Property Rights

[ShakeZula06]

Hey I'm new to this board (I found this linked from a different politics forum) and dropped by to ask you guys why you are against property rights (if you are).

I am against the existance of government, but believe that property rights are derived from natural rights, not from what the government says.

[MrDoom]

There are no such things as "natural rights", society creates and upholds all rights. That is the essence of materialism. Throwing around the phrase "natural rights" is libertarian idealism, and not to be taken seriously.

When you say "property rights", which type of property do you mean? Bourgeois private property, or personal property? We are not against self-aquired personal possession. We are against private capital, however.

And do no confuse 'government' and 'State'. Even most anarchists here will say that they tolerate government (but not the State). Government is simply human organization.

[ShakeZula06]

There are no such things as "natural rights",
I would say that natural rights do exist. I would say I own my body and mind, and from there I own my the labor and what I make from that labor. From there anything I recieve through voluntary exchange would be something I have a natural right to, and that's where I get private property rights. Which part would you disagree with?

society creates and upholds all rights.
I would agree that society is needed to uphold rights in the sense that if you naturally own something that society as whole disagrees with you on (for example taxes) then while I'd say you do *own* it it doesn't really matter. Another example would be slavery. While a slave may own his own body and mind, society (and those able to control them, the slavemaster) disagrees. However I don't think that means he doesn't own himself.

When you say "property rights", which type of property do you mean? Bourgeois private property, or personal property?
Both, more specifically whatever is transferred to you by voluntary means. For the record I'm a libertarian (more specifically an anarchocapitalist) if you couldn't figure that out. :)

We are not against self-aquired personal possession. We are against private capital, however.
How can you logically be against one form but against the other?

And do no confuse 'government' and 'State'. Even most anarchists here will say that they tolerate government (but not the State). Government is simply human organization.
Interesting. What would you say the difference is? A state is human organization too isn't it?

[MrDoom]

There are no such things as "natural rights",
I would say that natural rights do exist. I would say I own my body and mind, and from there I own my the labor and what I make from that labor. From there anything I recieve through voluntary exchange would be something I have a natural right to, and that's where I get private property rights. Which part would you disagree with?
The inherent exploitation and unsustainability with the entire capitalist system.



When you say "property rights", which type of property do you mean? Bourgeois private property, or personal property?
Both, more specifically whatever is transferred to you by voluntary means. For the record I'm a libertarian (more specifically an anarchocapitalist) if you couldn't figure that out. :)
Anarchocapitalism, you say?

How quaint. We restrict cappies on this forum, however. The main section of the forum is for leftist discussion; opposing ideologies are free to post in their 'reservation', however. :)



We are not against self-aquired personal possession. We are against private capital, however.
How can you logically be against one form but against the other?
Private bourgeois property is any form of capital used to produce commodities. Personal property are things that you personally possess and use, like a bed or a house.

As communists the aim is to develop economic conditions so that private property and all of its exploitive ills are no longer practical or possible.



And do no confuse 'government' and 'State'. Even most anarchists here will say that they tolerate government (but not the State). Government is simply human organization.
Interesting. What would you say the difference is? A state is human organization too isn't it?
A state is a self-acting hierarchy arising out of class antagonisms, characterized by its monopoly on violence and its control of armed forces.

The state arises out of class antagonisms (ie, the modern bourgeois and proletarian struggle), and is used by one class to supress another.

[ShakeZula06]

The inherent exploitation and unsustainability with the entire capitalist system.
But this doesn't say anything about whether natural rights exist. Usually when I hear this line it comes off as just being emotional rhetoric. I mean, human beings are rational and when they act in a voluntary manner (which is what happens in capitalism) they do so because they think outcome will be better then the alternatives. Otherwise they wouldn't. Being that capitalism operates on a voluntary basis (freedom of where to work, if you want to run a business, what goods and services you wish to consume, etc) seems to specialize in that. I just don't see the inherent exploitation in capitalism. Also, what is 'unstable' about capitalism?

Anarchocapitalism, you say?

How quaint. We restrict cappies on this forum, however. The main section of the forum is for leftist discussion; opposing ideologies are free to post in their 'reservation', however. :)
Oops, sorry. I looked around on the front of the forum and didn't notice these restrictions or a seperate forum for other idealogies. If you are unfamiliar with anarchocapitalism here's a wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchocapitalism). I could also link you a couple forums where they discuss ACism (for short) and libertarian theory in general if you would like.

Private bourgeois property is any form of capital used to produce commodities. Personal property are things that you personally possess and use, like a bed or a house.
I already understood the difference but thanks. The thing is it seems odd that property can exist in one form (personal use) but not another (the means of production).

As communists the aim is to develop economic conditions so that private property and all of its exploitive ills are no longer practical or possible.
As I said above I just don't see this exploitive ills. Private ownership of businesses and such as yielded huge benifits to society in the forms of goods and services. Wouldn't Communal ownership suffer from the Tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)?

A state is a self-acting hierarchy arising out of class antagonisms, characterized by its monopoly on violence and its control of armed forces.
Thanks for clearing that up. My basic rejection of both government and state is based on my position that taxes are theft. Of course the state I hate a lot more for there monopolization of services that I think would be better supplied by a free market and devoid of using the barrel of a gun to force you to buy it (taxes).

[anarchista feminista]

I personally believe in collective ownership. Individuals are of course entitled to their own property but in the case of community we should break down the fences and share. Land should belong to no one in particular and I think that in anarchist societies the best way for them to function is to begin with a collective property ownership. That is my personal perception of property of course. :)

[BobKKKindle$]

from there I own my the labor and what I make from that labor

Given your recognition of this 'natural right' one would think that you would be able to recognize the expolitaton of Capitalism. The system of private ownership over the means of production that operates under Capitalism means that if we are a wage labourer - i.e. we survive through selling our labour power to a Capitalist - when we create a good or service, we do not have ownership over this product of our labour - it is expropriated, because the owner of the non-human means of production is able to legally take it from us - even though he played no part in the production process other than contributing the capital. Wheras labour is inherently imbued with and emenates from the individual worker, the non-labour means of production can stand independent of the Capitalist within a social system of ownership.

Marx called this expropriation of commodidities from the worker 'alienation' and it is one of the main reasons that under Capitalist society, labour loses its creative significance and comes to be viewed as merely another commodities.

Just a random question - if no taxes exist, how would non-excludable and non-rivalrous goods (also known as public goods) be produced, given that a profit cannot be derived from them?

[Dimentio]

Natural rights to what? I mean, it is applying moral metaphysics on nature. If it was a right not to be put under violence, then it would be physically impossible to do anything violent against an individual. If private property was a natural right, then it would been a physical law, and we would not be able to deprive anyone from it.

People should have usership rights to a part of the productive capacity, and personal usership rights to things which they need to sustain their integrity, but these rights imply a social contract. At least that is my notion as a technocrat.

[La Comédie Noire]

"Property Rights"

Imagine the earth as a large parcel of land, now imagine human society as just reaching this huge parcel of land. Now imagine two groups of people Group A & Group B. Group A Collectivley owns every, or close to it, bit of land in the parcel. Making Group B basically homeless, that is unless they are willing to work and sustain Group A.

Question:

1. How come Group A gets to collectivley own all the land, even though Both groups came to the land at the same time? Is it Natural Right?

Answer:
No, Group A is just Oppresing Group B through the structure of the exisitng society.


The Real Answer:

Group B fights for the right for all humans to sustain themselves off the parcel of land.


Sorry if that was over simplified.

[ShakeZula06]

Given your recognition of this 'natural right' one would think that you would be able to recognize the expolitaton of Capitalism. The system of private ownership over the means of production that operates under Capitalism means that if we are a wage labourer - i.e. we survive through selling our labour power to a Capitalist
No one is preventing you from buying means of production yourself and owning all of your labor though. No one is preventing you from being an entreprenuer. When you take a job you're voluntarily giving up (or selling) your labor to the capitalist. This is a VOLUNTARY decision. Capitalists employing the workers is what happens in most cases because it's the most efficient and produces more goods sooner,cheaper, and better.

when we create a good or service, we do not have ownership over this product of our labour
Right, but you waved that right, as I said above.

even though he played no part in the production process other than contributing the capital.
But the capital wouldn't have been there in the first place had it not been for the capitalist who created it. He had an incentive to create it and better society by providing goods and services. Also, I know it's kind of your guys thing to say the capitalist did nothing but provide capital, but it's not uncommon to have owners of businesses working 60+ hour weeks in the US.

There is no objective way to measure exactly what amount of value the laborer produced and which amount the capitalist produced, thus hiring workers, taking a job, selling a product, and buying a product are all voluntary actions and are negotiable in capitalism.

Wheras labour is inherently imbued with and emenates from the individual worker, the non-labour means of production can stand independent of the Capitalist within a social system of ownership.
What do you mean here? Who's going to create capital when there is no incentive to profit from it? Won't inventing and improving technology just stop or at least progress much slower?

Marx called this expropriation of commodidities from the worker 'alienation' and it is one of the main reasons that under Capitalist society, labour loses its creative significance and comes to be viewed as merely another commodities.
What else would/should labor be looked at as?

Just a random question - if no taxes exist, how would non-excludable and non-rivalrous goods (also known as public goods) be produced, given that a profit cannot be derived from them?
What examples do you have in mind? If a service has value to people, and there is a way to supply it, then it can and will be provided and would profit. Examples I think could (and in most cases have) be provided by a free market rather then the government are roads, security, fire department services, courts, among others.

However things with no demand that the government currently supplies (intercontinental ballistic missiles, genocide, Jim Crow laws, for instance) would not be supplied.

[ShakeZula06]

If it was a right not to be put under violence, then it would be physically impossible to do anything violent against an individual. If private property was a natural right, then it would been a physical law, and we would not be able to deprive anyone from it.
If I understand correctly are you saying that anything that isn't stopped by nature can't be a right?

People should have usership rights to a part of the productive capacity, and personal usership rights to things which they need to sustain their integrity
Why *should* they? In other words what right do they have to it?

[ShakeZula06]

1. How come Group A gets to collectivley own all the land, even though Both groups came to the land at the same time? Is it Natural Right?
I'd assume that it came through voluntary means, no?

[La Comédie Noire]

I'd assume that it came through voluntary means, no?

No, It's Group A's assertion that they have a "natural right" to own private property.

It was just a situation to explain the absurd notion of Private Property Rights. In private property one does not only "own" land he also excludes other members of society from using this land, even if they themselves may be able to put it to better use.

[ShakeZula06]

edit: meh, sorry guys I don't know what I'm doing wrong with the quote codes.


No, It's Group A's assertion that they have a "natural right" to own private property.
Well, what part of this-


I would say I own my body and mind, and from there I own my the labor and what I make from that labor. From there anything I recieve through voluntary exchange would be something I have a natural right to, and that's where I get private property rights.

Would you disagree with? Or are you saying that just the idea that one could own something is bunk? Or that some things can be owned and some can't? If so where is the distinction? While I disagree with what you say you've got my ear and I'm ready to listen and possibly change my mind, not really trying to argumentative.


In private property one does not only "own" land he also excludes other members of society from using this land,

Well I'll nitpick and say that's a right they reserve, but I think your just thinking of the bad things of capitalism. Certainly the capital which wouldn't be there if not for the capitalist who wants to make money (yes, the workers too) has lead to great things for society, no? Could these things have been provided without private property? I would think no, but I might be wrong.

I mean, a lot of you guys seem to think capitalism has lead to the poor getting poorer. In my home forum here's a quote from someone with similar views to me (he's a minarchist libertarian I believe though, as opposed to anarchist libertarian)had to say-


How many times do we have to explain that wealth disparity is an irrelevant and meaningless benchmark?

The percentage of total wealth held by who is a silly stat to fixate on.

Unless you're a communist and simply want equality for the sake of it. Otherwise you'd be concerned with absolute levels of wealth, not relative.

In developed countries the absolute level of wealth is incredible. The poorest of the poor live lives of luxury, and are provided with everything they need including entertainment.

In undeveloped countries, the political leadership is to blame for their poor state, not the other wealthy countries.

But that is something that needs to be explained over and over to those who don't get it.

natedogg

Now I havn't looked at any studies on how the poor in capitalist nations are compared to those in second or third world nations, but I'd imagine it is (if anyone has any unbiased studies on this feel free to link). How much causation it is due to economic systems is also certainly up for debate.


even if they themselves may be able to put it to better use.
How do you objectively measure 'better use'?

[LSD]

Oh look, we've got ourselves a brand spankin' new libertarian!

First of all, let me explain a few things about libertarianism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59633&view=findpost&p=1292221953) so that maybe you'll reconsider your poor choice in ideology.

That said, though, I'll try to address your points directly:


I would say I own my body and mind

And that's your first mistake.

You don't "own" your body and mind, you are your body and mind.


and from there I own my the labor and what I make from that labor.

That doesn't even make sense from within property theory.

Even if I accept for the sake of argument that you do "own" your body (and, for the record, I don't), it does not automatically flow that you "own" anything produced by it.

After all, you're not claiming that you own everything produced by your mind, are you? I guess that's 'cause such an assertion would be patently ridiculous; but, fundamentally, it's actually the exact same argument.

Either "ownership of self" grants exclusive rights to everything and everything you make or it doesn't. But if this is a matter of "principles" and "natural rights", it can't be somewhere in between.

Besides, this entire notion of ownership rights is absurd to begin with. Anything that you "make" is made using resources from an immesuarable number of sources, almost none of which are "yours" and most of which are unownable.

By your logic, everything that has every been produced in the history of humanity is actually the property of the sun since it's its "labour" that's been at the basis of all production. :rolleyes:


When you take a job you're voluntarily giving up (or selling) your labor to the capitalist. This is a VOLUNTARY decision.

Capitalism forces workers to accept the "wages offered" on pain of starvation. Accordingly, the so-called "voluntary contract" that workers enter into is not actually so voluntary at all since the penalty for not entering into it is suffering and death.

If I put a gun to your head and give you the "choice" to either give me your money or die, do you really have a "choice"?

Now nominally, you do! You can say "NO!"...and die.

But it is a choice you are very unlikely to make, self-preservation is a remarkably powerful force. Likewise, if the choice is work for this company or starve!... what would you choose? What would anyone choose?


Who's going to create capital when there is no incentive to profit from it?

Anyone who's interested in using it.

"Capital" in an economic sense obviously won't exist post-capitalism, but a good deal of what's presently labeled "capital" would continue to be produced, and probably at an accelerated rate.

You asked about technological development. Well, let me tell you, one of the single greatest barriers to technological progress right now is not the "state" or "market hampering", it's intellectual property.

Elminating patents and the endless red tape of property law would lead to a technological explosion the likes of which we haven't seen in centuries.

Just look at what's already being achieved with the "free software" movement and imagine what could be achieved if similar principles were applied across the board.


What examples do you have in mind? If a service has value to people, and there is a way to supply it, then it can and will be provided and would profit.

True enough. And you know what has value in this society? Kiddy porn.

Good thing then that your paradigm's going to lead to a whole lot more of it.

Really, think about it. Child pornogrpahy is manufactured today, despite the "statists", despite the dangers. Why? Because it pays. Because people are willing to spend a lot of money to buy it. That means that other people, unscrupulous people, are able to make a lot of money in producing it ...and do.

If the market were the sole agent, you seriously don't think that these people would continue? You don't think that many people presently in jail would do so as well? Or that others currently afraid of said jail would be now willing to do so too?

Pedophiles want child porn ergo there is demand for child porn and the market dictates that demand be satisfied, no matter what that demand is. After all, isn't that the point? That it's all so amoral?

I am weary to make predictions, but there is one thing I can be absolutely certain of: if we remove the state and the monopoly of legitimate force that goes with it, in a capitalist environment child pornography will increase ...a lot. There's pretty much no way to avoid it.

Pedophiles will be out there no matter the economic system, but a whole bunch of them would not record their actions if there was not profit in it. More importantly, without the capital incentive they would have a hell of a time moving their product.

And all those "soft" kiddy porn producers out there, the ones who aren't "sick" enough to rape the kids themselves, but just videotape their "softcore" exploitation and sexualization? Well, you can bet damn sure that they'll multiply exponentially once the cops disappear.

And the people who host the websites, who upload the video, who make ads and send emails, 95% of them aren't "sick". The only "sickness" that they suffer from is the disease called capitalism.

A sick econmomic model that encourges the commission of any act, any dispicable atrocity, so long as someone else is willing to "vote with their dollars" for it.


Examples I think could (and in most cases have) be provided by a free market rather then the government are roads, security,

"Security"? Really? For whom exactly?

Private protection, by definition, exists only for those who can afford it. Who's going to pay for a private security force to protect a homeless girl? Who's going to pay for a rescue team if she's abducted and raped?

Your market is predicated on inequality. If everyone had the same amount of money, then, yeah, this might all be able to work. But if everyone had the same amount of money, it wouldn't be capitalism, would it?

So given that inequality is a must and given that private services are cash-dependent, , what's to stop the rich from killing their enemies by paying off enough people? If all security is on the market, then all security is on the market. Justice becomes a rich man's luxury.

