Why should I support capitalism?

[colorlessman]

for capitalism supporters

[Publius]

Because there is nothing else.

Communism, anarchism, etcetera are not extant.

You can't 'be' something that doesn't exist, in any meaningful way.

Like it or not, you are a capitalism, you're just in denial. Functionally, most of you are probably no different from me or even the most ardent conservative, you just read different books, wear older clothes, and have a smug sense of superiority.

[RGacky3]

We have to Operate in a Capitalist system, but we want to put an end to it. Kind of like how a Democrat supporter in a Dictatorship has to operate in a Dictatorial system, but he's still a Democrat.

[colonelguppy]

it gets the job done.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:16 am
Because there is nothing else.






nothing else???you kidding me :o


Communism, anarchism, etcetera are not extant.
not extant? did you forget the history? where it tells the October Revolution,USSR,and everything else about Communism.see this for anarchism (http://www.anarchy.no/ai.html)


You can't 'be' something that doesn't exist, in any meaningful way.
LOL :lol: something that doesn't exist...you must be joking :lol:


Like it or not, you are a capitalism, you're just in denial.
no i'm not denying anything,i'm proud to say that i am not a cappies

[Publius]

nothing else???you kidding me :o




not extant? did you forget the history? where it tells the October Revolution,USSR,and everything else about Communism.see this for anarchism (http://www.anarchy.no/ai.html)

Yes, and those are historical events meaning they are not present events meaning they are not extant.



LOL :lol: something that doesn't exist...you must be joking :lol:

With the possible exception of Cuba, not serious 'leftist' countries exist.

Since most communists live in capitalist societies, they are, by nature, capitalists.

You are what you do not what you say you are. You're the result of your actions, not the result of a bunch of books you read or a bunch of views you hold or a bunch of things you say on the internet.



no i'm not denying anything,i'm proud to say that i am not a cappies

Of course you are.

Your participation is your tacit approval. It can be nothing else.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Hahaha....still you are wrong


Yes, and those are historical events meaning they are not present events meaning they are not extant.
it's not historical when it's keep repeating itself, and i'm sure that the history gonna repeat itself,Learn and decide it yourself! (http://www.communistleague.org/),i'm sure someday we will, and i say we will overthrow capitalism.


Since most communists live in capitalist societies, they are, by nature, capitalists.
well, i&#39;m not live in a capitalist country, no i&#39;m not. i live in a Republic country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia)with presidential system and with Liberal Democration ideologies. <_<


You are what you do not what you say you are. You&#39;re the result of your actions, not the result of a bunch of books you read or a bunch of views you hold or a bunch of things you say on the internet.
yes, i am is what i am, a result of my action: a leftist freedom loving man ;)

[dogwoodlover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:15 am


nothing else???you kidding me :o




not extant? did you forget the history? where it tells the October Revolution,USSR,and everything else about Communism.see this for anarchism (http://www.anarchy.no/ai.html)

Yes, and those are historical events meaning they are not present events meaning they are not extant.



LOL :lol: something that doesn&#39;t exist...you must be joking :lol:

With the possible exception of Cuba, not serious &#39;leftist&#39; countries exist.

Since most communists live in capitalist societies, they are, by nature, capitalists.

You are what you do not what you say you are. You&#39;re the result of your actions, not the result of a bunch of books you read or a bunch of views you hold or a bunch of things you say on the internet.



no i&#39;m not denying anything,i&#39;m proud to say that i am not a cappies

Of course you are.

Your participation is your tacit approval. It can be nothing else.
You live under George Bush&#39;s presidency. Therefore you are a Bushist.

Also, Gandhi was an imperialist. And Martin Luther King Jr. was a racist.

It is also impossible for communists to exist, because they always shortly freeze to death and starve from their non-participation, OR disappear off into the wilderness.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:13 pm
It is also impossible for communists to exist, because they always shortly freeze to death and starve from their non-participation, OR disappear off into the wilderness.
:o which side do you stand for???&#33;

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:15 am


nothing else???you kidding me :o




not extant? did you forget the history? where it tells the October Revolution,USSR,and everything else about Communism.see this for anarchism (http://www.anarchy.no/ai.html)

Yes, and those are historical events meaning they are not present events meaning they are not extant.



LOL :lol: something that doesn&#39;t exist...you must be joking :lol:

With the possible exception of Cuba, not serious &#39;leftist&#39; countries exist.

Since most communists live in capitalist societies, they are, by nature, capitalists.

You are what you do not what you say you are. You&#39;re the result of your actions, not the result of a bunch of books you read or a bunch of views you hold or a bunch of things you say on the internet.



no i&#39;m not denying anything,i&#39;m proud to say that i am not a cappies

Of course you are.

Your participation is your tacit approval. It can be nothing else.
Well then according to your logic capitalism shouldn&#39;t exist, and we should still be living in feudal states under the direct rule of kings. Because people with what was then only a theory lived in those societies, and had to work and struggle to overthrow the old feudal system.

Seriously when you post stuff like that you make yourself look like an imbecile.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Publius, please get your definitions right before posting.


Originally posted by Dictionary.com

1. (initial capital letter) a member of the Communist party or movement.
2. an advocate of communism.
3. a person who is regarded as supporting politically leftist or subversive causes.
4. [irrelevant]
–adjective
5. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Communist party or to Communism.


Communist parties do indeed exist, so it is very possible to be a Communist via definitions 1 and 5. To deny this would be like saying that when the Republicans are in power, there is no such thing as a Democrat. Also, it is entirely possible for someone to advocate Communism, thus fulfilling the conditions laid out in definition 2.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:16 am
Like it or not, you are a capitalism, you&#39;re just in denial. Functionally, most of you are probably no different from me or even the most ardent conservative, you just read different books, wear older clothes, and have a smug sense of superiority.
Why old clothes?

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by Hiero+January 20, 2007 04:40 pm--> (Hiero @ January 20, 2007 04:40 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 11:16 am
Like it or not, you are a capitalism, you&#39;re just in denial. Functionally, most of you are probably no different from me or even the most ardent conservative, you just read different books, wear older clothes, and have a smug sense of superiority.
Why old clothes? [/b]
because we oppose consumerism, and see no need to buying clothes every year.

[ShakeZula06]

You should support capitalism because a free market based on voluntary transaction and association has been shown in both theory and practise to provide the most wealth for all the parties involved. Capitalism by definition is also a possitive sum game as you would only partake in a transaction if you thought you were better off to do so.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:31 pm
You should support capitalism because a free market based on voluntary transaction and association has been shown in both theory and practise to provide the most wealth for all the parties involved. Capitalism by definition is also a possitive sum game as you would only partake in a transaction if you thought you were better off to do so.
:o whoa...hahaha..sounds like capitalism campaign...
sorry sir..i&#39;m not interested...at all&#33;&#33;

[Rollo]

Because there is nothing else.

Communism, anarchism, etcetera are not extant.

You can&#39;t &#39;be&#39; something that doesn&#39;t exist, in any meaningful way.

Like it or not, you are a capitalism, you&#39;re just in denial. Functionally, most of you are probably no different from me or even the most ardent conservative, you just read different books, wear older clothes, and have a smug sense of superiority.

Like religious?

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:31 am
You should support capitalism because a free market based on voluntary transaction and association has been shown in both theory and practise to provide the most wealth for all the parties involved. Capitalism by definition is also a possitive sum game as you would only partake in a transaction if you thought you were better off to do so.
I think the real issue isn&#39;t "wealth", but sustainability and abundance, which capitalism cannot provide.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Hiero+January 20, 2007 04:40 pm--> (Hiero @ January 20, 2007 04:40 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 11:16 am
Like it or not, you are a capitalism, you&#39;re just in denial. Functionally, most of you are probably no different from me or even the most ardent conservative, you just read different books, wear older clothes, and have a smug sense of superiority.
Why old clothes? [/b]
I wear black jeans, black boots and an office shirt. Black.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by Hiero+January 20, 2007 04:40 pm--> (Hiero @ January 20, 2007 04:40 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 11:16 am
Like it or not, you are a capitalism, you&#39;re just in denial. Functionally, most of you are probably no different from me or even the most ardent conservative, you just read different books, wear older clothes, and have a smug sense of superiority.
Why old clothes? [/b]
I always assumed it was because either communists enjoy looking like scumbags or because they&#39;re trying to pretend that their situation is a whole lot worse than it is.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:38 am
I always assumed it was because either communists enjoy looking like scumbags or because they&#39;re trying to pretend that their situation is a whole lot worse than it is.
FUCK YOU&#33;&#33;&#33;
we&#39;re not scumbags you piece of shit&#33;&#33;and we&#39;re not pretending anything.we just don&#39;t like to put on some borgeouis clothes like all the metrosexual capppies. :angry:

[wtfm8lol]

we&#39;re not scumbags you piece of shit&#33;&#33;

Yes yes, of course you&#39;re not. :P

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:30 am

we&#39;re not scumbags you piece of shit&#33;&#33;

Yes yes, of course you&#39;re not. :P
then what your purpose by posting a shit like that?&#33;&#33;

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:16 am
Because there is nothing else.

wow. gotta love the democracy in capitalism.. "cus there&#39;s nothing else&#33;" lol fucking clown

[wtfm8lol]

then what your purpose by posting a shit like that?&#33;&#33;

My deepest apologies..I seem to have forgotten my </sarcasm> tag.

Let me fix it:

Yes yes, of course you&#39;re not. tongue.gif </sarcasm>

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:05 pm
for capitalism supporters
Because it works, unlike anything advocated by the anti-capitalists here.

[anti-theist]

Communists exist. It shouldn&#39;t matter what society they live under..if they believe in communism, they are communists.

Why should you support capitalism, though? Because, really, its the only thing that will work. It operates with human nature as its defining principle.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by anti&#045;[email protected] 22, 2007 10:31 pm
Why should you support capitalism, though? Because, really, its the only thing that will work. It operates with human nature as its defining principle.
You&#39;re full of shit.

Prove the existence of and define the precise qualities of this "human nature"

Prove that Capitalism has this at it&#39;s core

Prove that there are no other systems that do

If you fail at any of these there are a delightful range of options for you to try, may I suggest a personal favourite from the "fuck off and die" column? Good. I suggest that you turn off your computer and locate whoever had the biggest influence over you in your life, stab them in the head for making you into such a fucking thick wankshaft and then leave the premesis - once you have done that find a very high bridge and wrap razor wire around your neck, procketing your neck using a very rough piece of leather, tie some of the raxor wire to a sturdy part of the bridge and leap off.

[anti-theist]

I don&#39;t want to write a long book, but shortly:

People work. They make money. They deserve the fruits of their labor, and so taxing them for it is inherently unjust, as is slavery. Taxation is slavery, essentially.

With this new found money, to survive, most rational people will probably seek to spend their money, on whatever they may need. They will likely search for the best deal. They likely won&#39;t find a "perfect" deal, but a fully free market will most probably provide them with the best deal they will find, since the businesses in the industry will have to compete and such.

Now, I&#39;m not sure if its socialism that you advocate, but if it is, it will provide a worse deal for this person. Say they need to get food. If there&#39;s only one source of food (provided by the government) then the government may stick the prices wherever it so wishes, as opposed to a capitalist free market situation where businesses compete amongst each other, making their services more affordable by individual people.

I could say more, but I don&#39;t feel like it right now. Anything wrong with what I&#39;ve said?

[wtfm8lol]

then the government may stick the prices wherever it so wishes, as opposed to a capitalist free market situation where businesses compete amongst each other, making their services more affordable by individual people.

I don&#39;t think the government would inflate the prices of food as a monopoly might. It would instead just be unable to provide it as efficiently and of as high a quality as the free market would.

[Jazzratt]

A few things:

This still hasn&#39;t adressed your original - and conentious - claim that there is a fundamental human nature which is fufilled only by capitalism. Nothing on your above piece mentions human nature in the slightest or capitalism&#39;s relationship to it, but no worries for you have raised some interesting points:


People work. They make money. They deserve the fruits of their labor What if they do not labour in manner of, for example, a miner or a research chemist? What if their "laour" takes the form of owning the area and/or equipment others use to labour with - what then? Do they deserve to take a small slice of what those working for them are doing, despite doing no work and acting - essentailly - as a parasite?

You rather presuppose the existence of money as some form of universal constant, when in fact alternatives do exist - Labour Time Vouchers and Energy Credits for two (non-capitalist) examples. With this assumption in mind and also the assumption of a price system, to which alternatives exist - Technocracy as the glaringly obvious example.

In answer to your question, and to give you a frame of reference upon which to hang your arguments - I do not support Market Socialism of any kind. I do not support, as well, the arbitary assignment of uneeded value on a good (i.e anything beyond the energy required in its manufacture).

I&#39;m tired now too - I shall probably be asleep when you reply.

[anti-theist]

I don&#39;t mean that there exist certain, inalienable laws of human nature. I only meant to say that I believe human nature to be how most people tend to act in certain situations. Meaning a few things: Most people will act in their rational self-interest. Most people will try and keep themselves and their family alive. This includes working (somehow) for money (if money is needed), and spending this money on whatever commodities needed to survive. (ie food, shelter, etc. etc.) I feel a capitalist free market provides this to everyone more justly than any other system I&#39;ve ever heard of.

About labor and money as a universal constant: again, we misunderstand each other. I mean that people work and (usually) receive some some sort of reward for this work, be it material or not. Whether or not they work for an employer matters not. If they work for an employer, they have an individual contract with their employer and make money this way, and if they are self-employed then they will (usually) make their reward by selling whatever they produce to whoever buys it. I don&#39;t care what the reward is, I&#39;m just saying that there usually will be one. Are you an advocate of technocracy? (just curious)

So you do not support market socialism. Ok, my mistake. As for not supporting the arbitrary assignment of value on a good...I take this to mean you support the labor theory of value?

[ShakeZula06]

Originally posted by knight of cydonia+January 21, 2007 11:51 am--> (knight of cydonia &#064; January 21, 2007 11:51 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 04:31 pm
You should support capitalism because a free market based on voluntary transaction and association has been shown in both theory and practise to provide the most wealth for all the parties involved. Capitalism by definition is also a possitive sum game as you would only partake in a transaction if you thought you were better off to do so.
:o whoa...hahaha..sounds like capitalism campaign...
sorry sir..i&#39;m not interested...at all&#33;&#33;[/b]
What parts are you not interested in, the outstanding wealth or the liberty? Or is it the lack of coercion?

[ShakeZula06]

If you fail at any of these there are a delightful range of options for you to try, may I suggest a personal favourite from the "fuck off and die" column? Good. I suggest that you turn off your computer and locate whoever had the biggest influence over you in your life, stab them in the head for making you into such a fucking thick wankshaft and then leave the premesis - once you have done that find a very high bridge and wrap razor wire around your neck, procketing your neck using a very rough piece of leather, tie some of the raxor wire to a sturdy part of the bridge and leap off.
Is your life so pathetic that this is what you do with your life? Act like a juvenile on the internet to people that disagree with your idiotic opinions? i bet your the type of person that&#39;s real quiet in real life then comes on the internet to be an asshole. How pathetic.

[ShakeZula06]

What if their "la[b]our" takes the form of owning the area and/or equipment others use to labour with - what then? Do they deserve to take a small slice of what those working for them are doing, despite doing no work and acting - essentailly - as a parasite?
Well, how did they come to own the area or equipment?

[La Comédie Noire]

What parts are you not interested in, the outstanding wealth or the liberty?

Actually I hate the stupid fucking american land owning white people who think everyone is privilaged like them. :D

But good to see your back, hows college?

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I don&#39;t mean that there exist certain, inalienable laws of human nature. I only meant to say that I believe human nature to be how most people tend to act in certain situations. Meaning a few things: Most people will act in their rational self-interest. Most people will try and keep themselves and their family alive. This includes working (somehow) for money (if money is needed), and spending this money on whatever commodities needed to survive. (ie food, shelter, etc. etc.) I feel a capitalist free market provides this to everyone more justly than any other system I&#39;ve ever heard of.

About labor and money as a universal constant: again, we misunderstand each other. I mean that people work and (usually) receive some some sort of reward for this work, be it material or not. Whether or not they work for an employer matters not. If they work for an employer, they have an individual contract with their employer and make money this way, and if they are self-employed then they will (usually) make their reward by selling whatever they produce to whoever buys it. I don&#39;t care what the reward is, I&#39;m just saying that there usually will be one. Are you an advocate of technocracy? (just curious)

So you do not support market socialism. Ok, my mistake. As for not supporting the arbitrary assignment of value on a good...I take this to mean you support the labor theory of value?
You word it well, and had you caught me last year I might have been inclined to believe you in your free-market convictions before Dilbert comics drove me over to the radical left. But to me, a profit driven society invites exploitation, it asks for greed, it begs for corruption.

Then we get onto the contract between employer and employee, and I beg to differ when people state it is fair. It seems that it&#39;s rather unfair for someone to dictate the terms and conditions to someone who has to work for them out of economic necessity. We also get on to the hotly contested issue of whether the labour theory of value holds true. I say it makes some sense, but the bigger picture is that money itself can&#39;t really accurately represent the sum total contributions of all of society to our collctive productivity. Seeing as we all had a hand in making it, we should logically all have a share in it. As far as one&#39;s self-interest, if you really desire material advancement you will see the necessity of working with your neighbour for the greater good, and working along practices free of hierarchy or domination. (Notice how I don&#39;t mention the state anywhere, I&#39;m with you when you say that taxation is slavery.)

Then we also get on to the idea that once one&#39;s materil needs are fulfilled people will pursue things that can benifet society on the whole for their own enjoyment as well as that of others.

[anti-theist]

But to me, a profit driven society invites exploitation, it asks for greed, it begs for corruption.


To me, most humans will be happiest in a profit driven society. Though it does ask for greed, it doesn&#39;t necessarily require greed, and I think it is only the state to blame for the corruption and exploitation. I realize that you disagree with the concept of a state as well, but I say that you have not seen what true capitalism can do because it has been marred by the existence of a state. (I guess you could say the same for socialism, really)


It seems that it&#39;s rather unfair for someone to dictate the terms and conditions to someone who has to work for them out of economic necessity.

Yes, but in a fully free market, a worker will have more choices; he will have more employers to choose from. So although he will likely have to work, if he does not like the terms and conditions of one employer, he has the option of exit.


We also get on to the hotly contested issue of whether the labour theory of value holds true.

That could take up a whole other thread. If you&#39;d like to debate that here as well, we could.


