We capitalists claim moral superiority!

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Think about it.

Our system comes rather naturally. Unless there is a tyranny, we do not cry out for violent and bloodthirsty revolution. The bourgoise revolutions of 1789 and 1848 were rather peaceful affairs until the leftists got involved.

In fact, killing is prohibited according to our great ideology. WHY? Because unlike you guys, we hold the individual rather than the collective to be sacrosact.

This has the effect of PROTECTING human rights. Just look at the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

As the individual is protected, he may basically do as he pleases in the capitalist system.

You guys on the other hand seem to want to impose a lot of unnatural RULES.

In our system you guys are really free to band together, buy some dirt cheap land and form a commune where you can live relatively free of harassment as communsits. You can be communists without involving the rest of society. But try being a capitalist in a communist or socialist country. :rolleyes:

There are plenty of examples of hippie communes where the people basically abandoned consumerism and lived acording to the dictates of nature, making their own clothes, etc. Thing is, most of these guys decided it was preferable to return to a consumer society after a few years. Why? Because nothing beats our system. It is moral, AND it is great to live in.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 09:44 am
Our system comes rather naturally. Unless there is a tyranny, we do not cry out for violent and bloodthirsty revolution. The bourgoise revolutions of 1789 and 1848 were rather peaceful affairs until the leftists got involved.
They were peaceful until the state reacted and took steps to defend itself. Can you see where Im going with this you fucking hippy?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

This has the effect of PROTECTING human rights. Just look at the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of the Rights of Man.


What about those people who we gun down whenever they want a communist society?


In our system you guys are really free to band together, buy some dirt cheap land and form a commune where you can live relatively free of harassment as communsits. You can be communists without involving the rest of society. But try being a capitalist in a communist or socialist country

I'm sure thats why revolutionaries are so often arrested and executed, when they pose any REAL Threat anyway.

Being a capitalist in a communist society is threatening the very basis of communist society, while being a communist-isolationist in a capitalist society is just pleasing the capitalists because it effectively disarms you.

[loveme4whoiam]

The capitalist system is as bloody-thirsty as an other - moreso, in fact, since it gives a single individual the power and, according to history, the moral right to alter someone else's existence in order to make their own better.

[razboz]

This is the most ridiculous thread ever. Am i meant to beleive that capitalism is in fact a loving, caring and overall darned good system? Seriously? That thanks to capitlaism of all things we have Human rights? Well i declare the professor of these lies to be an anticapitlaist, and nuisance and lie mongerer! It is an infamy to hear these untruths spread! You are denying the very basis of Capitlaism!

Capitlism is for individual rigfhts, we agree. However capitlaism is for individual rights regardless of those of others. Slvery is the logical extreme of capitalism, and the abolition of slavery only occured because it was economically feasible and even appropriate to do so. Sleves work less hard than free men because they have no hope of economic agrandisement. Until this became a problem slavery did not conflict with capitalism. Human rights impede the march of Capitlaism, because it means the large corporations (built by some venture capitlais tsomewhere) cannot kill or imprison people who get on their way, not legally at least.

Anyone who claims that human rights are a product of capitlaism is a straight out liar or a fool. Capitalism does not like human rights, because it imlies we deserve something just by being born. In capitalism we need to earn everything, regardless of others and always at their expense.

[Zero]

Capitalist: Hello child in Indonesia, what are you doing today? Pissing in a bucket while overproducing for pennies in my factory? Good! You know your lucky I'm here to steal your wages, and cause worker death syndrome. We're just that nice.

[black magick hustla]

communism is not about abandoning consumerism

it is simply about not having to work that much for it

you fucking hippie

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 02:53 pm
Capitalist: Hello child in Indonesia, what are you doing today? Pissing in a bucket while overproducing for pennies in my factory? Good! You know your lucky I'm here to steal your wages, and cause worker death syndrome. We're just that nice.
Was the child's life better when he was a subsistence farmer?

[colonelguppy]

of course... which is why they left that life for the factory, or something.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 04:47 pm
of course... which is why they left that life for the factory, or something.
Alot of them left because they were forced. By economic circumstances or by brute. Take the mexican workers in Mexico for example, who worked the land for thousands of years, many of them produced Maize. When the NAFTA came into effect in Mexico, cheap, US maize began flooding Mexian markets. Who would buy the overpriced mexican maize? the farmers couldn't compete, and ended up working for pennies in US company factories. This pattern can pretty much be seen around the world, and is part of the real reason for why human beings are forced into such inhumane conditions.

Of course, they're lucky not to live in Colombia, in Colomiba you union bosses get assasinated, by Coca-Cola agents.

[MKS]

You should read Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States, to get good conept of how "non-violent" American Capitalists have been.

Capitalism is all about exploitation and therefore that system can never be called "non-violent" or claim any sense of moral rightgeousness.

[LoneRed]

Against killing when over a million Iraqis have been killed due to the brutal occupation of Iraq, back to the sanctions imposed on them.

Supporting bin laden and the taliban, supporting various latin american dictatorships, the School of Americas, training counter-insurgency. Invading Afghanistan, supporting the imperialist state of Israel,

yep sounds really peaceful to me, oh the capitalist wars, WWI and WWII

[RevMARKSman]

We capitalists claim moral superiority!

We'll offer $2 billion for it.

See how easy that was?

[Zero]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 24, 2006 04:32 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 24, 2006 04:32 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2006 02:53 pm
Capitalist: Hello child in Indonesia, what are you doing today? Pissing in a bucket while overproducing for pennies in my factory? Good! You know your lucky I'm here to steal your wages, and cause worker death syndrome. We're just that nice.
Was the child's life better when he was a subsistence farmer? [/b]
The childs life was better living in rural lands and small communities farming, rather than being smashed together with thousands of other subsistance wage-slaves in a factory setting. I'd take a simple life over a dictated urban jungle life any day.

I aint no primmie, but the last thing these people living in feudal conditions need is unmitigated capitalism, especially when the recieving end is based souly on arms development.

[colonelguppy]

the farmers couldn't compete, and ended up working for pennies in US company factories

while i do feel that subsidized crops do put the third world farmer at an unfair disadvantage and therefore subsidizing should be ended, i really don't feel to bad for them just because they can't compete. why should other mexicans be forced to by overpriced corn because their neighbors can't compete?

[Zero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 10:40 pm

the farmers couldn't compete, and ended up working for pennies in US company factories
while i do feel that subsidized crops do put the third world farmer at an unfair disadvantage and therefore subsidizing should be ended, i really don't feel to bad for them just because they can't compete. why should other mexicans be forced to by overpriced corn because their neighbors can't compete?
So you would place the ability for the common person being able to pay a few Pesos less for a loaf of bread over the ability of a paycheck-to-paycheck Mexican farmer to produce his crops, providing possibly an alternative to anti-insect chemicals in your food?

Sorry, I'd rather pay more.

[bezdomni]

Weren't you the guy who as advocating monarchy? o_O

[Zero]

That was EnglandExpects wasn't it?

[Janus]

That was EnglandExpects wasn't it?
There are two monarchists here? That's like having more than 2 ebeneezers.

And as for the original topic, capitalists always claim moral superioty because it is they themselves who define the morals!

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 10:29 am

This has the effect of PROTECTING human rights. Just look at the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of the Rights of Man.


What about those people who we gun down whenever they want a communist society?


In our system you guys are really free to band together, buy some dirt cheap land and form a commune where you can live relatively free of harassment as communsits. You can be communists without involving the rest of society. But try being a capitalist in a communist or socialist country

I'm sure thats why revolutionaries are so often arrested and executed, when they pose any REAL Threat anyway.