As long as the economic system is predicated on the accumulation of material wealth, then people's priorities will be the accumulation of material wealth. It's not about "human nature", it's about economics. If there are no police, no courts, and no laws, why can't I kill anyone I want to? If I can afford to protect myself, who can touch me?

If people need to have money to live, to eat, to have shelter, if the only way that they can get things that they want is to accumulate money, then they will accumulate money. If they're desperate enough or antisocial enough, they'll even do terrible things to accumulate it.

That's something that we see every day. Organized crime is as old as crime, do you really think that it would stop if the government went away? If we take away its only real opponent?

I mean, how are we even having this conversation? You want to keep private property, keep money, keep the market ...but not have any checks on it? You want to keep capital but remove law?


courts,

So tell me, in your perfect state-free libertarian market society, what happens if Bill Gates rapes a homeless person? Seriousl, what happens? Who would pay for her to get a trial? Who would pay for "justice"?

Even if some do-gooder did finance a trial, what would it matter? Billy's property is as sacrasanct as is his life (especially with his armed guards and fortified compound) so who can touch him? Who can exact the penalty that the "free market" for-hire court comes up with -- assuming that he doesn't just buy it off in the first place.

Now, I know what you'll say. Something like the judge won't accept a bribe because he needs a reputation for honesty to keep clients ..and that may be true.

But how much do you think such a judge would make a year? Maybe 60, 70 grand max? If Gates offered him double that, say 150,000$ (about 1/4000th of Billy's wealth, by the way) to find him innocent, you don't think he'd risk it?

He's getting double his yearly income for one trial and there's a good chance that he'd never get found out! If he's at all competent, he can come up with some fancy excuse for letting Gates off and nobody's the wiser.

That, of course, is the genius of it all. Once Gates pays him the first half, it's in his interest to find him innocent. That way he gets the second half and saves himself from retribution.

Seems to me that old Billy's got a completely free hand to rape and kill to his heart's delight.

Wait, let me guess, the "market" will stop him. :rolleyes:

Forget about the private courts (even libertarians eventually admit that they'd be impotent), this is the part where you claim that no one would buy from a murderer and, therefore, he'd never do it in the first place.

Well, sorry, but that's bullshit too.

How many people has coke killed in Latin America? How many people did the United Fruit Company kill in Guatamala?

Private corporations have been killing people for centuries ...they still sell product.

The fact is that capitalism induces selfish thinking, meaning that people are socialized to think about themselves and themselves alone. Most people know that Nike exploits its workers, they still buy Nike.

In a libertarian world in which corporate murder was more common, people would accept it. It would be "normal". They would gripe and complain, but, in the end, they'd have to buy from someone and the "free market" will lead them to make the selfish choice - the cheaper choice - every time, even if that means buying from a murderer.

Fuck, man, they do it today.

Besides, I sincerely doubt that "the public" would even hear about it. Rich people can afford some pretty good PR and a whole lot of spin. Old Billy could easily pay off the media not to report and since there are no police and hence no impartial body to investigate, it would all be very quitely forgotten.

There's an incredibly good chance that nobody, not the media, not the "private courts", and certainly not the general public would ever know that their favourite producer was a part-time criminal.

And even if people did somehow discover what he had done, capitalist theory encourages them to rationalize and forget. If they need to buy a new computer and Microsofts product is cheaper and better ...they'll "ignore" what its CEO may or may not have done.

It's called self-interest and it's the cornerstone of your particular ideology. It may not be pretty, but there it is.


among others.

What like jails?

So how does that work exactly anyway? When one of those "market" courts finds you guilty, then what?

Do they have a private police force that arrests you, binds you, and puts you in a private prison? Well, who pays for all of that? Who keeps the prison running and staffed?

As ludicrous as it sounds, how do assure that a particularly wealthy "inmate" (or his associates) doesn't just buy the prison outright?

It's a crazy scenario, but it's what could happen.

Indeed the only way to prevent it from happening would be to institute some kind of extracommercial entity with the authority to prevent such transcations. Obviously that would constitute "market hampering", however, and so would be ideologically incongruous with a libertarian environment.

***

And on the topic of "other" services, how on earth can you set up a "private" military?

If General Bill Gates (yeah, I'm picking on him, but he can take it) wants to build himself a personal army and take over Seattle, what's to stop him? If he's got planes and tanks and troops and guns, what the hell is the civilian population going to do about it?

Well, don't hurt yourself wondering, because we have 5,000 years of human history to look upon. They'll surrender.

It's called a warlord, and it can be found across the world and across history. In parts of Africa, they are no more than guys with jeeps and AK47s, but it's more than enough if they scare and coerce and pay enough people to fight for them.

If there is no central authority with a monopoly on force, how can such influence be resisted?

If General Gates is offering 60k a year plus bennefits to join his squad and my job at the plant is only paying me 30, why wouldn't I sign on?

Are you counting on "morality" to get in the way of economic self-interest? Really???

And how about for the truly desperate, you know, the unemployed? Why wouldn't they jump at the chance for a paying job and a good life?

If you have money, you have power. That's always true in capitalist societies. Taking away the government only makes money stronger. That means flowers and puppy dogs for the rich, warlords for the rest of us.

Honestly, think about; no monopoly on force; no recognized jurisdiction; utter and complete priviledge of power.

Seriously, by any standard, how is that not chaos?


In developed countries the absolute level of wealth is incredible. The poorest of the poor live lives of luxury, and are provided with everything they need including entertainment.

In undeveloped countries, the political leadership is to blame for their poor state, not the other wealthy countries.

Firstly, just to dispell this myth, those countries which are the richest and most powerful today are those which historically utilized strict protectionism and "market hampering".

Laisez-faire capitalism has been an unmitigated failure, which is why we haven't seen it seriously attempted in 75 years.

..not that that's at all relevent to this discussion, mind you. You are attempting to change the topic and discuss prosperity and economic indicators. Sorry, no game.

It doesn't matter if your economic plan would increase prosperity (not that I for a second believe that it would), what matters is that any capitalist society nescessitates "losers".

Capitalism is predicated on the unequal division of wealth. More so, it is dependent on the concept of individual utility meaning that either due to bad luck, stupidity, incompetence, or crime, some people will always find themselves destitute.

Since you have no state to compensate them, they are left in the hands of private charities which would be overrun without state support or assistance.

Those "lives of luxury" that you claim the poor live in the developed world, where exactly do you think they get them from? The benevolency of the capitalists?

Because of long histories of worker agitation and socialist political activism, the first world is now replete with "market hampeing". And while I know they're ther bane of your and every other libertarian's existance, they and they alone are the reason for the higher standards of living you point to.

Don't kid yourself, Africa's just as market-oriented as Europe. It's workers sell their labour just like Europe's and its capitalists own vast swashes of property just like Europe's.

What's diffrent, though, is that European workers have managed to secure certain meager protections for themselves, whereas the colonially occupied African ones have not.


Unless you're a communist

:lol:

Did you read the title of this web site... :rolleyes:

[La Comédie Noire]

You seem reasonable and I hope we can have a good debate.

Firstly:


No, It's Group A's assertion that they have a "natural right" to own private property.


Well, what part of this-


I would say I own my body and mind, and from there I own my the labor and what I make from that labor. From there anything I recieve through voluntary exchange would be something I have a natural right to, and that's where I get private property rights. QUOTE]


Would you disagree with? Or are you saying that just the idea that one could own something is bunk? Or that some things can be owned and some can't? If so where is the distinction? While I disagree with what you say you've got my ear and I'm ready to listen and possibly change my mind, not really trying to argumentative.

I agree, you do infact own your own body and mind. I also agree you own your labour. But since you own your body and the products of your body why on earth would you want them to be exploited by the burgeoise? And if you reserve the right to own your own labour what gives you the right to exploit other peoples labour and livley hood through private property? Our aim as communists is to make the means of production, that includes land, public property. Why on earth would you want to benefit a select group of people for a lousy wage when you could help everyone within society with your labour power?

You can own commodities, items of personnel accusition such as combs, cigarettes, and chocolate there is no harm in that. You can drink water and eat food to sustain yourself. But to own a parcel of land 10 acres big, enough to house 12 families or more, and to use it for your own gain of capital is wrong in my estimation.


[QUOTE]In private property one does not only "own" land he also excludes other members of society from using this land,
Well I'll nitpick and say that's a right they reserve, but I think your just thinking of the bad things of capitalism. Certainly the capital which wouldn't be there if not for the capitalist who wants to make money (yes, the workers too) has lead to great things for society, no? Could these things have been provided without private property? I would think no, but I might be wrong.

So instead of society providing us with the nessicary living space and the means in which to survive you suggest it is better for someone to with hold these needs from us? To make us work for them, if there is infact work to be found?

So insead of surplus value of goods being distributed evenly to everyone you think its better for it to be put in the form of capital where it will be put on the market at unfair prices or worse destroyed during times of economic depression? I don't follow your logic friend.


I mean, a lot of you guys seem to think capitalism has lead to the poor getting poorer. In my home forum here's a quote from someone with similar views to me (he's a minarchist libertarian I believe though, as opposed to anarchist libertarian)had to say-
[QUOTE]How many times do we have to explain that wealth disparity is an irrelevant and meaningless benchmark?

The percentage of total wealth held by who is a silly stat to fixate on.

Unless you're a communist and simply want equality for the sake of it. Otherwise you'd be concerned with absolute levels of wealth, not relative.

In developed countries the absolute level of wealth is incredible. The poorest of the poor live lives of luxury, and are provided with everything they need including entertainment.

In undeveloped countries, the political leadership is to blame for their poor state, not the other wealthy countries.


We are not simply concerned with the "poorer getting poorer" we are concerned with the working class being exploited by the property owning class. I don't think 2% of the population holding hostage the machines that can sustain 98% of the population is an "irrelevant bench mark". I think it's a horrible injustice that kills millions of people.

"The poorest of the poor" are still freezing to death, and if we were all provided with "everyhting" as you say we would not need reveloution, there would be no oppression. However, society as it stands is not equal and extremley oppresive.

Unless you don't need commodities to live, absolute levels of wealth should be very relavant.

The political leaership in under developed countries is usually a dictator put in by the United States, or other first world nation, to watch over sweat shops. Think of it this way a mainly agricultural community full of farmers is torn apart by the coca cola coporation in order to build factories for products the newly converted workers themselves dont even get to use. So they have no farms and no places inwhich to sustain nourishment,thus they die. Boy I'm really loving capitalism now. :D

Marx said it himself first world capitalist class nations will stretch over all four corners of the globe looking for new markets and new property and new people to exploit.


Now I havn't looked at any studies on how the poor in capitalist nations are compared to those in second or third world nations, but I'd imagine it is (if anyone has any unbiased studies on this feel free to link). How much causation it is due to economic systems is also certainly up for debate.

I would think someones economic situation would be directly influenced to the economic system they were under. You don't need a study to tell you that.


How do you objectively measure 'better use'?

Marxism is about what is called a planned economy. A workers council or some other form of prolitariate group would decide what is the most pragmatic and beneficial use of that land.

[BobKKKindle$]

No one is preventing you from buying means of production yourself and owning all of your labor though. No one is preventing you from being an entreprenuer. When you take a job you're voluntarily giving up (or selling) your labor to the capitalist. This is a VOLUNTARY decision. Capitalists employing the workers is what happens in most cases because it's the most efficient and produces more goods sooner,cheaper, and better

The Labour market that operates under Capitalism is fundamentally coercive, especially given the decline of trade union power that occurred in developing countries during a general period of poor economic performance in the 1970s and the ensuing neo-liberal economic era. Under Capitalism, if you do not have ownership of the means of production, you are a proletarian, because, unless you survive on the basis of state handouts or charity, you survive by seling your labour power. Now, the fact that selling one's labour is a fundamental necessity to have acess to goods and services, and given the existance of a reserve army of labour (unemployed) combined with a fall in union bargining power, means that the Capitalist is able to dicatate the price of the worker's labour. Therefore, no, it is not a 'voluntary decision' but rather coercive.

And saying that anyone can have access to the means of produciton and the capital required to start an enterprise. No doubt you made this judgement using first world countries as your immiediete frame of reference, but Capitalism is a global system - peasants and proletarians living in the developing world are even less likely to be able to do this then their developed-world comrades. Any system that is based on heirachy and class antagonism will always require a substantial mass at the bottom tier.


What else would/should labor be looked at as?

Labour is more than a factor input, rather, it is one of the ways in which we define ourselves as individuals, and thus should be an expression of the creative abilities of the individual and a meaningful part of existance. This can be achieved through allowing workers to have ownership over the enterprises in which they work, ensuring workers own the products they produce, and diversifying labour complexes such that everyone is able to experience the empowering roles present in any enterprise.


Won't inventing and improving technology just stop or at least progress much slower?

This is related to my answer above. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs in the history of humanity have been made by individuals who were passionate about the professions in which they were involved; individuals who recieved little or no direct monetary gain from their contributions to humanity. Issac Newton comes to mind.

Under Capitalism, labour is only valued if a monetary value can be ascribed to it, no matter whether it is socially usefuly or fulfilling for the individual.


What examples do you have in mind? If a service has value to people, and there is a way to supply it, then it can and will be provided and would profit. Examples I think could (and in most cases have) be provided by a free market rather then the government are roads, security, fire department services, courts, among others.

For the majority of goods, demand for the good and the good being supplied under a free market are usually equivalent. This is because the good is profitable to produce. However, there is a small group of goods called public goods. People desire these goods to be produced, but under the free market this would not occur. This is because, one this good has been provided, you cannot control who benefits from its existance (known as non-excludable) and one person using the good does not deprive someone else of its use (non-rivalrous). This is because, in economic terms, the positive externalities exclude the private benefit. The most obvious good falling under this category is street lamping. Or the provision of law and order. Or roads (albeit less so). In a system that is wholly based upon production with the expectation of profit, these goods - important goods - would not be produced.

I hope that makes things clearer.

You seem like a reasonable guy in comparison to others! Welcome to Revleft!

[colonelguppy]

they're the same as other rights, simply a social construct.

[ShakeZula06]

First of all, let me explain a few things about libertarianism so that maybe you'll reconsider your poor choice in ideology.
Thanks for the link sans the insult. I'm actually probably going to cross-post this in the forum I regularly post in.

And that's your first mistake. You don't "own" your body and mind, you are your body and mind.
OK, well would you say I own myself then? Just seems like semantics to me.

After all, you're not claiming that you own everything produced by your mind, are you? I guess that's 'cause such an assertion would be patently ridiculous; but, fundamentally, it's actually the exact same argument.
Not really, I believe in intellectual property. If I wrote a song for instance, I'd consider it MY song.

Besides, this entire notion of ownership rights is absurd to begin with. Anything that you "make" is made using resources from an immesuarable number of sources, almost none of which are "yours" and most of which are unownable.
Example?

By your logic, everything that has every been produced in the history of humanity is actually the property of the sun since it's its "labour" that's been at the basis of all production.
You're pulling these numbers from where?

Meh, I get your point but it's ridiculous. Obviously it would make sense that the only entities that own something would have to be capable of actually owning something, and the sun wouldn't fall under that category.

Capitalism forces workers to accept the "wages offered" on pain of starvation. Accordingly, the so-called "voluntary contract" that workers enter into is not actually so voluntary at all since the penalty for not entering into it is suffering and death.
It's a mutual thing. Capitalists need workers, workers need capitalists. Because of the competetion that results from Pure capitalism competition for labor ensues and businesses are forced to bid up their prices for labor.

If I put a gun to your head and give you the "choice" to either give me your money or die, do you really have a "choice"?
Now nominally, you do! You can say "NO!"...and die.
I agree with this anology and use it often when referring to coercion on the part of the state. The problem is that this is coercion of nature. Should you be able to use anything of and not provide anything in return? Sounds like textbook Trajedy of the commons to me, no? If there is no incentive to provide anything of value (which is what I think happens in this situation) then nothing of value is created.


Who's going to create capital when there is no incentive to profit from it? Anyone who's interested in using it.
This is possible now in capitalism but it isn't done because it's not near as efficient. Division of labor and all that good stuff.

"Capital" in an economic sense obviously won't exist post-capitalism, but a good deal of what's presently labeled "capital" would continue to be produced, and probably at an accelerated rate.

You asked about technological development. Well, let me tell you, one of the single greatest barriers to technological progress right now is not the "state" or "market hampering", it's intellectual property.

Elminating patents and the endless red tape of property law would lead to a technological explosion the likes of which we haven't seen in centuries.

Just look at what's already being achieved with the "free software" movement and imagine what could be achieved if similar principles were applied across the board.
Interesting but this really just assertions and counter-intuitive ones at that. Intellectual property creates incentive for people to create ideas. Take away that incentive and less would be created, I would think. If you had any links to stuff like this I'd love to see some, not saying it's wrong but It's definitely worth looking at.

True enough. And you know what has value in this society? Kiddy porn.

Good thing then that your paradigm's going to lead to a whole lot more of it.

Really, think about it. Child pornogrpahy is manufactured today, despite the "statists", despite the dangers. Why? Because it pays. Because people are willing to spend a lot of money to buy it. That means that other people, unscrupulous people, are able to make a lot of money in producing it ...and do.

If the market were the sole agent, you seriously don't think that these people would continue? You don't think that many people presently in jail would do so as well? Or that others currently afraid of said jail would be now willing to do so too?