As far as one&#39;s self-interest, if you really desire material advancement you will see the necessity of working with your neighbour for the greater good, and working along practices free of hierarchy or domination.&#092;

But can you prove that working with your neighbor will provide you the most/best material advancement? Both of our societies (your classless one and my capitalist, free market one) are utopian, I do feel mine is the more free. And here&#39;s why. Though you may believe in the righteousness of working with your neighbor for the greater good, I disagree that "what&#39;s best for all the people is the &#39;best&#39; good" (not sure who coined that phrase). I think the best good is whatever I want the most. The best good for you can be what you want the most. In an ideal capitalist society, there is the option for me to go out and work for some big corporation and make lots of money, but there is also the option of you forming a small commune (or whatever you&#39;d like to call it) with your neighbor(s) and working together for your greater good. Because my ideal capitalist, free-market society lacks a state, your utopia and mine can co-exist peacefully. If we only had yours, I feel like I&#39;d be bogged down, since I&#39;d be forced to work for the "greater good", even if I didn&#39;t want to.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by anti&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 01:32 am
I don&#39;t mean that there exist certain, inalienable laws of human nature. I only meant to say that I believe human nature to be how most people tend to act in certain situations. Meaning a few things: Most people will act in their rational self-interest. Most people will try and keep themselves and their family alive. This includes working (somehow) for money (if money is needed), and spending this money on whatever commodities needed to survive. (ie food, shelter, etc. etc.)
I don&#39;t disagree with that but we part ways at this point:


I feel a capitalist free market provides this to everyone more justly than any other system I&#39;ve ever heard of. A few quibbles here: 1.The fact that we currently have enough food to feedeveryone yet "can&#39;t" shows that, perhaps capitalism is not the best way of universally distributing an abundance, as it is a sytem based around trading in scarcity.
2. Is it possible to unjustly provide for everyone, come to that can you even apply value judgments like "just" and "unjust to a system of distribution. (You could apply it to economic systems as a whole, for example the Marxist analysis of the exploitative structure of capitalism in terms of relationship to the means of production.).


About labor and money as a universal constant: again, we misunderstand each other. I mean that people work and (usually) receive some some sort of reward for this work, be it material or not. Whether or not they work for an employer matters not. If they work for an employer, they have an individual contract with their employer and make money this way, and if they are self-employed then they will (usually) make their reward by selling whatever they produce to whoever buys it. I don&#39;t care what the reward is, I&#39;m just saying that there usually will be one. Could you explain how "everyone is rewarded is rewarded for working" leads to "we must therfore support capitalism"?
Are you an advocate of technocracy? (just curious) An ardent and vociferous one.


So you do not support market socialism. Ok, my mistake. As for not supporting the arbitrary assignment of value on a good...I take this to mean you support the labor theory of value? I suppose you could say it&#39;s similar and I don&#39;t know what it&#39;s called (Technocratic theory of value, perhaps) but I know thwe best way of distributing an abundance is to assign any manufactured goods a &#39;value&#39; of the energy it takes to produce them (kilowatt-hours) and account for coming into possession of such a good by losing a certian number of energy credits, equal to that &#39;value&#39;.

ShakeZula06 (what a fucking silly name you have there.)


Is your life so pathetic that this is what you do with your life? No, this is what I do on the internet, there is a huge and marked difference between the two.
Act like a juvenile on the internet to people that disagree with your idiotic opinions? I wouldn&#39;t say I act juvenile and I take care not to say anything I wouldn&#39;t say in real life. Whether or not you think my opinions is an irrelevance, as are you.
i bet your the type of person that&#39;s real quiet in real life then comes on the internet to be an asshole. I&#39;m not a gambling man, but if I was I&#39;d probably be demanding you pay up now.

[anti-theist]

A few quibbles here: 1.The fact that we currently have enough food to feedeveryone yet "can&#39;t" shows that, perhaps capitalism is not the best way of universally distributing an abundance, as it is a sytem based around trading in scarcity.

My disagreement with you there is that our current system is NOT capitalism. It is corporatism. Not the same thing. Plus, I don&#39;t think universally distributing something is really a necessity. I don&#39;t believe everyone is obligated to help everyone else.


2. Is it possible to unjustly provide for everyone, come to that can you even apply value judgments like "just" and "unjust to a system of distribution. (You could apply it to economic systems as a whole, for example the Marxist analysis of the exploitative structure of capitalism in terms of relationship to the means of production.).


Again, I&#39;ve worded it wrong. "Just" and "unjust" aren&#39;t fair words to use, because everyone has different interpretations of them. What I mean is that a free market allows the option of exit, in that a worker won&#39;t have to be forced to work for someone, because there are other businesses out there competing with each other. I agree with the radical left that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a damn good idea, fundamentally, and would be sweet if it could work, but I don&#39;t see how it can. The reason is because it requires everyone to know not only their own abilities and needs, but those of others as well. Like I said in my response to RadioFreeJuan, in my ideal free market society, since there would be no state, you would be able to form a commune and work for the greater good, while I would be able to be ambitious and try to forward my own life. Who&#39;s to really say who&#39;s more morally in the right there? Shouldn&#39;t both you and I have the opportunity to fulfill our own individual dreams? If everyone was forced into a classless society where they worked for the greater good, what would happen to the ambitious people like me who want to forward their own material gain? Would you sacrifice mine and others goals and dreams for your so-called "greater good"?


I suppose you could say it&#39;s similar and I don&#39;t know what it&#39;s called (Technocratic theory of value, perhaps) but I know thwe best way of distributing an abundance is to assign any manufactured goods a &#39;value&#39; of the energy it takes to produce them (kilowatt-hours) and account for coming into possession of such a good by losing a certian number of energy credits, equal to that &#39;value&#39;.

I don&#39;t know what my theory is called, but I&#39;d call it the subjective theory of value, maybe? Anyway, I believe that an item&#39;s value is whatever people are willing to pay for it. Simple as that.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:01 am
My deepest apologies..I seem to have forgotten my </sarcasm> tag.

Let me fix it:

Yes yes, of course you&#39;re not. tongue.gif </sarcasm>
hey look asshole...hm..oh i see you&#39;ve been restricted, good for you...borgeouis idiot :lol:

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:33 am
What parts are you not interested in, the outstanding wealth or the liberty? Or is it the lack of coercion?
hm...the part of you cappies exploitating and oppressing all of the workers

[La Comédie Noire]

I don&#39;t know what my theory is called, but I&#39;d call it the subjective theory of value, maybe? Anyway, I believe that an item&#39;s value is whatever people are willing to pay for it. Simple as that.

Demand affects the surplus value, or profits, of a commodity. How much a commodity cost still has very much to do with how much time is put into making it. Take a chair for instance It costs 20 dollars to make but people are crazy about it so they&#39;ll pay 35 dollars for it thats a surplus, or profit, of 15 dollars. Now say they make alot of chairs than the supply rises so instead of people paying 35 dollars for a chair they only have to pay 25, thats a loss of 10 dollars in profit. As you can see demand affects the surplus value not the labour/time value.

[ShakeZula06]

Actually I hate the stupid fucking american land owning white people who think everyone is privilaged like them. :D
Hey, I may be white, but I&#39;m not privelged or land owning. :P

But good to see your back, hows college?
Alright, Gotta right a paper about the State of the union for next week though, recorded it, I would never watch that garbage if I didn&#39;t have to :( (maybe one thing we can agree on :D )

I kind of like this place I&#39;d spend more time here if OI got more traffic.

[ShakeZula06]

ShakeZula06 (what a fucking silly name you have there.)
Ah, is that all you got, making fun of people&#39;s screennames? If you haven&#39;t seen it the name comes from a funny TV show you can watch for free here (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=aqua+teen+episode). Don&#39;t say I never did anything for ya. :D

No, this is what I do on the internet, there is a huge and marked difference between the two.
How you carry yourself in one part of life indicates how you are in other parts.

I wouldn&#39;t say I act juvenile
You wouldn&#39;t say on a politics forum that this-

If you fail at any of these there are a delightful range of options for you to try, may I suggest a personal favourite from the "fuck off and die" column? Good. I suggest that you turn off your computer and locate whoever had the biggest influence over you in your life, stab them in the head for making you into such a fucking thick wankshaft and then leave the premesis - once you have done that find a very high bridge and wrap razor wire around your neck, procketing your neck using a very rough piece of leather, tie some of the raxor wire to a sturdy part of the bridge and leap off.
Is juvenile? Give me a break.

and I take care not to say anything I wouldn&#39;t say in real life.
Something tells me that you wouldn&#39;t say that if you weren&#39;t hiding behind a computer and were face to face with someone in real life. You know, telling people to jump off a bridge. Maybe I&#39;m wrong, but I doubt it.

And even if you WOULD man up and say something like that to someone&#39;s face, that still speaks a lot about your character.

For your own sake (both mentally and physically) I hope that this is you having an altered identity on the internet, and isn&#39;t actually your real life persona.

Peace

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by anti&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 04:07 pm
My disagreement with you there is that our current system is NOT capitalism. It is corporatism. Not the same thing. Plus, I don&#39;t think universally distributing something is really a necessity. I don&#39;t believe everyone is obligated to help everyone else.
This is a common complaint and one I am prepared to accept as long as you understand that most of the time when I use the term capitalism I use it to refer to the arrangment of production as described by marx in Das Kapital. I would argue that some things need to be universally distributed, food for example as it is in the interest of humans as a species to keep as many alive as possible.


Again, I&#39;ve worded it wrong. "Just" and "unjust" aren&#39;t fair words to use, because everyone has different interpretations of them. You would not believe how heart-warming it is to see someone go back on their wording, if only slightly :)
What I mean is that a free market allows the option of exit, in that a worker won&#39;t have to be forced to work for someone, because there are other businesses out there competing with each other. So what are you saying, that we could select a different boss - within the same profession? What is the sense in having more than one group produceing the same item - it strikes me as ineffeciant.
I agree with the radical left that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a damn good idea, fundamentally, and would be sweet if it could work, but I don&#39;t see how it can. The reason is because it requires everyone to know not only their own abilities and needs, but those of others as well. Human abilities are fairly easy to gain and needs (as opposed to wants) are as close to universal as makes no odds.
Like I said in my response to RadioFreeJuan, in my ideal free market society, since there would be no state, you would be able to form a commune and work for the greater good, while I would be able to be ambitious and try to forward my own life. Who&#39;s to really say who&#39;s more morally in the right there? Shouldn&#39;t both you and I have the opportunity to fulfill our own individual dreams? The problem with this subjectivist and moral view is that it assumes that there is nothing objectivley beneficial to humanity or indeed an objective measure of such things, I do not find this to be true. It follows then, that if something is objectivley &#39;better&#39; (more beneficial) than there must be something objectivley &#39;worse&#39; - and we should only do what is better (I realise this begs the question, but would you concede that it is required that, assuming an objective better and worse that we should strve to do what is better?). As for who&#39;s to say, that is a trikier one but it&#39;s best to work from the idea of what is in the interest of homo sapiens sapiens (Food, Shelter and (in countries where it is too cold to survive nude) clothing - for example).
If everyone was forced into a classless society where they worked for the greater good, what would happen to the ambitious people like me who want to forward their own material gain? You would probably end up with more possesions than others. After all, property is theft - possession freedom.
Would you sacrifice mine and others goals and dreams for your so-called "greater good"? Only if your goals were running in direct opposition to this &#39;good&#39;



I don&#39;t know what my theory is called, but I&#39;d call it the subjective theory of value, maybe? Anyway, I believe that an item&#39;s value is whatever people are willing to pay for it. Simple as that. Why have ypu come to this conclusion?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:19 am

ShakeZula06 (what a fucking silly name you have there.)
Ah, is that all you got, making fun of people&#39;s screennames? If you haven&#39;t seen it the name comes from a funny TV show you can watch for free here (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=aqua+teen+episode). Don&#39;t say I never did anything for ya. :D
It&#39;s not "all I got" I just happened to think your screename was absurd, it&#39;s not beyond the realm of possibility that I could have wanted to "voice" this opinion, now is it?
I&#39;ll take your word on the TV thingy, I might watch it at some point.



No, this is what I do on the internet, there is a huge and marked difference between the two.
How you carry yourself in one part of life indicates how you are in other parts. Oh I thought you were implying that somehow my entire life revolved around revleft, when in fact revleft is just something I occupy my time with when I&#39;m online. I spend a lot more time studying or playing music & doing stand up than I do insulting random cretins online.


I wouldn&#39;t say I act juvenile
You wouldn&#39;t say on a politics forum that this-

<<snip>>
Is juvenile? Give me a break. I&#39;d say I was injectting some levity into proceedings, at the expense of another member - but then they came to leftist website with the intention of arguing vitriolically with leftists.


and I take care not to say anything I wouldn&#39;t say in real life.
Something tells me that you wouldn&#39;t say that if you weren&#39;t hiding behind a computer and were face to face with someone in real life. You know, telling people to jump off a bridge. How come? It&#39;s quite easy - you just have to dislike someone enough to hope they kill themselves, the rest comes naturally.


And even if you WOULD man up and say something like that to someone&#39;s face, that still speaks a lot about your character. At least I&#39;m honest.


For your own sake (both mentally and physically) I hope that this is you having an altered identity on the internet, and isn&#39;t actually your real life persona. Hope what you want, it&#39;s not going to change a damn thing.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23, 2007 11:02 pm

I don&#39;t know what my theory is called, but I&#39;d call it the subjective theory of value, maybe? Anyway, I believe that an item&#39;s value is whatever people are willing to pay for it. Simple as that.

Demand affects the surplus value, or profits, of a commodity. How much a commodity cost still has very much to do with how much time is put into making it. Take a chair for instance It costs 20 dollars to make but people are crazy about it so they&#39;ll pay 35 dollars for it thats a surplus, or profit, of 15 dollars. Now say they make alot of chairs than the supply rises so instead of people paying 35 dollars for a chair they only have to pay 25, thats a loss of 10 dollars in profit. As you can see demand affects the surplus value not the labour/time value.
And what happens when one reduces the cost of making the chair?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt[email protected] 24, 2007 12:24 pm
distributed, food for example as it is in the interest of humans as a species to keep as many alive as possible.


Is it really? In nature animal populations ebb and flow with the supply of food. Are you saying that as people we should reject that process and just continue growing our population?


What is the sense in having more than one group produceing the same item - it strikes me as ineffeciant.

If multiple people or firms are competing to get customers for the same item, (http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/06/gm-increases-warranty-to-five-years-100-000-miles/) they necessarily have to strive to give their customers the best deal (http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/housing/best-mortgage/mortb_1.htm), don&#39;t they?

What happens when there is only one producer? Where is the incentive to produce the best product at the best value? Where is the incentive to meet needs and wants?

If there is only one producer, where is the specialization? You do understand that some firms specialize in producing one variety of a product while others specialize in producing another; and that when such firms merge there is often a loss of quality in one or both products due to uncertainty about which version to prioritize, right?


The problem with this subjectivist and moral view is that it assumes that there is nothing objectivley beneficial to humanity or indeed an objective measure of such things, I do not find this to be true.

You are flat wrong. There is no objectively correct thing that is "better" for people, because people are not robots as you seem to think. People have subjective views and tastes that render objective, optimal solutions to their problems impossible to find.

You&#39;re no different at all. You have subjective biases towards what you perceive as being "better" for people, you&#39;re just arrogant enough to assume it&#39;s objectively correct.

Do you understand, can you comprehend that someone might not like what you think is "better" for them, and their dislike of that policy renders your statement that it&#39;s objectively "better" for them false? Something cannot be better for me if I don&#39;t like it, can it?

Take drugs and alcohol. Objectively for your health it would be best for society or the government to prohibit you from consuming them. Objectively for society it would be best to ban their use since time spent high or drunk is time not spent working for the common good, and the resources spent on the health problems you derive from using drugs and alcohol cannot be spent on something else.

But you wouldn&#39;t particularly like to be prevented from using drugs or alcohol, would you?

Or consider abortion. Given your opinion above that a maximum number of humans is good, abortion objectively reduces the number of people, does it not? Objectively, the solution is not just to ban abortion but to turn you as a woman into a human incubator who by law must have a number of children as determined by a formula (2.1 children per able woman is required to grow a population, so I guess you have to support a law that requires you to have at least 2 children over the course of your productive life).

I&#39;m guessing that you do not enjoy the thought of being required to have two children for the objective good of society, do you?

Good. Congratulations, you just refuted your own statement.


but would you concede that it is required that, assuming an objective better and worse that we should strve to do what is better?). As for who&#39;s to say, that is a trikier one

Precisely because there is no objective meaasure for what&#39;s better for everyone. Everyone, unfortunately for you and what I cannot believe you have a hard time understanding, does not and will not have the same idea of what is better for them.

[Dimentio]

Populations in most industrial societies tend to be stable and slowly declining.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by anti&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 12:42 am
I don&#39;t want to write a long book, but shortly:

People work. They make money. They deserve the fruits of their labor, and so taxing them for it is inherently unjust, as is slavery. Taxation is slavery, essentially.

With this new found money, to survive, most rational people will probably seek to spend their money, on whatever they may need. They will likely search for the best deal. They likely won&#39;t find a "perfect" deal, but a fully free market will most probably provide them with the best deal they will find, since the businesses in the industry will have to compete and such.

Now, I&#39;m not sure if its socialism that you advocate, but if it is, it will provide a worse deal for this person. Say they need to get food. If there&#39;s only one source of food (provided by the government) then the government may stick the prices wherever it so wishes, as opposed to a capitalist free market situation where businesses compete amongst each other, making their services more affordable by individual people.

I could say more, but I don&#39;t feel like it right now. Anything wrong with what I&#39;ve said?
In capitalism, people are forced to work to survive, and it is the rich who take the fruits of their labor. Capitalism is slavery, essentially. Taxation is simply one way to put those fruits in the hands they should be in.

The free market will provide people with a way to give their money to the bosses they work for. The free market facilitates exploitation and deprivation.

A socialist government would not sell necessities at any price, everyone has unqualified access to food.

This is different from the free market, where businesses try to take as much money from the consumer as possible, while giving the least to the workers. "Competition" is a synonym for "screwing over everyone except the rich".

[ZX3]

Originally posted by manic expression+January 24, 2007 10:34 am--> (manic expression @ January 24, 2007 10:34 am)
anti&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 12:42 am
I don&#39;t want to write a long book, but shortly:

People work. They make money. They deserve the fruits of their labor, and so taxing them for it is inherently unjust, as is slavery. Taxation is slavery, essentially.

With this new found money, to survive, most rational people will probably seek to spend their money, on whatever they may need. They will likely search for the best deal. They likely won&#39;t find a "perfect" deal, but a fully free market will most probably provide them with the best deal they will find, since the businesses in the industry will have to compete and such.

Now, I&#39;m not sure if its socialism that you advocate, but if it is, it will provide a worse deal for this person. Say they need to get food. If there&#39;s only one source of food (provided by the government) then the government may stick the prices wherever it so wishes, as opposed to a capitalist free market situation where businesses compete amongst each other, making their services more affordable by individual people.

I could say more, but I don&#39;t feel like it right now. Anything wrong with what I&#39;ve said?
In capitalism, people are forced to work to survive, and it is the rich who take the fruits of their labor. Capitalism is slavery, essentially. Taxation is simply one way to put those fruits in the hands they should be in.

The free market will provide people with a way to give their money to the bosses they work for. The free market facilitates exploitation and deprivation.

A socialist government would not sell necessities at any price, everyone has unqualified access to food.

