without a state, the authority/the power over society passes from government bureaucrats to the capitalist ruling class and organised crime.

How would a 'anarchist'-capitalism deal with organised crime? Or crime in general? Who decides what is illegal? Who enforces the law?

Hmmmm, let's see...

Johnny Capitalist owns a large firm that handles, the police force, the judiciary and the running of the prisons in his local area. Johnny also happens to be the most wealthy individual in this area. How is Johnny not a political authority? How is he not a ruler? He holds 'power'/authority in that society. Even your vulgar construction of 'anarchy' is consistent with capitalism.



And before you go blathering on about how it would work, why don't you read up on capitalism as a social-economic philosophy? Too much work? Although I can understand your apprehension, doing said research would make it very clear that true anarchism and true capitalism are directly related. Capitalism can only truly exist without a "government".

Pathetic evasion.


I wonder why you guys are so uptight about banning any dissenting views in the other sections of this BBS. Well, as in real communism, I suppose any dissenters are either censored or eliminated...rather sad and pathetic though. :rolleyes:

I sincerely wanted to gain as much insight as I could just to see what made you lefties tick - but it seems I hit a nerve, and I was kicked out. Doesn't do much for your integrity level I gotta say...


You had a similar whinge in another thread, my response is the same.

This board is a discussion place for revolutionary leftists, anti-communist garbage does not aid that discussion, nor often is it very well written/supported/logical etc. The majority of capitalists who waste their time here no nothing about communism and do not seriously attempt to learn. Their 'critiques' invariably fall into the box labelled 'clichéd arguments'.

And here's a 'newsflash' for you, no communist here gives a fuck what you think about communism. Sorry, if you thought that we actually took your rubbish 'seriously' :o And only a moron would relate their restriction on a board for revolutionary leftist discussion, with an 'inherent' lack of 'free speech' in a non-existant 'communist' society.

[Political_Punk]

This board is a discussion place for revolutionary leftists, anti-communist garbage does not aid that discussion, nor often is it very well written/supported/logical etc. The majority of capitalists who waste their time here no nothing about communism and do not seriously attempt to learn. Their 'critiques' invariably fall into the box labelled 'clichéd arguments'.

And here's a 'newsflash' for you, no communist here gives a fuck what you think about communism. Sorry, if you thought that we actually took your rubbish 'seriously'* :o* And only a moron would relate their restriction on a board for revolutionary leftist discussion, with an 'inherent' lack of 'free speech' in a non-existant 'communist' society.


haha.. you my friend are quite hilarious. It's really something how it doesn't take you commies very long to show your true, angry red colours. Nice.

Yup, like I said, like any leftist society that has approached communism, the dissenters are quickly censored if not eliminated. As said, this online experience perfectly reflects the very intolerant, bully-ish style of communication and interaction that most extreme left-wingers/commies incur on others in real life.

So, just calm down, don't get your pinko panties in a knot, and relax.

I actually think communism is great if you voluntarily would like to live in a small commune somewhere.

But to deny the very basic and fundamental economic laws (via communism) on a world-wide scale is simply a fallacious, impossible fantasy.
Furthermore, I've asked other commies, what if you somehow got anywhere close to taking over the world? What would you do w/ dissenters such as myself? Would you honestly let us live on our own, or like the historical commie figureheads would you jail, assault and murder us to cohearse us?

As you see, my main issue w/ communism is the inherent lack of personal rights an individual has - he is forced to work this mythical "greater good". Collectivism is the name of the game, and if that should mean killing off a minority group for said group, then so be it. You are not allowed to opt out.

Remember, the better off countries in the world aren't truly Capitalist, but are certainly much better off (the working class especially) than any country even approaching your leftist commie ideal. Nope ther may not be any truely communist country, yet anything that even leans that way is simply poverty-stricken, violent and generally a much more dangerous place to live.

Yeah, you don't care what we have to say (so right there you are closing your mind to an alt. POV, showing your ignorance) this also shows by banning us from the other regions of your board you again help fulfill the ideology that commies are oppressive, control freaks, propagandists, and simply cowards for not wanting to hear any dissention.

