Debunking two major myths

[t_wolves_fan]

First, this belief that capitalism is to blame for most of the world's ills.

This is inherently incorrect. While capitalism (especially unchecked capitalism) has its faults, it is actually political decisions that have caused most of the world's suffering.

Now, it is a fair complaint to say that capitalists have used government policy to make these bad decisions. Especially with regard to colonialism, though that had a lot less to do with economic reasons than most of you think.

The fact is, capitalism as an economic system does not require imperialistic, or colonialist, or even unethical or immoral policies to be implemented by the government. In fact, much like the lot of you spend time whining that the political actions of governments such as those in the USSR, China or North Korea do not represent your theoretical definition of communism, neither do the actions of the United States government or colonial-era European governments represent theoretically-pure capitalism. Like communism, pure capitalism prefers and demands as little governmental involvement as possible.

So, get this through your head:

Bad government policies in the name of communism that pervert communism = bad government policies in the name of capitalism that pervert capitalism.

OK, now on to #2

Second, this idea that capital is finite and beyond the realm of the working class. This is also false. Someone who is working class, i.e. who lives on his or her wages, essentially has two choices in a capitalist system as to what they will do with their wages: They can spend them, which means those wages are not capital. They can also save them and/or invest them, which transforms those wages into capital. In fact, at least in the United States, most capitalists are individuals of relatively modest means and not corporate fatcats. They invest some meager savings, or pool savings with other partners, and in many cases use their savings as leverage for additional capital (in the form of a business loan) to start their own businesses. Many are sole proprietorships, meaning individuals from all economic walks of life who turn their own saved money and labor into capital to start their own business.

You might complain that the need for business loans - i.e. credit - means that rich capitalists foot most of the bill. This is not as big a factor as you think. Business loans come from a variety of sources, including publicly-held banks and credit unions. Credit unions have no rich owners, and are in fact non-profits owned by their members. Even large, publicly-traded banks are in fact owned by stockholders that include rich, middle-class, and poor alike.

Therefore, you need to understand that "capitalist" does not by definition mean some rich fatcat; in most cases it is quite the opposite.

Now, please adjust your proclamations and slogans accordingly.

Class dismissed.

[Connolly]

First, this belief that capitalism is to blame for most of the world's ills.

This is inherently incorrect. While capitalism (especially unchecked capitalism) has its faults, it is actually political decisions that have caused most of the world's suffering.

Why do they choose to make these wrong decisions?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 07:38 PM

First, this belief that capitalism is to blame for most of the world's ills.

This is inherently incorrect. While capitalism (especially unchecked capitalism) has its faults, it is actually political decisions that have caused most of the world's suffering.

Why do they choose to make these wrong decisions?
Because it is in their perceived interests.

Is there a monetary reason that Russia wants to keep Chechnya?

[Connolly]

Because it is in their perceived interests.

What are they percieving?


Is there a monetary reason that Russia wants to keep Chechnya?

Cant say, not familiar with the conflict.

[t_wolves_fan]

What are they percieving?

A gain of some kind, either financial, strategic, or prestigous.

Do all capitalist countries engage in imperialism or colonialism? Your premise rests on the answer being "yes".


Cant say, not familiar with the conflict.

Russia is keeping Chechnya under subjugation not for any monetary gain, but because of past feuding and because they fear other republics would leave the federation if Chechnya is successful.

Your premise rests on economic gain being the only reason for the occupation.

Please tell me you're starting to get this.

[Connolly]

A gain of some kind, either financial, strategic, or prestigous.

But to percieve, we must use our senses. What sensory organ do we use to perceive financial gain?


Do all capitalist countries engage in imperialism or colonialism? Your premise rests on the answer being "yes".

It dosnt.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 08:09 PM
But to percieve, we must use our senses. What sensory organ do we use to perceive financial gain?


I would imagine the brain.

I'd love to see how far the rubber band can be stretched - i.e. where you're going with this.

[Connolly]

I would imagine the brain.

The brain isnt a sensory organ.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 08:16 PM

I would imagine the brain.

