Capitalism.org?

[OleMarxco]

....for the system we all loathe. Of course, except for all o'y'all beatches in OI, where'yo preachin' it shit-uppa da air. Bootlicka's. That's 'course I posted it here, so also yo losas clingin' onto the American Dream, can continue to believe -EVERYONE- can have personal success in a system, made by the burgerouise - FOR the burgerouise. Exclusively. Don't let a few "cinderalla stories" fool you elsehow....they're there 'cuz they're in the pocket of some other, bigger, "Cinderella". And on the back's of other, potentional - Cinderella-wannabie's.

Capitalism.Org/ (http://www.Capitalism.org/).....
Pssh. And their definition of "Collectivisim" is? "Invidual's a slave of the larger group, the few servin' the many" (Like as if that's a bad thing, eh, a minority a slave for a majority...of the people? Atleast that's a negative to how it's now, although I loathe all Slavism), sort of. RIIIGHT...and sharin' yo properity with everyone else is EVIL, because the society's better is BAD FOR BUISNESS. Heck, they even support Selfishness ;)

[Individual]

Bill Cosby said something about your kind..

I support selfishness too.

I wouldn't want to see precious commodities go to waste on that; knowledge of yours.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:37 PM
....for the system we all loathe. Of course, except for all o'y'all beatches in OI, where'yo preachin' it shit-uppa da air. Bootlicka's. That's 'course I posted it here, so also yo losas clingin' onto the American Dream, can continue to believe -EVERYONE- can have personal success in a system, made by the burgerouise - FOR the burgerouise. Exclusively. Don't let a few "cinderalla stories" fool you elsehow....they're there 'cuz they're in the pocket of some other, bigger, "Cinderella". And on the back's of other, potentional - Cinderella-wannabie's.

Capitalism.Org/ (http://www.Capitalism.org/).....
Pssh. And their definition of "Collectivisim" is? "Invidual's a slave of the larger group, the few servin' the many" (Like as if that's a bad thing, eh, a minority a slave for a majority...of the people? Atleast that's a negative to how it's now, although I loathe all Slavism), sort of. RIIIGHT...and sharin' yo properity with everyone else is EVIL, because the society's better is BAD FOR BUISNESS. Heck, they even support Selfishness ;)
what does "o'y'all" mean?

anyway...

yah, communism's collectivism - Under a commie society, no matter what you do, you are always forced to work for this "greater good", but at the same time you have no intrinsic rights. Therefore if 51% decided the other 49 had to become slaves, then so be it... Democracy blows.

unlike capitalism where everyone is seen as an indvidual, and to survive, they have to work for themselves. Sure, you can start up a charity if you'd like, but you are never forced to give any of your earnings.

Forced charity isn't charity - it's robbery. Such is the ideology of communism.

...hey, I mean, unless you start up a commune in the woods somewhere, that's great. Go for it. Just don't you dare try and force it on an int'l scale (well, there is indeed a force out there trying to do that very thing). Regardless, you can't go against the laws of economics (supply and demand) without a fight.

[Commie-Pinko]

Are you against all taxation? That's taking away money from others. I don't think people should be forced to work. No. I don't think people should get stuff taken from them merely to give to others, but I wouldn't want a society in which we totally relied on charity either.

I think people should have to work for what they have just as much as you do. I do it, probably as you do, but I also think it's my duty to make sure people who are trying to work, can have a minimally decent life.

From looking through my history texts at the charity-based 18th and 19th century, it doesn't seem to cut it. Even with lots of opportunity to give to charity, there simply wasn't, and now that the population is greater, wouldn't be enough. There needs to be some taxation for the welfare of others. I don't think welfare should be permanent, nor do I think everyone should have "equal" wealth status, I believe in minor redistrubtion of wealth through progressive income taxes. I like social programmes, scholarships, etc, social security, welfare etc. I think the whole communist *heavy progressive* is nonsense though. People should keep most of what they earn.

Not everyone should have things provided by the state. That's not a good system. It breeds laziness. You should only give aid to those who honestly need it. You just need it so people aren't starving and sick.




I think Capitalism.org is a bit biased. I usually only trust EDU sources for information. Government webpages and these private organizations are often very, very wanked out.

[Publius]

....for the system we all loathe. Of course, except for all o'y'all beatches in OI, where'yo preachin' it shit-uppa da air. Bootlicka's. That's 'course I posted it here, so also yo losas clingin' onto the American Dream, can continue to believe -EVERYONE- can have personal success in a system, made by the burgerouise - FOR the burgerouise. Exclusively. Don't let a few "cinderalla stories" fool you elsehow....they're there 'cuz they're in the pocket of some other, bigger, "Cinderella". And on the back's of other, potentional - Cinderella-wannabie's.

Capitalism.Org/ (http://www.Capitalism.org/).....
Pssh. And their definition of "Collectivisim" is? "Invidual's a slave of the larger group, the few servin' the many" (Like as if that's a bad thing, eh, a minority a slave for a majority...of the people? Atleast that's a negative to how it's now, although I loathe all Slavism), sort of. RIIIGHT...and sharin' yo properity with everyone else is EVIL, because the society's better is BAD FOR BUISNESS. Heck, they even support Selfishness ;)

NO shit.

It's Randian trash.

They don't speak for me and many other capitalists.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:48 PM




yah, communism's collectivism - Under a commie society, no matter what you do, you are always forced to work for this "greater good", but at the same time you have no intrinsic. Therefore if 51% decided the other 49 had to become slaves, then so be it... Democracy blows.

why the hell would they vote to enslave half the population? part of the reason people would obtain communism is because they are setting themselves free from capitalism, its not very logical that they would put slavery into progress after this. this is so unrealistic and outrages, would you rather have your decisions made for you? do you like fascism?


you arent forced to do anything in communism, if you want to work alone for currency, gather will all your fellow like minded people and do that, but expect no help or benifits from the communist communities. you are forced to give away what you make, you give away what you make so you can recieve what others contribute, its called mutual aid. what you contribute ISNT TAKEN, you agree that by doing this job, you will reap the benifits of others doing their jobs.