This is different from the free market, where businesses try to take as much money from the consumer as possible, while giving the least to the workers. "Competition" is a synonym for "screwing over everyone except the rich". [/b]
Everyone has to work to survive&#33; Even in a socialist community. People don&#39;t have to grow grain in a socialist community? Give me a break&#33;&#33;&#33;

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:44 pm

Everyone has to work to survive&#33; Even in a socialist community. People don&#39;t have to grow grain in a socialist community? Give me a break&#33;&#33;&#33;
The robots do it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/43/Bender.png/250px-Bender.png

[RGacky3]

Works for Who? Works to achieve what?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by ZX3+January 24, 2007 03:44 pm--> (ZX3 @ January 24, 2007 03:44 pm)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 24, 2007 10:34 am

anti&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 12:42 am
I don&#39;t want to write a long book, but shortly:

People work. They make money. They deserve the fruits of their labor, and so taxing them for it is inherently unjust, as is slavery. Taxation is slavery, essentially.

With this new found money, to survive, most rational people will probably seek to spend their money, on whatever they may need. They will likely search for the best deal. They likely won&#39;t find a "perfect" deal, but a fully free market will most probably provide them with the best deal they will find, since the businesses in the industry will have to compete and such.

Now, I&#39;m not sure if its socialism that you advocate, but if it is, it will provide a worse deal for this person. Say they need to get food. If there&#39;s only one source of food (provided by the government) then the government may stick the prices wherever it so wishes, as opposed to a capitalist free market situation where businesses compete amongst each other, making their services more affordable by individual people.

I could say more, but I don&#39;t feel like it right now. Anything wrong with what I&#39;ve said?
In capitalism, people are forced to work to survive, and it is the rich who take the fruits of their labor. Capitalism is slavery, essentially. Taxation is simply one way to put those fruits in the hands they should be in.

The free market will provide people with a way to give their money to the bosses they work for. The free market facilitates exploitation and deprivation.

A socialist government would not sell necessities at any price, everyone has unqualified access to food.

This is different from the free market, where businesses try to take as much money from the consumer as possible, while giving the least to the workers. "Competition" is a synonym for "screwing over everyone except the rich".
Everyone has to work to survive&#33; Even in a socialist community. People don&#39;t have to grow grain in a socialist community? Give me a break&#33;&#33;&#33; [/b]
Bosses do not work to survive, they manage others&#39; labor. In addition, it is a matter of survival for the workers, who are faced with the very real prospect of despair, homelessness and possible death if they do not work for the rich. On the other hand, the rich live luxurious lives through the sweat and blood of the poor. Is that working for survival? No, it is exploitation.

[La Comédie Noire]

And what happens when one reduces the cost of making the chair?

Well how does one reduce cost? They find a faster, more efficent way of making a commodity, or they go to a place where they can work people to death, which cuts back on the labour embodied in the product which in turn reduces the price. So It still has to do with Labour theory of value.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

You&#39;d be a capitalist only because either

1.) Your a rich boy
2.) Your a moron

There are basically no other reasons.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:06 pm
You&#39;d be a capitalist only because either

1.) Your a rich boy
2.) Your a moron

There are basically no other reasons.
3.) You&#39;re not crazy

[Ol' Dirty]

Why should one support capitalism?

Because it was based upon slavery, built by plutocratic upperclassmen, continued for the existence of a wealthy elite, services a minority of the human population over a majority, energy-wise (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption), economicly (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/gnp.html) and socialy (ooh, look, the history of the United States&#33;), destroys global environment, allows people to starve to death (http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm) allows the millitary-industrial complex to grow tremendously, supports dictatorships and authoritarian monarchies, braiwashes the masses and forces the world into servitude.

Aren&#39;t the reasons why one should support capitalism obvious? :huh:

[wtfm8lol]

Because it was based upon slavery

No, I&#39;m pretty sure it&#39;s based on private ownership of production, maximizing profit, and a free market for distribution of goods and services. It was never based on slavery; slavery was simply a part of it for some time, just as it was a part of Soviet Russia.


built by plutocratic upperclassmen

I&#39;m fairly certain it wasn&#39;t built by anyone intentionally. It was a natural progression caused by an increase in technology and division of labor.


continued for the existence of a wealthy elite

It&#39;s continued because it has shown over the past few hundred years that it increases the living conditions of both the proletariat and the bourgeois.


services a minority of the human population over a majority

It raises the standard of living for every class. The poorest were far worse off a hundred years ago than they are now.


allows the millitary-industrial complex to grow tremendously

you know the USSR spent around 30% of its governmental money on its military while the US spent around 8%?


supports dictatorships and authoritarian monarchies

Oh, it does? Is that why there are so few capitalist countries run by dictatorships and authoritarian monarchies?


braiwashes the masses

especially by restricting their freedom of speech, right? or is that the socialist countries i&#39;m thinking off..


forces the world into servitude.

No, it invites people and countries all around the world to trade in a way that is mutually beneficial.

[Ol' Dirty]

:rolleyes:

You fail make any comment on the statistics I placed in my comment that have a great correlation between inequality and capitalism; you just blather on about how "fair" capitalism is, which makes it rather hard for me to believe that you actually have a point other than... well, I&#39;m rather hard pressed to find one, actually. :D

Anyway, here&#39;s a counter-response to your childish, Ahistorical, Ascientific arguments, which are really rather poorly written, by the way.


Because it was based upon slavery


No, I&#39;m pretty sure it&#39;s based on private ownership of production, maximizing profit, and a free market for distribution of goods and services, It was never based on slavery;

Actually, I&#39;m pretty positive that the system of European slavery began in the 1500&#39;s, which is quite conveniently the time where capitalism was on the rise. The European Burgher class transported over eleven million black women, children and men to Europe and the Americas to harvest sugar cane and cotton for a profit. Sound familiar? Whether one likes the fact or dislikes the fact, the fact is that Americas are based on slavery, and capitalism is simply a slightly gentler form of slavery instituted through modern-day corporatism and imperialism. It treated the black worker as capital, and forced people of black and mixed ethnicity (such as I) to work for no profit at all. How democratic of the Bourgoise, eh?


built by plutocratic upperclassmen


I&#39;m fairly certain it wasn&#39;t built by anyone intentionally.

Not built by someone, but something: history, the buildingblocks of society. Capitalism was truly proggressive for its time, but it is very quickly becoming more and more unnecesary.


It was a natural progression caused by an increase in technology and division of labor.

And I am stating that socialism is the next rational, scientific, natural step in the evolution of human civilization.


continued for the existence of a wealthy elite


It&#39;s continued because it has shown over the past few hundred years that it increases the living conditions of both the proletariat and the bourgeois.

So there is no starvation in this world today? There aren&#39;t any people who have more power than others? There is no such thing as innequality? If you are saying that, then I truly question whether you have anything to say at all.


services a minority of the human population over a majority


It raises the standard of living for every class. The poorest were far worse off a hundred years ago than they are now.

Those people that go out of poverty send new poor fuckers into the streets by taking in recourses.

And how does one go about measuring a "standard of living?" Gross national product per capita? Human Development Index? Or do you look deep into people and examine whether they are actualy happy? Ask a people in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Mali, China and Niger if they are happy. There are even homeless people in North america and Europe&#33; Better off? My ass.


allows the millitary-industrial complex to grow tremendously


you know the USSR spent around 30% of its governmental money on its military while the US spent around 8%?

That eight percent could go to feeding the poor, building socialized houses, etc, etc. etc.

And of course, one must examine why the Soviet Union was spending that much money on millitary spending in the first place. A cold war was going on, and the Union was economicaly sanctioned by most of the countries in the world.


supports dictatorships and authoritarian monarchies


Oh, it does?

Yep.

Sudan. Egypt. Saudi Arabia. Chile. Iran. Kuwait. Iraq.


Is that why there are so few capitalist countries run by dictatorships and authoritarian monarchies?

Saudi Arabia.


braiwashes the masses


especially by restricting their freedom of speech, right?

Mmm-hmm.

CNN. NBC. CBS. ABC. FOX.


forces the world into servitude.


No, it invites people and countries all around the world to trade in a way that is mutually beneficial.

Oh, like it did with the Italians, Irish and the Poles, who were subject to Racism and poverty?

[La Comédie Noire]

It&#39;s continued because it has shown over the past few hundred years that it increases the living conditions of both the proletariat and the bourgeois.

Have you ever been outside the United States? Or any predominantly first world nation for that matter?

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:19 am
it gets the job done.
Not always a Don Henley fan (orig. of the Eagles) but I believe he wrote this:
"We always ask for money...
WE always ask for fame..
We think we have the answers,

Some things aren&#39;t ever going to change
Change, it doesn&#39;t matter who you are, it&#39;s all the same
Same, what&#39;s in your heart will never change."

Greed, that&#39;s all it is.
Appealing to greed to get people to serve.
Bread and circuses
You are addicted to materialism which is suffocating the planet in carbon monoxide, a short trial period of the last 200 years of the industrial revolution and now you think that rampant materialism IS the only reality possible.

It&#39;s just a society built on greed instead of brotherhood and love with no recipe within it to overcome human bondage.

You would have thought such amazing tools good have been put to better use, the lack of human toil might have started a golden age of art and philosophy, instead every inch of human bondage and soil is being devoured in a machine for repetition and increase with no end in sight.

Those who know math know what happens with 1-2% increase over time, it grows expontially.

They expect us, the cogs to use reason to maintain the machines, yet that same reason tells us the expected output is impossible.

[Sir_No_Sir]

Originally posted by ShakeZula06+January 23, 2007 03:33 am--> (ShakeZula06 @ January 23, 2007 03:33 am)
Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 21, 2007 11:51 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:31 pm
You should support capitalism because a free market based on voluntary transaction and association has been shown in both theory and practise to provide the most wealth for all the parties involved. Capitalism by definition is also a possitive sum game as you would only partake in a transaction if you thought you were better off to do so.
:o whoa...hahaha..sounds like capitalism campaign...
sorry sir..i&#39;m not interested...at all&#33;&#33;
What parts are you not interested in, the outstanding wealth or the liberty? Or is it the lack of coercion? [/b]

Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 21, 2007 11:51 am

[email protected] 21, 2007 04:31 pm
You should support capitalism because a free market based on voluntary transaction and association has been shown in both theory and practise to provide the most wealth for all the parties involved. Capitalism by definition is also a possitive sum game as you would only partake in a transaction if you thought you were better off to do so.
:o whoa...hahaha..sounds like capitalism campaign...
sorry sir..i&#39;m not interested...at all&#33;&#33;
What parts are you not interested in, the outstanding wealth or the liberty? Or is it the lack of coercion?


In most capitalist societies, there is a great deal of coercion. Not neccesarily violent coercion, per se, but definitely coercion.

[Sir_No_Sir]

i dont like the quoting system for revleftD=

[wtfm8lol]

Actually, I&#39;m pretty positive that the system of European slavery began in the 1500&#39;s, which is quite conveniently the time where capitalism was on the rise.

And also conveniently the time when intercontinental transportation became possible.


Sound familiar?

Very familiar. It reminded me quite a bit of what Stalin and his group of thugs did to the people in his surrounding area, only he stuffed them in camps where a good majority of them die immediately. Point being: no system is clean.


Whether one likes the fact or dislikes the fact, the fact is that Americas are based on slavery, and capitalism is simply a slightly gentler form of slavery instituted through modern-day corporatism and imperialism.

If you want to eat, you work. That&#39;s how it&#39;s always been. That&#39;s not unique to capitalism. Capitalism is just good in that it allows you to do whatever work you want, as long as it brings in money.


And I am stating that socialism is the next rational, scientific, natural step in the evolution of human civilization.

We&#39;ll just have to wait and see. I just hope I&#39;m dead by the time that happens.


So there is no starvation in this world today?

There is still starvation and there will be as long as there are people incapable of providing for themselves and people living in barren deserts.


There aren&#39;t any people who have more power than others?

There certainly are. There will be as long as there are governments. In capitalism, a worker voluntarily gives the employer power over him. In communism and socialism, society assumes power over you whether you like it or not.


Those people that go out of poverty send new poor fuckers into the streets by taking in recourses.

That&#39;s entirely not true. Capitalism is a positive sum game.


That eight percent could go to feeding the poor, building socialized houses, etc, etc. etc.

As could the Soviet Union&#39;s 30%, and they were even obligated to do it.


And of course, one must examine why the Soviet Union was spending that much money on millitary spending in the first place. A cold war was going on, and the Union was economicaly sanctioned by most of the countries in the world.

Ya, that and Stalin was paranoid like every other dictator.


Saudi Arabia.

Congratulations, you&#39;ve named one. Of course, that&#39;s irrelevant because both systems are susceptible to falling to dictatorships.


Oh, like it did with the Italians, Irish and the Poles, who were subject to Racism and poverty?

Capitalism doesn&#39;t cause racism. Racism is a flaw in thinking in the past few thousand years of human history. Neither capitalism nor communism can poof it away.

[ShakeZula06]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:06 pm
You&#39;d be a capitalist only because either

1.) Your a rich boy
2.) Your a moron

There are basically no other reasons.
This post is funny

[ShakeZula06]

In most capitalist societies, there is a great deal of coercion. Not neccesarily violent coercion, per se, but definitely coercion.
Can you give me an example that is both (a) not the government and (b) not coercion from nature?

[ShakeZula06]

In capitalism, people are forced to work to survive
This is the default. Did you expect to pop out of your mom and be given everything you ever needed or wanted?

and it is the rich who take the fruits of their labor.
That would be slavery. People voluntarily negotiate the price of one&#39;s labor, and if the laborer isn&#39;t satisified, he can sell it to someone else or not sell it all.

Capitalism is slavery, essentially.
Voluntary association CANNOT be slavery.

Taxation is simply one way to put those fruits in the hands they should be in
And how do you objectively measure where this money *should* be going?

The free market will provide people with a way to give their money to the bosses they work for. The free market facilitates exploitation and deprivation.
Actually, this is exactly what government specializes in. Inequality, while it would be there without government intervention, is incredibly increased by it.

A socialist government would not sell necessities at any price,
What&#39;s a necessity, and why is your defintion of one better then mine?

everyone has unqualified access to food.
Who&#39;s making/getting the food? How are they being compensated?

This is different from the free market, where businesses try to take as much money from the consumer as possible, while giving the least to the workers.
Consumers and workers are also working as hard as they can do get as much as they can from businesses. They&#39;d be much better at it if it wasn&#39;t for governments made by, for, and of the rich.

"Competition" is a synonym for "screwing over everyone except the rich".
Strange thesaurus you got there.

[ShakeZula06]

It&#39;s not "all I got" I just happened to think your screename was absurd, it&#39;s not beyond the realm of possibility that I could have wanted to "voice" this opinion, now is it?
Fuck your opinion :P

I spend a lot more time studying or playing music & doing stand up
That stuff sounds pretty cool. It&#39;s just that everyone here could so without comments like this-

insulting random cretins online.
Now obviously I can&#39;t stop you but it&#39;s true. It doesn&#39;t help anyone to be insulting. Maybe it&#39;s worth it to you to bring down this forum so that you can satisfy your internet ego, and maybe you can add someone&#39;s response to your sig.

How come? It&#39;s quite easy - you just have to dislike someone enough to hope they kill themselves, the rest comes naturally.
I&#39;m referring to the fact that this may cause you personal harm, and I don&#39;t wish that on anyone (although since I&#39;m a cappie you probably assume I drown minorities and workers every night :rolleyes: ). It&#39;s just that people are more then likely to say stuff like that when they know there&#39;s no reprecussions, maybe you&#39;re different I don&#39;t know. Also I kind of find it hard to believe you &#39;hate&#39; the person you said this to, and if you do, well that&#39;s just silly.

At least I&#39;m honest.
maybe you are, maybe you&#39;re not.

Hope what you want, it&#39;s not going to change a damn thing.
Hey, I&#39;m hoping for your sake, not mine.

[Tungsten]

Muigwithania

You fail make any comment on the statistics I placed in my comment that have a great correlation between inequality and capitalism; you just blather on about how "fair" capitalism is, which makes it rather hard for me to believe that you actually have a point other than... well, I&#39;m rather hard pressed to find one, actually. There is no inherent "evil" in inequality. If one person does more work, or achieves more, why shouldn&#39;t they get more?

And I am stating that socialism is the next rational, scientific, natural step in the evolution of human civilization.
It&#39;s not scientific and it sure isn&#39;t rational. The whole thing reeks of anti-intellectualism. What&#39;s rational about a system that&#39;s virtually mob rule?

We&#39;ve got a largely socialst system now- it doesn&#39;t work very well and it stinks.

So there is no starvation in this world today?
That&#39;s not our fault; we didn&#39;t steal their food. Hence, there&#39;s no duty on our part to give any away. The fact that many of the starving live in corrupt/anarchic countries anyway doesn&#39;t hold much promise. Perhaps if they got rid of those, it would be a starting point.

And how does one go about measuring a "standard of living?" Gross national product per capita? Human Development Index? Or do you look deep into people and examine whether they are actualy happy?
How about looking at what someone in a capitalist society is able to do, and then comparing it to what someone in a pre-capitalist society was unable to do?

That eight percent could go to feeding the poor, building socialized houses, etc, etc. etc.
It might for about a week, until someone decided to invade your country.

Saudi Arabia.
You&#39;d be hard pressed to call that a land of freedom and individualism, but even if you did, if that&#39;s the only one you can name, it&#39;s proof you&#39;re full of it.

Mmm-hmm.

CNN. NBC. CBS. ABC. FOX.
If you lift up the visor on your tinfoil hat, you might notice that although they provide a sanitised, overly-moderate news service, they don&#39;t actually do anything to prevent your freedom of speech.

Oh, like it did with the Italians, Irish and the Poles, who were subject to Racism and poverty?
Which particular shoehorned-out-of-context historical event are you referring to here?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:36 am
You are addicted to materialism which is suffocating the planet in carbon monoxide, a short trial period of the last 200 years of the industrial revolution and now you think that rampant materialism IS the only reality possible.


Capitalism does not require one to be materialist. I could easily afford a brand new luxury car, yet I still have the 1998 gas-sipper that&#39;s paid off.

Why, out of curiosity, do you communists never allow for the fact that capitalism allows you to live pretty much how you want to live? You want to live like a monk, go for it. You want to consume and have all the nice things, then go earn it. Whatever, it&#39;s up to you.

Hell your persistent whining proves a point: presumably you live in at least a quasi-capitalist system, yet you&#39;ve clearly chosen to not be materialistic.


It&#39;s just a society built on greed instead of brotherhood and love with no recipe within it to overcome human bondage.

That&#39;s all that&#39;s realistic. Individuals, interest and especially ethnic groups all tend to think everyone should live just like they do (or at the very least they want to be left alone to live as they want), which is inherently greedy (and you&#39;re no different); and that is why we fight amongst one another. Your message of spreading brotherly love and peace has been around for millenia and has been defeated by reality time after time after time after time. Young, naive idealistic fools who think they&#39;ve stumbled upon the key to happiness that nobody else figured out have been around for millenia, and they&#39;ve either grown up or grown into old failures time after time after time after time.

Remember, insanity is continuing the same thing over and over again expecting a certain result while getting the contrary result over and over again.


You would have thought such amazing tools good have been put to better use, the lack of human toil might have started a golden age of art and philosophy, instead every inch of human bondage and soil is being devoured in a machine for repetition and increase with no end in sight.