The brain isnt a sensory organ.
I know, but the brain is the only organ with which we perceive our interests.

Why don't you just tell me what bizzaro path you're staking out.

[Connolly]

I know, but the brain is the only organ with which we perceive our interests.

I asked "What sensory organ do we use to perceive financial gain?"

The brain is not a sensory organ.


Why don't you just tell me what bizzaro path you're staking out.

You based the problems in society down to "bad decisions".

Im asking what makes a person make these decisions.

When you dig deep enough in any consistent manner, without being fuzzed by devine intervention, you will find that a person makes their decision based on their material conditions which they perceive through their sensory organs.

[t_wolves_fan]

I asked "What sensory organ do we use to perceive financial gain?"

The brain is not a sensory organ.

I know that. I ignored your criteria that it be a sensory organ because your criteria is irrelevant. How about you attempt to explain further because frankly your point here, whatever it is, makes no sense.


When you dig deep enough in any consistent manner, without being fuzzed by devine intervention, you will find that a person makes their decision based on their material conditions which they perceive through their sensory organs.

Then explain two things:

If people make bad decisions primarily to enhance their material well-being, how will communism work considering people can be expected to continue to try to enhance their well-being?

If people make poor decisions solely out of a desire to enhance their material well-being, explain why Osama bin Laden has forsaken his vast family fortune to live a life of poverty in Pakistan while trying to apply a similar lifestyle onto the rest of the Muslim world?

[Connolly]

I know that. I ignored your criteria that it be a sensory organ because your criteria is irrelevant.

It wasnt irrelevant


How about you attempt to explain further because frankly your point here, whatever it is, makes no sense.

In the end, you perceive using your senses and your brain makes decisions based upon that information.

Decisions are based upon perceived objective material conditions.


If people make bad decisions primarily to enhance their material well-being, how will communism work considering people can be expected to continue to try to enhance their well-being?

I never said people make decisions primarily to enhance their material well-being, im saying they make decisions based on their material conditions (ie. matter, atoms, wood, air, energy etc etc.)

You would like to blame certain individuals for their actions when they were simply acting in the only way they could under a certain set of material conditions in which they find themselves.

People behave based on their material conditions. If those material conditions were as such that they didnt necessitate decisions based on individual gain then communism is possible.


explain why Osama bin Laden has forsaken his vast family fortune to live a life of poverty in Pakistan while trying to apply a similar lifestyle onto the rest of the Muslim world?

Again - are you suggesting devine intervention?

Why is Osama Muslim?
Why is/was he rich?
Born to a different family in different shoes in conservative redneck texas would he be who he is now?

[t_wolves_fan]

Your post is incomprehensibly absurd.

You are claiming, apparently, that policy choices are made by individuals strictly based on their material conditions? That is rendered incorrect by the fact that people who face similar material conditions choose radically different policy options.

Osama bin Laden's choices were not divine intervention. They were based on his reaction to being taught about strictly conservative Salafi Wahabbi Islam. If you were correct, Osama's brothers and sisters who faced identical material conditions would have to have all made the same choice, which would be to follow Osama's path towards radical Islam. They didn't - many have embraced capitalism and the West, which is why a few studied in the United States.

Your premise ignores emotion and socialization, which is like pretending you can figure out how a plane will fly by considering only lift but not drag.


People behave based on their material conditions. If those material conditions were as such that they didnt necessitate decisions based on individual gain then communism is possible.

You cannot eliminate personal gain. You could attempt it by mandating by law that every individual be given equal material rewards, but that would not stop a person from desiring more. Since the resources do not exist to ensure all 6 billion humans a high standard of living, the result would inevitably be a black market.

Personal gain is based on both rational thought and emotional desire. Rationally, any person knows that the more materially comfortable he is, the more likely he is to live longer, safer and happier than if he had to go without. Man will always want to improve his chances of living longer and better. The fact that most people have an emotional need to do better ought to be self-evident - it's the very reason capitalism has succeeded in becoming the dominant paradigm.