Forced charity isn't charity - it's robbery. Such is the ideology of communism.

IT IS NOT FORCED!!! the proletariat chooses to set themselves free.


...hey, I mean, unless you start up a commune in the woods somewhere, that's great. Go for it. Just don't you dare try and force it on an int'l scale (well, there is indeed a force out there trying to do that very thing). Regardless, you can't go against the laws of economics (supply and demand) without a fight.

WE CAN GO AGAINST YOUR LAWS OF ECONOMICS, AND WE WILL! did your god write these laws :lol: why do you hold them so high? what makes them legitimate? We are prepared to fight, and we are fighting now, and you will not win.

[Commie-Pinko]

THe problem is, these laws are real, can be observed, and are independent of human will. They occure when people get together and want to trade. You can try to ignore them, but that doesn't mean they are going to disappear and go away.

Demand and Supply are not subjective concepts. They are objective ones. Fighting against the laws of supply and demand is similiar too, but not exactly the same as, trying to say the laws of gravity are wrong.

Economic laws govern how most people act in political economy.

[Political_Punk]

[b]
Are you against all taxation? That's taking away money from others. I don't think people should be forced to work. No. I don't think people should get stuff taken from them merely to give to others, but I wouldn't want a society in which we totally relied on charity either.


I am for a republic form of gov't (a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country)- what the US is supposed to be to this day - of course now it's a bastardized form of the former system, and is a mixed economy. In addition, I am for a gov't that recognizes that human rights are intrinsic and as such the gov't could not give or take away said rights. A consitutionally based system. You would only ever need 2 laws in such a system:
1. Do not infringe on people or their property
2. Do all that you've agreed to do (Contract Law)

Following those 2 laws will "solve" 99% (ie- an overwhelmingly vast majority) of problems in any population.



I think people should have to work for what they have just as much as you do. I do it, probably as you do, but I also think it's my duty to make sure people who are trying to work, can have a minimally decent life.


We agree their - for the most part. Under a republic gov't or an individualistic form of gov't there would be no social assistance. But at the same time taxes would be much, much lower (only ones to pay for a justice system and police force, possibly roads). It is so foolish now that they recognize a "poverty line", yet people below it are still taxed!! Unbelievable. I would suggest completely eliminating all income tax for people making under 25,000 (or so). If people have more money in their pocket - they can afford to save more, and have some for an emergency if need be.
Obviously something like Social Security wouldn't even exist in the first place (look where it is now, in such serious financial trouble)



From looking through my history texts at the charity-based 18th and 19th century, it doesn't seem to cut it. Even with lots of opportunity to give to charity, there simply wasn't, and now that the population is greater, wouldn't be enough. There needs to be some taxation for the welfare of others. I don't think welfare should be permanent, nor do I think everyone should have "equal" wealth status, I believe in minor redistrubtion of wealth through progressive income taxes. I like social programmes, scholarships, etc, social security, welfare etc. I think the whole communist *heavy progressive* is nonsense though. People should keep most of what they earn.


Ok, so you're certainly for a lesser form of communism, or at least, aren't quite as left-leaning as many on here. I know what you mean, I would be concerned about the bottom sector of society as well - but as shown, even they are taxed heavily currently (I am Canadian, so of course, I can only speak for my country).
I will disagree w/ you on the "progressive" (more like regressive) tax, b/c it discourages production and self-improvement. If I'm working very hard at sales, but realize if I work too hard, the gov't will take even more from me, I will obviously be deterred from going to my full potential. I believe in a gov't that encourages personal strength and responsibility - not working for the collective "good".



Not everyone should have things provided by the state. That's not a good system. It breeds laziness. You should only give aid to those who honestly need it. You just need it so people aren't starving and sick.

You're right - having too much given to you certainly does breed laziness.

So, to sum up, under capitalism (or individualism) no one person is forced to do anything, at all, ever. Obviously though, if you want to survive, you will have to find a job and work for yourself. But you will never feel pressure or contempt from anyone else b/c your output will not affect them.
also, knowing there isn't a social safety you can fall back on makes you want to work that much harder, always keeping yourselt at your full potential. Furthermore, there will still be charities (and charitable acts put forth even by profitable firms - such as what occurs today).

I know, I hear you all say "well under communism, you won't have to work...etc. etc.". Well, by you not working you are automatically hurting everyone else (the greater good). And yes, eventually you will be forced by others or at the very least be ostracized b/c you aren't working. Not so under capitalism, I really don't care how little or much my neighbour does b/c given the individualist system, he can not impede my own personal progress.

I simply prefer a system where you are completely responsible for only yourself - and when succesful, you can feel even greater pride knowing you were ultimately responsible for your own success.

[Political_Punk]

why the hell would they vote to enslave half the population? part of the reason people would obtain communism is because they are setting themselves free from capitalism, its not very logical that they would put slavery into progress after this. this is so unrealistic and outrages, would you rather have your decisions made for you? do you like fascism?


Yes, I did give an extreme example to illustrate my point.
Ok, so if not 51/49... then 60/40? or 75/25? Given that communism is simply a form of collectivism, then there are no personal rights and the "greater good" can decide to do what it pleases to the minority. That is mob-rule, and I think is self destructive.
Also you are somehow equating slavery w/ capitalization. A slave driver would not exist in a purely capitalist society. Word would get around that said owner is a slave driver - the place would get a bad name, and eventually people would stop doing business, and workers would stop applying to such a place. Sooner or later the business would fail. You have to understand that under capitalism since everyone is free to work wherever they want and do business w/ whomever they want, they are not controlled by any "authority"/gov't figure. They may come and go as they please, and they never have to worry about working for a "greater good"; only for themself.



you arent forced to do anything in communism, if you want to work alone for currency, gather will all your fellow like minded people and do that, but expect no help or benifits from the communist communities. you are forced to give away what you make, you give away what you make so you can recieve what others contribute, its called mutual aid. what you contribute ISNT TAKEN, you agree that by doing this job, you will reap the benifits of others doing their jobs.

ok, so that's fine - and I think sure, if you want to do that on a small scale, do it up. But I believe many communists want this sort of thing on a worldwide scale - that simply will not work.