Pedophiles want child porn ergo there is demand for child porn and the market dictates that demand be satisfied, no matter what that demand is. After all, isn't that the point? That it's all so amoral?

I am weary to make predictions, but there is one thing I can be absolutely certain of: if we remove the state and the monopoly of legitimate force that goes with it, in a capitalist environment child pornography will increase ...a lot. There's pretty much no way to avoid it.
This is pretty much all fear mongering. I don't deny the demand for 'kiddie porn'. But there is also a demand to not have kiddie porn. Do you envision kiddie porn being sold in grocery stores along side regular newspapers, magazines and what not? Consumer's would let that happen, why?

Besides that, if the 'kiddie' in question would be judged as not being morally autonomous then that would certainly be an act of aggression from the offender that can have a punishment against the aggressor.

And all those "soft" kiddy porn producers out there, the ones who aren't "sick" enough to rape the kids themselves, but just videotape their "softcore" exploitation and sexualization? Well, you can bet damn sure that they'll multiply exponentially once the cops disappear.
Strawman. No one is saying 'cops' won't be around in some form, just that they will not be publicly funded through taxation.

A sick econmomic model that encourges the commission of any act, any dispicable atrocity, so long as someone else is willing to "vote with their dollars" for it.
Another strawman. No one is saying atrocities will go unpunished. I just feel like eliminating the biggest producer of atrocity, the state.

"Security"? Really? For whom exactly?
Those who pay for it, who else?]

Private protection, by definition, exists only for those who can afford it. Who's going to pay for a private security force to protect a homeless girl? Who's going to pay for a rescue team if she's abducted and raped?
Those interested in seeing her protected or rescued?

So given that inequality is a must and given that private services are cash-dependent, , what's to stop the rich from killing their enemies by paying off enough people? If all security is on the market, then all security is on the market. Justice becomes a rich man's luxury.
Why doesn't this happen throughout society? Because it's not a good business plan. You think if there was no government Pepsi would hire people to go bomb coca cola buildings? Do you think consumers would stand for something like that? Do you think it would even be profitable to spend your money on bombs to blow up? Society has a tendancy to work together, language would be a great example of this.

As long as the economic system is predicated on the accumulation of material wealth, then people's priorities will be the accumulation of material wealth. It's not about "human nature", it's about economics. If there are no police, no courts, and no laws, why can't I kill anyone I want to? If I can afford to protect myself, who can touch me?
Strawman and false dillemma.

That's something that we see every day. Organized crime is as old as crime, do you really think that it would stop if the government went away? If we take away its only real opponent?
Organized crime only exists in black markets that the government creates.

You want to keep private property, keep money, keep the market ...but not have any checks on it? You want to keep capital but remove law?
Not remove law, remove the monopoly on law.

So tell me, in your perfect state-free libertarian market society, what happens if Bill Gates...
heh, I&#39;ve had a lot of conversations like this, and it always comes to this. What if Bill Gates wants to/does <insert unspeakably horrible act here>. It&#39;s always that Bill Gates. That sadistic bastard. The fact of the matter is that Bill Gates has provided a HUGE amount of value to others. Because that&#39;s how people get rich in capitalism, by providing value to others.

Anyways, the answer to your question is, the same thing that happens under a state. I&#39;m not saying Pure capitalism is some utopia, just that it provides better options and better results. So, what happens with a state-provided courts if it turns out Bill Gates raped someone? He get&#39;s away with it, unfortunately. However, look as you admitted, it will cost more to bribe judges, which means not only will less people be able to bribe a judge, it also hurts those that do bribe judges more, being that it costs more. There is also another benefit I&#39;ll address in a second.

Who would pay for her to get a trial? Who would pay for "justice"?
Those interested in justice obviously. It could work any number of ways, but the fact is the market would find a way to provide it the most efficient way, because the market by nature of it&#39;s forces acts in the most eficient way. One way it could work is that those who would want it could subscribe to a certain court and pay &#036;X/year to use it when needed, just how insurance works.

Even if some do-gooder did finance a trial, what would it matter? Billy&#39;s property is as sacrasanct as is his life (especially with his armed guards and fortified compound) so who can touch him? Who can exact the penalty that the "free market" for-hire court comes up with -- assuming that he doesn&#39;t just buy it off in the first place.
Well Bill Gates can certainly be barred from anothers property, that is I and like-minded people cannot allow him on my property. We can not use his goods and services if we choose. Since it&#39;s my property I also have a right to ostacize him from my property whether the judge finds him guilty or not, that is, even if a judge is successfully bribed, his ruling doesn&#39;t have to have a bearing on who I allow and don&#39;t allow on my property.

How many people has coke killed in Latin America? How many people did the United Fruit Company kill in Guatamala?

Private corporations have been killing people for centuries ...they still sell product.

The fact is that capitalism induces selfish thinking, meaning that people are socialized to think about themselves and themselves alone. Most people know that Nike exploits its workers, they still buy Nike.
I know of several cases where it turns out companys have been irresponsible towards consumers and/or their workers and the opposite effect has happened. However your commments are certaintly do. As I said that&#39;s up to private courts to rule what type of penalties a company would have to pay for such things.

Besides, I sincerely doubt that "the public" would even hear about it. Rich people can afford some pretty good PR and a whole lot of spin. Old Billy could easily pay off the media not to report and since there are no police and hence no impartial body to investigate, it would all be very quitely forgotten.

There&#39;s an incredibly good chance that nobody, not the media, not the "private courts", and certainly not the general public would ever know that their favourite producer was a part-time criminal.
They&#39;re is nothing stopping that now.

Do they have a private police force that arrests you, binds you, and puts you in a private prison? Well, who pays for all of that? Who keeps the prison running and staffed?
Those intererested in keeping a prison staffed of course.

As ludicrous as it sounds, how do assure that a particularly wealthy "inmate" (or his associates) doesn&#39;t just buy the prison outright?
Why would a prison that was likely owned by the same people who worked for a police force voluntarily sell the prison without clauses that would keep the prison running the same/at all? Seems really short-sighted to me at least.

Indeed the only way to prevent it from happening would be to institute some kind of extracommercial entity with the authority to prevent such transcations. Obviously that would constitute "market hampering", however, and so would be ideologically incongruous with a libertarian environment.
The y wouldn&#39;t *need* a seperate entity for such things, as I just explained.

And on the topic of "other" services, how on earth can you set up a "private" military?
Same way you would provide private security. There would likely not be a demand for an agressive military, just a defensive one.

If General Bill Gates (yeah, I&#39;m picking on him, but he can take it) wants to build himself a personal army and take over Seattle, what&#39;s to stop him?
private security and defense of course.

If he&#39;s got planes and tanks and troops and guns, what the hell is the civilian population going to do about it?
Witness the Vietnam war or the current war in Iraq. Was the VietCong as heavily funded (or anywhere near that) as American forces? They won because (among other reasons of course) they were decentralized and they were on the defensive. Both these would be traits of any society engaged in Anarchocapitalism. Not to mention the cost of war. Bill Gates has a net worth of around &#036;25 billion, right? The American government has spent over &#036;300 billion in Iraq, and still doesn&#39;t control Iraq to a high enough level.

Not to mention that war is unprofitable. States allow wars to happen since they are funded with theft (taxes). No one owns the states money, so it&#39;s used irresponsibly or to go towards war profiteering (and the cost in taxes that isn&#39;t repaid outweights the amount that War profiteers make off of it, which why you only see states involved in agressive wars.


Well, don&#39;t hurt yourself wondering, because we have 5,000 years of human history to look upon. They&#39;ll surrender.

It&#39;s called a warlord, and it can be found across the world and across history. In parts of Africa, they are no more than guys with jeeps and AK47s, but it&#39;s more than enough if they scare and coerce and pay enough people to fight for them.
Histroy shows that people are more likely to surrender then fight? Do we have different history books?

If General Gates is offering 60k a year plus bennefits to join his squad and my job at the plant is only paying me 30, why wouldn&#39;t I sign on?

And you&#39;re pulling these numbers from where?

Firstly, just to dispell this myth, those countries which are the richest and most powerful today are those which historically utilized strict protectionism and "market hampering".
Correlation =/= causation. I&#39;d say they grew despite the strict protectionism and market hampering that was practiced.

Laisez-faire capitalism has been an unmitigated failure, which is why we haven&#39;t seen it seriously attempted in 75 years.
No, those in power (of the government) don&#39;t think it benefits them enough so they regulate things, which adds to their power. Show me why laisez-faire has been a unmitigated failure.

..not that that&#39;s at all relevent to this discussion, mind you. You are attempting to change the topic and discuss prosperity and economic indicators. Sorry, no game.
I don&#39;t know if you noticed but that was a quote from someone at a different forum. We are also discussing a handful of different topics here.

It doesn&#39;t matter if your economic plan would increase prosperity (not that I for a second believe that it would), what matters is that any capitalist society nescessitates "losers".
Yes, but we have seen that those "losers" are much better off then the status quo in non capitalist nations.

Since you have no state to compensate them, they are left in the hands of private charities which would be overrun without state support or assistance.
You have a very pestmistic view of humanity it would seem. That sadistic greedy bastard Bill Gates for one donates a huge amount of money to charity.

Those "lives of luxury" that you claim the poor live in the developed world, where exactly do you think they get them from? The benevolency of the capitalists?
Well it certainly wasn&#39;t the government, which has had a negative influence on the poor.

Did you read the title of this web site...
It&#39;s a quote from someone from a different site, as I pointed out in that post.

[exwhyzed]

Those interested in seeing her protected or rescued?

So if that&#39;s no one, you&#39;re willing to cast her aside? Will you pay your money to protect her? How much? Why or why not?

[Alexander Hamilton]

There is generally no such right "given" to you in nature. All rights to ANYTHING are codified (made into law) by an authority. If you, yourslef, believe that authority to be unrepresentitive of the populaiton&#39;s best interest, either work to change that structure, or leave it for another.

Property rights, like all civil rights, come from the notion that if there is no LEGAL protection for a right, people will openly fight over nearly everything in thta field.

I own a home. (Well, me and Crossland Mortgage.) Whether I have a right to own it, I need a home for my family. If the community believes the law for default and loss of property is fair, the society as a whole will support the default and punish me if I attempt to fight the lawful loss through default. If the law for default is unfair, and most of my community members believe it to be, they will not punish me for fighting the authority that attempts to separate me from my home.

Aside from that, if I am walking down a street, and you attempt to take from me my property, whether or not you&#39;re a Marxist, I will attempt to fight you and cause you harm. During this struggle, the Greek goddess will not come down from the sky and announce who is right and who is wrong.

More later.


A. Hamilton

[MrDoom]

First of all, let me explain a few things about libertarianism so that maybe you&#39;ll reconsider your poor choice in ideology.
Thanks for the link sans the insult. I&#39;m actually probably going to cross-post this in the forum I regularly post in.
What insult has been made?

"Anarcho"-capitalism is quite literally, each against all (what the bourgeois say about real anarchy), and will only result in a "private state" rising up from some business owner&#39;s interests.



And that&#39;s your first mistake. You don&#39;t "own" your body and mind, you are your body and mind.
OK, well would you say I own myself then? Just seems like semantics to me.
Like he said, you are yourself.


Capitalists need workers, workers need capitalists.
Workers have done quite well throughout history without capitalists. Material conditions can exist in which the workers do not need them again.


I agree with this anology and use it often when referring to coercion on the part of the state.
The bourgeois state?


No one is saying &#39;cops&#39; won&#39;t be around in some form, just that they will not be publicly funded through taxation.
Private police forces will only increase corruption and tyranny.


I just feel like eliminating the biggest producer of atrocity, the state.
It&#39;s the capitalists that currently control the state. It was created out of their class interests. What prevents another bourgeois state from forming in an "anarcho"-capitalist society?



"Security"? Really? For whom exactly?
Those who pay for it, who else?
In your society there is no protection for the poor, it seems.


Organized crime only exists in black markets that the government creates.
The capitalists create the black market from the dilemma of inflation and overpriced goods.


Because that&#39;s how people get rich in capitalism, by providing value to others.
*Laughs*

Open your eyes and look around.





I would be deathly afraid to live in an "anarcho"-capitalist dystopia, where even freedom has been privatized, and no one is secure from one another&#39;s personal armies.

[red team]

I would be deathly afraid to live in an "anarcho"-capitalist dystopia, where even freedom has been privatized, and no one is secure from one another&#39;s personal armies.

I think I saw that in the original Star Trek episode once where the transporter crew get&#39;s transported to another ship existing in a parallel universe. Every crew member was a brutal, scheming socialpath and had their own private gang of thugs and took advantage of the situation when the higher ranking officers wasn&#39;t around to terrorize them.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 09, 2006 01:27 am

I would be deathly afraid to live in an "anarcho"-capitalist dystopia, where even freedom has been privatized, and no one is secure from one another&#39;s personal armies.

I think I saw that in the original Star Trek episode once where the transporter crew get&#39;s transported to another ship existing in a parallel universe. Every crew member was a brutal, scheming socialpath and had their own private gang of thugs and took advantage of the situation when the higher ranking officers wasn&#39;t around to terrorize them.
Ah yes, the infamous Mirror Universe episode ("Mirror, Mirror"). I&#39;m such a nerd.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/STMirrorMirror.jpg

While the mirror universe Federation was in fact an empire (a state), I have little doubt that anarcho-capitalism would degenerate into such a set of relations.

Scary.

[ShakeZula06]

You seem reasonable and I hope we can have a good debate.
Thanks you too.

I agree, you do infact own your own body and mind. I also agree you own your labour. But since you own your body and the products of your body why on earth would you want them to be exploited by the burgeoise?
Well obviously I don&#39;t see it that way. When I work at a job I&#39;m selling my labor to someone. Me working is an action that leaves both me and the capitalist better off. I have currency I can use to fullfill some of my wants and needs, and my labor was used to benefit whatever the product the capitalist has. I don&#39;t see that as exploitation, I&#39;d see that as a mutual betterment. Where&#39;s the exploitation?

And if you reserve the right to own your own labour what gives you the right to exploit other peoples labour and livley hood through private property?
Who&#39;s labor is being exploited and how?

Our aim as communists is to make the means of production, that includes land, public property.
Yes, and why don&#39;t you think that public property would then suffer from a trajedy of the commons?

Why on earth would you want to benefit a select group of people for a lousy wage when you could help everyone within society with your labour power?
I do see myself as helping everyone in society when selling my labor to a capitalist. He takes that finished product and sells it to everyone.

You can own commodities, items of personnel accusition such as combs, cigarettes, and chocolate there is no harm in that. You can drink water and eat food to sustain yourself. But to own a parcel of land 10 acres big, enough to house 12 families or more, and to use it for your own gain of capital is wrong in my estimation.
You don&#39;t see a business or a company as something that helps anyone else besides the owner of that business?

So instead of society providing us with the nessicary living space and the means in which to survive you suggest it is better for someone to with hold these needs from us? To make us work for them, if there is infact work to be found?
Who&#39;s providing this necessary living space? Is it just materializing out of thin air? And the capitalist doesn&#39;t want to &#39;hold these needs&#39; from us. He&#39;d rather have the currency that you&#39;d exchange for it so that he could spend it on his wants and needs. It&#39;s a two way street.

So insead of surplus value of goods being distributed evenly to everyone you think its better for it to be put in the form of capital where it will be put on the market at unfair prices or worse destroyed during times of economic depression? I don&#39;t follow your logic friend.
How is this surplus value of goods getting created?

We are not simply concerned with the "poorer getting poorer" we are concerned with the working class being exploited by the property owning class.
But you do see that the poor in fact has more buying power right now then it would under alternatives to capitalism, right?

I don&#39;t think 2% of the population holding hostage the machines that can sustain 98% of the population is an "irrelevant bench mark".
Do you really see them has &#39;holding hostage the machines&#39;? They created them or bought them voluntarily from someone else. They did so so that they more effieciently provide a product to a consumer, not so they could hold it hostage.

I think it&#39;s a horrible injustice that kills millions of people. "The poorest of the poor" are still freezing to death, and if we were all provided with "everyhting" as you say we would not need reveloution, there would be no oppression. However, society as it stands is not equal and extremley oppresive.
Millions are freezing to death in capitalist countries? Where?

The political leaership in under developed countries is usually a dictator put in by the United States, or other first world nation, to watch over sweat shops. Think of it this way a mainly agricultural community full of farmers is torn apart by the coca cola coporation in order to build factories for products the newly converted workers themselves dont even get to use. So they have no farms and no places inwhich to sustain nourishment,thus they die. Boy I&#39;m really loving capitalism now. :D
This certainly is not pure capitalism. It&#39;s what happens when the rich use the government. It&#39;s horrible and it&#39;s just one of many reasons why I oppose government. Government is a tool used by the rich to enhance there power over others, not something that helps it&#39;s citizens.

I would think someones economic situation would be directly influenced to the economic system they were under. You don&#39;t need a study to tell you that.
Well, is this your way of saying you agree with me that the poor in capitalism to much better then people in other economic systems?