It's cute that you believe you can ignore a few thousand years of human history and simply declare that if everyone had equal rewards, everyone would be just as happy as a clam. It's kind of scary that you've decided you get to decide that for everyone.

:lol: :o

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:06 PM
Your post is incomprehensibly absurd.

You are claiming, apparently, that policy choices are made by individuals strictly based on their material conditions? That is rendered incorrect by the fact that people who face similar material conditions choose radically different policy options.

Osama bin Laden's choices were not divine intervention. They were based on his reaction to being taught about strictly conservative Salafi Wahabbi Islam. If you were correct, Osama's brothers and sisters who faced identical material conditions would have to have all made the same choice, which would be to follow Osama's path towards radical Islam. They didn't - many have embraced capitalism and the West, which is why a few studied in the United States.

Your premise ignores emotion and socialization, which is like pretending you can figure out how a plane will fly by considering only lift but not drag.
I think you would potentially be interesting to have a conversation with in real life where we could discuss on a human level-but instead you insist on assuming the arrogant title and role of "reality checker."

I think there is hope for you yet in appreciating Marxism (the materialist basis of it I mean) if not necassarily communism-but what you're doing here is greatly simplifying matters. Obviously the experiences and inherent inclinations of each individual are too complicated to gauge out a direct material reason for every single persons actions, but ignore Bin Laden for a second and ask why his ideas are relatively widespread in the arab world. It is not just a coincidence or divine intervention that they all happened to be attracted to created a pan-arab state and driving the infidels out of the middle east; if Bin Laden was a lone terrorist nutter I would agree with you that some mere socialisation is responsible but Bin Laden is not a lone nutter and has quite a wide support base. There is always some sort of factor responsible for extreme views-or any views for that matter (and incidentally who are we to say what is extreme?)- becoming widespread. You might say it is the widespread teaching of conservative Salafi Wahabbi Islam; but that isn't far enough because you still must ask "why is Salafi Wahabbi Islam taught so much?"

I do not know the answer nor do I pretend to, but I do know in looking at historical trends of any sort the reason always comes down to something material.

[Connolly]

You are claiming, apparently, that policy choices are made by individuals strictly based on their material conditions? That is rendered incorrect by the fact that people who face similar material conditions choose radically different policy options.

In relation to two individuals making policy decisions, 1. You assume identical material construction of the persons anatomy and 2. Identical material experiences.

Both of which are impossible.


They were based on his reaction to being taught about strictly conservative Salafi Wahabbi Islam.

Taught?

As in sound vibrations from a lecturer or tutors mouth/voicebox?
As in paper constructed from atoms which he read?

Whatever way you twist it - he is reacting to material conditions and thats that.


Osama's brothers and sisters who faced identical material conditions would have to have all made the same choice,

As I said - its impossible for two individuals to have identical material interactions and bodily construction.


Your premise ignores emotion and socialization,

Explain.


You cannot eliminate personal gain. You could attempt it by mandating by law that every individual be given equal material rewards, but that would not stop a person from desiring more. Since the resources do not exist to ensure all 6 billion humans a high standard of living, the result would inevitably be a black market.

I take it your talking about greed?

Greed results from scarcity, its not an unchangable and inherent characteristic.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I agree with both of t_wolves_fan's original statements, but there is a lot more to the system than just that.

[colonelguppy]

oh, you're saying that material conditions means overall circumstances which refer to issues of social/emotional/economical nature. most people associate "material" with purely economic conditions, not the other previous afforementioned issues. assuming that any economic system causes the whole gauntlet of circumstances is fallacious.

[Connolly]

assuming that any economic system causes the whole gauntlet of circumstances is fallacious.

I never said anything of the sort.

If a person is born with one arm, thats a circumstantial issue which affects a persons decisions throughout life and has nothing to do with economic conditions.

If a person is born with mental disability, again, nothing to do with economic conditions

However, in terms of society, the economic mode of production defines most other material conditions. It defines whether you starve, whether you lick moss off a rock or kill your food with a spear, whether you have the necessities and luxuries needed in life. It defines the social interaction between classes (or lack thereof).


most people associate "material" with purely economic conditions, not the other previous afforementioned issues.