Forced charity isn't charity - it's robbery. Such is the ideology of communism.


IT IS NOT FORCED!!! the proletariat chooses to set themselves free.

Specifically, what I meant was that if your implementing this on a worldwide scale you will have a very notable number of people who do not wish to partake in communism, yet if the whole world lives in such a manner, the masses could easily vote to force the minorities to work for the "greater good".
Or, will you seriously allow a capitalist society to exist without any interference??


WE CAN GO AGAINST YOUR LAWS OF ECONOMICS, AND WE WILL! did your god write these laws :lol: why do you hold them so high? what makes them legitimate?

You can also try jumping off the cliff and fighting the laws of gravity, but you will surely die. Did God write these laws? It all depends, are you atheist or not? Regardless, the laws of supply and demand are the very basis of economics, that is why I hold them so high. The reason they are so legitimate is b/c they are responsible for the greatest level of personal wealth in the world (ie- look at any generally indivualist/capitalist type of country (like Canada, US or UK) and compare it to a more leftist/collectivist/communist-style country (like Cuba, China or N. Korea). It is quite clear which ones are better off... Now just relax, before you shout "well, there's no communist countries in existence today anyway". Ok, so they aren't true communist ones - likewise, there are no true capitalist ones either, but both lean one way or the other. Given the better living conditions and greater freedoms in the more capitalist ones, why would anyone want to live on the other (leftist/communist) side of the spectrum? To each their own I suppose.
And I'm way ahead of you, b/c I just know you're about to say, "well, look at the company owner in your rich capitalist society, they are oppressive and hurt the worker". Again, in the more capitalist societies, the workers are actually freer, much more highly-paid and happier. Not convinced? ask any sweatshop worker in a leftist country, making 30 cents an hour. How are companies able to get away w/ such conditions in these countries? It is simply b/c of the heavy gov't regulation keeping operating costs high, w/ no regards for any intrinsic form of human rights. As noted, such a company would not exist in a capitalist one (and yes, we have some lower paying ones over here, but even the dirtiest macdonald's jobs is a luxury compared to most slave labour conditions overseas).



We are prepared to fight, and we are fighting now, and you will not win.

Fight? I don't want to fight... Like I said, I really don't care how you live your life, so long as you aren't affecting or forcing me how to live mine. Under a true republic, you are free to live and deal w/ whomever you want, there is no need to fight. Again, if you don't like your boss, you quit, ostracize them, and spread the word.
ohhh I see now your true colours are shining through, you would not tolerate any dissenters in a communist world, but would force your will on others. That is simply totalitarian and shows no regard for any type of equality. Why would I want to live in such a society?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Ok, so if not 51/49... then 60/40? or 75/25? Given that communism is simply a form of collectivism, then there are no personal rights and the "greater good" can decide to do what it pleases to the minority. That is mob-rule, and I think is self destructive.
Also you are somehow equating slavery w/ capitalization. A slave driver would not exist in a purely capitalist society. Word would get around that said owner is a slave driver - the place would get a bad name, and eventually people would stop doing business, and workers would stop applying to such a place. Sooner or later the business would fail. You have to understand that under capitalism since everyone is free to work wherever they want and do business w/ whomever they want, they are not controlled by any "authority"/gov't figure. They may come and go as they please, and they never have to worry about working for a "greater good"; only for themself.

so its ok if we pick rich people to lead us but not lead ourselves, makes perfect sense :lol: mob rule, you think of it as people out on a witch hunt eh? i beg to differ.

Slavery with capitalism, youve never heard the term wage slavery :lol: yes what you describe is going to happen its called the proletarian revolution, except your buisness is capitalism. i beg to differ, the proletariat is forced to work for a certain wage, true you can choose where to work if you have an education which most poor people CANT AFFORD! What is with you and this greater good, you think its bad that everyone would contribute with productive work such as providing everyone with food to eat, clothes to wear, and a place to stay as bad? :o and the common worker works for the boss no themselves.


ok, so that's fine - and I think sure, if you want to do that on a small scale, do it up. But I believe many communists want this sort of thing on a worldwide scale - that simply will not work.

WHY???


Specifically, what I meant was that if your implementing this on a worldwide scale you will have a very notable number of people who do not wish to partake in communism, yet if the whole world lives in such a manner, the masses could easily vote to force the minorities to work for the "greater good".
Or, will you seriously allow a capitalist society to exist without any interference??

No im not saying we will allow a capitalist society to exist with communism in worldwide effect, IM SAYING IT CANT EXIST. Who are you going to get to work in your factories with bosses when workers can run their workplace. Who are you going to sell your goods to when everyone else gets theres for 4/5 hours of productive work 4/5 days a week? That beats your system. Not only will we produce more, we will do it with less work!


Regardless, the laws of supply and demand are the very basis of economics, that is why I hold them so high. The reason they are so legitimate is b/c they are responsible for the greatest level of personal wealth in the world (ie- look at any generally indivualist/capitalist type of country (like Canada, US or UK) and compare it to a more leftist/collectivist/communist-style country (like Cuba, China or N. Korea). It is quite clear which ones are better off...

Who has the wealth in america, a very small percentage of people. when i look around my town i see the burnt out mills where 6000 people lost their jobs. then i travel 45 minutes away to yuppie land and see people riding in hummers, living in very large and unpractical homes, while i see a homless man on the street who doesnt have anything to eat. You tell me this country is wealthy, yes, yes it is, but the workers are not the ones who have that wealth. China is captialist, there are wealthy people there, as there are mostly poor people making shoes/clothing/etc for america in a sweatshop. And does america allow this YES, because its cheaper than having them made in desirable conditions and having to deal wtih a union. I say they both are undesireable, thats why i advocate communism.


You can also try jumping off the cliff and fighting the laws of gravity, but you will surely die. Did God write these laws? It all depends, are you atheist or not? And I'm way ahead of you, b/c I just know you're about to say, "well, look at the worker in your rich capitalist society, they are oppressive and hurt the worker". Again, in the more capitalist societies, the workers are actually freer, much more highly-paid and happier. Not convinced ask any sweatshop worker in a leftist country, making 30 cents an hour.