[novemba]

This is a pointless arguement. I think the problem is simple. Obviously their parents didn't teach them right from left. I believe youre looking for this...

http://www.revolutionaryright.com

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:49 PM
This is a pointless arguement. I think the problem is simple. Obviously their parents didn't teach them right from left. I believe youre looking for this...

http://www.revolutionaryright.com
I'm on another politically-minded (yet very much less propaganda-filled) board:

bbs.freetalklive.com

We welcome all views, political or not.... There is absolutely no censorship, so long as you use your common sense (ie- no nudity, hatred, etc. etc.)

My point is, it's much more free than the regimented/heavily regulated system here.

So why do I stay? I want to try and learn more about the lefties...

[Commie-Pinko]

I don't really care for extremists on either side. I think it's impractical and a bit counterproductive. Extremists never get anything done in society. I love when I go to rightwing forums. They brand me a COmmunist. When I go to leftwing forums, I am usually a fascist. Needless to say I am neither.

[Comrade Hector]

With these capitalist buffoons in this forum, their views give us an insight on how they think, as pathetic as their rants may be.

[Ultra-Violence]

With these capitalist buffoons in this forum, their views give us an insight on how they think, as pathetic as their rants may be.

your right on this but after bieng on this forum for som time you nitce they all think the same!

and its alwys the same arguements and thier always proven wrong its just like clock work!

:hammer:

[quincunx5]

and its alwys the same arguements and thier always proven wrong its just like clock work!


It's always easy to prove them "wrong" by ignoring their points.

[Ultra-Violence]

It's always easy to prove them "wrong" by ignoring their points.

were not the ones igonring its you who ignore our aurguments!

we always answer your but you guys are to hot headed to admit defeat :hammer:

[Commie-Pinko]

were not the ones igonring its you who ignore our aurguments!

we always answer your but you guys are to hot headed to admit defeat


That's the same thing Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists say about Scientists =D

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by Political_Punk+Aug 15 2005, 02:20 AM--> (Political_Punk @ Aug 15 2005, 02:20 AM)
Freedom [email protected] 15 2005, 01:55 AM

Yes, I too want to learn as much as I can by all the major political ideologies...
I recommend you check out http://mises.org to learn more about capitalism and economics.

"[Classical] Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts." - Ludwig von Mises
Ah yes, I am familiar w/ that site...

BTW, what an excellent quote... it makes so much sense...

Capitalists beliefs are based on the laws of economics (ie- supply and demand, the natural state of any economy no matter how big or small).

As compared to communism where they use the purely emotional "evil, greedy capitalists" argument against capitalism. [/b]
You should probably take a look at Capital Vol. 1 - 3 before you make such an absurd comment.

[C_Rasmussen]

I honestly dont have any political standing but its interesting to find out about both sides of the spectrum ;)

[Political_Punk]

It's always easy to prove them "wrong" by ignoring their points.
were not the ones igonring its you who ignore our aurguments!

we always answer your but you guys are to hot headed to admit defeat :hammer:



Ignore? Ignore what?? You ignore the fact that communism means no personal property and always succombing to the "greater good".

And it's interesting, you use the Soviet Union hammer and sickle...so, ok, you'd rather live in and promote such working conditions as the former Soviet Union? fine... you like being poorer and oppressed - that is your choice... likewise:

If you want to live in a commune, do it up.

But for all others who believe in working only for themselves (or to grow our own personal wealth by working for someone else), and to not be forced by a gov't or "greater good" ideal, let us be.

We want personal freedom and property. Communism, by definition does not reflect this... and actually destroys and oppresses this...

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by Political_Punk+Aug 15 2005, 02:20 AM--> (Political_Punk @ Aug 15 2005, 02:20 AM)
Freedom [email protected] 15 2005, 01:55 AM

Yes, I too want to learn as much as I can by all the major political ideologies...
I recommend you check out http://mises.org to learn more about capitalism and economics.

"[Classical] Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts." - Ludwig von Mises
Ah yes, I am familiar w/ that site...

BTW, what an excellent quote... it makes so much sense...

Capitalists beliefs are based on the laws of economics (ie- supply and demand, the natural state of any economy no matter how big or small).

As compared to communism where they use the purely emotional "evil, greedy capitalists" argument against capitalism.