If you are to look a why a person makes a decision - economic circumstances (ie. class) must be looked at.

The class system is based on the economic mode of production.

The economic mode of production in today's society is the capitalist mode - these "bad decisions" claimed to be the cause of problems of the world by t_wolves_fan are directly related to capitalism and are a result of capitalist economic conditions.

[colonelguppy]

I never said anything of the sort.

If a person is born with one arm, thats a circumstantial issue which affects a persons decisions throughout life and has nothing to do with economic conditions.

If a person is born with mental disability, again, nothing to do with economic conditions

However, in terms of society, the economic mode of production defines most other material conditions. It defines whether you starve, whether you lick moss off a rock or kill your food with a spear, whether you have the necessities and luxuries needed in life. It defines the social interaction between classes (or lack thereof).

yes but its also much more complex than that, as has been covered in this thread already.


If you are to look a why a person makes a decision - economic circumstances (ie. class) must be looked at.

The class system is based on the economic mode of production.

The economic mode of production in today's society is the capitalist mode - these "bad decisions" claimed to be the cause of problems of the world by t_wolves_fan are directly related to capitalism and are a result of capitalist economic conditions.

no getting rid of capitalism doesn't get rid of the fact that people will try and take advantage of the system, this condition is seperate from any symptoms of an economic system.

[red team]

no getting rid of capitalism doesn't get rid of the fact that people will try and take advantage of the system, this condition is seperate from any symptoms of an economic system.

That's because the system is based on human intervention and some wholly subjective appraisal of value as reflected in prices, interest, taxes, wages, etc...

All human inventions that does not correspond to how the physical universe really works.

Simply taking a look at your tax guide would be enough to demonstrate the utter futility and uselessness of subjective pricing in an high-tech, industrial economy. Not to mention that the tax guide itself is a testament to the archaic nature of the trade system we have in a fully computerized and networked world where this sort of housekeeping work can be calculated instantaneously.

Further, you want to take advantage of a computerized system where data is stored in multiple redundant copies and encrypted in a way that it takes roomfuls of super computers working non-stop for months to crack. Good luck to you if you can do that.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> ( t_wolves_fan) While capitalism (especially unchecked capitalism) has its faults, it is actually political decisions that have caused most of the world's suffering.[/b]Based on the desires of the capitalists.

But I do agree that politics is a major problem, hence my desire to rid the world of not just capitalism, but also the state in all its manifestations.

(I guess you are not an "anarcho"-capitalist, so you will always have those political problems while you have capitalism. If you try for stateless capitalism ("unchecked" by anything really), then you got even more problems.)


Originally posted by TWF+--> (TWF) The fact is, capitalism as an economic system does not require imperialistic, or colonialist, or even unethical or immoral policies to be implemented by the government.[/b]It is an amazing coincidence that when ever we have had capitalism though, we have had bad shit happen. The fact that the system enables that bad shit to happen means that there is something flawed with the system. You agree?


Originally posted by TWF
In fact, much like the lot of you spend time whining that the political actions of governments such as those in the USSR, China or North Korea do not represent your theoretical definition of communism, neither do the actions of the United States government or colonial-era European governments represent theoretically-pure capitalism. Like communism, pure capitalism prefers and demands as little governmental involvement as possible.You see, theoretical communism has no resemblance to what happened and is happening in the places mentioned. However, your "theoretically-pure" capitalism does show resemblance to what is happening now and has happened.

I am going to guess that your political position is similar to Nozick's. If so, then a lot of the same sort of problems you see now will also show themselves in "theoretically-pure" capitalism. (And even worse if you want a stateless variant.)
Some of these problems include externalised costs such as pollution and other environmental problems.