You need to stick to playing Caesar or something.


They expect us, the cogs to use reason to maintain the machines, yet that same reason tells us the expected output is impossible.

You&#39;re nothing but a cog in the universe anyway. In a few billion years the sun will blow up and life as we know it will be bbq&#39;d. You may as well start enjoying life instead of being sad about things you cannot control.

Do you understand that? That you cannot control others to fit into your dream egalitarian system? That humanity is not a lump of clay waiting to be molded by someone who has only achieved a level of enlightenment that you think you have?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:08 am

In capitalism, people are forced to work to survive
This is the default. Did you expect to pop out of your mom and be given everything you ever needed or wanted?

and it is the rich who take the fruits of their labor.
That would be slavery. People voluntarily negotiate the price of one&#39;s labor, and if the laborer isn&#39;t satisified, he can sell it to someone else or not sell it all.

Capitalism is slavery, essentially.
Voluntary association CANNOT be slavery.

Taxation is simply one way to put those fruits in the hands they should be in
And how do you objectively measure where this money *should* be going?

The free market will provide people with a way to give their money to the bosses they work for. The free market facilitates exploitation and deprivation.
Actually, this is exactly what government specializes in. Inequality, while it would be there without government intervention, is incredibly increased by it.

A socialist government would not sell necessities at any price,
What&#39;s a necessity, and why is your defintion of one better then mine?

everyone has unqualified access to food.
Who&#39;s making/getting the food? How are they being compensated?

This is different from the free market, where businesses try to take as much money from the consumer as possible, while giving the least to the workers.
Consumers and workers are also working as hard as they can do get as much as they can from businesses. They&#39;d be much better at it if it wasn&#39;t for governments made by, for, and of the rich.

"Competition" is a synonym for "screwing over everyone except the rich".
Strange thesaurus you got there.
This is not the default. To the worker, the prospect is work as hard as you can for someone else, or starve to death. That is cruel, that is unjust and it is wrong.

People have little leverage in naming the price of their labor. They take what they can get, which is oftentimes crumbs. Workers are FORCED to work for a certain amount, they have no real say in the matter. The choice is work for crumbs or die. Don&#39;t parrot Locke&#39;s BS fallacies.

It is not truly voluntary if people work to avoid starvation. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to clean their room, do you have a real choice? Same relationship (or "association", as you call it).

It should go to the community, it should be controlled by the people. Society should be held in common, communal ownership. It doesn&#39;t take a genius to see how this would work.

Inequality is naturally increased by the market. Government intervention is but a bandaid on a bullet wound; destruction of capitalism and all bourgeois institutions is the cure.

Asking me to define "necessity" shows your ignorance. However, a necessity is something that someone needs. Decent food, clothes, shelter, healthcare, etc. are necessities. When you have a socialist economy, all the resources will go to helping everyone, which will naturally go first to what people need (since they control society, so obviously they will cover their needs first), second to what everyone wants the most (which will be shared equally).

Workers would make the food. They would be compensated just like anyone else: by recieving from society (use your imagination: housing, food, entertainment, etc...).

No, businesses get as much as they can from the workers. Capitalism is the science of deprivation; the business which exploits the worker and consumer the most outcompetes those who do not. Therefore, taking advantage of the worker and the consumer is an inherent part of capitalism. The businesses get as much money as possible (the most money), while others can barely get by (if they&#39;re lucky). That is called inequity, that is called injustice.

Cute comment, but like the rest of your post, it&#39;s completely fallacious and delusional.

[t_wolves_fan]

Here we go again.


It is not truly voluntary if people work to avoid starvation.

So in your communist system, I could decide not to work and still eat. Yes?


It should go to the community, it should be controlled by the people. Society should be held in common, communal ownership. It doesn&#39;t take a genius to see how this would work.

Great, you&#39;ve traded one boss for the mob. I&#39;d say that&#39;s worse.


Asking me to define "necessity" shows your ignorance. However, a necessity is something that someone needs. Decent food, clothes, shelter, healthcare, etc. are necessities.

Explain to me how much food I "need"? 2,500 calories a day? Is that all I get? Is it decided for me by "the people" or do I get to pick how I get those calories?

What "clothes" are necessary for me? Do we all get the same bare-minimum to keep us alive? Do "the people" decide what I wear, or do I get to pick what clothes I can wear?

A house...who decides how much of a house I need? 200 square feet per person? 400? Who picks? Why do they get to choose? Do I get to choose my own house, or is that too decided "by the people"?

Let me get this straight: in the current system I have to get paid by a boss and once I get paid I can spend the money as I see fit, and that&#39;s slavery. But in your system "the people" tell me how much to eat, what to wear, where to work, and where to live, and that&#39;s not slavery?

Just how is it you define slavery out of curiosity?


Workers would make the food. They would be compensated just like anyone else: by recieving from society (use your imagination: housing, food, entertainment, etc...).

What workers,
how many,
how long,
how much do they produce,
how is it decided what they produce,
what specifically are they "paid"?
How is their pay determined?
Who decides their pay?
Do I have to work to get the necessities? You said having to work to get the necessities is slavery according to you, so I assume the answer is "no".




Cute comment, but like the rest of your post, it&#39;s completely fallacious and delusional.

Yours is complete fantasy. You can tell because you never have specifics, it all just "works out" in a dream world.

[Tungsten]

manic expression

This is not the default. To the worker, the prospect is work as hard as you can for someone else, or starve to death. That is cruel, that is unjust and it is wrong.
What reality-based alternative is there?

It is not truly voluntary if people work to avoid starvation. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to clean their room, do you have a real choice? Same relationship (or "association", as you call it).
And here lies your error. Putting a gun to someone&#39;s head is an agressive action. Letting someone starve is not an action of any kind. And if I&#39;m compelled to provide him with work, then is he not putting a gun against my head? That doesn&#39;t sound voluntary to me; I don&#39;t support those kind of relationships.

It should go to the community,
No it shouldn&#39;t. The only beneficiaries will be those who have contributed nothing or next to nothing. A system like that is heading for the morgue.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by manic expression+January 24, 2007 02:09 pm--> (manic expression @ January 24, 2007 02:09 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:44 pm

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 24, 2007 10:34 am

anti&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 12:42 am
I don&#39;t want to write a long book, but shortly:

People work. They make money. They deserve the fruits of their labor, and so taxing them for it is inherently unjust, as is slavery. Taxation is slavery, essentially.

With this new found money, to survive, most rational people will probably seek to spend their money, on whatever they may need. They will likely search for the best deal. They likely won&#39;t find a "perfect" deal, but a fully free market will most probably provide them with the best deal they will find, since the businesses in the industry will have to compete and such.

Now, I&#39;m not sure if its socialism that you advocate, but if it is, it will provide a worse deal for this person. Say they need to get food. If there&#39;s only one source of food (provided by the government) then the government may stick the prices wherever it so wishes, as opposed to a capitalist free market situation where businesses compete amongst each other, making their services more affordable by individual people.

I could say more, but I don&#39;t feel like it right now. Anything wrong with what I&#39;ve said?
In capitalism, people are forced to work to survive, and it is the rich who take the fruits of their labor. Capitalism is slavery, essentially. Taxation is simply one way to put those fruits in the hands they should be in.

The free market will provide people with a way to give their money to the bosses they work for. The free market facilitates exploitation and deprivation.

A socialist government would not sell necessities at any price, everyone has unqualified access to food.

This is different from the free market, where businesses try to take as much money from the consumer as possible, while giving the least to the workers. "Competition" is a synonym for "screwing over everyone except the rich".
Everyone has to work to survive&#33; Even in a socialist community. People don&#39;t have to grow grain in a socialist community? Give me a break&#33;&#33;&#33;
Bosses do not work to survive, they manage others&#39; labor. In addition, it is a matter of survival for the workers, who are faced with the very real prospect of despair, homelessness and possible death if they do not work for the rich. On the other hand, the rich live luxurious lives through the sweat and blood of the poor. Is that working for survival? No, it is exploitation. [/b]
managing labor is work. very valuable work, as not everyone can do it.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:11 pm
Here we go again.


It is not truly voluntary if people work to avoid starvation.

So in your communist system, I could decide not to work and still eat. Yes?


It should go to the community, it should be controlled by the people. Society should be held in common, communal ownership. It doesn&#39;t take a genius to see how this would work.

Great, you&#39;ve traded one boss for the mob. I&#39;d say that&#39;s worse.


Asking me to define "necessity" shows your ignorance. However, a necessity is something that someone needs. Decent food, clothes, shelter, healthcare, etc. are necessities.

Explain to me how much food I "need"? 2,500 calories a day? Is that all I get? Is it decided for me by "the people" or do I get to pick how I get those calories?

What "clothes" are necessary for me? Do we all get the same bare-minimum to keep us alive? Do "the people" decide what I wear, or do I get to pick what clothes I can wear?

A house...who decides how much of a house I need? 200 square feet per person? 400? Who picks? Why do they get to choose? Do I get to choose my own house, or is that too decided "by the people"?

Let me get this straight: in the current system I have to get paid by a boss and once I get paid I can spend the money as I see fit, and that&#39;s slavery. But in your system "the people" tell me how much to eat, what to wear, where to work, and where to live, and that&#39;s not slavery?

Just how is it you define slavery out of curiosity?


Workers would make the food. They would be compensated just like anyone else: by recieving from society (use your imagination: housing, food, entertainment, etc...).

What workers,
how many,
how long,
how much do they produce,
how is it decided what they produce,
what specifically are they "paid"?
How is their pay determined?
Who decides their pay?
Do I have to work to get the necessities? You said having to work to get the necessities is slavery according to you, so I assume the answer is "no".




Cute comment, but like the rest of your post, it&#39;s completely fallacious and delusional.

Yours is complete fantasy. You can tell because you never have specifics, it all just "works out" in a dream world.
In socialism, people would be expected to work. However, the degree to which they would work would be completely different. Go to your job, put in 4-5 hours, go home and do something else. No working 10 hours for a boss who pays you next to nothing. The question of people who outright refuse to work (who have been historically proven to be the formerly rich) is something that the community would have to answer. Expectations should be enough, but if more persuasion is necessary, so be it. This, it should be noted, does not mean they will be expected to work an exhausting amount at all.

I believe the term you&#39;re looking for is "democratic control". And no, it&#39;s not worse, unless you&#39;re an oligarch.

Nitpicking isn&#39;t an argument. At any rate, people can only eat so much. In the case of food, someone&#39;s needs includes a balanced diet and sufficient amounts of nutrition. I don&#39;t know why you keep on ignoring the issue in favor of these meaningless "well, what if I want 2,501 calories&#33;" arguments, but I guess when you have no real position, semantics has to replace reason.

People would get clothes they would need for the given occassions they participate in. They would get enough to suffice their activities.

People would have a roof over their head. I don&#39;t have any blueprints for you, but the fact is that everyone would have decent housing. It&#39;s not that hard to envision, except for you idiots who keep blindly asking questions even though they&#39;re completely insignificant and even though you could probably figure out the answer yourself if you thought about it.

The current system is that the rich pay the poor what they want, and the poor works for them. "Spending as I see fit" is completely dependent upon how much you can spend, which is where inequity comes into play. According to your logic, if a slave-owning society allows some people to "spend as they see fit", the whole slavery thing isn&#39;t a factor. Look at the entire picture and perhaps you&#39;ll get somewhere.

Again, these are inconsequential questions with inconsequential answers. Try making an argument with some content.

The specifics you&#39;re asking for are either completely irrelevant (how many calories do you get per day? Are you f*cking kidding me?) or painfully obvious. It works out if you open your eyes, which you seem incapable of doing.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+January 25, 2007 09:18 pm--> (colonelguppy @ January 25, 2007 09:18 pm)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 24, 2007 02:09 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:44 pm

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 24, 2007 10:34 am

anti&#045;[email protected] 23, 2007 12:42 am
I don&#39;t want to write a long book, but shortly:

People work. They make money. They deserve the fruits of their labor, and so taxing them for it is inherently unjust, as is slavery. Taxation is slavery, essentially.

With this new found money, to survive, most rational people will probably seek to spend their money, on whatever they may need. They will likely search for the best deal. They likely won&#39;t find a "perfect" deal, but a fully free market will most probably provide them with the best deal they will find, since the businesses in the industry will have to compete and such.

Now, I&#39;m not sure if its socialism that you advocate, but if it is, it will provide a worse deal for this person. Say they need to get food. If there&#39;s only one source of food (provided by the government) then the government may stick the prices wherever it so wishes, as opposed to a capitalist free market situation where businesses compete amongst each other, making their services more affordable by individual people.

I could say more, but I don&#39;t feel like it right now. Anything wrong with what I&#39;ve said?
In capitalism, people are forced to work to survive, and it is the rich who take the fruits of their labor. Capitalism is slavery, essentially. Taxation is simply one way to put those fruits in the hands they should be in.

The free market will provide people with a way to give their money to the bosses they work for. The free market facilitates exploitation and deprivation.

A socialist government would not sell necessities at any price, everyone has unqualified access to food.

This is different from the free market, where businesses try to take as much money from the consumer as possible, while giving the least to the workers. "Competition" is a synonym for "screwing over everyone except the rich".
Everyone has to work to survive&#33; Even in a socialist community. People don&#39;t have to grow grain in a socialist community? Give me a break&#33;&#33;&#33;
Bosses do not work to survive, they manage others&#39; labor. In addition, it is a matter of survival for the workers, who are faced with the very real prospect of despair, homelessness and possible death if they do not work for the rich. On the other hand, the rich live luxurious lives through the sweat and blood of the poor. Is that working for survival? No, it is exploitation.
managing labor is work. very valuable work, as not everyone can do it. [/b]
1.) Exploiting labor ("managing", as you call it) deprives the people who actually produce things. Bosses produce nothing of value, workers do.

You may say that the management itself is a valuable commodity, but the nature in which the labor is managed is that the fruits of labor find their way squarely into the pockets of the bosses. Therefore, it is exploitation, and therefore, it is detrimental.

2.) As I&#39;ve said, capitalism is the science of deprivation. It may be "work" (in your eyes), but that work only exploits and deprives, and so there is no place is society for that "work".

3.) Management itself is not a bad thing, but the exploitation that is inherent in capitalism IS. There can be managers in socialism (see the thread on Cuba in learning, I&#39;ve argued this point before), but they should be responsive to the workers and they should not exploit the workers.

"Management" is one thing; "exploitation" is another.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:17 pm
manic expression

This is not the default. To the worker, the prospect is work as hard as you can for someone else, or starve to death. That is cruel, that is unjust and it is wrong.
What reality-based alternative is there?

It is not truly voluntary if people work to avoid starvation. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to clean their room, do you have a real choice? Same relationship (or "association", as you call it).
And here lies your error. Putting a gun to someone&#39;s head is an agressive action. Letting someone starve is not an action of any kind. And if I&#39;m compelled to provide him with work, then is he not putting a gun against my head? That doesn&#39;t sound voluntary to me; I don&#39;t support those kind of relationships.

It should go to the community,
No it shouldn&#39;t. The only beneficiaries will be those who have contributed nothing or next to nothing. A system like that is heading for the morgue.
Socialism is an alternative. It&#39;s worked before and it&#39;ll work again.

Putting a gun to someone&#39;s head is the same as giving someone the prospect of working for them or dying. It is either work for the wages the boss sets, or starve. How is that fundamentally different from putting a gun to someone&#39;s head? It really isn&#39;t, the "choice" people talk about is false.

According to your logic, walking by while someone is drowning isn&#39;t a bad thing, since it&#39;s not "aggressive". :rolleyes: The fact is that capitalism gives the worker a "choice" between starvation or working for someone else&#39;s gain; that is no different from the "choice" between getting your head blown off or cleaning someone&#39;s room.

The community is that which contributes. The workers produce, the bosses exploit. Keep the bosses and you get inequity and injustice; do away with the bosses and you get equity and a better society. The latter is surely nowhere near the morgue.

[t_wolves_fan]

In socialism, people would be expected to work. However, the degree to which they would work would be completely different. Go to your job, put in 4-5 hours, go home and do something else. No working 10 hours for a boss who pays you next to nothing. The question of people who outright refuse to work (who have been historically proven to be the formerly rich) is something that the community would have to answer. Expectations should be enough, but if more persuasion is necessary, so be it. This, it should be noted, does not mean they will be expected to work an exhausting amount at all.

:D :D :D

You made a good effort at tapdancing around that answer Senator, but it&#39;s pretty transparent: you&#39;d have to work for your food or you&#39;d die not a whole lot different than in capitalism.


Nitpicking isn&#39;t an argument.

Nitpicking? Asking specifically how you plan to distribute food, clothing, housing, consumer products, capital investments, and work among the citizens of a town, a region, a continent and the world in order to meet your claims of "society will decide how you get what you need" is nitpicking?

:D :D :D

Are you really this naive? Do you think that organizing the flow of goods, information, and work is simple enough that a bunch of teenage stoners like you and the rest of the knobs on this site can simply whip it up in a few hours so that it will work effectively for thousans, millions and billions of people in a sustainable fashion?


At any rate, people can only eat so much. In the case of food, someone&#39;s needs includes a balanced diet and sufficient amounts of nutrition. I don&#39;t know why you keep on ignoring the issue in favor of these meaningless "well, what if I want 2,501 calories&#33;" arguments, but I guess when you have no real position, semantics has to replace reason.

You didn&#39;t answer my question. "People can only eat so much and they need a balanced diet" does not cut it. You&#39;re the one advocating a new global political economic system, you may want to have answers when people ask, "how am I going to EAT?"

What if people don&#39;t want to eat a balanced diet with sufficient nutrition? Have you ever considered that people have wants that often conflict with your definition of their needs? Can you see beyond your slogans for six seconds to understand why you might run into difficulties if you don&#39;t figure out how to meet people&#39;s wants?

I know it&#39;s very hard and it&#39;s very invconenient. The answers don&#39;t fit on a sign you can whip up for the next protest march. But give it a shot. Actually stop and consider that production and distribution of goods and services is not only going to have to match what you think people need but what people want for it to work, because you need to understand that lo and behold, people have a funny way of deciding for themselves what they want and when their new teenage stoner rulers can&#39;t provide it, they&#39;re going to get a little upset.

Give it a shot, ace. Do some critical thinking instead of sloganeering, for once.

Start with food first and then maybe work your way up to clothing, housing, consumer goods, services, and how work will be distributed.

Please go beyond, "The robots will do it", if you can.

:D :D :D

[Ol' Dirty]

To wtfm8lol:


Actually, I&#39;m pretty positive that the system of European slavery began in the 1500&#39;s, which is quite conveniently the time where capitalism was on the rise.


And also conveniently the time when intercontinental transportation became possible.

... Which leads back to your "natural proggression" argument, which is the only good point you have made in your entire commentary.

Capitalism and global transportation came about at approximately the same time. Slavery is older. Tribal societies began the continuum, slave-holding and feudal systems came about next, then capitalism. Logicaly, a socialist system would come into place.

Of course, you do not go by ration; instead you go by misinformation and the promise of profit. Unfortunate.