Marxism is about what is called a planned economy. A workers council or some other form of prolitariate group would decide what is the most pragmatic and beneficial use of that land.
Yeah, I don&#39;t really know all the factions involved in collectivism, but don&#39;t most people insist on saying that true communism has no government? Wouldn&#39;t this count as one?

[ShakeZula06]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is quite literally, each against all (what the bourgeois say about real anarchy),
The thing is that the economy is not zero-sum, and when one person becomes rich that doesn&#39;t neccessitate other parties losing a corresponding amount of wealth. While yes I agree people make decisions based on self-interest is that you can only make money when you provide something of value to another.

and will only result in a "private state" rising up from some business owner&#39;s interests
Good luck with that private state when it&#39;s not funded through theft. The thing is that people will not be in an anarchocapitalists world without the population having a strong disrespect for the state. So some newly funded state would have very little credibility and be ignored.

Workers have done quite well throughout history without capitalists. Material conditions can exist in which the workers do not need them again.
Do you really want to compare how bad the poor were before capitalism as compared to during capitalism? People left their farms to go to the city and sell their labor because (as bad as their working conditions were, I know) that was better then being incrediby poor and working incredibly hard on the farm. The poor now work much less and are better off, and it&#39;s because of capitalism.

Private police forces will only increase corruption and tyranny.
How do you figure?

In your society there is no protection for the poor, it seems.
There would certainly be different models and more cost efficient possibilities for the poor, but yes you&#39;re right some will go without it unfortunately. in a catch 22 however, the poor have very little of value to anyone else, what ill be stolen from them?

*Laughs*

Open your eyes and look around.
Heh, well i live in a first world country and yes, when I look around, I see many things that were provided to me because of capitalism. I have more goods, better goods, and recieve goods sooner under capitalism then any economic model yet. Because people worked hard out of the self interest that if they provided something of value to another they would get something of value back. And I love it :D

I would be deathly afraid to live in an "anarcho"-capitalist dystopia, where even freedom has been privatized, and no one is secure from one another&#39;s personal armies.
I address this in the post right before this one. Tell me what you think. :)

[ShakeZula06]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 10:40 pm

Those interested in seeing her protected or rescued?

So if that&#39;s no one, you&#39;re willing to cast her aside? Will you pay your money to protect her? How much? Why or why not?
I refuse the idea of a state organization that tells me I must pay for it. Universal protection provided to 6 billion people stretches things so thin that very few would be able to be protected or rescued. They&#39;re just not enough money to cover everyone.

With a lack of coerced funding going towards those who can&#39;t afford it, there would certainly be more charity money going towards such things however.

[La Comédie Noire]

Well obviously I don&#39;t see it that way. When I work at a job I&#39;m selling my labor to someone. Me working is an action that leaves both me and the capitalist better off. I have currency I can use to fullfill some of my wants and needs, and my labor was used to benefit whatever the product the capitalist has. I don&#39;t see that as exploitation, I&#39;d see that as a mutual betterment. Where&#39;s the exploitation?

The exploitation comes when you have no other alternative. What is there you could do besides work for capitalists? how else could you sustain yourself? I guess it&#39;s alright when there is work to be found but what do you do when your work is not needed? you starve.


Who&#39;s labor is being exploited and how?

The people who either work in factories on that land or live in apartments on that land. You are forcing them to work for you, you are forcing them to sustain you, while you yourself do not have to work.


Yes, and why don&#39;t you think that public property would then suffer from a trajedy of the commons?

I need some elaboration.



I do see myself as helping everyone in society when selling my labor to a capitalist. He takes that finished product and sells it to everyone.

But what about those who can&#39;t afford it? What about those aeras the capitalist rob of their raw materials in order to make these products? You help the burgeoise and, as long as they still need you they help you.


You don&#39;t see a business or a company as something that helps anyone else besides the owner of that business?

I see a business and a company helping a select few people. The means of production are not being used to their full potential beyond the short term needs of the capitalist.


Who&#39;s providing this necessary living space? Is it just materializing out of thin air? And the capitalist doesn&#39;t want to &#39;hold these needs&#39; from us. He&#39;d rather have the currency that you&#39;d exchange for it so that he could spend it on his wants and needs. It&#39;s a two way street.

The prolitariate is providing the necessary living space for the prolitariate, that is what a workers state is. It is not materializing out of "thin air" its collected through out the world and organized as needed. That is what we mean when we say "centralize the means of production". He holds land and production equipment from those without housing and food, only helping those who wish to work for him. He holds the needs from those who do not wish to work for him or are unable to. How can one person own 6 tons of corn, to do with whatever he chooses, while people are starving?



How is this surplus value of goods getting created?

Surplus good is created by the factories the capitalist owns. He can sustain himself but that leaves him in the ownership of extra material. Now depending on how the market is he either sells it or destroys it. It dosen&#39;t go to the workers who slaved over it, it goes to the market where the workers can buy a small amount of it.


But you do see that the poor in fact has more buying power right now then it would under alternatives to capitalism, right?

If the poor was provided wiht the means to live they would not need buying power.


Do you really see them has &#39;holding hostage the machines&#39;? They created them or bought them voluntarily from someone else. They did so so that they more effieciently provide a product to a consumer, not so they could hold it hostage.

Yes I do. Even if they did create the machines they are using them to manipulate the earth and it&#39;s raw material, what gives them the right? They did so, so they could make capital for themselves forcing other people to work to sustain them. If the market is bad it makes a perosn&#39;s labour obsolete to the capitalist, so he fires them. What then is the person suppost to do if he/she can&#39;t find a job?


Millions are freezing to death in capitalist countries? Where?

Wait for a depression in the market, sucks whne the means of production are halted.


Well, is this your way of saying you agree with me that the poor in capitalism to much better then people in other economic systems?

So your saying just because a dog lays close enouhg to the table to get crumbs they are better off?


Yeah, I don&#39;t really know all the factions involved in collectivism, but don&#39;t most people insist on saying that true communism has no government? Wouldn&#39;t this count as one?

We are against oppresive, hierarchal goverment. True some would prefer no state at all. I am not one of those people.

[exwhyzed]

Originally posted by ShakeZula06+December 09, 2006 04:19 am--> (ShakeZula06 @ December 09, 2006 04:19 am)
[email protected] 08, 2006 10:40 pm

Those interested in seeing her protected or rescued?

So if that&#39;s no one, you&#39;re willing to cast her aside? Will you pay your money to protect her? How much? Why or why not?
I refuse the idea of a state organization that tells me I must pay for it. Universal protection provided to 6 billion people stretches things so thin that very few would be able to be protected or rescued. They&#39;re just not enough money to cover everyone.

With a lack of coerced funding going towards those who can&#39;t afford it, there would certainly be more charity money going towards such things however. [/b]
I asked would you pay to fund protection for this homeless girl you&#39;ve never met nor have any connection to. If not, what makes you think others will? And so you&#39;re willing to completely disregard a human life because, as you said in an earlier post, "they are of little value to anyone." It must be lonely in your world view.

[Nusocialist]

Do you really want to compare how bad the poor were before capitalism as compared to during capitalism? People left their farms to go to the city and sell their labor because (as bad as their working conditions were, I know) that was better then being incrediby poor and working incredibly hard on the farm. The poor now work much less and are better off, and it&#39;s because of capitalism.
No people left the rural areas generally because they were forced to by situation.
This was due to the rising capitalist imperatives forced upon them by the rich.

[phoenixoftime]

The fact of the matter is that Bill Gates has provided a HUGE amount of value to others. Because that&#39;s how people get rich in capitalism, by providing value to others.

Err, no, Bill Gates got rich by lying and cheating his way to the top.

Bill Gates has provided very little to the computing world - if anything he has hindered its progress. He lied to Intel to get the contract to develop MS-DOS, and ever since has taken advantage of his monopoly by producing inferior product and pushing it on most of the world by buying out competitors with superior technology, or often just marginalizing them or even bankrupting them completely. His company does not innovate, it simply imitates - one only has to look at the upcoming release of Windows Vista - masses of it are blantantly copied from Mac OS X and *Gasp* written to catch up with the GNU / Linux world, who develop their software communally for free and give it away. Meanwhile everyone else suffers because they don&#39;t have access to this other superior technology, because it is either 1. Too expensive 2. Not compatible because everyone else is using Uncle Bill&#39;s shit or 3. Not available any more because Bill drove the company out of business.

Gates is an excellent entrepreneur, and very good at making money. But he is rubbish at programming and has completely messed up the entire computing industry. And a great example of how capitalism doesn&#39;t always allow the true cream to float to the top.

[Zero]

Actually it was IBM that Billy hoodwinked. When he and his friends were hacking out of a run down hotel in Las Vegas he told the biggest computer company that he could provide an OS for the first commercial desktop PC. One that he had nither the time nor the skill to write. What did billy do? He stole a little over a 100 programs from his friends that had produced them without copyright, threw them together like a Japanese sitcom, and put his name on it.

Then, he had the cajones to whine and complain when people looked at his shitty ass operating system (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvbWLfr-Z4s) (it was just as shitty pre-GUI), and continued on sharing information like they always had been doing.

Copyrights have no place in code.

I&#39;d say that he isn&#39;t all that good of an entrepreneur either, bouncy bouncy Ballmer (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ps0IT05zp54) does most of the economics.

[ShakeZula06]

I asked would you pay to fund protection for this homeless girl you&#39;ve never met nor have any connection to.
In my current situation as a poor college student no. It has no relevence however. Should I be forced to fund the rescue of every lost homeless girl?

If not, what makes you think others will?
Other people have different economic situations then me?

And so you&#39;re willing to completely disregard a human life because,
Of course not, I just don&#39;t want to tell anyone else how to spend their money. Why do you think no one will care about homeless people?

as you said in an earlier post, "they are of little value to anyone."
Whoa, take out of context much? I&#39;ll take for your word that I used the phrase "they are of little value to anyone" but you know I wasn&#39;t saying it about homeless children. We can put a stop to arguing dishonestly now.

It must be lonely in your world view.
I&#39;m not the one that wants to force there subjective opinion on everyone else and thinks that everyone is a selfish prick that would never donate to helping the helpless.

[ShakeZula06]

The exploitation comes when you have no other alternative. What is there you could do besides work for capitalists? how else could you sustain yourself?
Self employ?

I guess it&#39;s alright when there is work to be found but what do you do when your work is not needed? you starve.
Luckily that situation is very rare when you take out state intervention.

The people who either work in factories on that land or live in apartments on that land. You are forcing them to work for you, you are forcing them to sustain you, while you yourself do not have to work.
Of course not. They took the job of their own voluntary accord.

I need some elaboration.
the tragedy of the commons is basically a consequentialist argument for private property. From a wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons) page-
"The parable demonstrates how free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource through over-exploitation. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals, each of which is motivated to maximise his or her own use of the resource, while the costs of exploitation are distributed between all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it)."

But what about those who can&#39;t afford it?
Then to the capitalist&#39;s dismay they won&#39;t buy it. That&#39;s why things like Wal mart exist, to meet the demand of those that may not have enough money.

What about those aeras the capitalist rob of their raw materials in order to make these products?
Example? I&#39;d obviously see robbing as an act of aggression.

I see a business and a company helping a select few people.
I and every other consumer in a capitalist nation would beg to differ. I live a relatively easy life *because* of capitalism, and I don&#39;t even own any means of production.

The means of production are not being used to their full potential beyond the short term needs of the capitalist.
Anything to back up this assertion?

I&#39;m sorry I have to leave right now, I&#39;ll have to pick up where I left off from later.

[exwhyzed]

The Tragedy of the Commons only plagues commons that exist in capitalist societies, which require everyone to work for his or her own benefit. However if everyone was working for eachother&#39;s benefit, the land would not suffer over-exploitation as the land would be utilized in a way that benefits all.

[La Comédie Noire]

Self employ?

That is fine when your a petit burgeois who has the possibility of self employment, but I&#39;m talking about when you are a proliteriate who does not have that ability.


Luckily that situation is very rare when you take out state intervention.

This situation isn&#39;t "rare" as you put it, this situation happens all the time. People are laid off & terminated because they no longer have labour power useful to the capitalist to exploit. The free market fluxuates rapidly causing havoc.


Of course not. They took the job of their own voluntary accord.

Once again it&#39;s not much of a voulintary accord when the only two options are a) work for the burgeoise, or b) starve. By owning that land privatley you take away the means of production, unless someone is willing to use them for your benefit. Property Is Theft.


the tragedy of the commons is basically a consequentialist argument for private property. From a wiki page-
"The parable demonstrates how free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource through over-exploitation. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals, each of which is motivated to maximise his or her own use of the resource, while the costs of exploitation are distributed between all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it)."

Which is why Marxism has the concept of a planned economy & the idea of using labour power to make what is needed only, instead of just surplus good to be made into more capital or destroyed depending on how the market is doing.


Then to the capitalist&#39;s dismay they won&#39;t buy it. That&#39;s why things like Wal mart exist, to meet the demand of those that may not have enough money.

Wal - Mart is a super store built on the backs of chinease wage slavery. The only reason the products are so cheap is because the labour power spent to make it is so cheap. It was&#39;nt purposley built for those who can&#39;t afford other places. If wal - mart or some other super store wasn&#39;t there the free market would just let these people be poor & starve.


Example? I&#39;d obviously see robbing as an act of aggression.

Imperialist nations invade countries all the time for their vast resources. The Spanish American War, Iraq, & Vietnam are just a few examples. After the "fight for justice" is over they set up psuedo republics & begin extracting wealth. It is an act of agression which is why many people call soldiers of invading countries agressors.


I and every other consumer in a capitalist nation would beg to differ. I live a relatively easy life *because* of capitalism, and I don&#39;t even own any means of production.

Of course you and every consumer would beg to differ because you and every consumer can consume. You live an easy life because the area you live in is not in a market crisis. Wait till the market depresses, that won&#39;t be so easy. Same as I said before as soon as your labour is not needed than you won&#39;t be part of that select relationship.


Anything to back up this assertion?

The United States, 1929 the market glutted when they produced to much wealth. The surplus good that was created had no interest to the short term goal of the capitalist&#39;s profit so they began destroying it in a desperate attempt to fix the glut. When what they should of done was distribute it to the unemployed workers. But like I said that would&#39;nt of been in their best interests as capitalists.

I think you have a probelm excepting this because you comefrom the Petty Burgeoise or have the choice to be.
Marx said himself "only the workers can emancipate the workers."

Credit is due to Exwhyzed tearing down the tragedy of the commons argument first.


The Tragedy of the Commons only plagues commons that exist in capitalist societies, which require everyone to work for his or her own benefit. However if everyone was working for eachother&#39;s benefit, the land would not suffer over-exploitation as the land would be utilized in a way that benefits all.

[ShakeZula06]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:33 pm
The Tragedy of the Commons only plagues commons that exist in capitalist societies, which require everyone to work for his or her own benefit. However if everyone was working for eachother&#39;s benefit, the land would not suffer over-exploitation as the land would be utilized in a way that benefits all.
Well get back to me when you find a way that changes human&#39;s instinct which is based on self-interest, not group interest.

[MrDoom]

Group interest is self-interest. That&#39;s why we have tribes, cities, families, etc.

[exwhyzed]

Originally posted by ShakeZula06+December 10, 2006 10:44 pm--> (ShakeZula06 @ December 10, 2006 10:44 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2006 08:33 pm
The Tragedy of the Commons only plagues commons that exist in capitalist societies, which require everyone to work for his or her own benefit. However if everyone was working for eachother&#39;s benefit, the land would not suffer over-exploitation as the land would be utilized in a way that benefits all.
Well get back to me when you find a way that changes human&#39;s instinct which is based on self-interest, not group interest. [/b]
A self-serving first nature is societal, not human nature. There have been countless collective societies throughout history. Moreover, there exist plenty of communal living within the united states. Are these people random defects of "normal" humans?

[ShakeZula06]

That is fine when your a petit burgeois who has the possibility of self employment, but I&#39;m talking about when you are a proliteriate who does not have that ability.
Self employment isn&#39;t something new to the lower class. Not to mention that college is very affordable in most capitalist nations despite government intervention, and it&#39;s much easier for someone to go from the lower class to upper class.

This situation isn&#39;t "rare" as you put it, this situation happens all the time. People are laid off & terminated because they no longer have labour power useful to the capitalist to exploit. The free market fluxuates rapidly causing havoc.
yeah, when you throw in progressive taxes, minimum wage laws, and high regulations on small businesses to protect the big businesses interests, this happens. Rarely in a *pure* capitalism does this happen. Government intervention creates this havoc, not the free market.

Once again it&#39;s not much of a voulintary accord when the only two options are a) work for the burgeoise, or b) starve.
Well we have already established that there is at least a third option, self employment. Sure you could buy some cheap land and grow food and build your own furniture, but that is not nearly as efficient as a division of labor and trade. Should you really be given something for nothing? What sense does that make?

By owning that land privatley you take away the means of production,
But in most cases we see that the capitalist didn&#39;t take away the means of production, they created it.

Imperialist nations invade countries all the time for their vast resources. The Spanish American War, Iraq, & Vietnam are just a few examples. After the "fight for justice" is over they set up psuedo republics & begin extracting wealth. It is an act of agression which is why many people call soldiers of invading countries agressors.
Well yeah that is bad. Good thing pure capitalism doesn&#39;t have states.