Ask any fast food, minimum wage worker if they are happy. Ask my mother who has a decent paying job but BUSTS HER ASS ALL DAY, if she is happy with doing that ammount of work. THE ANSWER IS NO. We are paid more than those in China, but that has nothing to do with captialism, its because of unionization! If we didnt resist the boss would pay us a starvation wage! And as to my previous answer above, sweatshop conditions are prominent in captialism, not this country, just the ones we exploit through free trade.


Yet, I see your true colours are shining through, you would not tolerate any dissenters in a communist world, but would force your will on others. That is simply totalitarian and shows no regard for any type of equality.

actually im rather not into some of the ideas of class supression. i would not tolerate armed dissent by some mercenary army of the reactionary capitalists threatening our new way of living. but you are free to speak your mind as you wish and live as you wish. but if you dont take part in productive work as a member of society, dont expect to recieve mutual aid from anyone. hmmm totalitarian refers to the rule of a one party government of the state, i do not support a "state" nor do i support political parties, therfore its not totalitarian, there is no fucking state. equality? yes there will be equality, in communism everyone will have something to eat when they are hungry, clothing and place to stay, and total control of their workplace and community! In communism the people will control everything, not a party, not a leader, the people. We dont need your politicans to make decisions (in their interest) for us.

You are confused as to what communism is, you seem to think its some sort of stalinist state, but its not. i suggest you read the conquest of bread, shit read the communist manifesto before you start argueing against something you are not informed correctly about.

[bombeverything]

Given that communism is simply a form of collectivism, then there are no personal rights and the "greater good" can decide to do what it pleases to the minority. That is mob-rule, and I think is self destructive.

So you believe in minority rule instead? Minority rule is self-destructive as it hinders individuality itself. Freedom and equality are not incompatable as you seem to be suggesting. On the contrary, one is necessary for the realisation of the other.


Specifically, what I meant was that if your implementing this on a worldwide scale you will have a very notable number of people who do not wish to partake in communism, yet if the whole world lives in such a manner, the masses could easily vote to force the minorities to work for the "greater good".
Or, will you seriously allow a capitalist society to exist without any interference??

The people will oppose any exploitation that still exists, and rightly so! Are you saying that people should not fight for their rights? By the way, voting is only possible in a representative democracy. Real communism is stateless. You are thinking of authoritarian socialism, not communism.


Regardless, the laws of supply and demand are the very basis of economics, that is why I hold them so high. The reason they are so legitimate is b/c they are responsible for the greatest level of personal wealth in the world (ie- look at any generally indivualist/capitalist type of country (like Canada, US or UK) and compare it to a more leftist/collectivist/communist-style country (like Cuba, China or N. Korea). It is quite clear which ones are better off... Now just relax, before you shout "well, there's no communist countries in existence today anyway". Ok, so they aren't true communist ones - likewise, there are no true capitalist ones either, but both lean one way or the other. Given the better living conditions and greater freedoms in the more capitalist ones, why would anyone want to live on the other (leftist/communist) side of the spectrum?

Maybe because they actually care that there are people starving to death as a direct result of this economic system? Obviously this system would lead to personal wealth: it is production based on profit, rather than the needs of the people. This results in longer hours for workers, lower pay and high levels of unemployment. You talk about supply and demand. Why don't you think about this a little more:

a) People starve not because there is not enough food, but because there is too much of it.

b) Because there is too much of it, manufacture is cut down, throwing thousands out of work.

c) These people then lose their buying capacity. This results in even higher unemployment.

If this sounds rational to you, you must be ignorant.


Fight? I don't want to fight... Like I said, I really don't care how you live your life, so long as you aren't affecting or forcing me how to live mine. Under a true republic, you are free to live and deal w/ whomever you want, there is no need to fight. Again, if you don't like your boss, you quit, ostracize them, and spread the word. ohhh I see now your true colours are shining through, you would not tolerate any dissenters in a communist world, but would force your will on others. That is simply totalitarian and shows no regard for any type of equality. Why would I want to live in such a society

You don't have to fight, your wealth is protected by your beloved ruling elite.

[bombeverything]

That is mob-rule, and I think is self destructive.

Do you believe that "human nature" is innately bad? If so, I would like to see you prove this.

By the way, even if this was the case, why leave the power in the hands of the few?

[quincunx5]

true you can choose where to work if you have an education which most poor people CANT AFFORD!


Poor people in industrial nations can't go to the public library or the commercial book store, and sit down to read? You really don't like to give poor people any credit.



Who has the wealth in america, a very small percentage of people. when i look around my town i see the burnt out mills where 6000 people lost their jobs. then i travel 45 minutes away to yuppie land and see people riding in hummers, living in very large and unpractical homes, while i see a homless man on the street who doesnt have anything to eat. You tell me this country is wealthy, yes, yes it is, but the workers are not the ones who have that wealth.


Maybe technological progress has reduced the number of mills it takes to feed the country. Why don't you blame increase of productivity? Or the shift of the economy to other things?

The people driving the hummers are not workers?

Have you spoken to this homeless man?



And does america allow this YES, because its cheaper than having them made in desirable conditions and having to deal wtih a union.


Union = Business. Business don't deal with businesses that hurt their bottom line.

[violencia.Proletariat]

ok, ill go read a few books on economics and the stock market at the local library then apply at a stock tradeing company. Im sorry i should have refraised my statement, POOR PEOPLE CANT AFFORD A DEGREE.



Maybe technological progress has reduced the number of mills it takes to feed the country. Why don't you blame increase of productivity? Or the shift of the economy to other things?

The people driving the hummers are not workers?

Have you spoken to this homeless man?

the company sold out to mexico, where its cheaper to make the cloth goods. OVERPRODCUCTION MY ASS, there are thousands if not millions of people who could use good clothing, they just dont have money for it.

Hmmm, i dont think the average person can afford a 50,000 dollar urban assualt vehicle.

Not this man specifically, but others yes.