Sound familiar?


Very familiar. It reminded me quite a bit of what Stalin and his group of thugs did to the people in his surrounding area, only he stuffed them in camps where a good majority of them die immediately. Point being: no system is clean.

North Korea calls itself democratic. FOX News declared itself "fair and balanced." The idea of calling the Soviet Union democratic, its dictator a socialist, is hearsay. Utter ballocks, really.


Whether one likes the fact or dislikes the fact, the fact is that Americas are based on slavery, and capitalism is simply a slightly gentler form of slavery instituted through modern-day corporatism and imperialism.


If you want to eat, you work. That&#39;s how it&#39;s always been. That&#39;s not unique to capitalism. Capitalism is just good in that it allows you to do whatever work you want, as long as it brings in money.

But who, pray tell, do the wage workers work for?


And I am stating that socialism is the next rational, scientific, natural step in the evolution of human civilization.


We&#39;ll just have to wait and see. I just hope I&#39;m dead by the time that happens.

As do I. I hope you&#39;re dead by that time too.


So there is no starvation in this world today?


There is still starvation and there will be as long as there are people incapable of providing for themselves and people living in barren deserts.

Most people in Ethiopia, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Indonesia and Bangladesh don&#39;t live in the desert. I wonder why they&#39;re still poor?


There certainly are. There will be as long as there are governments. In capitalism, a worker voluntarily gives the employer power over him. In communism and socialism, society assumes power over you whether you like it or not.

Actually, in a communist society, everybody would have power over things, not people. That&#39;s capitalism&#39;s fundemental problem (not evil, t_wolves_fan, but I&#39;ll get to you latter): Innequality. As long as someone has power over someone else, they are dangerous.


Congratulations, you&#39;ve named one. Of course, that&#39;s irrelevant because both systems are susceptible to falling to dictatorships.

Great job rationalising your illogcal blunder, dude.


Capitalism doesn&#39;t cause racism.

Me: Capitalism causes racism. Here are some facts.

You: LA LA LA&#33; I CAN&#39;T HEEEEAAAAR YOU&#33;


Racism is a flaw in thinking in the past few thousand years of human history.

...Caused by capitalism.


To that ShakeZula guy:

QUOTE
In most capitalist societies, there is a great deal of coercion. Not neccesarily violent coercion, per se, but definitely coercion.




Can you give me an example that is both (a) not the government and (b) not coercion from nature?

You phrased that question really badly, but here:

Tribal societies are a great example. The Paris Commune is the most recent one that I can name. I can&#39;t think of any others. The reason we haven&#39;t had many, and the reason they are so short-lived, is because people have a rational fear that they will be grounded into the dust if they oppose a capitalist millitary or paramillitary. If capitalists are good at anything, they are most certainly good for beating, shooting and blasting the living shit out of people. Oh, and making people starve. That too. :lol:


You fail make any comment on the statistics I placed in my comment that have a great correlation between inequality and capitalism; you just blather on about how "fair" capitalism is, which makes it rather hard for me to believe that you actually have a point other than... well, I&#39;m rather hard pressed to find one, actually.


There is no inherent "evil" in inequality.

I don&#39;t think you understand the point I am trying to make.

I&#39;m saying that he didn&#39;t address my statistics. I never said anything along the lines of innequality being "evil".

I really don&#39;t buy the moral dualistic bullshit about "good and evil", anyway. Besides, there are far more potent ways af demonizing your enemy. :D


If one person does more work, or achieves more, why shouldn&#39;t they get more?

Why should they?


And I am stating that socialism is the next rational, scientific, natural step in the evolution of human civilization.


It&#39;s not scientific and it sure isn&#39;t rational. The whole thing reeks of anti-intellectualism.

Hypothsis: human civilization would become more and more class stratified. Experiment: the evolution of the time since Marx. The United States is the sole superpower (if not hyperpower) in the world. Observation: the world is becoming more and more class stratified. Conclusion: hypothesis correct.


What&#39;s rational about a system that&#39;s virtually mob rule?

Nothing.


We&#39;ve got a largely socialst system now- it doesn&#39;t work very well and it stinks.

Ha&#33;


Saudi Arabia.


You&#39;d be hard pressed to call that a land of freedom and individualism,

Yup. That&#39;s what capitalism is fundementaly about.


But even if you did, if that&#39;s the only one you can name, it&#39;s proof you&#39;re full of it.

Kuwait.


Mmm-hmm.

CNN. NBC. CBS. ABC. FOX.


If you lift up the visor on your tinfoil hat, you might notice that although they provide a sanitised, overly-moderate news service, they don&#39;t actually do anything to prevent your freedom of speech.

But they do ingrain a feeling of complacency with the status quo.


Oh, like it did with the Italians, Irish and the Poles, who were subject to Racism and poverty?


Which particular shoehorned-out-of-context historical event are you referring to here?

The mass imagration of these peoples into the US during the late eigteenth and late twentieth centuries.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:42 pm


If you lift up the visor on your tinfoil hat, you might notice that although they provide a sanitised, overly-moderate news service, they don&#39;t actually do anything to prevent your freedom of speech.

:mellow:

You&#39;re a fool.


I realize this request is "nitpicking", but I&#39;d like to know specifically how the mainstream media threatens your right to free speech.

I mean, you have to understand that simply proclaiming it does not make it true.



Yes, even when you proclaim it.


I really don&#39;t buy the moral dualistic bullshit about "good and evil", anyway.

Then how can the slavery of capitalism be bad?

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 25, 2007 04:47 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 25, 2007 04:47 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 09:42 pm


If you lift up the visor on your tinfoil hat, you might notice that although they provide a sanitised, overly-moderate news service, they don&#39;t actually do anything to prevent your freedom of speech.

:mellow:

You&#39;re a fool.


I realize this request is "nitpicking", but I&#39;d like to know specifically how the mainstream media threatens your right to free speech.

I mean, you have to understand that simply proclaiming it does not make it true.



Yes, even when you proclaim it. [/b]
Do I really have to say it? :huh:

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:48 pm
Do I really have to say it? :huh:
Why would I have asked the question?

Yes, I am afraid you have to come up with something that supports your proclamation.

Take your time.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:38 pm

In socialism, people would be expected to work. However, the degree to which they would work would be completely different. Go to your job, put in 4-5 hours, go home and do something else. No working 10 hours for a boss who pays you next to nothing. The question of people who outright refuse to work (who have been historically proven to be the formerly rich) is something that the community would have to answer. Expectations should be enough, but if more persuasion is necessary, so be it. This, it should be noted, does not mean they will be expected to work an exhausting amount at all.

:D :D :D

You made a good effort at tapdancing around that answer Senator, but it&#39;s pretty transparent: you&#39;d have to work for your food or you&#39;d die not a whole lot different than in capitalism.


Nitpicking isn&#39;t an argument.

Nitpicking? Asking specifically how you plan to distribute food, clothing, housing, consumer products, capital investments, and work among the citizens of a town, a region, a continent and the world in order to meet your claims of "society will decide how you get what you need" is nitpicking?

:D :D :D

Are you really this naive? Do you think that organizing the flow of goods, information, and work is simple enough that a bunch of teenage stoners like you and the rest of the knobs on this site can simply whip it up in a few hours so that it will work effectively for thousans, millions and billions of people in a sustainable fashion?


At any rate, people can only eat so much. In the case of food, someone&#39;s needs includes a balanced diet and sufficient amounts of nutrition. I don&#39;t know why you keep on ignoring the issue in favor of these meaningless "well, what if I want 2,501 calories&#33;" arguments, but I guess when you have no real position, semantics has to replace reason.

You didn&#39;t answer my question. "People can only eat so much and they need a balanced diet" does not cut it. You&#39;re the one advocating a new global political economic system, you may want to have answers when people ask, "how am I going to EAT?"

What if people don&#39;t want to eat a balanced diet with sufficient nutrition? Have you ever considered that people have wants that often conflict with your definition of their needs? Can you see beyond your slogans for six seconds to understand why you might run into difficulties if you don&#39;t figure out how to meet people&#39;s wants?

I know it&#39;s very hard and it&#39;s very invconenient. The answers don&#39;t fit on a sign you can whip up for the next protest march. But give it a shot. Actually stop and consider that production and distribution of goods and services is not only going to have to match what you think people need but what people want for it to work, because you need to understand that lo and behold, people have a funny way of deciding for themselves what they want and when their new teenage stoner rulers can&#39;t provide it, they&#39;re going to get a little upset.

Give it a shot, ace. Do some critical thinking instead of sloganeering, for once.

Start with food first and then maybe work your way up to clothing, housing, consumer goods, services, and how work will be distributed.

Please go beyond, "The robots will do it", if you can.

:D :D :D
You made a good effort at ignoring my point. "Work" in capitalism is a matter of life and death. "Work" in socialism is not. People contribute, they get back; they are not forced to work to avoid starvation, they are simply expected to work. That you would say socialism is "not a whole lot different than capitalism" is patently laughable. Please review my post and find where people are given the same prospect in any feasible way (I&#39;ll give you a hint: you won&#39;t because you can&#39;t).

Of course it&#39;s nitpicking. You asked for the number of calories FFS. That is beyond inconsequential and meaningless and you know it.

Are you really this ignorant? What part of "inconsequential" (or, in your case, "stupid") do you not understand? The flow of goods, information and work are all natural parts of socialism that are pretty easy to envision once you think about it. Unfortunately, you don&#39;t think about it. When you get down to it, you&#39;re just asking meaningless questions in an effort to avoid the fact that you have no real argument.

It cuts it fine. Your refusal to accept a reasonable answer is simply evidence of your lack of comprehension.

How are people going to eat? YOU&#39;RE NOT ASKING THAT. You&#39;re asking how many calories a person needs and what the blueprints for houses will be, which is blatantly ridiculous and completely irrelevant. To answer the question you didn&#39;t ask: Food is grown and produced, it is processed, it is distributed, people prepare it in a variety of ways, it is consumed. It&#39;s really not that hard.

Just in case you were about to ask (and you probably were), I already addressed the issue of how the people who produce food would be compensated on this very thread. Humor me and try to understand it.

Yes, because the masses are clamouring for less nutrition :lol: Your points are reaching new lows. People can still eat twinkies and candy, but their needs come first, and that includes nutrition.

No, it&#39;s meaningless. Do you really think the exact number of CALORIES someone needs is relevant? How about the concern that people don&#39;t want nutrition? Those are all concerns that have no basis in reality, and so I have no reason to seriously address them.

Please, try critical thinking, by all means. In case you couldn&#39;t figure it out, that doesn&#39;t include counting calories.

It seems you can&#39;t go beyond your refusal to use common sense. Ask me a reasonable question and I&#39;ll answer it.

I&#39;ve already addressed food production, but you, once again, like I expected, ignored it. Not surprisingly, this isn&#39;t different from the rest of your arguments.

[wtfm8lol]

Food is grown and produced

By who? Growing and producing food isn&#39;t the type of thing I&#39;d want to spend my day doing.


it is processed

By who? Processing food isn&#39;t the type of thing I&#39;d want to spend my day doing.


it is distributed

By who? Boxing, shipping, and making food available to everyone isn&#39;t the type of thing I&#39;d want to spend my day doing.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 25, 2007 04:30 pm
[1.) Exploiting labor ("managing", as you call it) deprives the people who actually produce things. Bosses produce nothing of value, workers do.

You may say that the management itself is a valuable commodity, but the nature in which the labor is managed is that the fruits of labor find their way squarely into the pockets of the bosses. Therefore, it is exploitation, and therefore, it is detrimental.

2.) As I&#39;ve said, capitalism is the science of deprivation. It may be "work" (in your eyes), but that work only exploits and deprives, and so there is no place is society for that "work".

3.) Management itself is not a bad thing, but the exploitation that is inherent in capitalism IS. There can be managers in socialism (see the thread on Cuba in learning, I&#39;ve argued this point before), but they should be responsive to the workers and they should not exploit the workers.

"Management" is one thing; "exploitation" is another.
This is the kind of stuff the restricted folks ask- a little bit of explanation rather than vague generalities. S, with that in mind:

1. management- you are saying that there will need to be management in socilaism. That would seem to be a no brainer. You say management needs to be "respnsive" to the workers.

Expand.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by manic expression+January 25, 2007 04:58 pm--> (manic expression @ January 25, 2007 04:58 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 09:38 pm

In socialism, people would be expected to work. However, the degree to which they would work would be completely different. Go to your job, put in 4-5 hours, go home and do something else. No working 10 hours for a boss who pays you next to nothing. The question of people who outright refuse to work (who have been historically proven to be the formerly rich) is something that the community would have to answer. Expectations should be enough, but if more persuasion is necessary, so be it. This, it should be noted, does not mean they will be expected to work an exhausting amount at all.

:D :D :D

You made a good effort at tapdancing around that answer Senator, but it&#39;s pretty transparent: you&#39;d have to work for your food or you&#39;d die not a whole lot different than in capitalism.


Nitpicking isn&#39;t an argument.

Nitpicking? Asking specifically how you plan to distribute food, clothing, housing, consumer products, capital investments, and work among the citizens of a town, a region, a continent and the world in order to meet your claims of "society will decide how you get what you need" is nitpicking?

:D :D :D

Are you really this naive? Do you think that organizing the flow of goods, information, and work is simple enough that a bunch of teenage stoners like you and the rest of the knobs on this site can simply whip it up in a few hours so that it will work effectively for thousans, millions and billions of people in a sustainable fashion?


At any rate, people can only eat so much. In the case of food, someone&#39;s needs includes a balanced diet and sufficient amounts of nutrition. I don&#39;t know why you keep on ignoring the issue in favor of these meaningless "well, what if I want 2,501 calories&#33;" arguments, but I guess when you have no real position, semantics has to replace reason.

You didn&#39;t answer my question. "People can only eat so much and they need a balanced diet" does not cut it. You&#39;re the one advocating a new global political economic system, you may want to have answers when people ask, "how am I going to EAT?"

What if people don&#39;t want to eat a balanced diet with sufficient nutrition? Have you ever considered that people have wants that often conflict with your definition of their needs? Can you see beyond your slogans for six seconds to understand why you might run into difficulties if you don&#39;t figure out how to meet people&#39;s wants?

I know it&#39;s very hard and it&#39;s very invconenient. The answers don&#39;t fit on a sign you can whip up for the next protest march. But give it a shot. Actually stop and consider that production and distribution of goods and services is not only going to have to match what you think people need but what people want for it to work, because you need to understand that lo and behold, people have a funny way of deciding for themselves what they want and when their new teenage stoner rulers can&#39;t provide it, they&#39;re going to get a little upset.

Give it a shot, ace. Do some critical thinking instead of sloganeering, for once.

Start with food first and then maybe work your way up to clothing, housing, consumer goods, services, and how work will be distributed.

Please go beyond, "The robots will do it", if you can.

:D :D :D
You made a good effort at ignoring my point. "Work" in capitalism is a matter of life and death. "Work" in socialism is not. People contribute, they get back; they are not forced to work to avoid starvation, they are simply expected to work. That you would say socialism is "not a whole lot different than capitalism" is patently laughable. Please review my post and find where people are given the same prospect in any feasible way (I&#39;ll give you a hint: you won&#39;t because you can&#39;t).

Of course it&#39;s nitpicking. You asked for the number of calories FFS. That is beyond inconsequential and meaningless and you know it.

Are you really this ignorant? What part of "inconsequential" (or, in your case, "stupid") do you not understand? The flow of goods, information and work are all natural parts of socialism that are pretty easy to envision once you think about it. Unfortunately, you don&#39;t think about it. When you get down to it, you&#39;re just asking meaningless questions in an effort to avoid the fact that you have no real argument.

It cuts it fine. Your refusal to accept a reasonable answer is simply evidence of your lack of comprehension.

How are people going to eat? YOU&#39;RE NOT ASKING THAT. You&#39;re asking how many calories a person needs and what the blueprints for houses will be, which is blatantly ridiculous and completely irrelevant. To answer the question you didn&#39;t ask: Food is grown and produced, it is processed, it is distributed, people prepare it in a variety of ways, it is consumed. It&#39;s really not that hard.

Just in case you were about to ask (and you probably were), I already addressed the issue of how the people who produce food would be compensated on this very thread. Humor me and try to understand it.

Yes, because the masses are clamouring for less nutrition :lol: Your points are reaching new lows. People can still eat twinkies and candy, but their needs come first, and that includes nutrition.

No, it&#39;s meaningless. Do you really think the exact number of CALORIES someone needs is relevant? How about the concern that people don&#39;t want nutrition? Those are all concerns that have no basis in reality, and so I have no reason to seriously address them.

Please, try critical thinking, by all means. In case you couldn&#39;t figure it out, that doesn&#39;t include counting calories.

It seems you can&#39;t go beyond your refusal to use common sense. Ask me a reasonable question and I&#39;ll answer it.

I&#39;ve already addressed food production, but you, once again, like I expected, ignored it. Not surprisingly, this isn&#39;t different from the rest of your arguments. [/b]
Nobody is asking for blueprints as to what a house will look like.

What is being asked is how the society will determine that it needs to allocate its resources in building a house, as opposed to building a school, a supermarket, a road, a factory or just to leave that land empty. I do not mean that a some elected council will make the decsision. i am asking what sort of information is used in making that determination. And I don;t mean listen to the people. I mean what sort of information will rely upon in making these types of decisions.

[Dimentio]

Here in Sweden, most construction works are decided by the state/the region/the municipality together with those interested in it. There is regional zoning and a dozen or so of interests here.

With energy accounting, we could allocate resources as efficiently as in a market economy.

[t_wolves_fan]

Your aversion and deflection skills are well-developed, young grasshopper, among the best I&#39;ve seen.


Originally posted by manic [email protected] 25, 2007 09:58 pm
You made a good effort at ignoring my point. "Work" in capitalism is a matter of life and death. "Work" in socialism is not. People contribute, they get back; they are not forced to work to avoid starvation, they are simply expected to work.

What happens if enough people don&#39;t live up to your expectation?


That you would say socialism is "not a whole lot different than capitalism" is patently laughable. Please review my post and find where people are given the same prospect in any feasible way (I&#39;ll give you a hint: you won&#39;t because you can&#39;t).

Well here is the rub. If people aren&#39;t required to work in socialism and get sociatal rewards anyway, then there&#39;s no debate. People in capitalism are required to work to live, people in your system wouldn&#39;t be.

But here is the rub: if people aren&#39;t required to work to receive societal rewards, how can you be certain that they will work? You have a big potential problem with freeloaders, don&#39;t you? I know your system relies on a hefty increase in human altruism and a change in mindset that values the group instead of themselves, but those are quite risky propositions. What if your required mindset change does not occur? It&#39;s easy to claim it will, the hard part is figuring out what happens if it doesn&#39;t.

There&#39;s another rub: you said capitalism is slavery because it requires you to work for the benefit of your boss or "master". Socialism, apparently, requires at least some people to work in order to operate, right? In effect, the value created by the work that people do will go to "society" instead of a "boss". This society includes people who are expected to work but who choose not to, it also includes people who work less, people who work less effectively, people who slack off, people who put in the bare minimum, and so on.