You should probably take a look at Capital Vol. 1 - 3 before you make such an absurd comment.
[/b]

haha... are you denying the laws of economics???

ie- Supply and Demand. That is the very basis for determining the price of any item... to try and force anything else (via gov't imposed price controls) is simply unnatural and counter to anything resembling true economics.

And I am right, the only argument commies use against Capitalism is how some rich companies are corrupt and harm their workers or whatever... ie- fear mongering... sure, that does happen, but that doesn't mean we should implement a system that forces EVERYONE to work for the "greater good".

Ultimately, I believe everyone should have the choice to do business (and work for) for anyone they want too... Communism says "no, you have to work for "the greater good", you have no choice or right to personal property".

Choice is good. Force is not. Period.

[Political_Punk]

With these capitalist buffoons in this forum, their views give us an insight on how they think, as pathetic as their rants may be.

your right on this but after bieng on this forum for som time you nitce they all think the same!

and its alwys the same arguements and thier always proven wrong its just like clock work!


:hammer:


Are you too denying the laws of economics???
It is fact. It's a fact that if everyone wants a gidget, then the price of gidgets will be very high... likewise if everyone is sick of widgets, then those will be low in price. It's irrelevant how much work was put into it in the end, b/c the value is determined by supply and demand.

That is pure, irrefutable fact. You can deny that if you like, but you are simply fooling yourself.

[Commie-Pinko]

[Commie-mode] We don't beeeeeelieeeve in Economics! Plugs ears [/Commie-Mode]


Just kidding. In all seriousness, why can't people just have reasonable opinions? Socialism is bad. It's bad in extreme. Capitalism isn't bad. It's bad in extreme.

Why can't communists be moderate socialists. At least socialists aren't that stonewalled.

[redstar2000]

Why can't communists be moderate socialists?

Perhaps because history has made it clear that "moderate socialists" can't change the fundamental attributes of capitalist society; at best, they "rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic".

Or perhaps we really are "agents of the Devil". http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif


Take your pick. :)

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

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"But to consider matters more broadly: You would be altogether mistaken in fancying that the value of labour or any other commodity whatever is ultimately fixed by supply and demand. Supply and demand regulate nothing but the temporary fluctuations of market prices. They will explain to you why the market price of a commodity rises above or sinks below its value, but they can never account for the value itself. Suppose supply and demand to equilibrate, or, as the economists call it, to cover each other. Why, the very moment these opposite forces become equal they paralyze each other, and cease to work in the one or other direction. At the moment when supply and demand equilibrate each other, and therefore cease to act, the market price of a commodity coincides with its real value, with the standard price round which its market prices oscillate. In inquiring into the nature of that VALUE, we have therefore nothing at all to do with the temporary effects on market prices of supply and demand. The same holds true of wages and of the prices of all other commodities."
- Karl Marx, "Value, Price, and Profit"

[Commie-Pinko]

Ahhh, because if Karl Marx said it: it must obviously be right.

[Ultra-Violence]

Ignore? Ignore what?? You ignore the fact that communism means no personal property and always succombing to the "greater good".

And it's interesting, you use the Soviet Union hammer and sickle...so, ok, you'd rather live in and promote such working conditions as the former Soviet Union? fine... you like being poorer and oppressed - that is your choice... likewise:

If you want to live in a commune, do it up.

But for all others who believe in working only for themselves (or to grow our own personal wealth by working for someone else), and to not be forced by a gov't or "greater good" ideal, let us be.

We want personal freedom and property. Communism, by definition does not reflect this... and actually destroys and oppresses this...

shows how much you know !NOTHING! Poor and Opressed how in communism are you opperssed your free!you have the right to a FREE EDUCATION! you have the right to FREE HEALTH CARE! you have the right to BE WHAT YOU WANNA BE!

and for the like millionth time russia wasnt communist! communism hasnt existed yet! :hammer:


QUOTE


QUOTE
With these capitalist buffoons in this forum, their views give us an insight on how they think, as pathetic as their rants may be.



your right on this but after bieng on this forum for som time you nitce they all think the same!

and its alwys the same arguements and thier always proven wrong its just like clock work!







Are you too denying the laws of economics???
It is fact. It's a fact that if everyone wants a gidget, then the price of gidgets will be very high... likewise if everyone is sick of widgets, then those will be low in price. It's irrelevant how much work was put into it in the end, b/c the value is determined by supply and demand.