Which is why Marxism has the concept of a planned economy & the idea of using labour power to make what is needed only, instead of just surplus good to be made into more capital
Who gets to make these decisions? Where do they derive the right to deecide how the means of production are used?

or destroyed depending on how the market is doing.
Yes but this doesn&#39;t happen without government intervention either does it? The only example I can think of is the government paying farmers not to farm on all their land and similar things.

Of course you and every consumer would beg to differ because you and every consumer can consume. You live an easy life because the area you live in is not in a market crisis. Wait till the market depresses, that won&#39;t be so easy.
Depression is caused by government. Some food for thought-
The truth about the great depression (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=politics&Number=7071839&Searchpage=1&Main=7066928&Words=-re%3A+%2Bdepression&topic=&Search=true#Post7071839)
Great Depression question (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=politics&Number=5769402&Searchpage=1&Main=5769402&Words=-re%3A+%2Bdepression&topic=&Search=true#Post5769402)
mises.org essay (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf)

The United States, 1929 the market glutted when they produced to much wealth. The surplus good that was created had no interest to the short term goal of the capitalist&#39;s profit so they began destroying it in a desperate attempt to fix the glut. When what they should of done was distribute it to the unemployed workers. But like I said that would&#39;nt of been in their best interests as capitalists.
Interesting. Any reading I could do on this subject?

I think you have a probelm excepting this because you comefrom the Petty Burgeoise or have the choice to be.
Marx said himself "only the workers can emancipate the workers."
Not really. My dad works for a tool and die company. He used to work for boeing but got laid off a few years ago and now works for less pay. He also works in a non-unionized shop and gets better beneifits then he would with a union. I&#39;m a college kid that has to work college kid jobs. And I consider myself much better off then under a planned economy.

Credit is due to Exwhyzed tearing down the tragedy of the commons argument first.
Why? Because he said there would be no tragedy of the commons if self interest didn&#39;t exist?

[La Comédie Noire]

Self employment isn&#39;t something new to the lower class. Not to mention that college is very affordable in most capitalist nations despite government intervention, and it&#39;s much easier for someone to go from the lower class to upper class.

Once again i was talking about the petit burgeoise those with the option, the possibility. The proliteriate is someone who has no other means to live but the selling of their labour power. Alot of workers in the united states have the potential to be petit Burgeoise. Now take a place like China thats pure capitalism, pure proliteriates. Wait till Global capitalist economy comes about.


yeah, when you throw in progressive taxes, minimum wage laws, and high regulations on small businesses to protect the big businesses interests, this happens. Rarely in a *pure* capitalism does this happen. Government intervention creates this havoc, not the free market.

How does limiting big business cause it to over produce thus eliminating need for labour? Pure capitalism causes it. What do you think all those business were before & during the great depression? Big business didnt start getting regulated till after the great depression buddy.


Well we have already established that there is at least a third option, self employment. Sure you could buy some cheap land and grow food and build your own furniture, but that is not nearly as efficient as a division of labor and trade. Should you really be given something for nothing? What sense does that make?

Atleast a 3rd option for petit burgeoise not for proliteriate. In a communist society you arent given soemhting for nothing..

"each accoridng to his need from each accoridng to his ability" - Karl Marx

As soon as global capitlaist economy comes about the petit burgeoise will be eliminated.


But in most cases we see that the capitalist didn&#39;t take away the means of production, they created it.

So by your logic the man who created the difibulator should be able to make people work for him if they want to use it?



Well yeah that is bad. Good thing pure capitalism doesn&#39;t have states.

Yeah who needs war to kill people when over work, pollution, & malnutrition can? :D


Who gets to make these decisions? Where do they derive the right to deecide how the means of production are used?

Direct democracy amongst the workers will decide it, so will scientific study. Let me ask you what gives the capitalists the rights to control the means of production?


Yes but this doesn&#39;t happen without government intervention either does it? The only example I can think of is the government paying farmers not to farm on all their land and similar things.

Once again how does limiting the capitalist system cause overproduction to eliminate labour power?


Depression is caused by government. Some food for thought-
The truth about the great depression
Great Depression question
mises.org essay

Depression is caused by over production and elimination of need for labour power.


Interesting. Any reading I could do on this subject?

Most any U.S text book, for once, will give you a good view of it.


Not really. My dad works for a tool and die company. He used to work for boeing but got laid off a few years ago and now works for less pay. He also works in a non-unionized shop and gets better beneifits then he would with a union. I&#39;m a college kid that has to work college kid jobs. And I consider myself much better off then under a planned economy.

How do you know every union has worst benefits? Wait till they don&#39;t need your dad&#39;s labour anymore. Good to know you go to college, I had to think these lies were coming from somewhere.


Why? Because he said there would be no tragedy of the commons if self interest didn&#39;t exist?

No, I just saw he countered your point first.

You seem not to realize global capitalist economy will destroy the middle class or potential for it by anyone. It will only be the proliteriate & the burgeoise.

[ShakeZula06]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11, 2006 04:03 am



Now take a place like China thats pure capitalism, pure proliteriates. Wait till Global capitalist economy comes about.
China&#39;s economy is pure capitalism????

Either way unless you consider corporate capitalism a type of capitalism (I&#39;d say it&#39;s a bastardized version of capitalism at best, and it&#39;s certainly no where in the area of pure capitalism) it&#39;s extremely unlikely that capitalism will ever be anywhere near global.

How does limiting big business cause it to over produce thus eliminating need for labour?
Because I don&#39;t believe that business overproduced. The link I gave you completetly debunk that.

So by your logic the man who created the difibulator should be able to make people work for him if they want to use it?
Well, yeah. It&#39;s his isn&#39;t it? Certainly he has a right to sell it doesn&#39;t he? What incentive would people have to create things if they had no right to it?

Yeah who needs war to kill people when over work, pollution, & malnutrition can?
Heh, people don&#39;t *have* to work overtime and I don&#39;t believe for a second that without government intervention people would be forced into over working. Pollution is problem only because the state legalizes such practices when if it was treated how it should be (an act of aggression) businesses would not be allowed to do such things.

Direct democracy amongst the workers will decide it, so will scientific study. Let me ask you what gives the capitalists the rights to control the means of production?
You (well maybe someone else) said that property rights are a human constuct and that people don&#39;t actually have natural rights to ownership. If that&#39;s true then no one could have a right to the MOP and that would include the planners of the ecnomy.

Direct democracy, I&#39;d heed the words of Proudhon on democracy.

Capitalists have a right to it because they came to own it through voluntary transactions. The government would have to take it by force of revolution, no?

Depression is caused by over production and elimination of need for labour power.
It&#39;s nice of you to assert this but it be even nicer for you to link me to where this is the case. I have provided three links that took me <3 minutes to find that completely debunk that idea.

How do you know every union has worst benefits?
I didn&#39;t say that. In this specific case it has been better then what would have been the case with a union.

And I&#39;m sure you&#39;d think so but I&#39;m not anti-union. I&#39;m very anti-unions that use government for their ends though. I just pointed out it is possible to work a regular job without a union to make sure you&#39;re not getting paid in dirt.

Wait till they don&#39;t need your dad&#39;s labour anymore.
Yeah then he&#39;ll have to go through the horror of getting another job in a week or two tops.

Good to know you go to college, I had to think these lies were coming from somewhere.
haha. Isn&#39;t the stereotype that college&#39;s are to the left? Either way no my ideas aren&#39;t influenced by what college teachers say. My principles are based on what I&#39;ve learned through debating honestly and open minded on issues.

No, I just saw he countered your point first.
But he didn&#39;t couter anything. He pretty much said that if pigs fly we might be able to ride them instead of deal with airport security.

You seem not to realize global capitalist economy will destroy the middle class or potential for it by anyone. It will only be the proliteriate & the burgeoise.
This is true, I&#39;m open to the idea though. It&#39;s just that no one has shown me that this would be the case.

[La Comédie Noire]

China&#39;s economy is pure capitalism????

Either way unless you consider corporate capitalism a type of capitalism (I&#39;d say it&#39;s a bastardized version of capitalism at best, and it&#39;s certainly no where in the area of pure capitalism) it&#39;s extremely unlikely that capitalism will ever be anywhere near global.

Pure Capitalism is the idea that all property is privitized into seperate, competing institutions. If those aren&#39;t coporations than i don&#39;t know what is. Yes China is Capitalist despite what you&#39;ve been told.


Because I don&#39;t believe that business overproduced. The link I gave you completetly debunk that.

No, not really.


Well, yeah. It&#39;s his isn&#39;t it? Certainly he has a right to sell it doesn&#39;t he? What incentive would people have to create things if they had no right to it?

Yeah he has a right to keep a life saving device to himself. Just like capitalists don&#39;t have to give people a chance to sustain themselves without working for them. I would think people would want to benefit themselves as well as society. Did mendeleev & Mosley advance the periodic table of elements just for the further accumlation of material wealth? no they didn&#39;t.


Heh, people don&#39;t *have* to work overtime and I don&#39;t believe for a second that without government intervention people would be forced into over working. Pollution is problem only because the state legalizes such practices when if it was treated how it should be (an act of aggression) businesses would not be allowed to do such things.

People will be made to work over time or else they will lose their job, and even if they do get another one it will just be opressive as the last, gotta compete in the free market and all. :D

Businesses could give a shit about pollution. The liberals in the state try to stop pollution with legislation, the capitlaists are the ones screaming bloody murder for restrictions to stop. But I agree with you on one thing current states are bull shit.

The goal of a capitalist is to generate the largest amount of profit, in the shortest amount of time. Regardless of effects on the future.



It&#39;s nice of you to assert this but it be even nicer for you to link me to where this is the case. I have provided three links that took me <3 minutes to find that completely debunk that idea.

No it really did shit for me.


You (well maybe someone else) said that property rights are a human constuct and that people don&#39;t actually have natural rights to ownership. If that&#39;s true then no one could have a right to the MOP and that would include the planners of the ecnomy.

The planners of the economy would&#39;nt own the means of production. We would all be planners of the economy through democracy in our respective areas.


Direct democracy, I&#39;d heed the words of Proudhon on democracy.

I don&#39;t heed Proudhon on much these days.


And I&#39;m sure you&#39;d think so but I&#39;m not anti-union. I&#39;m very anti-unions that use government for their ends though. I just pointed out it is possible to work a regular job without a union to make sure you&#39;re not getting paid in dirt.

I don&#39;t like state unions either, a little to much bull shit for me. Without unions workers would get treated like shit, since theres not much one person could do about it. The state is a tool of the ruling class, and who is the ruling class? The capitalists.


Yeah then he&#39;ll have to go through the horror of getting another job in a week or two tops.

And if he dosent get another job, or god forbids cripples himself, he won&#39;t be working much. And since you want pure capitalism, although you&#39;ve shown me you have no idea what that is, he would&#39;nt be able to draw unemployment.


haha. Isn&#39;t the stereotype that college&#39;s are to the left? Either way no my ideas aren&#39;t influenced by what college teachers say. My principles are based on what I&#39;ve learned through debating honestly and open minded on issues.

I don&#39;t like very many stereotypes. Than you haven&#39;t been debating very open and honest have you? :huh:


But he didn&#39;t couter anything. He pretty much said that if pigs fly we might be able to ride them instead of deal with airport security.

No he said the current system would allow for tragedy of the commons. I said the current ssytem would do so ebcause it focuses on creating surplus value instead of only what is needed.


This is true, I&#39;m open to the idea though. It&#39;s just that no one has shown me that this would be the case.

It&#39;s happening right now. Small businesses are being replaced by coporate franchises.

[La Comédie Noire]

China&#39;s economy is pure capitalism????

Either way unless you consider corporate capitalism a type of capitalism (I&#39;d say it&#39;s a bastardized version of capitalism at best, and it&#39;s certainly no where in the area of pure capitalism) it&#39;s extremely unlikely that capitalism will ever be anywhere near global.

Pure Capitalism is the idea that all property is privitized into seperate, competing institutions. If those aren&#39;t coporations than i don&#39;t know what is. Yes China is Capitalist despite what you&#39;ve been told.


Because I don&#39;t believe that business overproduced. The link I gave you completetly debunk that.

No, not really.


Well, yeah. It&#39;s his isn&#39;t it? Certainly he has a right to sell it doesn&#39;t he? What incentive would people have to create things if they had no right to it?

Yeah he has a right to keep a life saving device to himself. Just like capitalists don&#39;t have to give people a chance to sustain themselves without working for them. I would think people would want to benefit themselves as well as society. Did mendeleev & Mosley advance the periodic table of elements just for the further accumlation of material wealth? no they didn&#39;t.


Heh, people don&#39;t *have* to work overtime and I don&#39;t believe for a second that without government intervention people would be forced into over working. Pollution is problem only because the state legalizes such practices when if it was treated how it should be (an act of aggression) businesses would not be allowed to do such things.

People will be made to work over time or else they will lose their job, and even if they do get another one it will just be opressive as the last, gotta compete in the free market and all. :D

Businesses could give a shit about pollution. The liberals in the state try to stop pollution with legislation, the capitlaists are the ones screaming bloody murder for restrictions to stop. But I agree with you on one thing current states are bull shit.

The goal of a capitalist is to generate the largest amount of profit, in the shortest amount of time. Regardless of effects on the future.



It&#39;s nice of you to assert this but it be even nicer for you to link me to where this is the case. I have provided three links that took me <3 minutes to find that completely debunk that idea.

No it really did shit for me.


You (well maybe someone else) said that property rights are a human constuct and that people don&#39;t actually have natural rights to ownership. If that&#39;s true then no one could have a right to the MOP and that would include the planners of the ecnomy.

The planners of the economy would&#39;nt own the means of production. We would all be planners of the economy through democracy in our respective areas.


Direct democracy, I&#39;d heed the words of Proudhon on democracy.

I don&#39;t heed Proudhon on much these days.


And I&#39;m sure you&#39;d think so but I&#39;m not anti-union. I&#39;m very anti-unions that use government for their ends though. I just pointed out it is possible to work a regular job without a union to make sure you&#39;re not getting paid in dirt.

I don&#39;t like state unions either, a little to much bull shit for me. Without unions workers would get treated like shit, since theres not much one person could do about it. The state is a tool of the ruling class, and who is the ruling class? The capitalists.


Yeah then he&#39;ll have to go through the horror of getting another job in a week or two tops.

And if he dosent get another job, or god forbids cripples himself, he won&#39;t be working much. And since you want pure capitalism, although you&#39;ve shown me you have no idea what that is, he would&#39;nt be able to draw unemployment.


haha. Isn&#39;t the stereotype that college&#39;s are to the left? Either way no my ideas aren&#39;t influenced by what college teachers say. My principles are based on what I&#39;ve learned through debating honestly and open minded on issues.

I don&#39;t like very many stereotypes. Than you haven&#39;t been debating very open and honest have you? :huh:


But he didn&#39;t couter anything. He pretty much said that if pigs fly we might be able to ride them instead of deal with airport security.

No he said the current system would allow for tragedy of the commons. I said the current ssytem would do so ebcause it focuses on creating surplus value instead of only what is needed.


This is true, I&#39;m open to the idea though. It&#39;s just that no one has shown me that this would be the case.

It&#39;s happening right now. Small businesses are being replaced by coporate franchises.


EDIT:

Tell you what it was awful unfair of me to call your evidence shit without giving my reasons. I have school and work in the morning. Tommrow night I&#39;ll sit down and right you out a full list of objections.

[colonelguppy]

Pure Capitalism is the idea that all property is privitized into seperate, competing institutions. If those aren&#39;t coporations than i don&#39;t know what is. Yes China is Capitalist despite what you&#39;ve been told.

what makes china not capitalist is the fact that the institution that property has been "privatized" into is the government, who monopolizes this control without a chance of relinquishing it into individual hands (well maybe they will in the future).

theres a reason why most political scientists and economists would call that statement ridiculous.

[ShakeZula06]

Pure Capitalism is the idea that all property is privitized into seperate, competing institutions. If those aren&#39;t coporations than i don&#39;t know what is. Yes China is Capitalist despite what you&#39;ve been told.
Pure capitalism is where everything is provided by a free market, that is not the case in China. Although I don&#39;t know much about China&#39;s economic situation, yes I know they are becoming more capitalistic, no propaganda artists have told me different, which I guess is what you&#39;re implying. To the contrary the &#39;capitalism&#39; (read: state sponsored corporate capitalism, which isn&#39;t even capitalism in the traditional definition) of China is a huge deal in America, and looked at as good by a lot of economists.

Also, corporations the way they exist today would not be the same in a stateless society. Corporation in many cases externalize investment risk onto the state, and that would not be the case in pure capitalism.

Yeah he has a right to keep a life saving device to himself. Just like capitalists don&#39;t have to give people a chance to sustain themselves without working for them. I would think people would want to benefit themselves as well as society.
They benefit both themselves and society by creating them and selling them. What they do with their own property as long as they are not negatively altering someone else is their business.

Did mendeleev & Mosley advance the periodic table of elements just for the further accumlation of material wealth? no they didn&#39;t.
That was nice of them too.