Being a capitalist in a communist society is threatening the very basis of communist society, while being a communist-isolationist in a capitalist society is just pleasing the capitalists because it effectively disarms you.
But I think a capitalist society is one in which one is least likely to see revolutionary protestors gunned down. Tianamen square on the other hand...

I think your second point is quite good though. But I don't think there are conspiratorial forces in smokey backrooms toasting all the revolutionaries that have joined communes.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 02:04 pm
This is the most ridiculous thread ever. Am i meant to beleive that capitalism is in fact a loving, caring and overall darned good system? Seriously? That thanks to capitlaism of all things we have Human rights? Well i declare the professor of these lies to be an anticapitlaist, and nuisance and lie mongerer! It is an infamy to hear these untruths spread! You are denying the very basis of Capitlaism!

Capitlism is for individual rigfhts, we agree. However capitlaism is for individual rights regardless of those of others. Slvery is the logical extreme of capitalism, and the abolition of slavery only occured because it was economically feasible and even appropriate to do so. Sleves work less hard than free men because they have no hope of economic agrandisement. Until this became a problem slavery did not conflict with capitalism. Human rights impede the march of Capitlaism, because it means the large corporations (built by some venture capitlais tsomewhere) cannot kill or imprison people who get on their way, not legally at least.

Anyone who claims that human rights are a product of capitlaism is a straight out liar or a fool. Capitalism does not like human rights, because it imlies we deserve something just by being born. In capitalism we need to earn everything, regardless of others and always at their expense.
True, slavery is one possible outcome of unaldulterated ultra-capitalism. On the other hand, this would violate the sovereign rights of another individual.

Last year there was a case of a citizen of American Samoa who kidnapped around 200 people from Asia, chained them up, and forced them to work in his factory. Needless to say, he was charged and is facing a forty year sentence for his crime.

Oh, and you say capitalism does not promote human rights?

How come the phrase "human rights" evolved only amid all this capitalism? Can this apparantly anomalous phenomenon be explained?

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 02:53 pm
Capitalist: Hello child in Indonesia, what are you doing today? Pissing in a bucket while overproducing for pennies in my factory? Good! You know your lucky I'm here to steal your wages, and cause worker death syndrome. We're just that nice.
What, like he's gunna have a job at all if the employer doesn't get a cut?

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 03:38 pm
communism is not about abandoning consumerism

it is simply about not having to work that much for it

you fucking hippie
= a recipe for poverty. One of the reasons capitalism is so successful is people work immensely hard. If you slack off, there will be less to go around and the poor will be poorer. It's a simple formula.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by thisguyisatotaljerk+October 25, 2006 12:20 pm--> (thisguyisatotaljerk @ October 25, 2006 12:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 04:00 pm

[email protected] 24, 2006 02:04 pm
This is the most ridiculous thread ever.

Exactly like every other tread this loser starts.
You seem overtly sensistive. I don't beleive I've wronged you in any way.

Did I step on your itsy little liberal toeses? [/b]

No, he just has more common sense than you.

[Zero]

Originally posted by thisguyisatotaljerk+October 25, 2006 11:34 am--> (thisguyisatotaljerk @ October 25, 2006 11:34 am)
[email protected] 24, 2006 02:53 pm
Capitalist: Hello child in Indonesia, what are you doing today? Pissing in a bucket while overproducing for pennies in my factory? Good! You know your lucky I'm here to steal your wages, and cause worker death syndrome. We're just that nice.
What, like he's gunna have a job at all if the employer doesn't get a cut? [/b]
Awww, poor Capitalist, instead of making 500% profit off of goods produced with slave labor he's only going to make 400%.

We're all crying for your slavedriver.

[razboz]

Originally posted by thisguyisatotaljerk+October 25, 2006 11:31 am--> (thisguyisatotaljerk @ October 25, 2006 11:31 am)
[email protected] 24, 2006 02:04 pm
This is the most ridiculous thread ever. Am i meant to beleive that capitalism is in fact a loving, caring and overall darned good system? Seriously? That thanks to capitlaism of all things we have Human rights? Well i declare the professor of these lies to be an anticapitlaist, and nuisance and lie mongerer! It is an infamy to hear these untruths spread! You are denying the very basis of Capitlaism!

Capitlism is for individual rigfhts, we agree. However capitlaism is for individual rights regardless of those of others. Slvery is the logical extreme of capitalism, and the abolition of slavery only occured because it was economically feasible and even appropriate to do so. Sleves work less hard than free men because they have no hope of economic agrandisement. Until this became a problem slavery did not conflict with capitalism. Human rights impede the march of Capitlaism, because it means the large corporations (built by some venture capitlais tsomewhere) cannot kill or imprison people who get on their way, not legally at least.

Anyone who claims that human rights are a product of capitlaism is a straight out liar or a fool. Capitalism does not like human rights, because it imlies we deserve something just by being born. In capitalism we need to earn everything, regardless of others and always at their expense.
True, slavery is one possible outcome of unaldulterated ultra-capitalism. On the other hand, this would violate the sovereign rights of another individual.

Last year there was a case of a citizen of American Samoa who kidnapped around 200 people from Asia, chained them up, and forced them to work in his factory. Needless to say, he was charged and is facing a forty year sentence for his crime.

Oh, and you say capitalism does not promote human rights?

How come the phrase "human rights" evolved only amid all this capitalism? Can this apparantly anomalous phenomenon be explained? [/b]
Okay I can live with the fact that the phrase human rights, and hey, even the entire charter was born ina capitlaistic society. But let me telly ou why it did so. because it was profitable. YOu see peopole with their ablitlities to consume restricted dont make for very good buyers and the capitlaists dont make money. People with their limbs missing or with TB or in prison cannot buy goods produced in factories or weven work int eh siad factories. This is the only reason a capitlaist can stray fromt his path through others and into the glory of higher economic status. Only an idiot would think that capitlaism cares for anyone. No, youve got it wrong. Real capitalism cares for no one, and true capitlaists understand this, not clowns like you.
Let me tell you something else you buffoon, the man in American Samoa who got busted for using slaves? well he was hurting the economy by not making his workers any richar and not allowing them to then become factro managers and later on factory owners whoc ould then exploit other poorpeople. By keeping his workers in servitude he was hampering their social and economic mobility through the system and thus hampering the economic growth of his country.
And anyway, he was using the full extent of his freedom to freely enslave people. His freedom was taken away from him. It does not matter wether the exertion of his freedom hurt others, because then they could use their own freedom and kill him. This is how captialism works.


You are a trolling twit the only reason you post here is to get a rise out of poeple.

Listen to patton, thiguyisatotaljerk, and just go die somewhere now.

[Guerrilla22]

Our system comes rather naturally

:rolleyes: Capitalism comes about at the point of a gun, I wouldn't call that natural.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 04:34 pm

Our system comes rather naturally

:rolleyes: Capitalism comes about at the point of a gun, I wouldn't call that natural.
People are not buying what you're selling because they're forced to, they're not buying what you're selling because it sucks.

[RebelDog]

Our system comes rather naturally.

Yes it does. Capitalism was a evolutionary step forward in human history. The time is ripe to take the next step and leave capitalism behind.


Unless there is a tyranny, we do not cry out for violent and bloodthirsty revolution.

I think the history of capitalism has shown it to be utterly tyrannical, ie, ie the British empire, ww1 and the current murderous quest by the US capitalist elite for global hegenomy. The CIA called and in fact supported a bloody right-wing revolution to destroy the democratic marxist government in Chile in 1973. Capitalists are more comfortable with tyranny so long as they make their profits.