That is pure, irrefutable fact. You can deny that if you like, but you are simply fooling yourself.


were in this post did i talk about the laws of economics plz point them out to ME!





:hammer:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by Commie-[email protected] 19 2005, 02:11 AM
Ahhh, because if Karl Marx said it: it must obviously be right.
Have you ever read the book? Have you ever read capital?

Can you refute them?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by *Hippie*@Aug 14 2005, 05:12 PM
I was wondering why someone who is against leftist beliefs would come here and want to argue with us. Chances are they will not change our minds about anything and we won't be able to show them the truth.

So what is the point? What do you Capitalists get out of it? Wouldn't your time be better spent somewhere else? It seems the capitalism/socialism debate is just the same old arguments being made over and over and it just goes around in circles.
This is a good question. I guess that some people have nothing better to do than waste their time on tryign to convert people by using inferior arguments and such. We know that people will only pretty much abandon capitalism at the "last minute," as people tend to shy away from uncomfortable conclusions as long as they can. Most of the people that attack Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky haven't even read them!

[quincunx5]

Most of the people that attack Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky haven't even read them!


Most of the people that praise these figures have not read anything else! And most have not the slightest clue of how Economics works.

Do you actually believe that just by reading their works, one would actually drop all their previous beliefs and adopt theirs?

An intelligent person would read both sides of the argument and then decide which one he favors (the one that makes sense).

[KC]

Most of the people that praise these figures have not read anything else! And most have not the slightest clue of how Economics works.

Do you actually believe that just by reading their works, one would actually drop all their previous beliefs and adopt theirs?

An intelligent person would read both sides of the argument and then decide which one he favors (the one that makes sense).

Not a single person has successfully been able to disprove anything in Capital. If you would like to attempt to, I would love to hear how it turns out. Have you read Capital? Did you read "both sides of the argument"? This would include reading Capital; not the Manifesto.

[quincunx5]

Not a single person has successfully been able to disprove anything in Capital. If you would like to attempt to, I would love to hear how it turns out. Have you read Capital? Did you read "both sides of the argument"? This would include reading Capital; not the Manifesto.


Yes I have read a great deal of books across the spectrum. Marx contradicts his Labor Theory of Value in Volume III. He has been disproved many times - but obviously not by Marxists.

btw,
http://www.conciseguidetoeconomics.com/book/LTV/

[Led Zeppelin]

Marx contradicts his Labor Theory of Value in Volume III.

Böhm-Bawerk's Criticism of Marx (http://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/hilfer/index.htm)

[KC]

Marx contradicts his Labor Theory of Value in Volume III.


Originally posted by Ernest Mandel+--> (Ernest Mandel)A similar mistake is made by Joan Robinson, in her Preface to the second edition of An Essay on Marxian Economics, where she construes a contradiction between the assumptions regarding real wages of Capital Volume 1 and those of Volume 3. In Volume 1, she says, marx assumes that a rising labour productivity leads to a rising rate of exploitation, whereas in Volume 3 he assumes that a rising labour productivity could lead, through a stable rate of exploitation, to a rising rate of real wages and a declining rate of profit. Joan Robinson does not understand that Volumes 1 and 3 of Capital are at different levels of abstraction, deal with different questions, and make different assumptions in order to clarify the specific dynamics which allow answers to these questions.

In Volume 1, Marx examines the relations between Capital and Labour in general, abstracting from the effects of competition between capitalists on the distribution of surplus-value and on the variations of real wages. He therefore assumes initially stable real subsistence wages, in order to show through what mechanics surplus-value is produced, appropriated and increased by capital. In Volume 3 he examines the effects of capitalist competition upon the distribution and redistribution of surplus-value among capitalists, and therefore has to integrate into the analysis the effects of this competition on the rate of exploitation (for example in periods of boom, with a high level of employment). In order to work out the basic answers to these questions, it is perfectly logical to abstract initially from fluctuations in the rate of profit and wages in Volume 1, and to assume initially a stable rate of exploitation in Volume 3, but subsequently to abandon these simplifying hypotheses (Volume 1, Chapter 17; Volume 3, Chapter 14)[/b]


This link you provided is a joke.