Originally posted by TWF
Bad government policies in the name of communism that pervert communism = bad government policies in the name of capitalism that pervert capitalism.I disagree. As I said above, capitalism now has some resemblance to capitalism that is not "perverted". Where as communism as it is understood by most people on this board has nothing to do with the communism of the USSR etc. (except perhaps as a way to get there). Countries today call themselves capitalist. The countries mentioned above, never did call themselves communist, simply mentioned that they were attempting to reach communism. (By making a large bureaucratic state, I personally do not see how that works.)


Originally posted by TWF
that capital is finiteIt is though. The Earth's resources are finite, therefore capital is finite. This is a major problem with capitalism, the assumption that resources are infinite. There aren't.
Originally posted by TWF
and beyond the realm of the working class And thus it is. At least for most of them in large quantities. And if they do get large quantities of capital, they cease being working class.


Originally posted by TWF
Someone who is working class, i.e. who lives on his or her wages, essentially has two choices in a capitalist system as to what they will do with their wages: They can spend them, which means those wages are not capital. They can also save them and/or invest them, which transforms those wages into capital. In fact, at least in the United States, most capitalists are individuals of relatively modest means and not corporate fatcats. They invest some meager savings, or pool savings with other partners, and in many cases use their savings as leverage for additional capital (in the form of a business loan) to start their own businesses. Many are sole proprietorships, meaning individuals from all economic walks of life who turn their own saved money and labor into capital to start their own business.Two things from this. First is, if you have a really crappy paying job and 4 children, are you really saving? I don't think so. Second thing is, while some people can save, and can invest with other partners. This accumulated capital is still smaller then the amount owned by the capitalist class and individuals with in it. Most jobs are not well paying enough for working class individuals or "partnerships" to ever own more then a small amount of capital. Most people are still paying of their first mortgage 20 years after they buy the house! So yes they own capital, but fuck all of it.


[email protected]
Therefore, you need to understand that "capitalist" does not by definition mean some rich fatcat; in most cases it is quite the opposite.The definition of capitalist is by definition "some rich fatcat". Working class people can not survive of their investments, if they have any. Where as the capitalist class can (and often does). By definition the capitalists are the rich scum fuckers.


TWF
Russia is keeping Chechnya under subjugation not for any monetary gain, but because of past feuding and because they fear other republics would leave the federation if Chechnya is successful.

Your premise rests on economic gain being the only reason for the occupation.

Please tell me you're starting to get this.I think it also has to do with that big oil pipeline ... You know the one. (Do a search on Google for "Chechnya oil pipeline" (without the quotes) if you don't.)

But yes stupid politics is also an issue, smash the state!


Oh, and "Class dismissed".

[colonelguppy]

That's because the system is based on human intervention and some wholly subjective appraisal of value as reflected in prices, interest, taxes, wages, etc...

maybe because the only way you can determine value for any of those things is subjective, communism doesn't eliminate the value system.


All human inventions that does not correspond to how the physical universe really works.

what?


Simply taking a look at your tax guide would be enough to demonstrate the utter futility and uselessness of subjective pricing in an high-tech, industrial economy. Not to mention that the tax guide itself is a testament to the archaic nature of the trade system we have in a fully computerized and networked world where this sort of housekeeping work can be calculated instantaneously.

value cannot be "calculated", its purely subjective.


Further, you want to take advantage of a computerized system where data is stored in multiple redundant copies and encrypted in a way that it takes roomfuls of super computers working non-stop for months to crack. Good luck to you if you can do that.

what?

[Krypto-Communist]

First, this belief that capitalism is to blame for most of the world's ills.

Typical Marxists who use it as a way to understand history, conclude whether or not capitalism and its variants is just another stage along the way.

True Marxists don't really make moral judgements on the matter but we do realize the parasitic nature of capitalism.

Ask yourself these questions:

Should the planet be ruled by a small minority whose wealth is extracted from the labor of the large majority?

Why should the majority support a minority of people who "own" the wealth of society?
This minority, by the way, is backed enormously by the state's security apparatus; mainly being the courts, the military and the police force. Who pays and who comprises these luxuries that only really benefit this minority?

The workers.


actually political decisions that have caused most of the world's suffering.