In fact, killing is prohibited according to our great ideology.

The most absurd statement I have ever seen on this site. 30,000 people die every day whilst nutters like yourself destroy food to keep your profits up. Capitalists launch wars to seize resources and open up new markets, not to liberate people from tyranny. Capitalism is a tyranny.


This has the effect of PROTECTING human rights.

Nothing has been handed down because of the generosity of the ruling class. Everything has been faught and won.


As the individual is protected, he may basically do as he pleases in the capitalist system.

The richer one is the more freedom one has. So the more you exploit others and oppress them, the more freedom the capitalist will have to exploit even more people.


You guys on the other hand seem to want to impose a lot of unnatural RULES.

Law basically exists to protect the rights of property and the capitalist class.


In our system you guys are really free to band together, buy some dirt cheap land and form a commune where you can live relatively free of harassment as communsits. You can be communists without involving the rest of society. But try being a capitalist in a communist or socialist country.

There is no such thing as living free in a capitalist state. We will band together and overthrow capitalism.


There are plenty of examples of hippie communes where the people basically abandoned consumerism and lived acording to the dictates of nature, making their own clothes, etc. Thing is, most of these guys decided it was preferable to return to a consumer society after a few years. Why? Because nothing beats our system. It is moral, AND it is great to live in.

We want the world. We will take no consessions from our ruling masters. We don't want masters. You live like we all do in the capitalist epoch of human history and its understandable that you hold the narrow views handed down by the ruling elite who own and control everything. Others have seen through that and reject its absurd notions of morality.

[MKS]

Who is to say what is moral? Isnt Morality a subjective condition or term? I am an atheist I see no point in life, no meaning, therfore no value, and because of this absence of value isnt there also an absence of a moral imperative in any action?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 25, 2006 07:03 pm
We want the world. We will take no consessions from our ruling masters. We don't want masters. You live like we all do in the capitalist epoch of human history and its understandable that you hold the narrow views handed down by the ruling elite who own and control everything. Others have seen through that and reject its absurd notions of morality.
You're a fun one aren't you.

I was at an ANSWER futile-fest onetime and the DC cops decided to round everyone up into a single block for a little fun. While enjoying the show I overheard one woman wearing candy-cane striped overalls talking on her cell phone about how this protest was finally going to rid the world of the "CIA mind control party" (sadly, however, the party seems to still be in power).

Was that you?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 07:42 pm
Who is to say what is moral? Isnt Morality a subjective condition or term? I am an atheist I see no point in life, no meaning, therfore no value, and because of this absence of value isnt there also an absence of a moral imperative in any action?
Why then do you care about politics?

[Cryotank Screams]

I claim mental superiority because morals don't exist! :D .

[Tungsten]

The Dissenter

30,000 people die every day whilst nutters like yourself destroy food to keep your profits up.
Their fault, not ours. We're not their slaves. If it bothers you that much, then why are you not providing food for them?

Capitalists launch wars to seize resources
You ought to know that goes against our principles. We're not into siezing private property for any reason. You wouldn't be into that by any chance, would you?

Does it ever occur to you that these people you describe might not actually be capitalists?

and open up new markets,
What markets are you referring to?

Nothing has been handed down because of the generosity of the ruling class. Everything has been faught and won.
I'm sure the government is absolutey terrified of you and what you'll demand next. :lol: Such hubris will be your downfall. But you're right- the ruling class doesn't give you anything. It only gives what takes it from others, which means: other workers. So when you fight for something, that something usually comes at the expense of other workers. That's something I'm against and don't try to tell me it doesn't happen.

The richer one is the more freedom one has. So the more you exploit others and oppress them, the more freedom the capitalist will have to exploit even more people.
The more freedom one has, the more they can use it to oppress and exploit? You're presumably against oppression and exploitation, so where are you going with this?

Law basically exists to protect the rights of property and the capitalist class.
Which is a good thing for all of us. I wouldn't have thought it in anyone's interest to have what they wor for stolen or redistributed elsewhere.

There is no such thing as living free in a capitalist state. We will band together and overthrow capitalism.
That doesn't really address the issue...

We want the world. We will take no consessions from our ruling masters. We don't want masters. You live like we all do in the capitalist epoch of human history and its understandable that you hold the narrow views handed down by the ruling elite who own and control everything. Others have seen through that and reject its absurd notions of morality.
And you're one of these "others", right? What a dupe you are...hates all the right countries, mouths all the right slogans, comes out with all the same cliches...say something different, will you?

[Sabocat]

Our system comes rather naturally. Unless there is a tyranny, we do not cry out for violent and bloodthirsty revolution. The bourgoise revolutions of 1789 and 1848 were rather peaceful affairs until the leftists got involved.

No, you don't cry out for violent bloodthirsty revolution, but yet you are violent and bloodthirsty.

A country outgrows it's market in it's own territory. Country invades other countries to exploit cheaper labor pool and to open markets for it's products. The ensuing imperialist wars kill hundreds, thousands, millions. There is vast examples of this. The U.S. invaded the Phillipines to open the Pacific market and to exploit labor. WWII was about the U.S. and Britain and France protecting their hegemony from Germany and Italy. WWI the U.S. only entered the war because they were afraid of default on all the loans to Britain if they were defeated. I could go on, but what's the point.


In fact, killing is prohibited according to our great ideology. WHY? Because unlike you guys, we hold the individual rather than the collective to be sacrosact.

Except when workers go on strike and you send in police and military to harass and kill them. Except when students march in protest to war and are shot down by miltiary and police. The individual is "sacrosact" (sic) as long as they do what they're told. If killing is prohibited under your wonderful ideology, what do you consider the death penalty/capital punishment? A vacation?



This has the effect of PROTECTING human rights. Just look at the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

In the U.S. the Patriot act has pissed all over human rights and civil liberties. Most of the "big 8" have instituted similar measures. Recently, in my area we have to submit to bag checks before getting on a train. If we refuse citing the 4th amendment, we are not allowed to ride.


As the individual is protected, he may basically do as he pleases in the capitalist system.

LOL Yeah, as long as he has the cash. :lol:

[RebelDog]

Tungsten


Their fault, not ours. We're not their slaves. If it bothers you that much, then why are you not providing food for them?

A typical response. Doesn't all these deaths tell you how useless and expensive capitalism is? If your were their slaves you'd soon change your tune though. Its the usual stance from the free-market that its nothing to do with them and they are only making an innocent profit. If capitalism cannot provide such simple human needs such as food, shelter and medicine in the 21st century then capitalism must be replaced by something that can and will. All the worlds resources don't exist to provide a minority with a lavish lifestyle while other people starve, that is unacceptable to reasonable humans in my view. The irony is that the natural resources of Africa and Asia are abundant whilst millions of native people live in extreme poverty.


You ought to know that goes against our principles. We're not into siezing private property for any reason. You wouldn't be into that by any chance, would you?

The workers produce the property and capitalists seize it. They then sell the property on the market and use the surpluss value to exploit more workers and make more profit. Should you really be on a marxist website arguing with marxists if you don't know the basic tenet of the marxist critique of capitalism.

I would never seize property for my own gain, I would however have no qualm about taking part in activity that expropriates property and places it in the control of the proletariat where it belongs.


Does it ever occur to you that these people you describe might not actually be capitalists?

Not sure what you mean by that. I thought this was opposing ideologies.


What markets are you referring to?