Union = Business. Business don't deal with businesses that hurt their bottom line.

well yes most unions in america today are mostly reformist and work agaisnt striking workers, but im not talking about these unions. Im speaking of solidarity, a one big union, IWW. But to what we were talking about, if it werent for organized workers the pay would be starvation wage, the workday would still be 12 hours, conditions terrible.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 04:40 AM
Poor people in industrial nations can't go to the public library or the commercial book store, and sit down to read? You really don't like to give poor people any credit.



This hardly equals freedom. Most poor people would be kicked out of a commercial bookstore if they tried to read the books without buying them. Clearly these people could not afford these books.

If we didn't give poor people any credit we would not be communists seeing that we believe that they have the capacity to run society by themselves, for themselves, from the bottom up [rather than being unemployed or as workers having everything that they produce stolen from them].

[Political_Punk]

Ok, we are going in circles here.

I will try and point out my major criticisms of communism (for the ump-teenth time)

first off, I am NOT for majority rule.. or minority rule... or democracy at all! I am an individualist and I believe everyone is born w/ inalienable rights, that no gov't or org. can grant or worse yet, take them away, ok?

Yet, communism (a form of collectivism) states that under a such a system everyone is forced by the will of the "common good". It believes human rights are extrinsic. That's why I keep coming up w/ my percentage examples - b/c a majority of any number could simply decide it's for the "greater good" that the minority be forced to do something. I say that if we believe in intrinsic human rights, and individualism, this, by definition can not occur.

When I pointed out generally capitalist countries are better off than generally commie ones, nate completely dodged (or simply missed my point) that such an economy is simply better for the workers and society in general. He then compared apples to oranges and mentioned the economy within a capitalist-style gov't, and how difficult and tough it is to work. Ok, wages are set based on market value, and you are quite wrong it's not purely b/c of unions. In fact (for Canada specifically, at least) most companies do NOT have a union, but our skilled workers are still relatively highly paid? Why? B/c of supply and demand, period.
You don't understand, capitalism is realistic it does not promise equal living conditions for everyone, that is competely unrealistic and impossible. It promises ultimate choice (w/ NO gov't interference) of where you want to work and what you want to do. No one said it's going to be easy.
I'll tell you right now, personal profit is the best motivation to get a worker's maximum output. I can speak personally for that, b/c I worked in a factory where if I produced x amount more / hr. my wage would increase to reflect. Yet, if the boss had of told me, well it doesn't matter how hard you work, you're still only getting x amount / hr. Actually, I have worked for a flat wage as well, I most certainly did NOT work as hard? Why? b/c the motivation just wasn't as strong. I don't know if you work or not, but money does indeed talk, my friend.

Furthermore, at that very same job, just a few months before the company owner raised all entry level workers wages automatically by 25%!!! Why? B/c the work itself is very difficult (labour job, in a giant freezer) and he realized he wasn't able to attain and retain people for a lower wage, so, without a union, he increased the wages. That is the essence of capitalism. Supply and Demand. In that case there was a short supply of workers, so the boss made the job more enticing by raising the wages. There is no need for an outside org. or gov't to force anyone... ultimately, what's good for the company is good for its workers.

Furthermore, nate gave the example about the factory shutting down laying off hundreds of workers (I believe). Ok, do you understand that stringent gov't regulations, taxes and laws restrict and suck the resources from any given company? I am not saying one shouldn't be forced to respect a worker's right to safety, but, I am saying that there are far too many regulations and taxes out there, and this harms any given company. Also, do you understand that if the demand for the product could have simply diminished?



And, Bombeverything, I do not at all believe human nature is innately bad - quite the opposite, I believe we are all innately good. Yet it seems to me that communists believe that people are innately selfish, exploitative and negative - you should ask nate that same question.

PS- I like your quote. Makes sense to me.

So, to sum up, I am certainly for anyone living how they please, but don't miscontrue me, I am not for forcing one group to give to another, or to work for the "greater good" - that is the essence of communism. If you live under a communist-state you have no choice but to have your wages garnished for the "greater good". Like I said, I'm fine w/ charity, but forced charity isn't charity - it's robbery.
The essence of capitalism is one of individual's intrinsic rights and freedom (w/ no hinderance from gov't's or anyone) to tell them how to live, so long as they do not harm anyone else or their property. Furthermore, you can not guarantee equality, by nature, things are inequal - it is simply impossible to impose such a belief system on a very large scale. A backwoods commune? Sure... it could work... but, a world-wide commune? I'm afraid not - too many are driven by their own personal goals, and no one else's. People like to ultimately dependant on themselves and no one else for survival.

[quincunx5]

ok, ill go read a few books on economics and the stock market at the local library then apply at a stock tradeing company. Im sorry i should have refraised my statement, POOR PEOPLE CANT AFFORD A DEGREE.


Nice hyperbole. Don't jump to conclusions, take small strides.

Capitalism teaches you that progress is achieved in small increments.

Communists tell you that anything is possible. If you can't make leaps it's because of Capitalism.

A degree is not necessarily required. I'm getting along just fine without one.

Companies fire highly educated idiots all the time. Not to mention the companies run by people without degrees.



the company sold out to mexico, where its cheaper to make the cloth goods. OVERPRODCUCTION MY ASS, there are thousands if not millions of people who could use good clothing, they just dont have money for it.


millions of people where? How did they earn good clothing?



Hmmm, i dont think the average person can afford a 50,000 dollar urban assualt vehicle.


Only if they try to pay in one big chunk. Ever heard of financing?



Not this man specifically, but others yes.


Care to share?



But to what we were talking about, if it werent for organized workers the pay would be starvation wage, the workday would still be 12 hours, conditions terrible.


Facts? It's always easy to say what could have happend.



This hardly equals freedom. Most poor people would be kicked out of a commercial bookstore if they tried to read the books without buying them. Clearly these people could not afford these books.


Nice selective arguing. I tell you public libraries and bookstores, and you choose only the latter. I have never been kicked out of a book store for reading. You must live under some oppressive regime. Have you been to a modern bookstore lately?
A lot of them serve coffee and provide WiFi access. Sounds like they want you to stay and read!