People will be made to work over time or else they will lose their job, and even if they do get another one it will just be opressive as the last, gotta compete in the free market and all. :D
You know what else is part of the free market? Businesses competing for employees. It&#39;s not a one way street. Ever wonder why such a small percentage of people make minimum wage?

Businesses could give a shit about pollution. The liberals in the state try to stop pollution with legislation, the capitlaists are the ones screaming bloody murder for restrictions to stop.
I&#39;m saying they can do it through reprucussions of a court. Pollution is an act of aggression, as I said.

But I agree with you on one thing current states are bull shit.
Finally some common ground. :)

The planners of the economy would&#39;nt own the means of production.
But whoever is the planner(s) of the economy gets the right to say how it&#39;s used, no?

I don&#39;t heed Proudhon on much these days.
In short democracy is tyranny of the majority, and it probably deserves it&#39;s own thread.

And if he dosent get another job, or god forbids cripples himself, he won&#39;t be working much. And since you want pure capitalism, although you&#39;ve shown me you have no idea what that is, he would&#39;nt be able to draw unemployment.
No he wouldn&#39;t get unemployment from the government. He still has family, friends, and charities (ie people who give a damn about him, rather then people he never has and never will meet that were forced to pay for it through taxes) to rely on. Also, with regards to getting crippled, nothing is stopping him from the above, or negotiating getting insurance from the company he works for, or from a insurance company. Or do you think insurance companies won&#39;t exist in a stateless society? And obviously he still has friends, family, and charity.

And as long as you assert that China is an example of pure capitalism, I&#39;m pretty sure you are the one that doesn&#39;t no what it means.

I don&#39;t like very many stereotypes.
Me niether, I particularly don&#39;t like being stereotyped as someone that was spoonfed propaganda in college.

Than you haven&#39;t been debating very open and honest have you? :huh:
huh?

No he said the current system would allow for tragedy of the commons. I said the current ssytem would do so ebcause it focuses on creating surplus value instead of only what is needed.
Huh? here&#39;s what he said-

The Tragedy of the Commons only plagues commons that exist in capitalist societies, which require everyone to work for his or her own benefit. However if everyone was working for eachother&#39;s benefit, the land would not suffer over-exploitation as the land would be utilized in a way that benefits all.
What system is there that stops people from acting out of self interest?

It&#39;s happening right now. Small businesses are being replaced by coporate franchises.
The horror of lower prices I know.

[exwhyzed]

What system is there that stops people from acting out of self interest?

Group interest necessarily takes into account your personal needs. Working for the group&#39;s benefit is not mutually exclusive from working toward your own benefit as well. Just a question, how do you explain communal societies that have/continue to exist? Freaks of nature, denying their natural instincts?

[colonelguppy]

not that i believe humans have a human nature, but the rareity of such places owuld suggest something

[KC]

what makes china not capitalist is the fact that the institution that property has been "privatized" into is the government, who monopolizes this control without a chance of relinquishing it into individual hands (well maybe they will in the future).

Marxists use a different definition of capitalism than normal people. Our definition actually discusses what it is, whereas the bourgeois definition of capitalism is just a free market system. Capitalism isn&#39;t just about how a market is run; it&#39;s about how people relate to one another. The market is merely a part of that.


theres a reason why most political scientists and economists would call that statement ridiculous.

Most political scientists and economists are ridiculous.


not that i believe humans have a human nature, but the rareity of such places owuld suggest something

It definitely does suggest something. It suggests that those supporting capitalism as a system are much more powerful than those that don&#39;t and are therefore able to force others to conform to capitalism, as was the case throughout the late 19th century.

[t_wolves_fan]

Marxists use a different definition of capitalism than normal people.

How are marxists not normal?


Our definition actually discusses what it is, whereas the bourgeois definition of capitalism is just a free market system. Capitalism isn&#39;t just about how a market is run; it&#39;s about how people relate to one another. The market is merely a part of that.

You do not discuss what it actually is. You discuss it through your own ideological lense which says that anyone who works for a wage is by definition a slave, regardless of the individual consequences of any given worker.

You simply divide people up into classes, slap labels on those classes, and determine what the relationship between them is with no regard to reality at all.


Most political scientists and economists are ridiculous.

And your experience with politics and economics is what, precisely? Reading a few books?


It definitely does suggest something. It suggests that those supporting capitalism as a system are much more powerful than those that don&#39;t and are therefore able to force others to conform to capitalism, as was the case throughout the late 19th century.

We&#39;re more powerful because it works much better than whatever you probably advocate.

[KC]

How are marxists not normal?

Sorry; I should have said bourgeois, not normal.


You do not discuss what it actually is. You discuss it through your own ideological lense which says that anyone who works for a wage is by definition a slave, regardless of the individual consequences of any given worker.

You simply divide people up into classes, slap labels on those classes, and determine what the relationship between them is with no regard to reality at all.

No we don&#39;t.



We&#39;re more powerful because it works much better than whatever you probably advocate.


So events that happen and systems that are put in place because they&#39;re more powerful, and that is because they&#39;re better?

So the Bolsheviks were more powerful than the bourgeois liberals because the USSR was better than capitalism in Russia? The Taliban in Afghanistan is more powerful than a secular government because it&#39;s better? The Nazis were powerful because they were better than any anti-racist alternative?

:huh:

[t_wolves_fan]

You do not discuss what it actually is. You discuss it through your own ideological lense which says that anyone who works for a wage is by definition a slave, regardless of the individual consequences of any given worker.

You simply divide people up into classes, slap labels on those classes, and determine what the relationship between them is with no regard to reality at all.

No we don&#39;t.

Yes, you do.



We&#39;re more powerful because it works much better than whatever you probably advocate.


So events that happen and systems that are put in place because they&#39;re more powerful, and that is because they&#39;re better?

They&#39;ve become more powerful because they&#39;re better, not the other way around.


So the Bolsheviks were more powerful than the bourgeois liberals because the USSR was better than capitalism in Russia? The Taliban in Afghanistan is more powerful than a secular government because it&#39;s better? The Nazis were powerful because they were better than any anti-racist alternative?

I was not making a value judgement, sport. I meant "better" in that it works more effectively.

Normatively speaking, given the inherent impracticality of your ideology, I cannot see any evidence that capitalism is worse normatively than communism as it would actually be applied. Naturally our whimsical fantasies about how life ought to work if only everyone were as brilliant as us will be normatively better than the status quo, but I tend to reject fairy-dust driven robotocracies.

[colonelguppy]

Marxists use a different definition of capitalism than normal people.

thats what makes argueing with you guys so frustrating, rather simply agreeing with terms and going from there, the debate is always clouded with semantics based maxims.


Our definition actually discusses what it is, whereas the bourgeois definition of capitalism is just a free market system. Capitalism isn&#39;t just about how a market is run; it&#39;s about how people relate to one another. The market is merely a part of that.

the market is how people interact and relate with others, through the voluntary eaxchange of goods and services. china doens&#39;t really have a market. so its not capitalist.


Most political scientists and economists are ridiculous.

they would say the same thing about you guys for making such retarded claims, except people would actually listen to them.


It definitely does suggest something. It suggests that those supporting capitalism as a system are much more powerful than those that don&#39;t and are therefore able to force others to conform to capitalism, as was the case throughout the late 19th century.

or because people realized that the advantages of interacting within the market are much better than going to a commune, shut off from the world.

[ShakeZula06]

They&#39;ve become more powerful because they&#39;re better, not the other way around.
You are creating a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy) here. Why one system is used over another relies entirely on the power of those advocating it and the willingness of them to force it on others.


Most political scientists and economists are ridiculous.they would say the same thing about you guys for making such retarded claims, except people would actually listen to them.
Guys, come on. You&#39;re both using fallacies here, appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) and appeal to majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_majority). Debate the merits of the ideas of the economists and stay on topic , or find your own thread for flame wars.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 10:00 pm

They&#39;ve become more powerful because they&#39;re better, not the other way around.
You are creating a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy) here. Why one system is used over another relies entirely on the power of those advocating it and the willingness of them to force it on others.
So by your own admission if communism were implemented it would be because you became more powerful than the capitalists and forced it on us.

How would that be any different?

It wouldn&#39;t, except a lot more people would starve to death or be executed for insulting the dear revolutionary leaders.

[ShakeZula06]

First of all, check the editted portion of my post. Second of all, I&#39;m a capitalist. Third of all, your arguments annoy me because they hurt the credibility of capitalists, fourth of all you need a crash course in logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 10:09 pm
First of all, check the editted portion of my post. Second of all, I&#39;m a capitalist. Third of all, your arguments annoy me because they hurt the credibility of capitalists, fourth of all you need a crash course in logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).
Oh lord, here we go. Another poster that worships at the altar of logic and logical fallacies.

If you bothered to look, the choice is between whatever else has been tried and capitalism, meaning it is not a false dilemma.


Were you at PW? Jonas?

:D

[ShakeZula06]

Oh lord, here we go. Another poster that worships at the altar of logic and logical fallacies.
Lol, I really don&#39;t know what to say to this. You seem like an adult from South park. "What&#39;s logic ever done with regards to debating political philosophy"?

If you bothered to look, the choice is between whatever else has been tried and capitalism, meaning it is not a false dilemma.
No actually this is excerpt I quoted in the first place-

They&#39;ve become more powerful because they&#39;re better, not the other way around.
Your framing it as only two alternatives. They&#39;re more powerful because they&#39;re better, or the other way around. Obviously there are other alternatives, especially the one I pointed out. Try again.

Were you at PW? Jonas?
Being that I don&#39;t know wtf those two things are, probably not.

[KC]

Yes, you do.

Nah.



I was not making a value judgement, sport. I meant "better" in that it works more effectively.


My point still stands. If Nazism works more effectively then why aren&#39;t we all Nazis? If the system in the USSR works more effectively then why don&#39;t we all have that? There&#39;s an obvious answer here, which I&#39;m hoping you&#39;ll know.


thats what makes argueing with you guys so frustrating, rather simply agreeing with terms and going from there, the debate is always clouded with semantics based maxims.

You will find that happen with many philosophical and economic matters.


the market is how people interact and relate with others, through the voluntary eaxchange of goods and services. china doens&#39;t really have a market. so its not capitalist.

Yes but capitalism isn&#39;t just an economic system; it&#39;s a socioeconomic system. Big difference. Saying that if a place doesn&#39;t have laissez-faire capitalism that it&#39;s not capitalism is incorrect because the social aspects are still there (how people relate to one another).


they would say the same thing about you guys for making such retarded claims, except people would actually listen to them.

I&#39;m still waiting for you to respond to me in that textbook thread. Care to do that?



or because people realized that the advantages of interacting within the market are much better than going to a commune, shut off from the world.


Or because it&#39;s not dependent simply on what people want. Capitalism didn&#39;t develop because the human population conducted a study to determine the best economic system. You can&#39;t say "this is what we have because it&#39;s better" because that completely ignores the historical aspect of capitalism itself. Capitalism doesn&#39;t exist in a vacuum; it was born as a result of historic actions and has developed throughout history. The capitalism we have today is a result of history, not because it&#39;s the "best".

[La Comédie Noire]

Pure capitalism is where everything is provided by a free market, that is not the case in China. Although I don&#39;t know much about China&#39;s economic situation, yes I know they are becoming more capitalistic, no propaganda artists have told me different, which I guess is what you&#39;re implying. To the contrary the &#39;capitalism&#39; (read: state sponsored corporate capitalism, which isn&#39;t even capitalism in the traditional definition) of China is a huge deal in America, and looked at as good by a lot of economists.

Also, corporations the way they exist today would not be the same in a stateless society. Corporation in many cases externalize investment risk onto the state, and that would not be the case in pure capitalism.

Might as well look at China as one large Industry who does infact participate in the free market. China is a cheap labour market for capitalists in the United States who don&#39;t want to bother with enviormental restrictions or wage laws back home. Go to any store and look at a random toy or electronic, 9 out of 10 times it will say "made in China" on it because china&#39;s labour is cheap because the workers get bumpkis. Hell even you yourself pointed out minimum wage laws led to a depression. China is a throw back to the days of a classic economy, capitalists love it&#33; Lez son faire(pardon my french spelling) is what you are advocating. Which is exactly what china is becoming.

So let me ask you why the hell on earth would we as workers want to support a society that fails unless we get screwed over?


They benefit both themselves and society by creating them and selling them. What they do with their own property as long as they are not negatively altering someone else is their business.

Well why can&#39;t they just create it and benefit society and themselves with such a wonderful life saving device? the answer is because you need to go through capitalists to get it done because they own the means of production.

What if you just wanted to distribute it freely to hospitals?

Exploitation plain and simple. Unless you participate with the capitalists you don&#39;t get anywhere.


You know what else is part of the free market? Businesses competing for employees. It&#39;s not a one way street. Ever wonder why such a small percentage of people make minimum wage?

Illusion of choice. You work in shitty job A or shitty job B which no way furthers society or yourself in the long run, if not to bad.

Yes, a large percent of people don&#39;t make minimum wage. They make under it.


I&#39;m saying they can do it through reprucussions of a court. Pollution is an act of aggression, as I said.

But the court system is part of the state, which you don&#39;t want around. ;)

Pollution won&#39;t be considered an act of agression for long, especially since the ruling class won&#39;t have to deal wiht it themselves. To bad workers won&#39;t be able to own those nice homes away from the industrial sectors.


But whoever is the planner(s) of the economy gets the right to say how it&#39;s used, no?

The planners are everyone within the community that utilizes said means of production, since it&#39;s public property & they all collectivley own it.


In short democracy is tyranny of the majority, and it probably deserves it&#39;s own thread.

Oh bull shit, like Tyranny of the Minority is any better. :lol:


No he wouldn&#39;t get unemployment from the government. He still has family, friends, and charities (ie people who give a damn about him, rather then people he never has and never will meet that were forced to pay for it through taxes) to rely on. Also, with regards to getting crippled, nothing is stopping him from the above, or negotiating getting insurance from the company he works for, or from a insurance company. Or do you think insurance companies won&#39;t exist in a stateless society? And obviously he still has friends, family, and charity.

And as long as you assert that China is an example of pure capitalism, I&#39;m pretty sure you are the one that doesn&#39;t no what it means.

Yeah thats great and all but charities don&#39;t solve anything epsecially during recessions when they&#39;re flooded with people. Family and friends? too busy working for themselves ,trying to stay alive. What with how cheap they have to sell themselves in order to live.

Oh for the love of shit china is pretty much pure capitalism, yeah the state "owns" the coporations. China is just a waste land of bad pollution and bribed chinease officals. A lovley paradise for capitalists. It&#39;s infact one big business.




Me niether, I particularly don&#39;t like being stereotyped as someone that was spoonfed propaganda in college.

That was more of a joke than anything. But society got it into you somehow.


huh?

It was a joke, go back and read what you said before that.


The horror of lower prices I know.

How about the horror of low wages and over work that make those cheap products?

The society you purpose sounds fine if your anything but a proliteriate. And in your society the middle class is destroyed leaving the only other option the Burgeoise.

Update on great depression response:

I&#39;m almost done, I just need to get a few sources from books in my school library.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 11, 2006 11:44 pm
You will find that happen with many philosophical and economic matters.
yeah and it&#39;s retarded, i don&#39;t know why people let their idealogies skew the debate like that. i would just go with the most commonly excepted terminology.


Yes but capitalism isn&#39;t just an economic system; it&#39;s a socioeconomic system. Big difference. Saying that if a place doesn&#39;t have laissez-faire capitalism that it&#39;s not capitalism is incorrect because the social aspects are still there (how people relate to one another).

ok. the social aspects of capitalism aren&#39;t in china though.


I&#39;m still waiting for you to respond to me in that textbook thread. Care to do that?

/pulls reversal

i already did, i&#39;ve been waiting on you. it slipped off the front page, at the top of the second.


Or because it&#39;s not dependent simply on what people want. Capitalism didn&#39;t develop because the human population conducted a study to determine the best economic system. You can&#39;t say "this is what we have because it&#39;s better" because that completely ignores the historical aspect of capitalism itself. Capitalism doesn&#39;t exist in a vacuum; it was born as a result of historic actions and has developed throughout history. The capitalism we have today is a result of history, not because it&#39;s the "best".

i didn&#39;t say it was better because we have it, i said it because people/governments have over time percieved the benefits to be greater.

[t_wolves_fan]

Oh lord, here we go. Another poster that worships at the altar of logic and logical fallacies.
Lol, I really don&#39;t know what to say to this. You seem like an adult from South park. "What&#39;s logic ever done with regards to debating political philosophy"?

I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t. I thought about this last night. The problem is that I&#39;m debating a bunch of wanna-be philosophers who&#39;ve learned that these logical rules apply when debating philosophy.

I do not come from a philosophy background. I&#39;m actually part of the policy-making process. In other words, instead of sitting around pondering why life is like it is within the bounds of "logical fallacies", I&#39;ve been in the trenches as governmental policy has dealt with reality. In those trenches, complaints about false dilemmas and appeals to authority are laughed at because often there are only two practical options and expert opinion is valued for reasons that ought to be obvious. Trust me, if you were in one of our meetings and we asked an expert what he thought about how to change this program or spend that money and you piped up that this violates the appeal to authority logical fallacy, you&#39;d be packing up your shit and updating your resume in about 6 minutes.