Imperialism is conquest of resources and markets. Britain had exclusive rights to trade with the colonies in its empire and plundered the lands it controlled. The manifestation of this today is more subtle due to globalisation but the principle is still the same as Iraq speaks to. Its no coincidence that US companies are doing a roaring trade in Iraq and were right behind an invasion to 'liberate' Iraqis, which in translation means; kill them, steal their resources and charge them billions for the privilege. Why does the US have a military presence in 130 countries around the world? Why does the US government invest so heavily in this activity? The answer is to have global hegenomy and control resources and markets as much as is possible.


I'm sure the government is absolutey terrified of you and what you'll demand next. laugh.gif Such hubris will be your downfall. But you're right- the ruling class doesn't give you anything. It only gives what takes it from others, which means: other workers. So when you fight for something, that something usually comes at the expense of other workers. That's something I'm against and don't try to tell me it doesn't happen.

Are you trying to say that acting on behalf of the opressed majority is a selfish undertaking? You are against taking from workers?


The more freedom one has, the more they can use it to oppress and exploit? You're presumably against oppression and exploitation, so where are you going with this?

Revolution


Which is a good thing for all of us. I wouldn't have thought it in anyone's interest to have what they wor for stolen or redistributed elsewhere.

Then I presume you are going to hand over the means of production back to the workers? Its only really a good thing for the capitalist class as it is really designed to protect them. Property is by its nature exploitative and oppressive, laws and the state are designed to protect the oppressors and exploiters from being challenged by the oppressed and exploited.

[/QUOTE]That doesn't really address the issue...


Well there is no such thing as living for free, we need people to cntribute to society. If we all co-operate we are capable of much more and of meeting peoples needs and desires all across the planet. Capitalism wasn't designed for this function.

And you're one of these "others", right? What a dupe you are...hates all the right countries, mouths all the right slogans, comes out with all the same cliches...say something different, will you?[QUOTE]

I'm unrepentant. You are giving over the same arguments pro-capitalists have been spouting since its inception. But these are the arguments of those in control so they are the ones that emanate from almost all areas of media and communication.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 25, 2006 09:58 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 25, 2006 09:58 pm)
The [email protected] 25, 2006 07:03 pm
We want the world. We will take no consessions from our ruling masters. We don't want masters. You live like we all do in the capitalist epoch of human history and its understandable that you hold the narrow views handed down by the ruling elite who own and control everything. Others have seen through that and reject its absurd notions of morality.
You're a fun one aren't you.

I was at an ANSWER futile-fest onetime and the DC cops decided to round everyone up into a single block for a little fun. While enjoying the show I overheard one woman wearing candy-cane striped overalls talking on her cell phone about how this protest was finally going to rid the world of the "CIA mind control party" (sadly, however, the party seems to still be in power).

Was that you? [/b]
What on earth are you talking about?

[Tungsten]

Sabocat

A country outgrows it's market in it's own territory. Country invades other countries to exploit cheaper labor pool and to open markets for it's products
Open markets for it's products? What's wrong with that? The market is open everywhere except under a dictatorship. And cheap Mexican labour is exploited by the US all the time, but I don't recall any US invasion of Mexico.

WWII was about the U.S. and Britain and France protecting their hegemony from Germany and Italy.
I really could have sworn WW2 was all about people protecting themselves from extermination by the Nazi war machine.

Except when workers go on strike and you send in police and military to harass and kill them.
That would be violating their rights wouldn't it?

Except when students march in protest to war and are shot down by miltiary and police.
Depends what they're doing, surely.

The individual is "sacrosact" (sic) as long as they do what they're told.
Fair enough. I have the right to live as I please, but I don't expect that to continue if I were to, say, start blowing people away at random. Isn't that what happens under the rule of law?

If killing is prohibited under your wonderful ideology, what do you consider the death penalty/capital punishment? A vacation?
I'm not especially in favour of the death penalty, but it would be nice if you applied a little context to the argument.

In the U.S. the Patriot act has pissed all over human rights and civil liberties.
Indeed it has. How many human rights and civil liberties would remain if you were in charge remains to be seen.

LOL Yeah, as long as he has the cash.
Do you expect people to give you everything for free?
The Dissenter

A typical response. Doesn't all these deaths tell you how useless and expensive capitalism is?
Not really. Most of these people live in a state of anarchy, which doesn't resemble capitalism.

If your were their slaves you'd soon change your tune though.
If I were their slaves, I'd want them dead. But they're not our slaves, so the point is moor.

Its the usual stance from the free-market that its nothing to do with them and they are only making an innocent profit.
Who's they? Are you talking about the poor in africa? They don't seem to be making much profit or anything else from where I'm sitting.

If capitalism cannot provide such simple human needs such as food, shelter and medicine in the 21st century then capitalism must be replaced by something that can and will.
Capitalism is a system, not a person. A system doesn't produce anything- people do. It's people - workers - that are providing these things, which you seem to forget.

All the worlds resources don't exist to provide a minority with a lavish lifestyle while other people starve, that is unacceptable to reasonable humans in my view.
I'd like to know if you consider labour a resource and what makes you think some should be entitled to the labour of others.

The irony is that the natural resources of Africa and Asia are abundant whilst millions of native people live in extreme poverty.
Those resources either aren't being exploted, or the people there don't have the means to use them. Let's not forget that it's only because of demand that people value these resources in the first place.

The workers produce the property and capitalists seize it.
No they don't.

They then sell the property on the market and use the surpluss value to exploit more workers and make more profit.
This is a gross distortion of what happens. Voluntarily trading pay for labour isn't really exploitation or siezure. And surplus value? Another marxist myth. Value is subjective.

I would never seize property for my own gain, I would however have no qualm about taking part in activity that expropriates property and places it in the control of the proletariat where it belongs.
Are you not a member of the proletarian and therefore will you not be gaining also?

Not sure what you mean by that.
I was referring to the people you complain about. They don't seem to have any respect for anyone's property, nor do they have any respect for individual rights. Those are what many believe are the foundations of capitalism.

Britain had exclusive rights to trade with the colonies in its empire and plundered the lands it controlled.
That's mercantilism, not capitalism.

Its no coincidence that US companies are doing a roaring trade in Iraq
News to me. The only thing roaring in Iraq are the jet engines of fighter planes and only things they seem to be trading are bullets.

kill them, steal their resources and charge them billions for the privilege.
I don't think killing them is the goal, otherwise the war would have been over in five minutes; they wouldn't be wasting time rooting our insurgents, they'd have just shot everthing in sight. And they already had unlimited access to Iraq's resources before the war.

Are you trying to say that acting on behalf of the opressed majority is a selfish undertaking?
For some. For all, it's miguided undertaking- you're assuming the people you're referring to are oppressed in the first place. You seem to have taken it for granted with little analysis.

You are against taking from workers?
I'm a worker.


The more freedom one has, the more they can use it to oppress and exploit? You're presumably against oppression and exploitation, so where are you going with this?

Revolution
The more freedom one has, the more they can use it to oppress and exploit. You're presumably against oppression and exploitation. Ergo, you're against freedom. The revolution is superfluous.

Then I presume you are going to hand over the means of production back to the workers?
That's a strange thing to say. Not hand it over, hand it back?
There's no means of production to hand you back, buddy, because no one's ever taken any from you. On the other hand, if you have a story you'd like to share, then go ahead.

Its only really a good thing for the capitalist class as it is really designed to protect them.
It's there to protect the worker too. Not only from the capitalist, but from other workers too.