I ask again, what is the improvement over the previous system? Before the value of my work went to my boss, who may at least reward me with promotions and raises that raise my standard of living, whereas in your system it appears that regardless of how hard I work, my rewards are essentially the same because the surplus value of any additional or more efficient work gets spread over a much larger amount of people than it would if it were spread over my firm. In other words, if I work real hard and produce 25 extra units this year, the value gets spread over a population of 5,000, 100,000, or 10 million, or so on.

I have, in effect, traded one master for another with an expectation of less reward from my new master.

And less reward it would be, because...


Of course it&#39;s nitpicking. You asked for the number of calories FFS. That is beyond inconsequential and meaningless and you know it.

Previously you made the comment that people&#39;s need for food could be determined...somehow and that this need would be guaranteed and provided to everyone. Caloric intake is pretty much the basic measurement of food intake, so theoretically in your system it seems it would come into account when society, the elite, the technocrats, the vanguard, whoever it is (the question you fail to answer) decides how much food everyone needs and how much everyone gets. If there is another measure, then this is the point at which you explain how food need and distribution would be determined.


Are you really this ignorant? What part of "inconsequential" (or, in your case, "stupid") do you not understand?

You&#39;re right, I do not understand why it&#39;s inconsequential to ask HOW need will be determined when you tell me "everyone only needs so much and that need will be determined and met." You&#39;re going to have to explain that.


The flow of goods, information and work are all natural parts of socialism that are pretty easy to envision once you think about it. Unfortunately, you don&#39;t think about it. When you get down to it, you&#39;re just asking meaningless questions in an effort to avoid the fact that you have no real argument.

If it&#39;s easy to envision once you think about it, how come you cannot put that vision into writing and explain it?

Do you think that upon successful completion of your revolution, once the evil capitalists have surrendered, when it comes time to start dividing up the societal resources, you&#39;re going to be able to proudly proclaim that, "Everyone&#39;s needs shall be met&#33;" and it&#39;s just going to happen?

Do you think that you&#39;re going to have a few months or years to sort that out once you are in power? People need food every day, you understand. They need clothes every day. Your revolution will wipe out the existing order, wipe the slate clean. So how do you implement your new system?

Have you put any thought into those questions beyond "the people will decide to meet their needs&#33;"?


How are people going to eat? YOU&#39;RE NOT ASKING THAT. You&#39;re asking how many calories a person needs and what the blueprints for houses will be, which is blatantly ridiculous and completely irrelevant. To answer the question you didn&#39;t ask: Food is grown and produced, it is processed, it is distributed, people prepare it in a variety of ways, it is consumed. It&#39;s really not that hard.

No. ZX3 said it perfectly: I am not asking for blueprints nor how the food is cooked, I am asking how the distribution of food and houses is decided.

You have no answers to that quite basic and important question because you appear to have put no thought into it.



No, it&#39;s meaningless. Do you really think the exact number of CALORIES someone needs is relevant?

Well, you have provided no other basis on which to determine how people&#39;s food needs will be determined, so I figured I&#39;d do some of the heavy lifting for you.

You do understand that people need a certain number of calories per day on average to survive right? I would think this elementary fact would be of concern as you determine how to decide and meet people&#39;s food needs.


How about the concern that people don&#39;t want nutrition? Those are all concerns that have no basis in reality, and so I have no reason to seriously address them.

Really. It is your honest belief that everyone on planet earth will primarily consider the nutritional value of the food they consume, even though they do not do so now?

I understand that this is college or even graduate-level economic and logistical stuff and that, based on the average age of the members here you&#39;re about 6 years away from such study. I hope you will at some point begin to understand that it&#39;s best for all of us if people who&#39;ve put thought into these questions determine our destiny instead of angry teenagers who think they can save the world.


It seems you can&#39;t go beyond your refusal to use common sense. Ask me a reasonable question and I&#39;ll answer it.

Start with the 10 or 15 I&#39;ve asked in this thread.

HOW will food need be determined?
HOW will those needs be met, specifically?
HOW will food production be planned to meet those needs?
WHAT about people who don&#39;t want to eat nutritiously?
HOW do plan to distribute foods across regional boundaries (i.e. importing pineapples from Hawaii or exporting grain from Kansas to Africa)?
WHO decides the flow of goods (i.e. what is to be stored locally and what is to be exported)?
HOW do you determine what people&#39;s shelter needs are?
WHO decides what those needs are?
WHAT happens to those who disagree?
HOW are those needs met?
HOW is the flow of goods to produce housing determined?
HOW is the environment taken into account?


Here&#39;s what I ask you to do, either:

A>Take some time and put some thought into it and answer these questions with specifics when you are ready.

or

B>Just admit that you don&#39;t want to or cannot put any thought into it, and just respond simply that you choose "SLOGANEERING" instead so we can both stop wasting our time.

Please understand that in my 2 years here, I have never had a communist choose A.

[Tungsten]

manic expression

Socialism is an alternative. It&#39;s worked before and it&#39;ll work again.
Where?

Putting a gun to someone&#39;s head is the same as giving someone the prospect of working for them or dying. It is either work for the wages the boss sets, or starve. How is that fundamentally different from putting a gun to someone&#39;s head? It really isn&#39;t, the "choice" people talk about is false.
And your talk of an alternative is false. Will we have to work for a living in this society of yours? I guess not, otherwise it&#39;d be no different from the "old" system- with the single manager substituted for a coulple of million managers. You&#39;d still have to go to work, show up on time and produce the same quality products just the same.

According to your logic, walking by while someone is drowning isn&#39;t a bad thing, since it&#39;s not "aggressive". :rolleyes:
If it is, then right now you&#39;re doing a bad thing; you&#39;re wasting time writing this while you could be purchasing a one-way plane ticket to help starving Africans. How is that any different from walking by while someone drowns?


The fact is that capitalism gives the worker a "choice" between starvation or working for someone else&#39;s gain; that is no different from the "choice" between getting your head blown off or cleaning someone&#39;s room.
Your hypocracy is astounding:

In socialism, people would be expected to work.
Expected as in forced? Cut out the weasel words, man.

The question of people who outright refuse to work (who have been historically proven to be the formerly rich) is something that the community would have to answer. Expectations should be enough, but if more persuasion is necessary, so be it.
i.e. you&#39;re forced to work by the community for the community&#39;s benefit (which may not necessarily be to your private benefit) or be punished. Thank heavens this socialism is nothing like capitalism, eh?

but I guess when you have no real position, semantics has to replace reason
Whatever, Mr. "Forced to work".

People would have a roof over their head. I don&#39;t have any blueprints for you, but the fact is that everyone would have decent housing. It&#39;s not that hard to envision, except for you idiots who keep blindly asking questions even though they&#39;re completely insignificant and even though you could probably figure out the answer yourself if you thought about it.
How this is all going to be provided, paid for and guaranteed is also difficult to envision.

You made a good effort at ignoring my point. "Work" in capitalism is a matter of life and death. "Work" in socialism is not.
Well, if no one worked, you&#39;d all die, so it is.

People contribute, they get back;
And if they don&#39;t contribute...?

The flow of goods, information and work are all natural parts of socialism that are pretty easy to envision once you think about it. Unfortunately, you don&#39;t think about it. When you get down to it, you&#39;re just asking meaningless questions in an effort to avoid the fact that you have no real argument.
They&#39;re not and if they were, they&#39;d be easy to explain. You don&#39;t know, nor do you have any real plan (beyond revolution), but you&#39;re in good company because neither do most of the other communists here.
Muigwithana

coercive labor will be altogether pointless, heralding a socialistic era, a renaissance in the human social soul.
But as I&#39;ve demonstrated with Mr Expression, there won&#39;t be an end to labour that&#39;s (by your definition) coercive. You&#39;ll still have to work, or be punished.

And what under the sun is a "human social soul"?

A time where human individuality will trump coercive conformity is truly unavoidable, the lack of it unthinkable in any rational mind.
That leaves you short of options.

North Korea calls itself democratic. FOX News declared itself "fair and balanced."
You call yourself rational.

But who, pray tell, do the wage workers work for?
I wouldn&#39;t have thought there was any essential difference between working for a group and working for a single person.

Actually, in a communist society, everybody would have power over things, not people. That&#39;s capitalism&#39;s fundemental problem (not evil, t_wolves_fan, but I&#39;ll get to you latter): Innequality. As long as someone has power over someone over someone else, they are dangerous.
If someone else has power over the things I own, they have power over me (therefore power over people). If someone has the power to dip into my bank account at will for whatever reason, they have power over me (therefore power over other people).

Capitalism causes racism. Here are some facts.
I don&#39;t see these facts anywhere- I just saw you reel of a list of countries without any explanation to accompany them. The fact that you don&#39;t explain suggests that you&#39;re full of it.

In most capitalist societies, there is a great deal of coercion. Not neccesarily violent coercion, per se, but definitely coercion.
What other kind of coercion is there, then?

Tribal societies are a great example. The Paris Commune is the most recent one that I can name. I can&#39;t think of any others. The reason we haven&#39;t had many, and the reason they are so short-lived, is because people have a rational fear that they will be grounded into the dust if they oppose a capitalist millitary or paramillitary.
I don&#39;t believe for one second that&#39;s the reason. Especially not if the militaristic hubris demonstrated on this board is anything to go by.

Why should they?
Because they produced more?

Hypothsis: human civilization would become more and more class stratified. Experiment: the evolution of the time since Marx. The United States is the sole superpower (if not hyperpower) in the world.
This is nonsense. Historic materialism doesn&#39;t produce inevitable outcomes nor does history evolve inevitably towards socialism. Was the allied victory in WW2 historically inevitable? Would you have considered an Axis victory in WW2 to be part of a natural progression towards communism? Was the avoidance of a nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR a result of historic materialism?

Observation: the world is becoming more and more class stratified. By what means are we measuring this? Class seems to matter less socially than it did a hundred years ago, not more.

[Question everything]

to: any bible bashing moron who thinks capitalism is that only system that makes sense...


Because it works, unlike anything advocated by the anti-capitalists here.
yea the fact that every american spends 0ver 1300&#036; U.S. of there taxes on corperate kick backs, the fact that 12% of america is under the poverty line, 2% of the american people hold 50% of the wealth. and african-american children born in the US have a higher infant mortality rating then most 3rd world nations, while capitalists are layoff thosands of workers a year (In the US the biggest employer of people is a Temp agency&#33;&#33;&#33;) and is burning a whole in the ozone layer with they&#39;re SUVs&#33;&#33;&#33; I think we should all just turn off our computers and run in the street begging our corperate superiors for forgiveness&#33;

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:54 am

Food is grown and produced

By who? Growing and producing food isn&#39;t the type of thing I&#39;d want to spend my day doing.


it is processed

By who? Processing food isn&#39;t the type of thing I&#39;d want to spend my day doing.


it is distributed

By who? Boxing, shipping, and making food available to everyone isn&#39;t the type of thing I&#39;d want to spend my day doing.
Farmers would grow food, and workers would process the food.

YOU may not want to grow food, but you don&#39;t have to. In reality, many people DO want to work on farms (many are denied this opportunity as farmers are being forced out of business in increasing numbers).

Again, YOU may not want to box food, but many people would have no problem with it.

Lastly, the fact is that work would be far less strenuous than under capitalism. People work for reasons other than greed and starvation, and one must only look at Kerala, Cuba, Paris in 1871, Russia in 1917 and beyond, Spain&#39;s collectives and more to see how this plays out quite effectively.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by ZX3+January 26, 2007 01:43 pm--> (ZX3 @ January 26, 2007 01:43 pm)
manic [email protected] 25, 2007 04:30 pm
[1.) Exploiting labor ("managing", as you call it) deprives the people who actually produce things. Bosses produce nothing of value, workers do.

You may say that the management itself is a valuable commodity, but the nature in which the labor is managed is that the fruits of labor find their way squarely into the pockets of the bosses. Therefore, it is exploitation, and therefore, it is detrimental.

2.) As I&#39;ve said, capitalism is the science of deprivation. It may be "work" (in your eyes), but that work only exploits and deprives, and so there is no place is society for that "work".

3.) Management itself is not a bad thing, but the exploitation that is inherent in capitalism IS. There can be managers in socialism (see the thread on Cuba in learning, I&#39;ve argued this point before), but they should be responsive to the workers and they should not exploit the workers.

"Management" is one thing; "exploitation" is another.
This is the kind of stuff the restricted folks ask- a little bit of explanation rather than vague generalities. S, with that in mind:

1. management- you are saying that there will need to be management in socilaism. That would seem to be a no brainer. You say management needs to be "respnsive" to the workers.

Expand. [/b]
I answered your question in depth, don&#39;t give me some lecture on "vagueness". Bear in mind that you responded to but ONE of my points.

Furthermore, it seems that the "restricted folks" babble about the price of tea in China instead of making an actual argument.

1.) I am saying that there can (and IMO, should) be management in socialism. The management MUST be responsive to the workers, and the workers MUST have the final say on issues. It is not a necessity to have managers, but I think it is beneficial. IMO, having people oversee society is a good thing.

The most important part of this is that these socialist managers WOULD NOT exploit the workers whatsoever. They would not recieve more, they would not have better living conditions, they would not benefit directly from the work of the workers; they would benefit with the workers, as they are the workers. Their relationship to the means of production cannot be any different than the people who are producing.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by ZX3+January 26, 2007 01:51 pm--> (ZX3 @ January 26, 2007 01:51 pm)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 25, 2007 04:58 pm

[email protected] 25, 2007 09:38 pm

In socialism, people would be expected to work. However, the degree to which they would work would be completely different. Go to your job, put in 4-5 hours, go home and do something else. No working 10 hours for a boss who pays you next to nothing. The question of people who outright refuse to work (who have been historically proven to be the formerly rich) is something that the community would have to answer. Expectations should be enough, but if more persuasion is necessary, so be it. This, it should be noted, does not mean they will be expected to work an exhausting amount at all.

:D :D :D

You made a good effort at tapdancing around that answer Senator, but it&#39;s pretty transparent: you&#39;d have to work for your food or you&#39;d die not a whole lot different than in capitalism.


Nitpicking isn&#39;t an argument.

Nitpicking? Asking specifically how you plan to distribute food, clothing, housing, consumer products, capital investments, and work among the citizens of a town, a region, a continent and the world in order to meet your claims of "society will decide how you get what you need" is nitpicking?

:D :D :D

Are you really this naive? Do you think that organizing the flow of goods, information, and work is simple enough that a bunch of teenage stoners like you and the rest of the knobs on this site can simply whip it up in a few hours so that it will work effectively for thousans, millions and billions of people in a sustainable fashion?


At any rate, people can only eat so much. In the case of food, someone&#39;s needs includes a balanced diet and sufficient amounts of nutrition. I don&#39;t know why you keep on ignoring the issue in favor of these meaningless "well, what if I want 2,501 calories&#33;" arguments, but I guess when you have no real position, semantics has to replace reason.

You didn&#39;t answer my question. "People can only eat so much and they need a balanced diet" does not cut it. You&#39;re the one advocating a new global political economic system, you may want to have answers when people ask, "how am I going to EAT?"

What if people don&#39;t want to eat a balanced diet with sufficient nutrition? Have you ever considered that people have wants that often conflict with your definition of their needs? Can you see beyond your slogans for six seconds to understand why you might run into difficulties if you don&#39;t figure out how to meet people&#39;s wants?

I know it&#39;s very hard and it&#39;s very invconenient. The answers don&#39;t fit on a sign you can whip up for the next protest march. But give it a shot. Actually stop and consider that production and distribution of goods and services is not only going to have to match what you think people need but what people want for it to work, because you need to understand that lo and behold, people have a funny way of deciding for themselves what they want and when their new teenage stoner rulers can&#39;t provide it, they&#39;re going to get a little upset.

Give it a shot, ace. Do some critical thinking instead of sloganeering, for once.

Start with food first and then maybe work your way up to clothing, housing, consumer goods, services, and how work will be distributed.

Please go beyond, "The robots will do it", if you can.

:D :D :D
You made a good effort at ignoring my point. "Work" in capitalism is a matter of life and death. "Work" in socialism is not. People contribute, they get back; they are not forced to work to avoid starvation, they are simply expected to work. That you would say socialism is "not a whole lot different than capitalism" is patently laughable. Please review my post and find where people are given the same prospect in any feasible way (I&#39;ll give you a hint: you won&#39;t because you can&#39;t).

Of course it&#39;s nitpicking. You asked for the number of calories FFS. That is beyond inconsequential and meaningless and you know it.

Are you really this ignorant? What part of "inconsequential" (or, in your case, "stupid") do you not understand? The flow of goods, information and work are all natural parts of socialism that are pretty easy to envision once you think about it. Unfortunately, you don&#39;t think about it. When you get down to it, you&#39;re just asking meaningless questions in an effort to avoid the fact that you have no real argument.

It cuts it fine. Your refusal to accept a reasonable answer is simply evidence of your lack of comprehension.

How are people going to eat? YOU&#39;RE NOT ASKING THAT. You&#39;re asking how many calories a person needs and what the blueprints for houses will be, which is blatantly ridiculous and completely irrelevant. To answer the question you didn&#39;t ask: Food is grown and produced, it is processed, it is distributed, people prepare it in a variety of ways, it is consumed. It&#39;s really not that hard.

Just in case you were about to ask (and you probably were), I already addressed the issue of how the people who produce food would be compensated on this very thread. Humor me and try to understand it.

Yes, because the masses are clamouring for less nutrition :lol: Your points are reaching new lows. People can still eat twinkies and candy, but their needs come first, and that includes nutrition.

No, it&#39;s meaningless. Do you really think the exact number of CALORIES someone needs is relevant? How about the concern that people don&#39;t want nutrition? Those are all concerns that have no basis in reality, and so I have no reason to seriously address them.

Please, try critical thinking, by all means. In case you couldn&#39;t figure it out, that doesn&#39;t include counting calories.

It seems you can&#39;t go beyond your refusal to use common sense. Ask me a reasonable question and I&#39;ll answer it.

I&#39;ve already addressed food production, but you, once again, like I expected, ignored it. Not surprisingly, this isn&#39;t different from the rest of your arguments.
Nobody is asking for blueprints as to what a house will look like.

What is being asked is how the society will determine that it needs to allocate its resources in building a house, as opposed to building a school, a supermarket, a road, a factory or just to leave that land empty. I do not mean that a some elected council will make the decsision. i am asking what sort of information is used in making that determination. And I don;t mean listen to the people. I mean what sort of information will rely upon in making these types of decisions. [/b]
Go back and read what twolvesfan asked me about, and he basically asked what houses will look like, which is about as irrelevant as you can get (besides calories, of course).

So yes, people are, in fact, asking such superfluous questions.

How will a society build a house? If there is a need for a house (being determined by an analysis of society, as well as the input of people who would need improved shelter), workers will be directed to build a house. The house will meet qualifications put forth by the community, to ensure safety. The people who need the house will then live in the house after its completion. The workers will be provided food, shelter, clothes and other necessities, as well as the necessary materials to build the house.