I guess it&#39;s really my fault, since most of the boards I&#39;ve visited, including this one, are populated with college kids (at best) who got an "A" in philosophy and so think their opinion of the real world matters and that these silly logical rules apply.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 02:34 pm


Oh lord, here we go. Another poster that worships at the altar of logic and logical fallacies.
Lol, I really don&#39;t know what to say to this. You seem like an adult from South park. "What&#39;s logic ever done with regards to debating political philosophy"?

I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t. I thought about this last night. The problem is that I&#39;m debating a bunch of wanna-be philosophers who&#39;ve learned that these logical rules apply when debating philosophy.

I do not come from a philosophy background. I&#39;m actually part of the policy-making process. In other words, instead of sitting around pondering why life is like it is within the bounds of "logical fallacies", I&#39;ve been in the trenches as governmental policy has dealt with reality. In those trenches, complaints about false dilemmas and appeals to authority are laughed at because often there are only two practical options and expert opinion is valued for reasons that ought to be obvious. Trust me, if you were in one of our meetings and we asked an expert what he thought about how to change this program or spend that money and you piped up that this violates the appeal to authority logical fallacy, you&#39;d be packing up your shit and updating your resume in about 6 minutes.

I guess it&#39;s really my fault, since most of the boards I&#39;ve visited, including this one, are populated with college kids (at best) who got an "A" in philosophy and so think their opinion of the real world matters and that these silly logical rules apply.
That of course would depend on what part of policy decision making you are involved in. If you are innvolved in determining how Government finance should be then you are not going to make extensive use of philosophical logic. If you were the answer you would probably arrive at would be that money should be aportioned in the fairest or most efficient way or whatever. But that is so blindingly obvious that you won&#39;t spoend long working that out. Good luck trying to find what is fair or efficient, but the principle itself hardly needs debating. So you won&#39;t make decisions using these logical rules because instead you are trying to find the most efficient eans of doing something.

On the other hand at the higher level of policy making these ideas are very important. The Government packs it&#39;s think tanks with philosophers for a reason, and so many Cabinet Ministers haven&#39;t pursued philosophy degrees for nothing either.

[t_wolves_fan]

That of course would depend on what part of policy decision making you are involved in. If you are innvolved in determining how Government finance should be then you are not going to make extensive use of philosophical logic. If you were the answer you would probably arrive at would be that money should be aportioned in the fairest or most efficient way or whatever. But that is so blindingly obvious that you won&#39;t spoend long working that out. Good luck trying to find what is fair or efficient, but the principle itself hardly needs debating. So you won&#39;t make decisions using these logical rules because instead you are trying to find the most efficient eans of doing something.

On the other hand at the higher level of policy making these ideas are very important. The Government packs it&#39;s think tanks with philosophers for a reason, and so many Cabinet Ministers haven&#39;t pursued philosophy degrees for nothing either.

What experience do you have working in government, out of curiosity?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 02:53 pm
What experience do you have working in government, out of curiosity?
I could as easily ask you what experience you have of high level government policy decisions. And at any rate if you do, does that change the fact of what I said? If you were an advisor to the President himself would it change the truth of what i said when I pointed out the Government selects it&#39;s advisors from among philosophy graduates? It is simple fact that it does, as is the fact that most senior politicians here have philosophy degrees.

Also I might add that you will in fact use logic and avoid logical fallacies when you are making decisions. At your next meeting, tell someone that their ideas are wrong because you don&#39;t like thier hair (that would be an ad hominen) and see how it goes down. Just because you don&#39;t refer to them under their formal terms doesn&#39;t mean you don&#39;t avoid them.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 09:34 am


Oh lord, here we go. Another poster that worships at the altar of logic and logical fallacies.
Lol, I really don&#39;t know what to say to this. You seem like an adult from South park. "What&#39;s logic ever done with regards to debating political philosophy"?

I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t. I thought about this last night. The problem is that I&#39;m debating a bunch of wanna-be philosophers who&#39;ve learned that these logical rules apply when debating philosophy.

I do not come from a philosophy background. I&#39;m actually part of the policy-making process. In other words, instead of sitting around pondering why life is like it is within the bounds of "logical fallacies", I&#39;ve been in the trenches as governmental policy has dealt with reality. In those trenches, complaints about false dilemmas and appeals to authority are laughed at because often there are only two practical options and expert opinion is valued for reasons that ought to be obvious. Trust me, if you were in one of our meetings and we asked an expert what he thought about how to change this program or spend that money and you piped up that this violates the appeal to authority logical fallacy, you&#39;d be packing up your shit and updating your resume in about 6 minutes.

I guess it&#39;s really my fault, since most of the boards I&#39;ve visited, including this one, are populated with college kids (at best) who got an "A" in philosophy and so think their opinion of the real world matters and that these silly logical rules apply.
yeah but this isn&#39;t a job with a set hierarchy, this is a political debate forum, the only rules we play by ar ebased on logic.

[t_wolves_fan]

I could as easily ask you what experience you have of high level government policy decisions. And at any rate if you do, does that change the fact of what I said? If you were an advisor to the President himself would it change the truth of what i said when I pointed out the Government selects it&#39;s advisors from among philosophy graduates? It is simple fact that it does, as is the fact that most senior politicians here have philosophy degrees.

So none.

I&#39;ve seen no evidence that government selects its advisors from among philosophy graduates on purpose. I&#39;m sure there are many such graduates working in government, though from my experience the dominant academic field is political science, sociology, business, accounting, and public administration.

On what do you base your claim, out of curiosity?



Also I might add that you will in fact use logic and avoid logical fallacies when you are making decisions. At your next meeting, tell someone that their ideas are wrong because you don&#39;t like thier hair (that would be an ad hominen) and see how it goes down. Just because you don&#39;t refer to them under their formal terms doesn&#39;t mean you don&#39;t avoid them.

I&#39;ve never heard anyone complain that an argument was ad hominem, they merely complain that it&#39;s irrelevant, which it is.

Look, certainly some of the foundations of philosophical and logical arguments are present in policy debates, but at the state, federal and local level I&#39;ve never heard anyone complain about appeals to authority nor false dilemmas. In fact, an appeal to authority complaint is nearly impossible in making policy because if you don&#39;t accept the authority of political calculations, you won&#39;t be in a position to make policy for very long.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 03:19 pm
yeah but this isn&#39;t a job with a set hierarchy, this is a political debate forum, the only rules we play by ar ebased on logic.
Fair enough, though I&#39;d use quotations around the term logic.

:lol:

[Demogorgon]

On what do you base your claim, out of curiosity?On the Government&#39;s official policy. I am referring to the British Government incidentally. As I have told you several times in the past I am not American and my ideas are never meant to apply directly to America.
Look, certainly some of the foundations of philosophical and logical arguments are present in policy debates, but at the state, federal and local level I&#39;ve never heard anyone complain about appeals to authority nor false dilemmas. In fact, an appeal to authority complaint is nearly impossible in making policy because if you don&#39;t accept the authority of political calculations, you won&#39;t be in a position to make policy for very long.
You might misunderstand what an appeal to authority is (as will several people here). If I were to say "My Mother is a doctor and consequently knows more about medicine than you do" I would not be making an appeal to authority. I would be stating a fact (unless you also know about medicine in which case I aologise). If however I were to say "My mther is a doctor and consequently knows more about history than you" I would be making an appeal to authority. it means appealing to an irrelevant authority and presuming they are right simply because they are respected for an entirely unrelated reason.

Incidentally whether or not you here people complain about false dilemnas or not, don&#39;t complain if you here about them here. They are a ridiculously common problem in politics "You are either with us or against us" being a good example.

[t_wolves_fan]

On what do you base your claim, out of curiosity?On the Government&#39;s official policy. I am referring to the British Government incidentally.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that official policy says you must have a degree in a certain field to be hired by the PM as a cabinet minister or civil servant. I am wondering if perhaps there is some confusion over the term "philosophy" here, as if a philosophy degree there is the same as a B.A. here? In that case, I can see it.



Incidentally whether or not you here people complain about false dilemnas or not, don&#39;t complain if you here about them here. They are a ridiculously common problem in politics "You are either with us or against us" being a good example.

Now on that I completely agree.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 04:10 pm

I find it extremely difficult to believe that official policy says you must have a degree in a certain field to be hired by the PM as a cabinet minister or civil servant. I am wondering if perhaps there is some confusion over the term "philosophy" here, as if a philosophy degree there is the same as a B.A. here? In that case, I can see it.


Well obviously who gets on the Cabinet depends on the usual intrigue and backstabbing and the civil service has it&#39;s own hiring procedures that the government has limited control over. However just about all policy commissions the government establishes to determine it&#39;s policy direction. Philosophy graduates here are generally useful in that because most universities teach economics alongside philosophy so they tend to have a pretty wide expertise and exposure to a wide variety of views.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

communism isn&#39;t against private property rights, except property used to subjugate or exploit another person (such as private ownership of the means of production).

"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society."

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations."

~ Karl Marx, "Communist Manifesto"

[ShakeZula06]

Might as well look at China as one large Industry who does infact participate in the free market.
No you might as well not unless your only interests would be debating in either a dishonest or just ignorant manner. Barely anything social or economical happens without the Chinese government&#39;s stamp of approval and if you just refuse to admit that this makes China incredibly different from a free market then I&#39;m not going to spend anymore time trying to explain to you that the white wall in front of you is white and not brown.

9 out of 10 times it will say "made in China" on it because china&#39;s labour is cheap because the workers get bumpkis. Hell even you yourself pointed out minimum wage laws led to a depression. China is a throw back to the days of a classic economy, capitalists love it&#33;
Yes, China&#39;s workers get bumpkis because of the government tells them that&#39;s what they get. This is not an example of pure capitalism, do you see why?

So let me ask you why the hell on earth would we as workers want to support a society that fails unless we get screwed over?
Umm, because I&#39;m not.

Well why can&#39;t they just create it and benefit society and themselves with such a wonderful life saving device?
Why do you feel the need to tell them what to do?

Illusion of choice. You work in shitty job A or shitty job B which no way furthers society or yourself in the long run, if not to bad.
Yes of course, the jobs that have allowed my father&#39;s family of five to live comfortably for the last 25 years can only be described as shitty. And creating goods and services in no furthers society at all, that makes perfect sense. I see the light now.

Yes, a large percent of people don&#39;t make minimum wage. They make under it.
Thanks for posting this, it reveals your true motives. You&#39;re obvioulsy not here to debate honestly, your here to spread propaganda and obvious lies. After this post I&#39;m spending no more time &#39;debating&#39; with you. Just stay in your little collectivist bubble and make no attempts to actually open up your mind and think about things honestly.

But the court system is part of the state, which you don&#39;t want around. ;)
You&#39;re the one saying a court has to be provided by a state, not me.

Pollution won&#39;t be considered an act of agression for long, especially since the ruling class won&#39;t have to deal wiht it themselves.
You do realize that a &#39;ruling class&#39; doesn&#39;t exist in anarchy right?

To bad workers won&#39;t be able to own those nice homes away from the industrial sectors.
Well, I come from a &#39;workers&#39; family and amazingly we live no where near pollution. We must have just hit the prolitariet jackpot.

The planners are everyone within the community that utilizes said means of production, since it&#39;s public property & they all collectivley own it.
Using you and your idealogical allies arguments, public property and ownership is a social construct and doesn&#39;t exist.

Like the tyranny of the minority is any better
False dilemma fallacy

Yeah thats great and all but charities don&#39;t solve anything epsecially during recessions when they&#39;re flooded with people. Family and friends? too busy working for themselves ,trying to stay alive. What with how cheap they have to sell themselves in order to live.
Oh, OK now we&#39;re in a recession, one of those things caused by government intervention of the market, that thing that I want to get rid of. Good case.

It&#39;s infact one big business.
Your missing one blantently obvious and important aspect of capitalism. Competition among businesses.

society got it into you somehow.
"Society" as a whole doesn&#39;t believe what I believe. They&#39;re actually more likely to believe the things you believe. Because of the whole state intervention thing capitalism get&#39;s a bad rap.

How about the horror of low wages and over work that make those cheap products?
Sans China and other nation&#39;s government instituted labor camps I don&#39;t see it, sorry. It certainly doesn&#39;t happen in this country.

Update on great depression response:
I&#39;ll spend as much time reading your depression essay as you spent reading my links.

Have a nice day.

[La Comédie Noire]

No you might as well not unless your only interests would be debating in either a dishonest or just ignorant manner. Barely anything social or economical happens without the Chinese government&#39;s stamp of approval and if you just refuse to admit that this makes China incredibly different from a free market then I&#39;m not going to spend anymore time trying to explain to you that the white wall in front of you is white and not brown.

And who bribes the chinease officials? the united states capitalists duh. No free market in the country of course, free market outside the country. Unless you care to explain how a country with no free market at all even begins to find it&#39;s products on our shelves.


Yes, China&#39;s workers get bumpkis because of the government tells them that&#39;s what they get. This is not an example of pure capitalism, do you see why?

China is becoming capitalist, they already participate in the free market. Workers conditions are an example of your beloved pure capitalism.


Umm, because I&#39;m not.

Wonderful.


Yes of course, the jobs that have allowed my father&#39;s family of five to live comfortably for the last 25 years can only be described as shitty. And creating goods and services in no furthers society at all, that makes perfect sense. I see the light now.

The jobs that are there when the markets doing fine and dandy. Please just because you so happen to live in a time when the market is good means nothing.

It dosent further society fairly or correctly, now does it?


Why do you feel the need to tell them what to do?

why do you feel the need for him to be told what to do by capitalists?


Thanks for posting this, it reveals your true motives. You&#39;re obvioulsy not here to debate honestly, your here to spread propaganda and obvious lies. After this post I&#39;m spending no more time &#39;debating&#39; with you. Just stay in your little collectivist bubble and make no attempts to actually open up your mind and think about things honestly.

Yeah my true motives are to sit here and tell some petit burgeoise whats wrong with the world. No my motives are to create effective workers action.

I did open my mind, and low and behold i became a Marxist. Oh please have you ever traveled? The only reason you think the workers have it so good is because you live in the United States, a first world capitalist nation, that dosent need to exploit it&#39;s own working class when it has many other working classes to exploit such as in china.


You&#39;re the one saying a court has to be provided by a state, not me.

Egads , don&#39;t tell me you suggest privitization of courts? Aren&#39;t they unfair and screwed up enough as it is?

I can just imagine it.

Worker: I was fired by a manager because he hit me and i hit him back.

Judge: Well uh thats very tragic and all but you see we at Hafford Co. have a strong standing relationship with the particular company both are employed by and it would do our business relationship real harm if we were to follow through on this. So uh court dismissed, that will be 5,000.


Well, I come from a &#39;workers&#39; family and amazingly we live no where near pollution. We must have just hit the prolitariet jackpot.

Or you live in a country where there are pollution laws and everyone has a "right" to sue if their lungs fall out.


Using you and your idealogical allies arguments, public property and ownership is a social construct and doesn&#39;t exist.

It&#39;s a social construct that dosent exist in capitalist society. Thats kind of why we want to reveloutionize society so it does.


You do realize that a &#39;ruling class&#39; doesn&#39;t exist in anarchy right?

You do realize anarchy, anarcho communism, just plain wonderful communism, has a concept of horizontal management and a competitive market would&#39;nt allow for such a social construct right? One group of people would own and the other would work.


False dilemma fallacy

Actually it&#39;s quite a real dilemma. One group of people own everything, thats about 2% out of 98% of the popullation, how is that right?


Oh, OK now we&#39;re in a recession, one of those things caused by government intervention of the market, that thing that I want to get rid of. Good case.

If you think recession is only caused by goverment your not making such a good case yourself.


Sans China and other nation&#39;s government instituted labor camps I don&#39;t see it, sorry. It certainly doesn&#39;t happen in this country.

Yeah because you live in a first world capitalist nation who utilizes foreign labour to do most of the hard work.


Your missing one blantently obvious and important aspect of capitalism. Competition among businesses.

Look at China as one big state capitalist institute selling it&#39;s peoples labours on the free market, China has the best wage slave in the world, it kicks the competitions ass :D


"Society" as a whole doesn&#39;t believe what I believe. They&#39;re actually more likely to believe the things you believe. Because of the whole state intervention thing capitalism get&#39;s a bad rap.

Society as a whole beleives capitlaism is wonderful, just like you. It&#39;s the Marxists and other assorted leftists who are confused by you.

The state is bad because it tells people what to do and controls them&#33;&#33;&#33; But Capitlaism is wonderful&#33;&#33;


I&#39;ll spend as much time reading your depression essay as you spent reading my links.

Have a nice day.

Seesh you cappies get hot under the collar easily. Fine don&#39;t read the essay.

Have A Nice Day :D

[KC]

yeah and it&#39;s retarded, i don&#39;t know why people let their idealogies skew the debate like that. i would just go with the most commonly excepted terminology.

Because "the most commonly excepted [sic] terminology" doesn&#39;t alway sufficiently describe something.



ok. the social aspects of capitalism aren&#39;t in china though.


Of course they are. People in China relate to one another based on commodities for exchange in the same manner that they do in the US.