Property is by its nature exploitative and oppressive,
So if go to work, earn money and buy property with it, I'm exploiting...who exactly?

laws and the state are designed to protect the oppressors and exploiters from being challenged by the oppressed and exploited.
What a misguided person I am. All this time the law has been protecting me from robbers, rapists and muggers, who I thought were the scum of the earth- when all they were trying to do was liberate me from "the system".

Well there is no such thing as living for free, we need people to cntribute to society. If we all co-operate we are capable of much more and of meeting peoples needs and desires all across the planet. Capitalism wasn't designed for this function.
Neither was society or the individuals that comprise it.

I'm unrepentant. You are giving over the same arguments pro-capitalists have been spouting since its inception. But these are the arguments of those in control so they are the ones that emanate from almost all areas of media and communication.
"Those in control" don't follow any particular ideology. And no, the media and "those in control" largely do not share my views.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 09:44 am
Think about it.

Our system comes rather naturally. Unless there is a tyranny, we do not cry out for violent and bloodthirsty revolution. The bourgoise revolutions of 1789 and 1848 were rather peaceful affairs until the leftists got involved.

In fact, killing is prohibited according to our great ideology. WHY? Because unlike you guys, we hold the individual rather than the collective to be sacrosact.

This has the effect of PROTECTING human rights. Just look at the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

As the individual is protected, he may basically do as he pleases in the capitalist system.

You guys on the other hand seem to want to impose a lot of unnatural RULES.

In our system you guys are really free to band together, buy some dirt cheap land and form a commune where you can live relatively free of harassment as communsits. You can be communists without involving the rest of society. But try being a capitalist in a communist or socialist country. :rolleyes:

There are plenty of examples of hippie communes where the people basically abandoned consumerism and lived acording to the dictates of nature, making their own clothes, etc. Thing is, most of these guys decided it was preferable to return to a consumer society after a few years. Why? Because nothing beats our system. It is moral, AND it is great to live in.
If your system comes about "naturally," then explain the continual growth of welfare-statism, the establishment of social reforms, the Cold War, and the American policy of containment.

There is no such thing as something which is "unnatural." Socialism exists today in abundance and so, it is just as natural as Capitalism.

[razboz]

but I don't recall any US invasion of Mexico.

I know its fairly minor, but being Mexican i could not pass up on an opportunity to point out that there was indded a war between the US and Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-Mexico_War), in which the USA invaded Mexico. Admitidely itwas a hundred and twenty years ago but it happened and the US inaded all the way to the capital. Its an interesting not that the famous mexican song la Cucarracha was born from this war, cucarracha (cockroach) being the US troops who were often paind in hierba (marijauana) and who often refused to fight or march without the drug.

But more recently the US has not been fighting its own wars. Rather it has prefferred to use proxies as with the case of Chiapas, where the Zapatistas declared war on the Federal GOvernement of MExico. immediately identifying the threat, the US was very quicjk indeed to send guns, and vehicles and other equipment to the government, with the express purpose of being used against the Zapatasitas. SO you see the US did yuse its military might to open new markets or to keep old markets open in Mexico.

You know, just saying.

[razboz]

Originally posted by patton+October 26, 2006 06:41 pm--> (patton @ October 26, 2006 06:41 pm)
Originally posted by Blue Dog [email protected] 26, 2006 03:00 pm

[email protected] 24, 2006 09:44 am
Think about it.

Our system comes rather naturally. Unless there is a tyranny, we do not cry out for violent and bloodthirsty revolution. The bourgoise revolutions of 1789 and 1848 were rather peaceful affairs until the leftists got involved.

In fact, killing is prohibited according to our great ideology. WHY? Because unlike you guys, we hold the individual rather than the collective to be sacrosact.

This has the effect of PROTECTING human rights. Just look at the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

As the individual is protected, he may basically do as he pleases in the capitalist system.

You guys on the other hand seem to want to impose a lot of unnatural RULES.

In our system you guys are really free to band together, buy some dirt cheap land and form a commune where you can live relatively free of harassment as communsits. You can be communists without involving the rest of society. But try being a capitalist in a communist or socialist country. :rolleyes:

There are plenty of examples of hippie communes where the people basically abandoned consumerism and lived acording to the dictates of nature, making their own clothes, etc. Thing is, most of these guys decided it was preferable to return to a consumer society after a few years. Why? Because nothing beats our system. It is moral, AND it is great to live in.
If your system comes about "naturally," then explain the continual growth of welfare-statism, the establishment of social reforms, the Cold War, and the American policy of containment.

There is no such thing as something which is "unnatural." Socialism exists today in abundance and so, it is just as natural as Capitalism.
This is a guy who talks out his butt, he has no clue what he is talking about. [/b]
Yes.

[Sabocat]

Open markets for it's products? What's wrong with that? The market is open everywhere except under a dictatorship. And cheap Mexican labour is exploited by the US all the time, but I don't recall any US invasion of Mexico.

So you have no problem with people being slaughtered for expansion of markets and labor pools and your lot is claiming moral highground? That's just funny.

You don't recall the U.S. invading Mexico? I suggest you look up the time period of 1846-1848 in U.S. history.


I really could have sworn WW2 was all about people protecting themselves from extermination by the Nazi war machine.

That's because you're a fucking idiot.

'Except when workers go on strike and you send in police and military to harass and kill them.'


That would be violating their rights wouldn't it?

Yes it would, and yet your wonderful ideology creates the environment for it on almost a daily basis. Thanks for making my point for me.

'Except when students march in protest to war and are shot down by miltiary and police.'


Depends what they're doing, surely.

I thought I was being pretty clear. Marching and protesting war. What were the students doing at Kent State that warranted being shot and killed by the National Guard?

[Tungsten]

Sabocat

You don't recall the U.S. invading Mexico?
Not for cheap labour/resources, no. And I wasn't around at the time.

I suggest you look up the time period of 1846-1848 in U.S. history.
It mentions something about Mexico intending to recapture former teritories, but no mention of the war being for cheap labour/resources.

So you have no problem with people being slaughtered for expansion of markets and labor pools and your lot is claiming moral highground? That's just funny.
I never said that, you fool. I said "what's wrong with open markets"? Of course, you, being a pinko, see the free market as an evil, and certainly not something worth fighting to keep free.

And I don't claim any moral anything, but I'm right, as usual.

That's because you're a fucking idiot.
Germany invaded europe to ethincally cleanse it of "inferior races" and put it under the command of a centralised fascist government. The war had absolutely fuck all to do with "the U.S. and Britain and France protecting their hegemony from Germany and Italy." Their hegemony of the US, Britain or France, real or imagined, was an irrelevent footnote.

'Except when workers go on strike and you send in police and military to harass and kill them.'
And I've already said: That would be violating their rights wouldn't it?


Yes it would, and yet your wonderful ideology creates the environment for it on almost a daily basis.
My wonderful ideology isn't creating any environment because it isn't being used.

I thought I was being pretty clear. Marching and protesting war.
It depends whether your idea of marching and protesting war involves marching and protesting or throwing stones and petrol bombs. I couldn't care less about the former two, but the latter two are sort of asking for a bullet in the head.

[red team]

Who's they? Are you talking about the poor in africa? They don't seem to be making much profit or anything else from where I'm sitting.

So, what are you implying with your response. That they're lazy, good for nothing negroes? Ah, so you're a closet racist too!


A system doesn't produce anything- people do. It's people - workers - that are providing these things, which you seem to forget.

And how are workers going to pay for anything they produce if labour market demand, DEMAND that they don't get paid enough to buy everything they've made? I suppose credit cards are a good solution, but we know that there will come a day when this over-indebted system collapses.