To determine whether a house is more important than a school, road or other project, people will need to assess what should come first, and the community will need to collectively decide which should be addressed. If the community determines that a road would be better at that point in time, a road will be built roughly through the way I described above. The people who would need the house would be given already existing shelter for the time being.

Perhaps that is what you were asking, which I must say is far more valid an objection than the amount of calories people should consume (twolvesfan&#39;s foremost objection to collective ownership).

[manic expression]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 26, 2007 02:37 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 26, 2007 02:37 pm) Your aversion and deflection skills are well-developed, young grasshopper, among the best I&#39;ve seen.


manic [email protected] 25, 2007 09:58 pm
You made a good effort at ignoring my point. "Work" in capitalism is a matter of life and death. "Work" in socialism is not. People contribute, they get back; they are not forced to work to avoid starvation, they are simply expected to work.

What happens if enough people don&#39;t live up to your expectation?


That you would say socialism is "not a whole lot different than capitalism" is patently laughable. Please review my post and find where people are given the same prospect in any feasible way (I&#39;ll give you a hint: you won&#39;t because you can&#39;t).

Well here is the rub. If people aren&#39;t required to work in socialism and get sociatal rewards anyway, then there&#39;s no debate. People in capitalism are required to work to live, people in your system wouldn&#39;t be.

But here is the rub: if people aren&#39;t required to work to receive societal rewards, how can you be certain that they will work? You have a big potential problem with freeloaders, don&#39;t you? I know your system relies on a hefty increase in human altruism and a change in mindset that values the group instead of themselves, but those are quite risky propositions. What if your required mindset change does not occur? It&#39;s easy to claim it will, the hard part is figuring out what happens if it doesn&#39;t.

There&#39;s another rub: you said capitalism is slavery because it requires you to work for the benefit of your boss or "master". Socialism, apparently, requires at least some people to work in order to operate, right? In effect, the value created by the work that people do will go to "society" instead of a "boss". This society includes people who are expected to work but who choose not to, it also includes people who work less, people who work less effectively, people who slack off, people who put in the bare minimum, and so on.

I ask again, what is the improvement over the previous system? Before the value of my work went to my boss, who may at least reward me with promotions and raises that raise my standard of living, whereas in your system it appears that regardless of how hard I work, my rewards are essentially the same because the surplus value of any additional or more efficient work gets spread over a much larger amount of people than it would if it were spread over my firm. In other words, if I work real hard and produce 25 extra units this year, the value gets spread over a population of 5,000, 100,000, or 10 million, or so on.

I have, in effect, traded one master for another with an expectation of less reward from my new master.

And less reward it would be, because...


Of course it&#39;s nitpicking. You asked for the number of calories FFS. That is beyond inconsequential and meaningless and you know it.

Previously you made the comment that people&#39;s need for food could be determined...somehow and that this need would be guaranteed and provided to everyone. Caloric intake is pretty much the basic measurement of food intake, so theoretically in your system it seems it would come into account when society, the elite, the technocrats, the vanguard, whoever it is (the question you fail to answer) decides how much food everyone needs and how much everyone gets. If there is another measure, then this is the point at which you explain how food need and distribution would be determined.


Are you really this ignorant? What part of "inconsequential" (or, in your case, "stupid") do you not understand?

You&#39;re right, I do not understand why it&#39;s inconsequential to ask HOW need will be determined when you tell me "everyone only needs so much and that need will be determined and met." You&#39;re going to have to explain that.


The flow of goods, information and work are all natural parts of socialism that are pretty easy to envision once you think about it. Unfortunately, you don&#39;t think about it. When you get down to it, you&#39;re just asking meaningless questions in an effort to avoid the fact that you have no real argument.

If it&#39;s easy to envision once you think about it, how come you cannot put that vision into writing and explain it?

Do you think that upon successful completion of your revolution, once the evil capitalists have surrendered, when it comes time to start dividing up the societal resources, you&#39;re going to be able to proudly proclaim that, "Everyone&#39;s needs shall be met&#33;" and it&#39;s just going to happen?

Do you think that you&#39;re going to have a few months or years to sort that out once you are in power? People need food every day, you understand. They need clothes every day. Your revolution will wipe out the existing order, wipe the slate clean. So how do you implement your new system?

Have you put any thought into those questions beyond "the people will decide to meet their needs&#33;"?


How are people going to eat? YOU&#39;RE NOT ASKING THAT. You&#39;re asking how many calories a person needs and what the blueprints for houses will be, which is blatantly ridiculous and completely irrelevant. To answer the question you didn&#39;t ask: Food is grown and produced, it is processed, it is distributed, people prepare it in a variety of ways, it is consumed. It&#39;s really not that hard.

No. ZX3 said it perfectly: I am not asking for blueprints nor how the food is cooked, I am asking how the distribution of food and houses is decided.

You have no answers to that quite basic and important question because you appear to have put no thought into it.



No, it&#39;s meaningless. Do you really think the exact number of CALORIES someone needs is relevant?

Well, you have provided no other basis on which to determine how people&#39;s food needs will be determined, so I figured I&#39;d do some of the heavy lifting for you.

You do understand that people need a certain number of calories per day on average to survive right? I would think this elementary fact would be of concern as you determine how to decide and meet people&#39;s food needs.


How about the concern that people don&#39;t want nutrition? Those are all concerns that have no basis in reality, and so I have no reason to seriously address them.

Really. It is your honest belief that everyone on planet earth will primarily consider the nutritional value of the food they consume, even though they do not do so now?

I understand that this is college or even graduate-level economic and logistical stuff and that, based on the average age of the members here you&#39;re about 6 years away from such study. I hope you will at some point begin to understand that it&#39;s best for all of us if people who&#39;ve put thought into these questions determine our destiny instead of angry teenagers who think they can save the world.


It seems you can&#39;t go beyond your refusal to use common sense. Ask me a reasonable question and I&#39;ll answer it.

Start with the 10 or 15 I&#39;ve asked in this thread.

HOW will food need be determined?
HOW will those needs be met, specifically?
HOW will food production be planned to meet those needs?
WHAT about people who don&#39;t want to eat nutritiously?
HOW do plan to distribute foods across regional boundaries (i.e. importing pineapples from Hawaii or exporting grain from Kansas to Africa)?
WHO decides the flow of goods (i.e. what is to be stored locally and what is to be exported)?
HOW do you determine what people&#39;s shelter needs are?
WHO decides what those needs are?
WHAT happens to those who disagree?
HOW are those needs met?
HOW is the flow of goods to produce housing determined?
HOW is the environment taken into account?


Here&#39;s what I ask you to do, either:

A>Take some time and put some thought into it and answer these questions with specifics when you are ready.

or

B>Just admit that you don&#39;t want to or cannot put any thought into it, and just respond simply that you choose "SLOGANEERING" instead so we can both stop wasting our time.

Please understand that in my 2 years here, I have never had a communist choose A. [/b]
Your ignorance and insistence on stupidity is quite strong, I can smell it from here.

When one looks at history, it is the formerly rich who mostly refuse to work, and most of them get out of the country pretty quickly. Therefore, this problem will be insignificant. However, if someone refuses to work, there are many things that could be done. If they would rather work in another field, they can be given training and a new job in a preferred position. If they would rather do something that requires no training, they will have the opportunity to do that job. If they are presently unable to work, that is no problem, and society will make sure their needs are met.

People would be expected to work, and they would have a vested interest in the wellbeing of the community. As soon as you put society in the people&#39;s hands, they will ensure that they contribute to society. This is a proven fact that is easily observable in history. History is, after all, quite the rub for capitalists.

Greed and starvation aren&#39;t the only reasons people work. Cuba, Kerala, Paris, Spain, Russia and other socieities have proven this in spades. They work because it helps the community, and the community helps them.

Socialism allows people to work for themselves, not for their bosses. That is the primary difference. We don&#39;t need people to put in 10 hour work days, only bourgeois bosses demand such an effort; the bare minimum is enough if it is shared by all (and history would suggest that socialism can and will increase production).

I&#39;ve continually pointed out the improvement over the current system. Please review what I wrote, please understand my points. If you work really hard and produce 25 extra units, you may be able to take a few extra weeks off the next year. If you don&#39;t, that&#39;s fine, society will function and people will benefit anyway.

You have, in effect, traded a master for yourself and your peers. Monarchy:Democracy as Capitalism:Socialism.

People&#39;s need for food isn&#39;t a variable, it&#39;s a constant, and anyone with half a brain can tell you that arguing that necessity is subjective is both irrelevant and idiotic. Caloric intake is insignificant and you know it.

However, people can determine what people need both by analyzing society and what is going where (ie if one town has too many apples and not enough potatos, then potatos will be sent there, while apples are sent elsewhere), and by the voice of the people (ie if someone needs more potatos, they can go to the government and tell them, and so they will get more potatos). It&#39;s really not that hard.

I&#39;m not going to have to explain caloric intake, no matter how much you throw a temper tantrum.

I&#39;m sorry, I actually thought you could think clearly and reasonably. I should know by now that you&#39;re incapable of rational thought.

If someone needs food, and there is collective ownership, there is no boundary between them and food. Furthermore, if someone needs a certain thing, this will be recognized and addressed by different bodies, be it a workers&#39; council or a local administrator. This can be ascertained by their expression of their need or the flow of goods from one place to another.

I just explained how things are decided upon, and I&#39;ve just explained the practical implementation of such a system.

I don&#39;t know why I didn&#39;t think of this before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

I thought you actually knew the first thing about the subject at hand. Once again, I was mistaken in my overestimation of your capabilities.

And to answer your final comment, I&#39;ve chosen A quite a few times already. I suspect the reason you don&#39;t get too many A&#39;s is because reasonable people don&#39;t feel like explaining the obvious to fools.

Have fun trying to dance around my answers even more. Maybe next time you can ask me how toenails are going to be disposed of, or how people won&#39;t fly into space from a lack of gravity.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 03:56 pm
manic expression

Socialism is an alternative. It&#39;s worked before and it&#39;ll work again.
Where?

Putting a gun to someone&#39;s head is the same as giving someone the prospect of working for them or dying. It is either work for the wages the boss sets, or starve. How is that fundamentally different from putting a gun to someone&#39;s head? It really isn&#39;t, the "choice" people talk about is false.
And your talk of an alternative is false. Will we have to work for a living in this society of yours? I guess not, otherwise it&#39;d be no different from the "old" system- with the single manager substituted for a coulple of million managers. You&#39;d still have to go to work, show up on time and produce the same quality products just the same.

According to your logic, walking by while someone is drowning isn&#39;t a bad thing, since it&#39;s not "aggressive". :rolleyes:
If it is, then right now you&#39;re doing a bad thing; you&#39;re wasting time writing this while you could be purchasing a one-way plane ticket to help starving Africans. How is that any different from walking by while someone drowns?


The fact is that capitalism gives the worker a "choice" between starvation or working for someone else&#39;s gain; that is no different from the "choice" between getting your head blown off or cleaning someone&#39;s room.
Your hypocracy is astounding:

In socialism, people would be expected to work.
Expected as in forced? Cut out the weasel words, man.

The question of people who outright refuse to work (who have been historically proven to be the formerly rich) is something that the community would have to answer. Expectations should be enough, but if more persuasion is necessary, so be it.
i.e. you&#39;re forced to work by the community for the community&#39;s benefit (which may not necessarily be to your private benefit) or be punished. Thank heavens this socialism is nothing like capitalism, eh?

but I guess when you have no real position, semantics has to replace reason
Whatever, Mr. "Forced to work".

People would have a roof over their head. I don&#39;t have any blueprints for you, but the fact is that everyone would have decent housing. It&#39;s not that hard to envision, except for you idiots who keep blindly asking questions even though they&#39;re completely insignificant and even though you could probably figure out the answer yourself if you thought about it.
How this is all going to be provided, paid for and guaranteed is also difficult to envision.

You made a good effort at ignoring my point. "Work" in capitalism is a matter of life and death. "Work" in socialism is not.
Well, if no one worked, you&#39;d all die, so it is.

People contribute, they get back;
And if they don&#39;t contribute...?

The flow of goods, information and work are all natural parts of socialism that are pretty easy to envision once you think about it. Unfortunately, you don&#39;t think about it. When you get down to it, you&#39;re just asking meaningless questions in an effort to avoid the fact that you have no real argument.
They&#39;re not and if they were, they&#39;d be easy to explain. You don&#39;t know, nor do you have any real plan (beyond revolution), but you&#39;re in good company because neither do most of the other communists here.
Muigwithana

coercive labor will be altogether pointless, heralding a socialistic era, a renaissance in the human social soul.
But as I&#39;ve demonstrated with Mr Expression, there won&#39;t be an end to labour that&#39;s (by your definition) coercive. You&#39;ll still have to work, or be punished.

And what under the sun is a "human social soul"?

A time where human individuality will trump coercive conformity is truly unavoidable, the lack of it unthinkable in any rational mind.
That leaves you short of options.

North Korea calls itself democratic. FOX News declared itself "fair and balanced."
You call yourself rational.

But who, pray tell, do the wage workers work for?
I wouldn&#39;t have thought there was any essential difference between working for a group and working for a single person.

Actually, in a communist society, everybody would have power over things, not people. That&#39;s capitalism&#39;s fundemental problem (not evil, t_wolves_fan, but I&#39;ll get to you latter): Innequality. As long as someone has power over someone over someone else, they are dangerous.
If someone else has power over the things I own, they have power over me (therefore power over people). If someone has the power to dip into my bank account at will for whatever reason, they have power over me (therefore power over other people).

Capitalism causes racism. Here are some facts.
I don&#39;t see these facts anywhere- I just saw you reel of a list of countries without any explanation to accompany them. The fact that you don&#39;t explain suggests that you&#39;re full of it.

In most capitalist societies, there is a great deal of coercion. Not neccesarily violent coercion, per se, but definitely coercion.
What other kind of coercion is there, then?

Tribal societies are a great example. The Paris Commune is the most recent one that I can name. I can&#39;t think of any others. The reason we haven&#39;t had many, and the reason they are so short-lived, is because people have a rational fear that they will be grounded into the dust if they oppose a capitalist millitary or paramillitary.
I don&#39;t believe for one second that&#39;s the reason. Especially not if the militaristic hubris demonstrated on this board is anything to go by.

Why should they?
Because they produced more?

Hypothsis: human civilization would become more and more class stratified. Experiment: the evolution of the time since Marx. The United States is the sole superpower (if not hyperpower) in the world.
This is nonsense. Historic materialism doesn&#39;t produce inevitable outcomes nor does history evolve inevitably towards socialism. Was the allied victory in WW2 historically inevitable? Would you have considered an Axis victory in WW2 to be part of a natural progression towards communism? Was the avoidance of a nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR a result of historic materialism?

Observation: the world is becoming more and more class stratified. By what means are we measuring this? Class seems to matter less socially than it did a hundred years ago, not more.
Paris, 1871; Russia, 1917-1928; Cuba, 1960&#39;s-present; Nicaragua, rule of Sandinistas; Kerala, 1950&#39;s-present; Spain, before 1936-end of Spanish Civil War; Guatemala, 1950&#39;s; Chile, Allende; Chiapas, 1994-present; etc....

No one works for their life in socialism, they work for the community, they work for themselves and their peers. You would simply have to do your job, there wouldn&#39;t be the same working hours at all, there wouldn&#39;t be any bosses. And the community would control resources, not one manager.

Yes, it is different. Am I walking by Africans? No, I&#39;m thousands of miles away. Do I donate to charity? Yes, I do, and although I could do more, this is a problem of systems, not of manic expression not giving enough charity. That is a stupid comparison and you know it.

Expected, not given a choice between death and exploitation. No one would be exploited in their work, no one would be mortally forced to work. In fact, history shows that it is mostly the formerly rich who refuse to work, not the workers.

ie if they want another job, they can do another job; they can be trained to do a job that they want to do. If they refuse to work because they do not want to help the community in any way, then they can be asked to leave. However, it is a proven fact that ONLY the formerly-rich do such a thing.

People would have houses built for them when they need improved shelter. Shelter can be built by workers when there is the need for it. The need will be determined by analyzing society and/or the request for the thing that is needed.

If no one worked, nothing would be produced. You didn&#39;t refute my point at all.

I&#39;ve already addressed the problem of people not contributing.

Read up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy

You know, if you actually tried to think about it, posting an easily found source wouldn&#39;t be necessary. I guess reality is something people like yourself don&#39;t want to look at.

[Ol' Dirty]

t wolves fan:

I never said that the listed examples was curbing my free speech. What I was trying to say was that they are brainwashing people, not coercing them, at least not with media. The media is an added step to authoritarianism; both coercing people into doing or not doing things and teling them what they should and shouldn&#39;t do (and sending subliminal messages) are great ways to get people to do what you want.

You simply refused to listen.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:39 pm
t wolves fan:

I never said that the listed examples was curbing my free speech.
:huh:

You&#39;re changing your tune.

Go back and look at the flow of the conversation:

ShakeZula: If you lift up the visor on your tinfoil hat, you might notice that although they (the Mainstream Media) provide a sanitised, overly-moderate news service, they don&#39;t actually do anything to prevent your freedom of speech.

You: You are a fool.

Me: I realize this request is "nitpicking", but I&#39;d like to know specifically how the mainstream media threatens your right to free speech.

You: Do I really have to say it?

Me: Yes, I am afraid you have to come up with something that supports your proclamation.

You: I never said that the listed examples was curbing my free speech. I was really talking about blah blah blah blah.


If you were really talking about blah blah blah, you would not have called ShakeZula a fool for saying the Mainstream Media does not limit your freedom of speech.

You would have told me the first time I asked you how the mainstream media limits your freedom of speech that you were talking about blah blah blah. Instead you hoped a throw-away diversion like "do I really have to say it?" would suffice.

It didn&#39;t. I asked for evidence for your proclamation, you don&#39;t have any, and now you&#39;re claiming you were talking about something else, making you look like a fool.

All you can really do is learn from this: avoid making proclamations for which you have no evidence nor even any logical argument.

Alas, I remain skeptical.

<_<

[Ol' Dirty]

You win. I loose. Game over. You won this argument. I made a lapse in judgement and I apologize.

Do you mind if I try out a new argument?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:08 am
You win. I loose. Game over. You won this argument. I made a lapse in judgement and I apologize.

Do you mind if I try out a new argument?
Go for it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by manic expression+January 26, 2007 06:13 pm--> (manic expression @ January 26, 2007 06:13 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 02:37 pm


Start with the 10 or 15 I&#39;ve asked in this thread.

HOW will food need be determined?
HOW will those needs be met, specifically?
HOW will food production be planned to meet those needs?
WHAT about people who don&#39;t want to eat nutritiously?
HOW do plan to distribute foods across regional boundaries (i.e. importing pineapples from Hawaii or exporting grain from Kansas to Africa)?
WHO decides the flow of goods (i.e. what is to be stored locally and what is to be exported)?
HOW do you determine what people&#39;s shelter needs are?
WHO decides what those needs are?
WHAT happens to those who disagree?
HOW are those needs met?
HOW is the flow of goods to produce housing determined?
HOW is the environment taken into account?