Unless you can tell me what "social aspects of capitalism aren&#39;t in china [sic]"?



i didn&#39;t say it was better because we have it, i said it because people/governments have over time percieved the benefits to be greater.

First, greater for whom? Does everyone perceive it to be better? If not, then who perceives it to be better? Who doesn&#39;t?

[t_wolves_fan]

Of course they are. People in China relate to one another based on commodities for exchange in the same manner that they do in the US.

Uh, that&#39;s like saying flour is a cake because one ingredient is present.

China practices what can, at best, be called "state capitalism" because the state primarily owns the means of production and there is a much higher level of centralized planning than a true capitalist country would permit.



Unless you can tell me what "social aspects of capitalism aren&#39;t in china [sic]"?

State ownership and compulsion make China quite uncapitalist.


First, greater for whom? Does everyone perceive it to be better? If not, then who perceives it to be better? Who doesn&#39;t?

Basically everyone but the members of this board and San Francisco.

[ShakeZula06]

And who bribes the chinease officials? the united states capitalists duh.
Yeah, see why it would be a good idea to take the state out of the equation? Do you get it yet?

Unless you care to explain how a country with no free market at all even begins to find it&#39;s products on our shelves.
Why should I explain that? Sure products are created, and they&#39;re more exspensive, less numerous, and lesser quality. Boy what a paradise&#33;

China is becoming capitalist, they already participate in the free market.
China the STATE does. China the population of people don&#39;t.

Workers conditions are an example of your beloved pure capitalism.
I&#39;m going to ask you a question. Does China have a state?

The jobs that are there when the markets doing fine and dandy.
Yeah, and as long as government owned institutions don&#39;t screw it up I think it&#39;ll stay fine and dandy.

Please just because you so happen to live in a time when the market is good means nothing.
Of course. It means nothing. Other then the fact that you assert that capitalism destroys the working class and I see the exact opposite.

It dosent further society fairly or correctly, now does it?
Of course it does. In pure capitalism I have the freedom to do what I want with my labor. Nothing&#39;s stopping me from starting or joining a communally owned shop for instance.

What furthers society fairly and correctly is subjective, and should be left up to individuals to decide for themselves. I have no right to force something on them just because I subjectively think one thing is better for him then another.

why do you feel the need for him to be told what to do by capitalists?
Ummm, I don&#39;t. he agreed to because he found the agreement to be a mutual benefit.

Oh please have you ever traveled? The only reason you think the workers have it so good is because you live in the United States, a first world capitalist nation,
Lol, yes part of the reason I think workers have it good in capitalism is because I live in a capitalist nation where capitalism has produced very good results. Of course other things such as Austrian theory and the non-agression principle do a great job in proving how great pure capitalism is, but obviously good evidence of this is the fact that here I am, living in a capitalist world, and low and behold, many, including the &#39;poor&#39; are well off.

that dosent need to exploit it&#39;s own working class when it has many other working classes to exploit such as in china.

Yeah, they exploit labor through using the state, something I believe needs to be removed. What&#39;s your point?

Egads , don&#39;t tell me you suggest privitization of courts? Aren&#39;t they unfair and screwed up enough as it is?
yeah, because of monopolization of the court system by the state. Why the hell would the courts have to provide a good product when they are paid for regardless?

Worker: I was fired by a manager because he hit me and i hit him back.

Judge: Well uh thats very tragic and all but you see we at Hafford Co. have a strong standing relationship with the particular company both are employed by and it would do our business relationship real harm if we were to follow through on this. So uh court dismissed, that will be 5,000.
Yes, because that&#39;s exactly how everything provided by the free market works.

Or you live in a country where there are pollution laws and everyone has a "right" to sue if their lungs fall out.
Actually pollution laws are not environment friendly. Either way I&#39;m not advocating against having the right to sue others for an act of agression. Why shouldn&#39;t you?

It&#39;s a social construct that dosent exist in capitalist society. Thats kind of why we want to reveloutionize society so it does.
Why should you be able to take someone else&#39;s property? Or is theft not always wrong?

You do realize anarchy, anarcho communism, just plain wonderful communism, has a concept of horizontal management and a competitive market would&#39;nt allow for such a social construct right? One group of people would own and the other would work.
You realize there&#39;s different types of anarchy right?

Actually it&#39;s quite a real dilemma. One group of people own everything, thats about 2% out of 98% of the popullation,
You missed the point. I don&#39;t support tyranny of any kind, and privatization is not tyranny.

How is that right?
Because it was done through voluntary means?

If you think recession is only caused by goverment your not making such a good case yourself.
maybe around people that ignore the truth.

Yeah because you live in a first world capitalist nation who utilizes foreign labour to do most of the hard work.
Fine get rid of that Chinese state that enforces that labor.

Look at China as one big state capitalist institute selling it&#39;s peoples labours on the free market,
Exactly, they don&#39;t have a right to sell other people&#39;s labor. This would be considered and act of agression (well it is but it&#39;s not recognized as such by those with power) but a state stops that from happening. Do you see why this isn&#39;t pure capitalism or a free market yet?

China has the best wage slave in the world, it kicks the competitions ass
Yes, because slavery=free market.

Society as a whole beleives capitlaism is wonderful, just like you.
Sure they think some aspects of capitalism are good, but not others. It&#39;s commonly accepted (incorrectly) that the New Deal, the great society programs, unneeded regulation, and other enforced social welfare as kosher, even though it&#39;s a glaringly obvious drain on capitalism. In fact taxes and thus a state is very uncapitalistic, but forced collectivists coecion that leads directly to a tragedy of the commons.

It&#39;s the Marxists and other assorted leftists who are confused by you.
I don&#39;t doubt they are. Some people are just confused by the truth unfortunately, and they need to lie and say a large percentage of Americans work under the minimum wage in order to justify calling capitalism bad.

The state is bad because it tells people what to do and controls them&#33;&#33;&#33; But Capitlaism...[QUOTE]
doesn&#39;t tell people what to do. See the picture yet?
[QUOTE]Seesh you cappies get hot under the collar easily.
yeah, why would someone interested in an honest debate get annoyed when someone begins engaging in dishonest arguments? Shocking&#33;

[La Comédie Noire]

Yeah, see why it would be a good idea to take the state out of the equation? Do you get it yet?

Yeah I see why it would be a good idea to take the state out of it, but why stop at the stae? Do you get it yet?


Why should I explain that? Sure products are created, and they&#39;re more exspensive, less numerous, and lesser quality. Boy what a paradise&#33;

Actually they&#39;re pretty cheap.


China the STATE does. China the population of people don&#39;t.

And even if they did, they would&#39;nt get much.


&#39;m going to ask you a question. Does China have a state?

And I&#39;m going to ask you are the chinease people forced to work in factories for united states capitalists? are chinease officals bribed y united staes capitalists?


Of course. It means nothing. Other then the fact that you assert that capitalism destroys the working class and I see the exact opposite.

It dosent destroy the working class, it exploits the working class.


Ummm, I don&#39;t. he agreed to because he found the agreement to be a mutual benefit.

But what if he wants to distribute it freely to hospitals? He can&#39;t, not allowed.


Yeah, and as long as government owned institutions don&#39;t screw it up I think it&#39;ll stay fine and dandy.

No, I think it will screw up just as regulary as it does before, and the workers will be opressed.

[/b][/quote]Of course it does. In pure capitalism I have the freedom to do what I want with my labor. Nothing&#39;s stopping me from starting or joining a communally owned shop for instance.

What furthers society fairly and correctly is subjective, and should be left up to individuals to decide for themselves. I have no right to force something on them just
because I subjectively think one thing is better for him then another.


You have the "freedom" to sell your labour to someone who wants to exploit it for there own means. If they don&#39;t need you, your fucked. Yeah just like they have no right to force a society on me where i wokr for them.

yeah, because of monopolization of the court system by the state. Why the hell would the courts have to provide a good product when they are paid for regardless?


Why the hell would there be courts in communism?

Lol, yes part of the reason I think workers have it good in capitalism is because I live in a capitalist nation where capitalism has produced very good results. Of course other things such as Austrian theory and the non-agression principle do a great job in proving how great pure capitalism is, but obviously good evidence of this is the fact that here I am, living in a capitalist world, and low and behold, many, including the &#39;poor&#39; are well off.


I&#39;m saying you are well off now.

Yeah, they exploit labor through using the state, something I believe needs to be removed. What&#39;s your point?


My point is the only reason they have it so good is because the united states can just explout other labour in forgeighn countries. That si the only reason you perceive it is good.

You realize there&#39;s different types of anarchy right?


In all sincerity your version of anarchy is shit baked.

Actually pollution laws are not environment friendly. Either way I&#39;m not advocating against having the right to sue others for an act of agression. Why shouldn&#39;t you?


Yeah like the ruling class is really gonna pay you the wages so you can hire a lawyer.

You missed the point. I don&#39;t support tyranny of any kind, and privatization is not tyranny.


Yeah for coming form someone who can own property, isn&#39;t going to be great when your a worker who cant own means of production or living space becaus eits all privitized.

Because it was done through voluntary means?


No silly theres no other choice.

Sure they think some aspects of capitalism are good, but not others. It&#39;s commonly accepted (incorrectly) that the New Deal, the great society programs, unneeded regulation, and other enforced social welfare as kosher, even though it&#39;s a glaringly obvious drain on capitalism. In fact taxes and thus a state is very uncapitalistic, but forced collectivists coecion that leads directly to a tragedy of the commons.


Yeah you really speak from the eprspective of a worker. The state focuses on collecting emans of rpoduction for the ruling clas in that area. In communism the workers would collect the means of production.

Heres your argument an economy that relys on mass accumulation of surplus wealth and market fluxuations would not haphazardly misuse the land but a planned, pragmatic economy would.

I don&#39;t doubt they are. Some people are just confused by the truth unfortunately, and they need to lie and say a large percentage of Americans work under the minimum wage in order to justify calling capitalism bad.


Your "truth" is ignorance of reality. Alot of people do infact get paid minimum, or close to under minimum wage. Lots of people, including my father and yes even i have a job to support my family, have to get multiple jobs to afford the costs of living. Yeah being one cent above minimum wage is a real big diffrence. :D

Try reading nickel and dimed in america.[quote][b]

doesn&#39;t tell people what to do. See the picture yet?


Capitalism does tell people what to do. Dont tell me you advocate that adam smith invisible hand mombo jumbo.

yeah, why would someone interested in an honest debate get annoyed when someone begins engaging in dishonest arguments? Shocking&#33;[QUOTE]

Oh please I&#39;m not being "dishonest" as you put it, I&#39;m telling the truth. Just because you get pissed at what i say doesnt mean anything. :)

[Zero]

Ah&#33; The forum&#33; It&#39;s breaking&#33;

[ShakeZula06]

Yeah I see why it would be a good idea to take the state out of it, but why stop at the stae? Do you get it yet?

Umm, no. I look around and see the great things capitalism has done for me.


Actually they&#39;re pretty cheap.

Not near as cheap as the efficient way they are created in a capitalist economy. It&#39;s just logic that a economy that has more competition is going to create cheaper products.


And even if they did, they would&#39;nt get much.

Yeah, because the state china lives under accepts bribes to force the chinese to work in those conditions.


And I&#39;m going to ask you are the chinease people forced to work in factories for united states capitalists? are chinease officals bribed y united staes capitalists?

Umm yeah, that&#39;s why the state is a bad thing. You&#39;re not very good at this game.


It dosent destroy the working class, it exploits the working class.

Does it count as exploitation when the worker&#39;s absolute wealth increases because of it?



But what if he wants to distribute it freely to hospitals? He can&#39;t, not allowed.

Huh? He can&#39;t give something of his away for free? Since when?


No, I think it will screw up just as regulary as it does before, and the workers will be opressed.

Sure, you can think that, it&#39;s quite another to actually have valid reasons for those thoughts.


You have the "freedom" to sell your labour to someone who wants to exploit it for there own means. If they don&#39;t need you, your fucked.

No you&#39;re not fucked. You can go back to doing whatever it is you would have done without the capitalists that created the means of production you used. Or you could start a co-op or something. I hear from leftists that&#39;s the wave of the future. Also, why would the capitalists not need you? You do realize labor is a means of production right?

Besides, do you deserve something for nothing?


Yeah just like they have no right to force a society on me where i wokr for them.

Who is &#39;they&#39; and how did they force this society on you?


Why the hell would there be courts in communism?

What? Does everyone just decide to never do anything bad in communism? No one tries to kill or steal for there own benefit? No acts of aggression of any kind?


I&#39;m saying you are well off now.

Yet another argument not against capitalism but against the state.


In all sincerity your version of anarchy is shit baked.

If by shit baked you mean based on logic, morals, and consequences then yes. Better then yours which is based on emotion, rhetoric, and impossible utopian ideals.


Yeah like the ruling class is really gonna pay you the wages so you can hire a lawyer.

LOL. Why does the ruling class pay me enough wages to hire a lawyer now?


Yeah for coming form someone who can own property, isn&#39;t going to be great when your a worker who cant own means of production or living space becaus eits all privitized.

Why can&#39;t workers own the means of production or living space?


No silly theres no other choice.

Of course there is.


Yeah you really speak from the eprspective of a worker. The state focuses on collecting emans of rpoduction for the ruling clas in that area. In communism the workers would collect the means of production.

Another argument against the state.


Heres your argument an economy that relys on mass accumulation of surplus wealth and market fluxuations would not haphazardly misuse the land but a planned, pragmatic economy would.

And?


Your "truth" is ignorance of reality.

This is pretty funny coming from you.


Alot of people do infact get paid minimum, or close to under minimum wage. Lots of people, including my father and yes even i have a job to support my family, have to get multiple jobs to afford the costs of living. Yeah being one cent above minimum wage is a real big diffrence. :D

I would hardy consider ~2% (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/WM19.cfm) of the population &#39;alot&#39;. Perhaps you are the one ignorant of reality?


Capitalism does tell people what to do.

bzzzzt&#33;


Dont tell me you advocate that adam smith invisible hand mombo jumbo.

Care to refute it?


Oh please I&#39;m not being "dishonest" as you put it, I&#39;m telling the truth.

hardly.


Just because you get pissed at what i say doesnt mean anything.

Not mad really, more sad that people actually believe the propaganda that you repeat and pass off as fact.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 01:46 am

Why the hell would there be courts in communism?

What? Does everyone just decide to never do anything bad in communism? No one tries to kill or steal for there own benefit? No acts of aggression of any kind?


Well, according to the members of this board, there are two options:

1. Yes, a fairy sprinkles his magic dust and everyone agrees and is good and plays koom-ba-ya on their bongos together regularly.

or

2. The mob dispenses justice. Because that always works real well.

[colonelguppy]

Because "the most commonly excepted [sic] terminology" doesn&#39;t alway sufficiently describe something.

and calling china capitalist does?


Of course they are. People in China relate to one another based on commodities for exchange in the same manner that they do in the US.

Unless you can tell me what "social aspects of capitalism aren&#39;t in china [sic]"?

they don&#39;t relate in the same way at all. commodity exchange (save a few free trade zones) is managed intensively by the government, where in the US, it isn&#39;t.


First, greater for whom? Does everyone perceive it to be better? If not, then who perceives it to be better? Who doesn&#39;t?

well most people do apparently, others you&#39;d see alot more communists around, and free trade wouldn&#39;t be advancing at nearly the rate it is now.

[La Comédie Noire]

Shakezula06 you I&#39;ve told you my reasons but you keep not getting it

All I see is what great things capitalism does&#33;&#33;

but your petit burgeoise living in a first world country of course you do, you are the ruling class. Your whole perspective is freaking warped.

Then you have to tell me how wonderfully cheap things are under capitalism, yeah well there produced and given for need in communism whats your point?

Chinas such a corrupt state because of capitalism, Marx himself said one state socialism could never work.

The guy cant give somehting away for free because he dosent have the means to produce it in large, effective, quantities.

THEY are the OWNING Class.


And who put this notion in your head of getting something for nothing?

"Each according to his need, from each according to his ability"

Yeah that really sound slike something for nothing.

I&#39;m not utopian, trust me.

When you become a proliteriate only then will you understand our struggle.

Yeha and what are you giving me in this argument?

Well as I understand it from living in a great part of the world everythings so wonderful&#33;&#33; All we need to do is get rid of the state, even though capitalism would cause inequality in wealth and we&#39;d still have the same problems as before, but thats okay cause i live in a great part of the capitalist world.

I mean its fine to have that perspective because you have your class interests in mind. But I&#39;m saying from a lower class workers perspective your stateless capitalism sounds like shit.

And i really wish i could give you more concise arguments but i don&#39;t own a computer this is a friends computer, the only other computer i can get to is the public library but i hate using that.

So you win the argument. You argued skillfully and had sources.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

What don&#39;t you guys understand about capitalism?

We&#39;re not anarchists or fascists. We&#39;re free-market CAPITALISTS. Property rights still must be protected by rule of law. That&#39;s EVERYONE&#39;S property rights from the initiation of force from people who seek to violate our rights. Whether it be from other capitalists, employees, or corrupt state officials.

We depend on the state for one thing and one thing only. And that is to PROTECT an environment that is conducive to capitalism.

Private property rights are essential to freedom.

So again, why are you against the notion of everybody&#39;s property rights?