I'd like to know if you consider labour a resource and what makes you think some should be entitled to the labour of others.

What makes you think that we don't have the brains to make labour-saving devices?
Maybe you don't have the brains, but we all know that.


Those resources either aren't being exploted, or the people there don't have the means to use them. Let's not forget that it's only because of demand that people value these resources in the first place.

Oh, garbage.

If there was demand for commodities that harm or kill people then people with money to manufacture these things would make money regardless of the social consequences. The wealthiest businesses in the world are into making weapons and legal narcotics.

The southern slavocracy had a lot of demand for whips and leg irons, so you're going to tell me now that whips and leg irons are "valuable"?


This is a gross distortion of what happens. Voluntarily trading pay for labour isn't really exploitation or siezure. And surplus value? Another marxist myth. Value is subjective.

"Value is subjective"

This must be the most ridiculous statement ever made. But, coming from you it's no surprise.

Value is subjective, but relative to what? You forget to acknowledge the troubling little fact that demand is relative to social circumstances and that some consumer items are critically valuable because people depend on them for their physical existence. But, you advocate the position that "value" is absolutely subjective and should be manipulated by those who can profit from it. In that case, after the revolution we'll leave you a big shiny diamond, but take away your food and water.

And for the mathematically incompetent as we know you are:

8 hours x 1.5 per hour = 12
8 hours x 1 per hour = 8

Please try buying 12 with the 8 was paid to you.
I guess credit cards would be a good solution as I said before.
But we know how that's all going to end up as I also said before.


I don't think killing them is the goal, otherwise the war would have been over in five minutes; they wouldn't be wasting time rooting our insurgents, they'd have just shot everthing in sight. And they already had unlimited access to Iraq's resources before the war.

Killing for fun and profit.

You forgot the profit part.

[Tungsten]

red team

So, what are you implying with your response. That they're lazy, good for nothing negroes? Ah, so you're a closet racist too!
So out of context it's not even worth responding to.

And how are workers going to pay for anything they produce if labour market demand, DEMAND that they don't get paid enough to buy everything they've made?
They do get paid enough.

I suppose credit cards are a good solution, but we know that there will come a day when this over-indebted system collapses.
There's a trick to this: It's called "living within your means".

What makes you think that we don't have the brains to make labour-saving devices?
Maybe you don't have the brains, but we all know that.
That's a perculiar response to : I'd like to know if you consider labour a resource and what makes you think some should be entitled to the labour of others. Care to try again?

Oh, garbage.

If there was demand for commodities that harm or kill people then people with money to manufacture these things would make money regardless of the social consequences. The wealthiest businesses in the world are into making weapons and legal narcotics.
No shit sherlock. But again, irrelevent to the original argument.

The southern slavocracy had a lot of demand for whips and leg irons, so you're going to tell me now that whips and leg irons are "valuable"?
They must have been valuable because energy was expended in producing them (that's what you believe, isn't it?) Do you consider these things valueless because they're used for "exploitative purposes"? Is there some "exploitation factor" we need to take into account when calculating a product's value, that should be deducted from the cost of the product? How is this figure arrived at? Do products produced for those purposes require no energy to produce, then?

So much for the "energy theory of value".

"Value is subjective"

This must be the most ridiculous statement ever made. But, coming from you it's no surprise.
Be careful- in the previous paragraph, you're implying that "whips and irons have no value (to me)". They probably don't have any value to you, but they do to a slave master, which would mean you share my subjective theory of value.

Or do you think "I don't think x should be valuable, therefore no one else values it either." What childish thinking.

Value is subjective, but relative to what? You forget to acknowledge the troubling little fact that demand is relative to social circumstances and that some consumer items are critically valuable because people depend on them for their physical existence.
You've just answered your own question. Relative to whatever circumstances you find yourself in.

But, you advocate the position that "value" is absolutely subjective and should be manipulated by those who can profit from it.
Which doesn't alter it's subjective value. If they don't value it, or the price exceeds what they're willing to pay, they won't buy it.

In that case, after the revolution we'll leave you a big shiny diamond, but take away your food and water.
Yes please. I'll swap it with someone who does value it in exchange for food and water and other things. This once against smacks of "I don't think x should be valuable, therefore no one else values it either." Or do you intent to start dictating to people what they do and don't value?

And for the mathematically incompetent as we know you are:

8 hours x 1.5 per hour = 12
8 hours x 1 per hour = 8

Please try buying 12 with the 8 was paid to you.
If he can't sell at 12, he'll have to sell for 8, which is what I have, or wait until I save for 12. If 12 is too high and no one will buy it, you lower the profit margin.
Killing for fun and profit.

You forgot the profit part.
Look at all the profits the war has dragged in! Oh look, it's a minus figure. :rolleyes:

[razboz]

Look at all the profits the war has dragged in! Oh look, it's a minus figure. rolleyes.gif

I havent really been folowing the debate, but i couldnt help noticing this. Tungsten you are thinking on a national level, which is outdated now a days. The true power, the true deciders are the companies, the corporations. The war actually helped out a number of international corporations such as Haliburton and petrochemical companies. I imagine Boeing must've also made a nice cut from the whole buisness selling war planes to the USA.

[Tungsten]

The current military industrial complex was effect, not a cause. Did Boeing declare war on Iraq or George Bush? Did Haliburton fly planes into the twin towers?

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 05:15 pm
The current military industrial complex was effect, not a cause. Did Boeing declare war on Iraq or George Bush? Did Haliburton fly planes into the twin towers?
Hahahah :lol:

i assume your working under the assumption that the government of the USA still opperates in an unbiased way, and that they obey the poeple and only the poeple? Well think again. because the ties that bind the corporations and the politicians are stronger than truth, democracy and life itself. There is enourmous pressure on the political parties to play to the big companies so that they get funds to run their election campains and fill their wallets, or get that coveted Chairman of the Board position.

[Tungsten]

I'm sure the government does have links with military industries, but I'm skeptical that they had any involvement in flying planes into buildings which triggered the war on terrorism.
I'm not interested in black helicopters and "Bush planned 9/11" conspiracy theories.

[red team]

They must have been valuable because energy was expended in producing them (that's what you believe, isn't it?) Do you consider these things valueless because they're used for "exploitative purposes"? Is there some "exploitation factor" we need to take into account when calculating a product's value, that should be deducted from the cost of the product? How is this figure arrived at? Do products produced for those purposes require no energy to produce, then?

So much for the "energy theory of value".

No, because I don't bundle up "value" with objective production costs like most brain-damaged mainstream economists. Value is a property of whether or not you want a consumer item, so it's only meaningful after the fact of the purchase (if you choose to purchase it). You either want an item or you don't. So how do you factor that into production costs? I can't half-way want an item anymore than I can demand half of a car from a car dealership, so why should prices be fluctuating in response to demand? Shouldn't demand be affecting production quantity instead with each unit produced fixed at objective material costs? Nevermind the fact that amortization of currency never happens, but amortization of material items do happen inevitably. Try driving a car that's 25 year old if you're lucky enough to get it started. Great, what happened to the money that was traded for it 25 years before?