If the labor theory of value was correct then a diamond found in a diamond mine would be of no greater value than a rock found right next to it since each would require the same "amount" of labor-time.


Originally posted by Karl Marx: Capital+--> ( Karl Marx: Capital)
The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour-time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productivity of labour. This is determined by a wide range of circumstances; it is determined amongst other things by the workers' average degree of skill, the level of development of science and its technological application, the social organization of the process of production, the extent and effectiveness off the means of production, and the conditions found in the natural environment. For example, the same quantity of labour is present in eight bushels of corn in favourable seasons and in only four bushesl in unfavourable seasons. The same quantity of labour provides more metal in rich mines than in poor. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth's surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a gread deal of labour-time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small volume. Jacob questions whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years ending in 1823 still did not amount to the price of 1 1/2 years' avery produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds represented much more labour, therefore more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would be embodied in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If man succeeded, without much labour, in transforming carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the greater the productivity of labour, the less labour-time required to produce an article, the less the mass of labour crystallized in that article, and the less its value. Inversely [the same is true].[/b]


The labor theory of value is a denial of the well-established law of diminishing marginal utility which states that the value to the consumer falls with additional consumption of the good in question.


Karl Marx: [email protected]
Finally, nothing can be a value without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour and therefore creates no value.


According to the labor theory of value, if a skilled carpenter produces a solid, comfortable chair which is useful for decades in a mere four hours, whereas a klutz in four days produces a chair which collapses with the first attempted use, the latter chair is more valuable. (Marx had an escape hatch for this last dilemma: Only "socially necessary labor" creates value; however, [b]Marx defines socially necessary in terms of the competitive market itself--thus we are right back to the market values Marx so vehemently abhorred!)


Karl Marx: Capital
Socially necessary labour-time is the labour-time required to produce any use-value under the conditions of production normal for a given society and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labour prevalent in that society.


Marx understandably built on Ricardo's theory and concluded that these costs can be traced back to the costs of labor--capital equipment being "frozen labor."

Capital equipment is a product of labour.


But the nature of exchange is such that trade only occurs when there is an inequality in the subjective value of the good received and the good exchanged.

Marx wasn't speaking of the subjective value, or of utility, when he created the labour theory of value. He was merely looking at the value of the item in general; in abstract.


If equality were indeed the basis of exchange, and say an orange was exchanged for a fish due to the equal amount of labor embodied in each, then logically, the two parties would immediately trade the two goods again since they are still equal in labor. This would become a never ending process until the two traders collapsed dead!

I can't believe you provided us with this site seriously.

[quincunx5]

Marx wasn't speaking of the subjective value, or of utility, when he created the labour theory of value. He was merely looking at the value of the item in general; in abstract.


An item has no value in general or in abstract. It's value is subjective. There is NO other way to determine value. A big shiny diamond would be completely useless if 100% of the population thought it was useless.



I can't believe you provided us with this site seriously.


Why is that? One way to argue Marx's logical absurdity is with another logical absurdity.



Socially necessary labour-time is the labour-time required to produce any use-value under the conditions of production normal for a given society and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labour prevalent in that society. - Marx; Capital


The words "normal" and "average degree of skill" are highly amusing. The fact that one does something better than another means nothing, only the "average" is important.


I'll write more later.

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, the LTV may have some value in socialist economics, but since there are 0 socialist economies in the world, the point is rather moot. In capitalist economics, value is determined solely by supply, demand, and the occasional government intervention to over value or undervalue commodities.

[Freedom Works]

There are 0 laissez-faire economies in the world too, and that is what is fucking the place up.

[Osman Ghazi]

No, thats whats preventing the world from going all to shit. Certain markets are best left to the private sector, while others are best left to the public domain, due to the degree of power they give to the wielder, (military, power, water).

The key is to develope competitive public utilites so as to not leave any importnat economic function in a stasis that cant last and isnt helathy.

[Freedom Works]

No, thats whats preventing the world from going all to shit.
Oh really? So why does less government equal more wealth for the common man (and if you don't believe that, you are delusional)?


Certain markets are best left to the private sector, while others are best left to the public domain, due to the degree of power they give to the wielder, (military, power, water).