Yeah, like the time when George Bush I wrote a $5 BILLION dollar check in order to keep the Savings and Loan industry from collapsing and fading away into nothingness.

It seems to me that political decisions often help the capitalist class as well.

Every decision that is made by the US government MUST benefit the ruling class in some way, otherwise it won't be put into motion.


The fact is, capitalism as an economic system does not require imperialistic, or colonialist, or even unethical or immoral policies to be implemented by the government.

Private property laws eforced by the barrell of a gun is considered dictorial by Marxist standards.



neither do the actions of the United States government

Nonsense, capitalism in the USA requires a large state bureaucracy to contain its internal contradictions.

It might have been Ralph Nader who said this and it's quite true,

"What we have in America is Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for everybody else."


They can spend them, which means those wages are not capital. They

Sure they can spend them...but on what?

At the end of the month, nearly most of the money that is brought home in wages is gobbled up by landlords, credit card companies, the utility companies, insurance companies (auto and medical) and maybe a student loan payment or even a healthcare payment.

Don't forget about those other necessities: food, gasoline, clothes for work (situation varies), entertainment...and I'm sure there's more.

Is this what you mean by spending?



hey can also save them and/or invest them

Yeah they can save with whatever little income they have left over at the end of the month. It's probably a good idea to that...I sure do it.

You know? Just in case my car decides to bail out on me or if some freak accident occurs and I must go to the emergency room.

A savings account is an absolute necessity for those unpleaseant uncertainties that can occur anytime.

Invest in what?

A lottery ticket? The crap shoot table?


They invest some meager savings, or pool savings with other partners, and in many cases use their savings as leverage for additional capital (in the form of a business loan) to start their own businesses.

Partners? I sure don't know any financial brokers and most people don't either. And I'm sure as hell not going into any finacial investment firm, make pretend friends with some overpaid, legalized gambler and give him my precious savings.

Why would I vest my trust into a total stranger?

And another important question: Why take the fucking risk in the first place???

Small business?

Another risky adventure and not to mention all of the start-up capital and legal know-how that one must have in order to take on such a venture.



Therefore, you need to understand that "capitalist" does not by definition mean some rich fatcat; in most cases it is quite the opposite.

Maybe, maybe not....

A capitalist, by defintion, is someone who has sufficient capital to live on without having to sell their labor power to another capitalist.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> ( t_wolves_fan) While capitalism (especially unchecked capitalism) has its faults, it is actually political decisions that have caused most of the world's suffering.Based on the desires of the capitalists. [/b]

Yes, for the most part. But remember, in theory pure capitalism rejects the idea that the state should intervene in favor of any given producer or customer. The result is perverted capitalism.



But I do agree that politics is a major problem, hence my desire to rid the world of not just capitalism, but also the state in all its manifestations.

While you're at it, you should pursue similarly useful projects like building a rocketship that will fly to Pluto that is fueled solely with Pop Tarts.

Serious question, what draws someone to an idea so completely far-fetched and unrealistic?



(I guess you are not an "anarcho"-capitalist, so you will always have those political problems while you have capitalism. If you try for stateless capitalism ("unchecked" by anything really), then you got even more problems.)

No, I am not and yes, I probably will. That is a very good point.


It is an amazing coincidence that when ever we have had capitalism though, we have had bad shit happen. The fact that the system enables that bad shit to happen means that there is something flawed with the system. You agree?

Well yes, except that pure capitalism has never actually existed; and we've had bad shit happen under every single economic system that ever has existed. That is why I find it hard to believe that systems that haven't existed yet would fare much better.


You see, theoretical communism has no resemblance to what happened and is happening in the places mentioned. However, your "theoretically-pure" capitalism does show resemblance to what is happening now and has happened.

And your theoretically-pure communism shows plenty of resemblance to post-revolutionary Russia or Cuba. I'll take the ills of this resemblance over yours.



I am going to guess that your political position is similar to Nozick's. If so, then a lot of the same sort of problems you see now will also show themselves in "theoretically-pure" capitalism. (And even worse if you want a stateless variant.)