If we didn't give poor people any credit we would not be communists seeing that we believe that they have the capacity to run society by themselves, for themselves, from the bottom up [rather than being unemployed or as workers having everything that they produce stolen from them].


Edit: IF you gave them credit, you'd see that they don't need your sympathy.

[Political_Punk]

But to what we were talking about, if it werent for organized workers the pay would be starvation wage, the workday would still be 12 hours, conditions terrible.

No, in our generally capitalist society MOST companies are NOT unionized, yet they still pay a much much better wage than an equivalent company in a more socialist style of gov't. Why can you not make this parallel? It is so clear. It is thanks to the economic law of supply and demand.
As I've shown in my last post companies compete and offer higher wages and greater working conditions to entice workers to their workforce.
To think all business owners are corrupt, oppressive and evil is completely ignorant and just plain wrong. Period. The smart ones know that what's best for the worker is also best for the company and vice versa.

[JazzRemington]

I just liek how it says, "Capitalism.org is the website for the moral social system: laissez-faire capitalism" (my emphasis).

[quincunx5]

The smart ones know that what's best for the worker is also best for the company and vice versa.


I absolutely agree. I would like to share an example:

My company provides free food. Everyday there's an informal election on what food to get. Someone ends up ordering and picking up the food - usually the office manager.

What is the incentive? To have everyone eat at approximately the same time, so that we can all cooperatively work at other times. Only one person looses work time to pick up the food, while the other ones are still working.

The alternative is to have everyone loose time deciding, ordering, and picking up.
We would be less productive if we all ate at different times.

There is a productivity gained y providing free food.

That sounds like smarts to me.

[Commie-Pinko]

The fact that they think Unrestricted Laissez Faire Capitalism is moral sent me hurling from my shoppingmall-purchased computer chair in laughter. They are doing an aweful lot of masturbating to Ayn Rand.

Capitalism is good, but not like the Ivory Tower Capitalism.Org makes it out to be.

[Clutch]

1. What is capitalism? Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.

What. The. Fuck?

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:01 AM
Ok, we are going in circles here.

I will try and point out my major criticisms of communism (for the ump-teenth time)

first off, I am NOT for majority rule.. or minority rule... or democracy at all! I am an individualist and I believe everyone is born w/ inalienable rights, that no gov't or org. can grant or worse yet, take them away, ok?

Yet, communism (a form of collectivism) states that under a such a system everyone is forced by the will of the "common good". It believes human rights are extrinsic. That's why I keep coming up w/ my percentage examples - b/c a majority of any number could simply decide it's for the "greater good" that the minority be forced to do something. I say that if we believe in intrinsic human rights, and individualism, this, by definition can not occur.

When I pointed out generally capitalist countries are better off than generally commie ones, nate completely dodged (or simply missed my point) that such an economy is simply better for the workers and society in general. He then compared apples to oranges and mentioned the economy within a capitalist-style gov't, and how difficult and tough it is to work. Ok, wages are set based on market value, and you are quite wrong it's not purely b/c of unions. In fact (for Canada specifically, at least) most companies do NOT have a union, but our skilled workers are still relatively highly paid? Why? B/c of supply and demand, period.
You don't understand, capitalism is realistic it does not promise equal living conditions for everyone, that is competely unrealistic and impossible. It promises ultimate choice (w/ NO gov't interference) of where you want to work and what you want to do. No one said it's going to be easy.
I'll tell you right now, personal profit is the best motivation to get a worker's maximum output. I can speak personally for that, b/c I worked in a factory where if I produced x amount more / hr. my wage would increase to reflect. Yet, if the boss had of told me, well it doesn't matter how hard you work, you're still only getting x amount / hr. Actually, I have worked for a flat wage as well, I most certainly did NOT work as hard? Why? b/c the motivation just wasn't as strong. I don't know if you work or not, but money does indeed talk, my friend.

Furthermore, at that very same job, just a few months before the company owner raised all entry level workers wages automatically by 25%!!! Why? B/c the work itself is very difficult (labour job, in a giant freezer) and he realized he wasn't able to attain and retain people for a lower wage, so, without a union, he increased the wages. That is the essence of capitalism. Supply and Demand. In that case there was a short supply of workers, so the boss made the job more enticing by raising the wages. There is no need for an outside org. or gov't to force anyone... ultimately, what's good for the company is good for its workers.

Furthermore, nate gave the example about the factory shutting down laying off hundreds of workers (I believe). Ok, do you understand that stringent gov't regulations, taxes and laws restrict and suck the resources from any given company? I am not saying one shouldn't be forced to respect a worker's right to safety, but, I am saying that there are far too many regulations and taxes out there, and this harms any given company. Also, do you understand that if the demand for the product could have simply diminished?



And, Bombeverything, I do not at all believe human nature is innately bad - quite the opposite, I believe we are all innately good. Yet it seems to me that communists believe that people are innately selfish, exploitative and negative - you should ask nate that same question.

PS- I like your quote. Makes sense to me.

So, to sum up, I am certainly for anyone living how they please, but don't miscontrue me, I am not for forcing one group to give to another, or to work for the "greater good" - that is the essence of communism. If you live under a communist-state you have no choice but to have your wages garnished for the "greater good". Like I said, I'm fine w/ charity, but forced charity isn't charity - it's robbery.
The essence of capitalism is one of individual's intrinsic rights and freedom (w/ no hinderance from gov't's or anyone) to tell them how to live, so long as they do not harm anyone else or their property. Furthermore, you can not guarantee equality, by nature, things are inequal - it is simply impossible to impose such a belief system on a very large scale. A backwoods commune? Sure... it could work... but, a world-wide commune? I'm afraid not - too many are driven by their own personal goals, and no one else's. People like to ultimately dependant on themselves and no one else for survival.

Where did these "rights" come from? The whole idea of human rights is a western concept. Although, I wonder if you feel the same about social, economic and cultural rights. Capitalism is based on exploitation, not individual rights. It is neither natural, nor desirable.

I better change my sig.