[piet11111]

may i point out the ludlow massacre in april 20th 1914 in america !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

another gem of history is the term gunboat diplomacy as done by the capitalist nations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy

western nations made a habbit of using force to gain access to other country's resources and markets.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 05:42 pm
I'm sure the government does have links with military industries, but I'm skeptical that they had any involvement in flying planes into buildings which triggered the war on terrorism.
I'm not interested in black helicopters and "Bush planned 9/11" conspiracy theories.
Its fair enough about the conpiracies. But can you really beleive that 9 11 is the cause of the war on terror? Though it may be the incident that trigered it, deep seated imprialistic and patriotic feelings, as well as vested buisness interests in a number of sensitive parts of the world are the cause of the war on terror. Who can seriously beleive that the war on terror is only a war on terror, while non of the causes or actors of this terror have been either arrested or killed? Ossama Bin Laden is still at large, As well as all his major generals. Worse the number of terrorist attacks has increased through out the world, as newly formed estremist terrorst cells flex their political muscle. The war on terror was a maskerade to justify invading oil rich countries and taking their resources, as well as scaring any other potential contesters of American hegemony over the world.

[uber-liberal]

Originally posted by patton+October 30, 2006 03:10 pm--> (patton @ October 30, 2006 03:10 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 08:43 pm

[email protected] 29, 2006 05:42 pm
I'm sure the government does have links with military industries, but I'm skeptical that they had any involvement in flying planes into buildings which triggered the war on terrorism.
I'm not interested in black helicopters and "Bush planned 9/11" conspiracy theories.
Its fair enough about the conpiracies. But can you really beleive that 9 11 is the cause of the war on terror? Though it may be the incident that trigered it, deep seated imprialistic and patriotic feelings, as well as vested buisness interests in a number of sensitive parts of the world are the cause of the war on terror. Who can seriously beleive that the war on terror is only a war on terror, while non of the causes or actors of this terror have been either arrested or killed? Ossama Bin Laden is still at large, As well as all his major generals. Worse the number of terrorist attacks has increased through out the world, as newly formed estremist terrorst cells flex their political muscle. The war on terror was a maskerade to justify invading oil rich countries and taking their resources, as well as scaring any other potential contesters of American hegemony over the world.

Of course he cant. There are so many people in this country who cant look at the big picture. [/b]
If the Mona Lisa is three inches from your face, do you see her smile, or just a bunch of color?
This country, and almost all westernized countries, can't get a perspective because it's being crammed in their faces on a constant basis by large multimedia groups and our own governments.
What's more is we don't get all of the relevant info to make a sound decision (for reasons of national security, of course), but we're supposed to trust that a former CEO of an oil company isn't getting us involved in a war for oil in the Middle East? The nay's have it!

[Tungsten]

red team

No, because I don't bundle up "value" with objective production costs like most brain-damaged mainstream economists.
Which is why you consider them brain-damaged, but why your theory is also doomed to failiure. Do you think people care what the objective production costs are? If you do, then how are you theories any different to the labor theory of value in practice?

Value is a property of whether or not you want a consumer item, so it's only meaningful after the fact of the purchase (if you choose to purchase it). This isn't right. Whether you value the money over the said consumer item to spend on other consumer items comes first. Before the purchase.

You either want an item or you don't. So how do you factor that into production costs?
You calculate the cost of production vs likely demand and see what kind of profit margin you're likely to achieve. How do you? Do you?

I can't half-way want an item
You can want an item you can't afford.

anymore than I can demand half of a car from a car dealership, so why should prices be fluctuating in response to demand?
Because only purchases have an effect on supply/demand.

Shouldn't demand be affecting production quantity
If the producer is smart, it does.

instead with each unit produced fixed at objective material costs?
No, because if all the producer was getting back was the material costs, there wouldn't be any point in the producer producing in the first place. The best they could ever hope to do was break even.

Nevermind the fact that amortization of currency never happens, but amortization of material items do happen inevitably. Try driving a car that's 25 year old if you're lucky enough to get it started. Great, what happened to the money that was traded for it 25 years before?
According to you, it should cost the same, as the material it's made of hasn't changed from the day it was made, nor has the amount of labour or energy that went into it.

Take note that some 25 year old cars of similar purchase 25 years ago have very different values today.

piet11111

may i point out the ludlow massacre in april 20th 1914 in america !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre


western nations made a habbit of using force to gain access to other country's resources and markets.
Which unjustified use of force are you referring to? The strike breakers shooting the strikers, or the strikers attacking the replacement workers?

razboz

The war on terror was a maskerade to justify invading oil rich countries and taking their resources, as well as scaring any other potential contesters of American hegemony over the world.
This is the problem. You look at everything through a marxist lense, as if his theories were an unquestionable truth. So when you see one country invading another, you don't see it as some fool sending in his army to bring democracy to people who are completely alien to it, or someone looking for revenge for 9/11 and attacking any country where the majority of the population happens to wear a turban, you see "imperialism" and "capitalists stealing resources", because the latter scenario most fits your worldview. Never mind that Bush has been the biggest threat to private property (isn't imperialism a violation of property rights?), liberty and individiual rights America's probably ever seen- I guess that doesn't count.

Sure, it's not past some companies to engage in unsavoury business practices and many oil companies do have blood on their hands. But you're not saying that. You're making a facile generalisation that happens to fit your ideology. Bush isn't a capitalist, he's a conservative.

patton

Of course he cant. There are so many people in this country who cant look at the big picture.
You disagree?

[Tungsten]

patton

We just happen to invade an oil rich country just as the global oil reservers are drying up. Hmmmmmmmm.
There are easier oil rich countries to invade. Me thinks Iraq was only invaded to get at Iran- which, incidently, is now surrounded on every side (look at a map). Saying it's all about oil is like saying it's all about terrorism- too simplistic an evaluation.

Whatchout Mr Chavez you could end up next on the bullshit made up WMD list by Bush.
You like that prick? He's no better than Bush. He's another one who likes trying to generate artificial conflicts for personal gain.

[uber-liberal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 09:44 am


In our system you guys are really free to band together, buy some dirt cheap land and form a commune where you can live relatively free of harassment as communsits. You can be communists without involving the rest of society. But try being a capitalist in a communist or socialist country.

Aside from the fact that your argument here smacks of that old Jim Crow logic (just ask Strom Thurmond) , I think you're overgeneralizing a wee bit, boss. Communism is an economic, NOT POLITICAL, state. You can have a democratic republic, like the U.S. or U.K., and STILL have it be communist. You can also have a fascist capitlaist nation, like Germany in WWII.
And you could do the same thing in a democratic communist state by getting some land for you and your capitalist buddies. Of course you'll need some Mexicans and Indians for cheap labor, since YOU couldn't possibly lower yourself to that standard. After all, that's what foreigners are for, isn't it? (WARNING!!! THIS IS SARCASM!!! DO NOT CALL THE ACLU!!! REPEAT; DO NOT CALL THE ACLU!!!!)
Just remember, keep your profits up and wages down or you, too, will be in the poor house, picking apples with the "brown people" just to stay off welfare, because you're no commie, right? You believe in price ceilings and a low, unlivable minimum wage for all business. Oh, yeah... and We, the People, too. You guess...

[Pow R. Toc H.]

What about people that work hard for what they have? A person that does more than the person working next to him should get more shouldn't he? If you do a mediocre job than shouldnt you expect mediocre pay? Capitalism works because it is a system that rewards people on how hard they work, something communism will never do.

[SmashCapitalism]

Moral superiority? First of all, like many others say, capitalism can be very undemocratic. Secondly, even "democratic" nations like the USA arent truly free, they are just ruled by bourgeois members who are millionaires. In short, we have a false illusion of democracy, while communism is the TRUE democracy by letting workers represent themselves.

When dealing with communism and morality, remember St. Augustines quote, "Never judge a worldview by its abuse." Just because people calling themselves communists have done bad things doesnt mean that communism is a bad theory.