Ignorance abounds! All markets are best left to the private sector, otherwise they will be inefficient, large, slow moving bureaucracies. Don't think so? Can you name a single streamlined government program?

[Osman Ghazi]

What I want to attempt is a system of regional utilites, run as private companies would be run, but with the revenues accruing to the government and so that the public as a whole can maintain a large degree of control.

For example, in my Province of Canada, Ontario, we recently (2003) privatized our power services. Now, they are running the plants and making a shitload of money, but the investment of having to buy the power plants was a lot, and so they cant afford to increase production of power, so they just buy it from the US. And you know what, nuts to reliable and efficient. There have been more brownouts this year than ever I can remember. Every time I leave the house, I return to find the clocks flashing.


Oh really? So why does less government equal more wealth for the common man (and if you don't believe that, you are delusional)?


You're analysis is so simplistic! Lets see, Oh right, Somalia, the land of no central government is also known as the land of gold and jewels. Just like Western Sahara is one the richest places in the world. It has so little government that its not a country and isnt owned by anyone.

There are other factors involved here. In fact, if we were to look at the most developed countries in the world, we find that there is a strong correlation with a government which defends their interests internationally, as well as laying down strong foundations for the accruing of human capital, (education, public health).

As a case in point, I can tell you that Africa will never develope without outside assisstance from other governemtns, because they are simple too unpredictable and unreliable to make a good investment. Thats what you dont understand. What happens to the places that are too poor to develope for themselves and thus too poor to appear on investors radar screens?

[quincunx5]

The key is to develope competitive public utilites so as to not leave any importnat economic function in a stasis that cant last and isnt helathy.


The government only creates monopolies. How can it establish efficient competitive public utilities without pumping taxpayers money into all the competitors?

The best that the government can do is establish generic criteria and requirements for private/public corporations, giving no single entity an advantage or disadvantage.



Can you name a single streamlined government program?


Ha ha. I was initially thinking tax collection, but then it became obvious to me that that just wasn't so.

[Freedom Works]

In fact, if we were to look at the most developed countries in the world, ....
In fact, if we look at the regressing countries of the world, we find that they are increasing the size of government, which speeds up the regression.


What happens to the places that are too poor to develope for themselves and thus too poor to appear on investors radar screens?
They find a way to make up for it.


Somalia, the land of no central government is also known as the land of gold and jewels.
To compare Somalia to a place like North America is silly. North America is a large bountiful land that is in a great place strategically. But then "government" comes along and steals people's wealth.

[KC]

An item has no value in general or in abstract. It's value is subjective. There is NO other way to determine value. A big shiny diamond would be completely useless if 100% of the population thought it was useless.

Why don't you just read Capital? "It is a tool for understanding the social relations of production, more of a historical and institutional theory than a price theory." (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value))




Why is that? One way to argue Marx's logical absurdity is with another logical absurdity.

So to prove someone is wrong I should use a wrong argument?



The words "normal" and "average degree of skill" are highly amusing. The fact that one does something better than another means nothing, only the "average" is important.


This is explained easily in Capital. Maybe if you read it you'd know that.



Ignorance abounds! All markets are best left to the private sector, otherwise they will be inefficient, large, slow moving bureaucracies. Don't think so? Can you name a single streamlined government program?

And what do you think would happen if space was open to the private sector? Would you want a pepsi symbol on the moon visible from the earth?


The best that the government can do is establish generic criteria and requirements for private/public corporations, giving no single entity an advantage or disadvantage.

So you think there should be different phone companies competing in the same area? Know what that means? More phone lines. Sometimes monopolies are just more efficient than competition.

[quincunx5]

No matter how many times I read Capital, I still think it's wrong. Period.



And what do you think would happen if space was open to the private sector? Would you want a pepsi symbol on the moon visible from the earth?


That would be the kind of thing that would divert people to a different brand, so why would they do that?. I don't really mind if they shine their logo on the dark side of the moon.



So you think there should be different phone companies competing in the same area? Know what that means? More phone lines. Sometimes monopolies are just more efficient than competition.