:lol:


And, Bombeverything, I do not at all believe human nature is innately bad - quite the opposite, I believe we are all innately good. Yet it seems to me that communists believe that people are innately selfish, exploitative and negative - you should ask nate that same question.

The wellbeing of all is selfish? Ok, I believe that you do not see human beings as naturally bad -- because you see the traits that are the result of capitalism as a good thing -- e.g. competition, greed, selfishness.

How is minority rule any better than majority rule anyway? Do you see yourself as somehow superior to the masses? Yes, you have rights. But so do others. For instance, say the right to food.

[Publius]

Unions didn't raise up the working class, capitalism itself did.

Unions can only raise wages for the memers of their unions. They LOWER wages for every other worker.

Unions are a form of monopoly on a particular type of labor, and as such, RAISE prices beyond market level. This has reprucussions in lowering wages or raising prices elsewhere, hurting consumers as a whole.

The increase in wage and decrease in work time came only through productivity increases brought about by capitalism.

If your productvitity increased by a factor of 3, it no longer made sense to emply you 12 hours a day. There isn't enough demand for the product to justify that. Futhermore, since these machines require some level of skill, and you personally produce more, the value of your labor goes up.

If this capitalist doesn't pay you more for your more valuable work, another one will, and this capitalist will be out a worker.

It is through this phenomena that the working class became enriched. Unions played a much smaller role.

You can strike for higher wages all day long, but unless you become more and more productive and therefore valuable, your wages will not likely increase much and even if they do, it will come at someone else's expense.

Higher wages also have ancillary benefits. A higher paid worker is often a just plain better worker.

It was found by Henry Ford that if you paid your workers well (3 times the normal rate I believe), they show up to work every day (Not missing MOndays and Fridays like normal), they don't show up drunk, they are productive, good natured and effective, and your production will increase more than enough to justify the wage hike.

No unionization was involved or necessary for this wage increase.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:18 AM


But to what we were talking about, if it werent for organized workers the pay would be starvation wage, the workday would still be 12 hours, conditions terrible.

No, in our generally capitalist society MOST companies are NOT unionized, yet they still pay a much much better wage than an equivalent company in a more socialist style of gov't. Why can you not make this parallel? It is so clear. It is thanks to the economic law of supply and demand.
As I've shown in my last post companies compete and offer higher wages and greater working conditions to entice workers to their workforce.
To think all business owners are corrupt, oppressive and evil is completely ignorant and just plain wrong. Period. The smart ones know that what's best for the worker is also best for the company and vice versa.
and im telling you, if it is more profitable to sell the company off oversea's they will do it in a heart beat, ive fucking seen it happen, they dont care about workers. socialist style of government? hmmmm idk what country in the world where the workers control the means of production and use the resources for everyone. so therfore what country are you talking about?

[OleMarxco]

Wow, I gotta-say - This topic's soon as fuckin' fast enough transformed into a full-fledgled debate with walls of fire, YEE-HAW! What a fire-crack, starter I've been, hah ;)

Did 'ne-one's 'nau 'bout'ris site before I mentioned it? Huh, gimme a 'call' if'ris true :D

[scott eats capitalists]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:45 AM
You can also try jumping off the cliff and fighting the laws of gravity, but you will surely die. Did God write these laws? It all depends, are you atheist or not? Regardless, the laws of supply and demand are the very basis of economics, that is why I hold them so high. The reason they are so legitimate is b/c they are responsible for the greatest level of personal wealth in the world (ie- look at any generally indivualist/capitalist type of country (like Canada, US or UK) and compare it to a more leftist/collectivist/communist-style country (like Cuba, China or N. Korea). It is quite clear which ones are better off... Now just relax, before you shout "well, there's no communist countries in existence today anyway". Ok, so they aren't true communist ones - likewise, there are no true capitalist ones either, but both lean one way or the other. Given the better living conditions and greater freedoms in the more capitalist ones, why would anyone want to live on the other (leftist/communist) side of the spectrum? To each their own I suppose.
And I'm way ahead of you, b/c I just know you're about to say, "well, look at the company owner in your rich capitalist society, they are oppressive and hurt the worker". Again, in the more capitalist societies, the workers are actually freer, much more highly-paid and happier. Not convinced? ask any sweatshop worker in a leftist country, making 30 cents an hour. How are companies able to get away w/ such conditions in these countries? It is simply b/c of the heavy gov't regulation keeping operating costs high, w/ no regards for any intrinsic form of human rights. As noted, such a company would not exist in a capitalist one (and yes, we have some lower paying ones over here, but even the dirtiest macdonald's jobs is a luxury compared to most slave labour conditions overseas).
Just becaus a country is wealthy, doesnt mean its better off.

"A Canadian study shows that the wealthies nations do not have the healthiest people. Instead, it is the countires with the smallest economic gap between rich and poor"
Source: Mark Bourrie, Inter Press Service, 1999

"Research shows that community-based efforts whether in a small village or a large city, are most effective in meeting people's needs"
Source: World Health Organisation, 1996

Sweatshops in foreign countries are a result of capitalist industrys outsourcing jobs in order to produce for less cost.

"In 1998, the average American CEO made 1,000 times the average worker's salary."
Source: Guardian Weekly, 2003

"In the US in 1998, almost 70% of wealth was in the hands of 10% of the population"
Source: United for a Fair Economy, 2002

"The US has the highest rate of child poverty among the industrilized countries, with 1 in every 5 children growing up in poverty."
Source: American Indicators website, 1997

Capitalism does not work for the workers, plain and simple.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:01 AM
Ok, we are going in circles here.

I will try and point out my major criticisms of communism (for the ump-teenth time)

first off, I am NOT for majority rule.. or minority rule... or democracy at all! I am an individualist and I believe everyone is born w/ inalienable rights, that no gov't or org. can grant or worse yet, take them away, ok?

Yet, communism (a form of collectivism) states that under a such a system everyone is forced by the will of the "common good". It believes human rights are extrinsic. That's why I keep coming up w/ my percentage examples - b/c a majority of any number could simply decide it's for the "greater good" that the minority be forced to do something. I say that if we believe in intrinsic human rights, and individualism, this, by definition can not occur.