I don't know who Nozick is. Yes, problems will exist. I'm not naive or idealistic enough to pretend we're going to find a political-economic system that won't have problems. And no, I am not in favor of pure, stateless capitalism.


Some of these problems include externalised costs such as pollution and other environmental problems.

Agreed.



TWF
that capital is finiteIt is though. The Earth's resources are finite, therefore capital is finite. This is a major problem with capitalism, the assumption that resources are infinite. There aren't.

You are dead wrong for two reasons:

One, capital is not strictly represented by material commodities that come from the earth. Labor can also be capital - in a service economy, your own labor can be your capital. For instance you can go into business for yourself doing peoples' taxes, mowing their lawns, or advising them on their investments. These services require very little money to get started and very little if any material to provide.

Second, capitalism does not assume the world's resources are infinite. Capitalism says that when something gets more rare, it will be rationed by price and when the price gets too high for most people to afford, they will substitute to something else. Oil for instance - a capitalist says that when oil finally gets to be too expensive for people to afford because it's running out, we'll look to alternative fuels. This is precisely what is happening - as the price of gasoline has risen in the United States, energy-efficient cars, homes and modes of production are becoming more common and people are exploring alternative fuels.



And thus it is. At least for most of them in large quantities. And if they do get large quantities of capital, they cease being working class.

Right - class mobility is a major flaw in the communist argument. Another poster does not grasp that class mobility is precisely the reason that a critical mass of class consciousness will probably never occur - because people know they can move up to the ownership class and what's more, they want to make that move.


Two things from this. First is, if you have a really crappy paying job and 4 children, are you really saving? I don't think so.

That is a fair point but at some point personal responsibility comes into play. Now look, I am in favor of giving people a helping hand. But I have to ask the question: if you have a crappy job, why did you have 4 children? Everyone knows children are expensive. If you are currently poor and want to move up, you need to sacrifice and either make sure you're in a position to raise your income or have fewer children.

Second, it may not be possible for an individual in those circumstances to make the move into the ownership class. But, they can help their children do it. If they can influence their children to get educated and make smart decisions, their children may very well be able to buy them a home in which to retire.

It is not a system that provides instant gratification. Nor is it easy.


Second thing is, while some people can save, and can invest with other partners. This accumulated capital is still smaller then the amount owned by the capitalist class and individuals with in it. Most jobs are not well paying enough for working class individuals or "partnerships" to ever own more then a small amount of capital. Most people are still paying of their first mortgage 20 years after they buy the house! So yes they own capital, but fuck all of it.

With all due respect, and I am not trying to insult you here, your attitude is incredibly defeatist and partially explains why you think society should make life more fair for you. So it's not easy. So you will not have as much as a rich person. So what? Does not having as much as Donal Trump mean you're a failure? No, unless you decide it does. So what if people are paying for their first mortage 20 years after moving into a house? People in Europe have 100-year mortgages because homes cost so much. If your mortgage payment stays constant but your income rises, so what? You still have the money to spend on other things. Your mortgage is simply a cost of doing business, it's not a bad thing by definition to have a mortgage or car payment.

Your attitude is also short-sighted. If you don't have as much as the next person, right now, then everything sucks. It's not like that. So you don't have a lot. Blame your parents and get over it. Find an occupation that pays well. Live within your means. Use a condom and don't have kids you cannot afford. When you do have a kid, teach him to be ernest and ethical. If you can't make it, put him or her in a position to make it.

Having wealth and material possessions isn't what life is all about. I know a lot of rich people, most are miserable. They have a big boat or a big house and they're unhappy because they want a bigger boat or a bigger house. The hell with that.


The definition of capitalist is by definition "some rich fatcat".

Only in your philosophical circles. Even wage-earners are capitalists, if they believe in and approve of the capitalist system.


Working class people can not survive of their investments, if they have any. Where as the capitalist class can (and often does). By definition the capitalists are the rich scum fuckers.

Think about that for a second though.

People living off investments by definition invest, right? That means they are putting money into ventures that create jobs. You at least understand that, right?