You obviously do not understand division of labor. There is more to a phone company than installing phone lines. A company can claim to maintain the phone lines in a given region (small as possible), and another company in another region.
They would license their services to the actual switching stations (again multiple distributed companies). New phone lines would be installed only if it was desirable to do so, or if you wanted multiple phone lines.

Your example is terrible since packet switched VOIPv6 technology is emerging - precisely the kind of thing that does not need a central switching station.

Monopolies have no incentive to inovate. Government monopolies are even worse. They will just tax the public to expand their services.

[Freedom Works]

And what do you think would happen if space was open to the private sector? Would you want a pepsi symbol on the moon visible from the earth?
Extreme progress of innovation. Do I want it? Yes. I love what commercialism stands for, progress. I don't like commercials, and I don't watch TV, or listen to radio. There is competition to defeat commercials too, you know.


So you think there should be different phone companies competing in the same area? Know what that means? More phone lines. Sometimes monopolies are just more efficient than competition.
From the point of view of a collectivist, sure. Truthfully, phonelines will phase out soon.

[Osman Ghazi]

But there are certains areas of infrastructure that arent good investments, anmd that the government will always have to build because the builder will have to take a loss.


In fact, if we look at the regressing countries of the world, we find that they are increasing the size of government, which speeds up the regression.


With a few notable exceptions, almost every economy in the world is growing. Which are the the 'regressing' countries again?


They find a way to make up for it.


No, some geographic environments are so hostile to economic activity that they will never be able to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps'. In fact, if you knew anything at all, you would realize that every single economy that has gone from ruin to something, has experienced a dedicated application of other peoples money. That can partially be done by private investment but certain levels of reliable infrastructure need to be in place before companies will consider investing in a place. I mean, would you lend money to someone or a buy a business in a place that had unreliable and unpredictable power supplies, no clean or running water, roads that are washed out half the year, people constantly sick from malaria, or dead from HIV/AIDS? I wouldn't.

Besides, if you look at the developed economies today, almost all recieved an aid package of sorts: Europe with the Marshall Plan, Japan, South Korea. There are others who developed through free-trade zones, but what good is a free-trade zone to a landlocked country? It doesn't make any sense to do business there, does it? They will almost never be able to develope profitable export industries. However, the major investment that will transfrom Africa will be the Green Revolution that brings high yield crops, meaning that there is enough food for the families to eat, and that means they can afford to send their kids to school to buy anti-malarial be nets and screen doors to reduce the transmission of malaria, condoms to reduce transmission of HIV/AIDS.

But without a jumpstart, they are stuck right where they are, kept from developing economically, mostly for reasons of geography.


The government only creates monopolies. How can it establish efficient competitive public utilities without pumping taxpayers money into all the competitors?


My basic propoistion, to use the example of power is to create regionally based utilities, centred around the power plants. For example, each power plant will be operated by its own regional utility, and they will supply power to a certain area, and they are responsoble for maintining the power grids in those areas. However, each area will be able to switch over to another utility if they can get a better price, or if it has greater reliability. Honestly, the companies that run our power now found a way to make them highly profitable within a year or so, so it cant be that diffiuclt to harness that same expertise in running the exact same plants, except with public control over them and publicly accrueing revenues. What would have to end is not public or government control over these utilities, but political control. Politicians that can manipulate these utilities in order to get votes, will. And we simply shouldn't allow that degree of control to be exerted under our watchful eyes.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 23 2005, 11:51 PM
There are 0 laissez-faire economies in the world too, and that is what is fucking the place up.
Had you even bothered reading what Lenin had to say on Imperialism, you would realize that monopoly capitalism and imperialism are natural stages of capitalism. laissez-faire is an impossiblity, and it would seriously screw things up even more than they are now.

[quincunx5]

Had you even bothered reading what Lenin had to say on Imperialism, you would realize that monopoly capitalism and imperialism are natural stages of capitalism. laissez-faire is an impossiblity, and it would seriously screw things up even more than they are now.


Well if Lenin says so, it must be true!

[Publius]

Not a single person has successfully been able to disprove anything in Capital.

The Austrian economists did.

[Hachi-Go]

I don't think I'll ever change peoples views drastically. What I hope to do is make discussion more civilized here on both sides. Pointing out factuall errors so that some day, we might agree to disagree. But for the record, I'm anti-capitalist as well.