When I pointed out generally capitalist countries are better off than generally commie ones, nate completely dodged (or simply missed my point) that such an economy is simply better for the workers and society in general. He then compared apples to oranges and mentioned the economy within a capitalist-style gov't, and how difficult and tough it is to work. Ok, wages are set based on market value, and you are quite wrong it's not purely b/c of unions. In fact (for Canada specifically, at least) most companies do NOT have a union, but our skilled workers are still relatively highly paid? Why? B/c of supply and demand, period.
You don't understand, capitalism is realistic it does not promise equal living conditions for everyone, that is competely unrealistic and impossible. It promises ultimate choice (w/ NO gov't interference) of where you want to work and what you want to do. No one said it's going to be easy.
I'll tell you right now, personal profit is the best motivation to get a worker's maximum output. I can speak personally for that, b/c I worked in a factory where if I produced x amount more / hr. my wage would increase to reflect. Yet, if the boss had of told me, well it doesn't matter how hard you work, you're still only getting x amount / hr. Actually, I have worked for a flat wage as well, I most certainly did NOT work as hard? Why? b/c the motivation just wasn't as strong. I don't know if you work or not, but money does indeed talk, my friend.

Furthermore, at that very same job, just a few months before the company owner raised all entry level workers wages automatically by 25%!!! Why? B/c the work itself is very difficult (labour job, in a giant freezer) and he realized he wasn't able to attain and retain people for a lower wage, so, without a union, he increased the wages. That is the essence of capitalism. Supply and Demand. In that case there was a short supply of workers, so the boss made the job more enticing by raising the wages. There is no need for an outside org. or gov't to force anyone... ultimately, what's good for the company is good for its workers.

Furthermore, nate gave the example about the factory shutting down laying off hundreds of workers (I believe). Ok, do you understand that stringent gov't regulations, taxes and laws restrict and suck the resources from any given company? I am not saying one shouldn't be forced to respect a worker's right to safety, but, I am saying that there are far too many regulations and taxes out there, and this harms any given company. Also, do you understand that if the demand for the product could have simply diminished?



And, Bombeverything, I do not at all believe human nature is innately bad - quite the opposite, I believe we are all innately good. Yet it seems to me that communists believe that people are innately selfish, exploitative and negative - you should ask nate that same question.

PS- I like your quote. Makes sense to me.

So, to sum up, I am certainly for anyone living how they please, but don't miscontrue me, I am not for forcing one group to give to another, or to work for the "greater good" - that is the essence of communism. If you live under a communist-state you have no choice but to have your wages garnished for the "greater good". Like I said, I'm fine w/ charity, but forced charity isn't charity - it's robbery.
The essence of capitalism is one of individual's intrinsic rights and freedom (w/ no hinderance from gov't's or anyone) to tell them how to live, so long as they do not harm anyone else or their property. Furthermore, you can not guarantee equality, by nature, things are inequal - it is simply impossible to impose such a belief system on a very large scale. A backwoods commune? Sure... it could work... but, a world-wide commune? I'm afraid not - too many are driven by their own personal goals, and no one else's. People like to ultimately dependant on themselves and no one else for survival.


Where did these "rights" come from? The whole idea of human rights is a western concept. Although, I wonder if you feel the same about social, economic and cultural rights. Capitalism is based on exploitation, not individual rights. It is neither natural, nor desirable.

I better change my sig.

:lol:


The whole idea of extrinsic rights is one based on dictators who can justify their sick levels of genocide... b/c to them, humans are not humans, but mere bugs that can be squashed. I am not arguing WHERE they came from, but that it makes more sense to believe/recognize that we have them in the first place.
You're wrong, capitalism is based on the ideology that humans should be able to do business w/ whomever they want... Like I said, it's based on individual rights, b/c you have the right to choose where you want, who you want work for, who you want to buy from...etc. etc... To say it's based on "exploitation" is simply, subject opinion and not fact... not ALL capitalists operate in such a manner, b/c they know it's bad for business.
Under capitalism, (true capitalism)... if a business owner is corrupt, harms his workers or otherwise is destructive, word gets out, and people will not want to do business w/ him.
hmm... I see you've conveniently glazed my examples of how capitalism is natural and more freedom-oriented than communism...but, here's more:
When the Atkin's diet was big a couple of years ago, Dunkins' Donuts started feeling the effects immediately, b/c Atkins' labelled donuts as "evil" and people started listening to this - so they bought less donuts - and Dunkin's felt the pinch.
Likewise, I know personally of lots of people who won't work for a local call centre, b/c they are constantly pressured to sell - as a result, the company has raised its wages, and now more people are offering to work there.
See? that's capitalism at work... it's natural, and more appealing (to most liberty minded people) b/c you have CHOICE in what you do, where you work, etc...


And, Bombeverything, I do not at all believe human nature is innately bad - quite the opposite, I believe we are all innately good. Yet it seems to me that communists believe that people are innately selfish, exploitative and negative - you should ask nate that same question.


The wellbeing of all is selfish? Ok, I believe that you do not see human beings as naturally bad -- because you see the traits that are the result of capitalism as a good thing -- e.g. competition, greed, selfishness.

No. I am saying that the commies main argument against capitalism is that "it's selfish, corrupt and oppressive" or whatever.
My main argument against communism is that their solution of making things equal is not only unnatural, but wrong. If someone is poor, it's a nice idea to give to them, yes, but it's wrong to steal from one group to give to another. It doesn't matter the source. The ends never justify the means.

And also, like I said, if you want to live in a commune, then by all means - but don't force anyone else to live in such a manner.



How is minority rule any better than majority rule anyway? Do you see yourself as somehow superior to the masses? Yes, you have rights. But so do others. For instance, say the right to food.

argh... dude... pay attention.
I am against ANY form of mob rule... whether it's a minority OR majority. I am for people being able to choose who they want to work w/, for how long, etc.. etc... This work will reflect how much they can own and buy, and I am all for this personal freedom. I believe it's wrong for any outside force to TELL you how much you can earn, or where you can work, or who you can do business with... why would I want to live in such a society?