And how can you call capitalism moral when some kids grow up as spoiled brats who can break their cell phones and mp3 players and mommy and daddy get them new ones all the time (I live among these brats), and other children (6 million per year) have to starve to death?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by patton+November 02, 2006 09:22 pm--> (patton @ November 02, 2006 09:22 pm)
uber-[email protected] 30, 2006 09:46 pm

If the Mona Lisa is three inches from your face, do you see her smile, or just a bunch of color?
This country, and almost all westernized countries, can't get a perspective because it's being crammed in their faces on a constant basis by large multimedia groups and our own governments.
What's more is we don't get all of the relevant info to make a sound decision (for reasons of national security, of course), but we're supposed to trust that a former CEO of an oil company isn't getting us involved in a war for oil in the Middle East? The nay's have it!
EDITED FOR TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!! [/b]
It's actually extremely easy in this country to get all the relevant information you need to make an informed decision on just about any issue.

There are barriers to that of course.

The first is that people don't have time to track all of that information, which they're not going to have in your system either.

The second is that not everyone knows what all that information means. This affects two groups of people: Smart people can be ignorant of government just like they can be ignorant of any other industry that they haven't trained in or have no experience in. On the other hand many people are just plain fucking stupid, the kind who get the information but refuse to accept it if it dares to go against their preconceived notions.

The third is that we actively encourage members of both the above groups to participate in the decision-making. Throw a bunch of people together, half of whom are smart but still don't get what's going on and half of whom are just plain idiots, and you're not going to come up with terrific policies.

None of this will change in Candy Land, either. Deal with it.

[uber-liberal]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 02, 2006 10:23 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 02, 2006 10:23 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 09:22 pm

uber-[email protected] 30, 2006 09:46 pm

If the Mona Lisa is three inches from your face, do you see her smile, or just a bunch of color?
This country, and almost all westernized countries, can't get a perspective because it's being crammed in their faces on a constant basis by large multimedia groups and our own governments.
What's more is we don't get all of the relevant info to make a sound decision (for reasons of national security, of course), but we're supposed to trust that a former CEO of an oil company isn't getting us involved in a war for oil in the Middle East? The nay's have it!
EDITED FOR TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's actually extremely easy in this country to get all the relevant information you need to make an informed decision on just about any issue.

There are barriers to that of course.

The first is that people don't have time to track all of that information, which they're not going to have in your system either.

The second is that not everyone knows what all that information means. This affects two groups of people: Smart people can be ignorant of government just like they can be ignorant of any other industry that they haven't trained in or have no experience in. On the other hand many people are just plain fucking stupid, the kind who get the information but refuse to accept it if it dares to go against their preconceived notions.

The third is that we actively encourage members of both the above groups to participate in the decision-making. Throw a bunch of people together, half of whom are smart but still don't get what's going on and half of whom are just plain idiots, and you're not going to come up with terrific policies.

None of this will change in Candy Land, either. Deal with it. [/b]
You had me with you up until the candy-land comment, boss...

[red team]

No, because I don't bundle up "value" with objective production costs like most brain-damaged mainstream economists.

Which is why you consider them brain-damaged, but why your theory is also doomed to failiure. Do you think people care what the objective production costs are? If you do, then how are you theories any different to the labor theory of value in practice?


Of course they care, just take for example why working people demand wages paid at a specific rate. Do you think they would accept as a valid reason for underpaying them below their wage rate because of market fluctuation in prices? :lol:

But now we have this absurd schism in which wages for work is quantified according the the rate in which work is performed, but prices for items sold from this quantified amount of labour is subjected to price fluctuations from market demand.

I don't even have to mention machine assisted production in which output quantity far outstrips what can be quantified for labour performed which makes paying for labour as if labour alone produced the output absurd. How do you quantify the labour used to make 100 cars in a day with machine assisted labour? A single autoworker should be a millionaire if paid according to output, but energy consuming machines used in the process simply makes quantifiable debt trading impractical.




Value is a property of whether or not you want a consumer item, so it's only meaningful after the fact of the purchase (if you choose to purchase it).

This isn't right. Whether you value the money over the said consumer item to spend on other consumer items comes first. Before the purchase.


Simply look at your following response to see how inconsistent your answer is. "Whether you value the money over the said consumer item to spend on other consumer items comes first." But, according to you producers calculate costs from "likely demand". Likely according to what? A forture teller? A tarot card? :lol:
No, it is from past consumer purchases, which is what I've said all along.




You either want an item or you don't. So how do you factor that into production costs?

You calculate the cost of production vs likely demand and see what kind of profit margin you're likely to achieve. How do you? Do you?


No, Capitalists may be very rich, but they aren't mind readers, so what happens inside your head is irrelevant to "calculate the cost of production vs likely demand"

See above response.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 03, 2006 12:26 am
You had me with you up until the candy-land comment, boss...
But the rest is true, yes?

[uber-liberal]

But the rest is true, yes?

For the most part I would agree that the average person is not informed of all the goings-on of their nation(s). Most people get half the story because the whole story is either unbelievable to the uninformed or would create a SERIOUS backlash.
In a republic we pay good money to get people to handle intelligence work FOR A REASON. Nick the Accountant and his wife and kids don't need to know if we are spying on Colonel Gaddafi (sp?) or President Putin. They do need to know, though, if Lybia is allying herself with Kim Jong Il against us.

I went the other way with the Candy-Land comment because I don't think that will change, either, but the level of awareness in foreign policy and global happenings should, even now, and for everyone. Too much is happening to sit back and watch Mork & Mindy reruns instead of ANY news program (JUST NOT FOX!!!). Apathy is the new Mother's Little Helper.
"What a drag it is getting old..."

[t_wolves_fan]

For the most part I would agree that the average person is not informed of all the goings-on of their nation(s).

Frankly I don't think the average person can be, because that's simply too much information to keep track of. Not to mention a lot of policies or issues don't affect them.


Most people get half the story because the whole story is either unbelievable to the uninformed or would create a SERIOUS backlash.

I think most people in the United States have a general idea of what is going on, especially with regard to issues that have a direct effect on them. As for the backlash, last night showed you are right.


In a republic we pay good money to get people to handle intelligence work FOR A REASON. Nick the Accountant and his wife and kids don't need to know if we are spying on Colonel Gaddafi (sp?) or President Putin. They do need to know, though, if Lybia is allying herself with Kim Jong Il against us.

True, and that's relatively easy to discern if people are interested enough.


I went the other way with the Candy-Land comment because I don't think that will change, either, but the level of awareness in foreign policy and global happenings should, even now, and for everyone. Too much is happening to sit back and watch Mork & Mindy reruns instead of ANY news program (JUST NOT FOX!!!). Apathy is the new Mother's Little Helper.
"What a drag it is getting old..."

I would agree that people should become more informed but alas, people have a right to not care if they don't want to. Not sure why they would, but if it floats their boat.

Did I just basically agree with you on everything?

:huh: ;)

[uber-liberal]

Did I just basically agree with you on everything?

Pretty much. Don't worry, you're not coming down with a case of the Pinko's. Logic usually wins out no matter what, even if it is flawed.
The point of getting involved politically is to turn several people's ideals into a pragmatic reality through compromise. I'm like the independent Senator from Vermont, a democratic socialist. I view my beliefs as more along a party line. This is my ideal. Odds are it won't come about completely, but even if I get through 1% of it, to me, it's worth the struggle.

And a lot of people follow the Simon and Garfunkel path on local and national news: "I get all the news I need on the weather report". Those who suffer in ignorance through apathy and disinterest deserve their fate, as far as I'm concerned.