Here&#39;s what I ask you to do, either:

A>Take some time and put some thought into it and answer these questions with specifics when you are ready.

or

B>Just admit that you don&#39;t want to or cannot put any thought into it, and just respond simply that you choose "SLOGANEERING" instead so we can both stop wasting our time.

Please understand that in my 2 years here, I have never had a communist choose A.
Your ignorance and insistence on stupidity is quite strong, I can smell it from here.

[/b]
You chose "B".

Your post is full of contradictions and the usual slogans without any specific details. Oranges will be shipped if needed, so will potatoes.

Because it&#39;s just that easy.

Let&#39;s stop wasting time searching for the details you can&#39;t provide and go back to another question you missed: at age 17 or 18, do you really think you have a good grasp of just how complex the international economy really is, with flows of goods, services, knowledge, and people and, to follow up, do you really believe that this would all just "work out" as you plan because people will follow your lead?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 26, 2007 12:50 pm
Go back and read what twolvesfan asked me about, and he basically asked what houses will look like, which is about as irrelevant as you can get (besides calories, of course).

So yes, people are, in fact, asking such superfluous questions.

How will a society build a house? If there is a need for a house (being determined by an analysis of society, as well as the input of people who would need improved shelter), workers will be directed to build a house. The house will meet qualifications put forth by the community, to ensure safety. The people who need the house will then live in the house after its completion. The workers will be provided food, shelter, clothes and other necessities, as well as the necessary materials to build the house.

To determine whether a house is more important than a school, road or other project, people will need to assess what should come first, and the community will need to collectively decide which should be addressed. If the community determines that a road would be better at that point in time, a road will be built roughly through the way I described above. The people who would need the house would be given already existing shelter for the time being.

Perhaps that is what you were asking, which I must say is far more valid an objection than the amount of calories people should consume (twolvesfan&#39;s foremost objection to collective ownership).

Presumably, in a socialist community, it is desirable to have an informed population. I have seen nothing, nor read anything which would lead me to believe that socilaists would quarrel with such a statement. So when this informed population meets (in whatever fashion it so decides) to make decisions, it is to be assumed that the decision will be an informed decision, based upon knowledge and experience. Perhaps not everyone will agree with the decsion of the majority, but the decision will not be made arbitrarily or recklessly (the socialist hopes), but based upon firm informed knowledge.

What is that knowledge? What knowledge does the community rely upon when making its analysis? How does the community decide between building a road according to Plan A, and building a road according to Plan B?

That is what is being asked. You have been describing the process of how decsions are to be made. That is not what is being asked.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 26, 2007 12:44 pm
I answered your question in depth, don&#39;t give me some lecture on "vagueness". Bear in mind that you responded to but ONE of my points.

Furthermore, it seems that the "restricted folks" babble about the price of tea in China instead of making an actual argument.

1.) I am saying that there can (and IMO, should) be management in socialism. The management MUST be responsive to the workers, and the workers MUST have the final say on issues. It is not a necessity to have managers, but I think it is beneficial. IMO, having people oversee society is a good thing.

The most important part of this is that these socialist managers WOULD NOT exploit the workers whatsoever. They would not recieve more, they would not have better living conditions, they would not benefit directly from the work of the workers; they would benefit with the workers, as they are the workers. Their relationship to the means of production cannot be any different than the people who are producing.

What is the purpose of production? Is it:

A. To effectively provide the community with its needs and wants?

or

B To provide people with jobs?

All should agree that the answer is "A." Even if there was a program to give people jobs, the objective would be to do something useful and beneficial.

How then, should a successful producer be defined. Is it:

A. A produces who effectively provides the community with its needs and wants?

or

B. A producer full of happy and well motivated workers?

All should agree that "A" is the correct answer. "B" is important, but it matters little if the workers are happy and well motivated and they produce nothing anyone particularly wants.

What does the above have to do with a "manager?"

Well, the conclusion one draws from the above is the producers have to be intersted in the needs and wants of the community, the consumers, above and beyond their own interest. Now, you might say "of course, that is what socialialism is all about." But the structures and arguments made do not support that result.
Because the "final word" cannot be from the workers. It must ALWAYS be the consumers. They are the ones to whom production is geared.

That is the job of the manager. To see to it that production is geared to satisfy the needs of the consumer. It can involve ensuring a sufficent supply of raw materials, trainings to ensure and advance professionalism, ect. In short, the manger&#39;s job is to see to it that the producers are in fact meeting the needs of the consumers. Its not to say that the workers needs are irrelevent, but that their needs must be subordinated, within reason, to the needs of the consumer. The manager has responsibility

But there can be NO responsibility without authority. If a manager cannot train the people he supervises as he sees fit, adjust the workers as he sees fit ect. then he cannot be held responsible for any failures. If the manager is a socialist community is accountable to the workers, then what will happen is that production will be geared to what satisfies ther needs and wants of the workers, and not of the community. You might say I am being cynical. But what it has to do with is me understanding that if there is not anyone who has authority, you are going to have the issue of workers spending their five hours per day not building much of anything, but figuring out what to build, how much to build, where to build it ect. (since after all these same workers will be responding to or asking out "analysis" of society, and thus will be expected to make informed decsions). As an aside, this is usually the basis for critics saying there is no "responsibility" in socialism. The socialist manager cannot do much of anything.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 22, 2007 09:16 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 22, 2007 09:16 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 11:05 pm
for capitalism supporters
Because it works, unlike anything advocated by the anti-capitalists here. [/b]
Define what you mean by "works", please.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 29, 2007 02:07 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 29, 2007 02:07 pm)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 26, 2007 06:13 pm

[email protected] 26, 2007 02:37 pm


Start with the 10 or 15 I&#39;ve asked in this thread.

HOW will food need be determined?
HOW will those needs be met, specifically?
HOW will food production be planned to meet those needs?
WHAT about people who don&#39;t want to eat nutritiously?
HOW do plan to distribute foods across regional boundaries (i.e. importing pineapples from Hawaii or exporting grain from Kansas to Africa)?
WHO decides the flow of goods (i.e. what is to be stored locally and what is to be exported)?
HOW do you determine what people&#39;s shelter needs are?
WHO decides what those needs are?
WHAT happens to those who disagree?
HOW are those needs met?
HOW is the flow of goods to produce housing determined?
HOW is the environment taken into account?


Here&#39;s what I ask you to do, either:

A>Take some time and put some thought into it and answer these questions with specifics when you are ready.

or

B>Just admit that you don&#39;t want to or cannot put any thought into it, and just respond simply that you choose "SLOGANEERING" instead so we can both stop wasting our time.

Please understand that in my 2 years here, I have never had a communist choose A.
Your ignorance and insistence on stupidity is quite strong, I can smell it from here.


You chose "B".

Your post is full of contradictions and the usual slogans without any specific details. Oranges will be shipped if needed, so will potatoes.

Because it&#39;s just that easy.

Let&#39;s stop wasting time searching for the details you can&#39;t provide and go back to another question you missed: at age 17 or 18, do you really think you have a good grasp of just how complex the international economy really is, with flows of goods, services, knowledge, and people and, to follow up, do you really believe that this would all just "work out" as you plan because people will follow your lead? [/b]
You chose ignorance.

Your posts are completely devoid of significant and meaningful arguments, you have yet to make a substantive point. Bringing up the price of tea in China won&#39;t help you anymore than ignoring my posts.

Not only have I given examples of how such a system would work, I&#39;ve posted entire summaries of economic systems that would answer your questions. As I expected, YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT.

There is nothing to suggest that I&#39;m unable to grasp the intricacies of economic systems, there is only the fact that you have continuously refused to address my arguments or make a relevant point. That fact is something you can&#39;t avoid, no matter how much you try to ignore what I&#39;m saying or what reality tells you.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 31, 2007 05:57 am

You chose ignorance.


Let&#39;s skip the insults.

Your proposal simply does not have enough detail to answer my questions. I know you think your system would work and that&#39;s fine, but I do not have enough information to assume it would work on my end.

That&#39;s about all there is to it.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 31, 2007 02:52 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 31, 2007 02:52 pm)
manic [email protected] 31, 2007 05:57 am

You chose ignorance.


Let&#39;s skip the insults.

Your proposal simply does not have enough detail to answer my questions. I know you think your system would work and that&#39;s fine, but I do not have enough information to assume it would work on my end.

That&#39;s about all there is to it. [/b]
Give me a reason not to state the obvious, and you won&#39;t get insulted.

My proposal has included both reasonable explanations of my own, and in depth analyses of 2 economic systems that fit my proposal. You have refused to recognize either.

You&#39;re refusing to look at my points, you&#39;re refusing to make a valid point. That&#39;s about all there is to it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 31, 2007 06:48 pm
You&#39;re refusing to look at my points, you&#39;re refusing to make a valid point. That&#39;s about all there is to it.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images/smilies/violin.gif

Dude, give it up.

You&#39;re providing the 9th grade version of the model, and I&#39;m asking you for the college-level version of the model with slightly more detail than "people will get paid" and "needs will be met by vote".

I know you think it&#39;s that easy, but it isn&#39;t. Whether you accept that or not is really irrelevant.


So just drop it.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 31, 2007 07:11 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 31, 2007 07:11 pm)
manic [email protected] 31, 2007 06:48 pm
You&#39;re refusing to look at my points, you&#39;re refusing to make a valid point. That&#39;s about all there is to it.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images/smilies/violin.gif

Dude, give it up.

You&#39;re providing the 9th grade version of the model, and I&#39;m asking you for the college-level version of the model with slightly more detail than "people will get paid" and "needs will be met by vote".

I know you think it&#39;s that easy, but it isn&#39;t. Whether you accept that or not is really irrelevant.


So just drop it. [/b]
Again, you refuse to recognize the facts.

Regardless of what you claim, I have provided more than reasonable explanations (if there is any fault of my explanations, it&#39;s that they were lost on your meagre comprehension abilities).

And once again, you&#39;re trying to say that two links, with more than considerable substance, equal "&#39;people will get paid&#39; and &#39;needs will be met by vote&#39;", which is patently false.

I know what you think it is, but if this discourse has been any indication, you haven&#39;t the slightest idea of what it actually is.

The only problem here is the fact that you refuse to accept the relevant, while responding with the irrelevant.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 30, 2007 09:40 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 30, 2007 09:40 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:16 am

[email protected] 19, 2007 11:05 pm
for capitalism supporters
Because it works, unlike anything advocated by the anti-capitalists here.
Define what you mean by "works", please.
I thought you were going to come up with a new argument. [/b]
I want to understand how you feel about the subject first. Please answer the question.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:41 pm
I want to understand how you feel about the subject first. Please answer the question.
:rolleyes:

You told me you were going to come up with a new argument before you asked this question, so in all fairness my request comes before this question.

I assume we will go back to your "new argument" because I want to ask you a question about your old argument: when you claimed the mainstream media adversely affected your right to free speech, were you knowingly making a claim you knew you could not support?

Anyway, why do I think capitalism works?

First, I want you to know that I do not support unfettered, anarchic laissez-faire capitalism. I am not an ideologue nor an idealist. I support an active but common sense role for the government to protect the common good and provide assistance to those who are less fortunate or who cannot help themselves. When it comes to implementing these policies I am a pragmatist. All sorts of individual policies may work for individual issues. There is no "one size fits all" policy that will work.

Now, I think capitalism "works" because it effectively combines market efficiency, individual rights, and the common good. I place a very high value on individual rights, whereas I am sure you put a higher value on the common good. This in my estimation is the biggest difference between a capitalist and a communist. Capitalism protects the right of people to be secure in their property and to make private economic choices that suit their personal needs, tastes, and desires. Please understand that I place no value in your claims of what communism could provide "in theory", because theoretical communism will almost certainly never be implemented. If attempted, it would be blocked by a tyrannical government at the central planning stage due to the power that central planning would provide to those in charge.

I also believe capitalism works much more efficiently than central planning ever will. Please understand that I work for government. I analyze how resources are allocated. I am the central planner that Manic Expression&#39;s system relies upon, and I am here to tell you that for us to try to allocate every resource necessary in a modern economy of this complexity is impossible. We do not have the data to make sure you get every good you need. We do not have the expertise to make sure your employer gets every resource it needs. The public process is also horrifically slow and inefficient by design. The public wants to know everything about how every decision is made, which requires extra staff, extra resources and above all copious and ridiculous amounts of time. Whereas a private company can ink a deal tomorrow to start receiving cheaper steel, corn, cloth, cotton, dye, wool, computer parts, computer chips and so on and so forth it takes us far longer due to our reporting requirements. Then add in the ridiculous reliance on consensus that your system is based on. Again, we in government also need consensus. And it is this consensus that takes further amounts of time - time that could be better spent growing, harvesting, building, shipping, and delivering products to your door. Imagine if your model society could not reach consensus on how many eggs to produce? I as a consumer of eggs would want someone to say "screw it", buy their own chickens and sell me their eggs before "consensus" every took effect. Multiply that times just about every other product on the market.

It is this efficiency that makes me a capitalist. In no way do I accept that communism, socialism or anything else could possibly provide as high a standard of living to as many people as does capitalism. In other words, instead of 80% of the world in poverty and 20% living well, your system would certainly lead to 95% living in poverty and 5% (the elite and the technocrats) living well.

Throw in the political considerations - due to the tyranny at which your system inevitably stalls (USSR, China, Venezuela, Cuba) - I am willing to accept the possibility of living in poverty for the guarantee of being able to speak my mind.

Which really brings me back to your alleged next argument when it comes to freedom of speech.

If there is anything I have missed or on which you&#39;d like more information, ask. Let&#39;s keep this non-personal and civil, for a change.

[Adam Rand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:05 pm
for capitalism supporters
Well, it does make sense in a way. The general idea is good. And...it is basically pretty natural.

[MrDoom]

No, "natural" is when everyone huddles in a tribal cave covered in their own shit, scrounging whatever berries they can get as "property".

[Adam Rand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 12:34 am
No, "natural" is when everyone huddles in a tribal cave covered in their own shit, scrounging whatever berries they can get as "property".
I meant the system of trade. Though, yes, that is natural too. If you have something and someone else wants it but has something you either trade it or kill each other. Capitalism is basically the trading possibility of that. And with that pretty much natural as well as logical. Obviously does not mean that it is better.

[RNK]

No, capitalism is the possibility for one or two people to begin hoarding essentials, and force the majority to trade more than their products are worth, simply because they can. I&#39;ll put it in the simplest terms possible.

Let&#39;s say we have a tribe of cavemen. 10 of them.

One day, Caveman A stumbles upon a nice big apple tree while he&#39;s out foraging for food for his tribe. Two thoughts go through his head.

He can either take the apples back to the tribe and share them out to everyone as equally as possible, or he can take the apples, hide them somewhere, go back to his tribe and announce his discovery, and tell his tribesmen that if they want any of the apples they&#39;ll have to give him some of their stuff.

Obviously, the first option is the right one. Well, actually, maybe it&#39;s not so obvious -- otherwise I wouldn&#39;t be wasting my time trying to explain this to you. I&#39;ll elaborate a little bit.

Caveman A has chosen the second option. Because of the annoyance of having to lug apples around all day he decides to "hire" a couple of other cavemen to help his little cave business out. Now he is faced with a second choice. He can either offer these cavemen an equal 3-way share of his profits (the items he aquires from the entire tribe), or he can give these two cave-workers an ultimatum -- either I decide what you get in return for your work, or the deal&#39;s off. He decides to choose the second option. Naturally, any self-respecting cave-worker would guffaw at the prospect of doing all of Caveman A&#39;s work for him while only receiving a tiny fraction of the overall apple-wealth Caveman A is making. But after realizing that it&#39;s either work for Caveman A and get a little bit, or don&#39;t do his bidding and get nothing, they decide that they&#39;d rather get a little bit rather than nothing.

Caveman A has now become a capitalist. He has successfully taken complete control over the source of the tribe&#39;s apples, and has set up his own little empire, whereby he essentially extorts the tribe in return for "allowing" them to eat. Because that&#39;s what it is, when it comes down to it. Extortion. There is no choice. There is no other source of apples available to the tribe. The cave-workers have no choice but to accept their woefully small portion of the profits made, while Caveman A lives in absolute luxery.

To elaborate even further, let&#39;s say that another caveman, Caveman B, finds an orange tree. After witnessing Caveman A&#39;s success, Caveman B decides to develop his own little orange enterprise, trading his oranges for the tribe&#39;s supplies. He too hires a couple of cave-workers to help his business, and they&#39;re also given a tiny share of the profit. A market has formed and competition develops. Caveman B, ever the businessman, decides to undermine Caveman A&#39;s business by offering his workers just a little bit more of the profit, causing one of Caveman A&#39;s cave-workers to leave him and join Caveman B. In return, Caveman A gives his cave-worker a little bit more profit, and replaces the lost worker. Caveman B is faced with a choice. He can continue to give his cave-workers a larger share of the wealth they are helping earn, or he can decide that he&#39;d rather keep the vast majority of the profit and hope that Caveman A is as greedy as him. He chooses the second option, and his hopes prove true. Caveman A doesn&#39;t budge on the amount of profit his workers get in return for their labour. Both have come to an acceptable compromise.

Here is where most capitalists will claim that this is completely fair and equal. They will claim that the market and competition will continue to drive employers to offer their workers more, as well as lower their prices, in order to maintain their business. They will attempt to use this as proof that corporations have the well-being of the people as their highest priority. Unfortunately, that is a completely utopian and untrue perspective. After successive generations of capitalist caveman, and the springing-up of countless cave-businesses, a system in which the weak are devoured by the strong has developed. A "moral" capitalist may come along and attempt to provide his workers or the people with prices and wages that are much better than the other businesses. But as history has shown, these people usually end up bankrupt, victims of hostile takeovers or being shoved out of the market entirely, as it isn&#39;t very hard for a caveman with enormous wealth to forcibly remove another caveman who has nowhere near the same wealth. History is rotten with examples of this, stretching back to the beginning of industrialized history; men and women who have attempted to turn back the capitalist clock and spark an industrial "rennaissance" have only ever succeeded temporarily before they realize that a business can only continue to survive if it is maximizing its profits. Such is the capitalist way. Any force that may push a business to provide better conditions for its workers and lower prices for its customers are infallably faced with a more powerful force to generate higher profit margins and create more capital, else they are simply swallowed up into competitor businesses who have no such moral obligations.

Anyway, I hope my little caveman story was informative. I had a great time writing it. Obviously it is an extremely simplistic way to look at the capitalist system but I feel that generally it does that system justice. Obviously there are an infinite number of factors I haven&#39;t mentioned, but I hope any potential readers try and keep an open mind.

[Adam Rand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:03 am
No, capitalism is the possibility for one or two people to begin hoarding essentials, and force the majority to trade more than their products are worth, simply because they can. I&#39;ll put it in the simplest terms possible.

Let&#39;s say we have a tribe of cavemen. 10 of them.

One day, Caveman A stumbles upon a nice big apple tree while he&#39;s out foraging for food for his tribe. Two thoughts go through his head.

He can either take the apples back to the tribe and share them out to everyone as equally as possible, or he can take the apples, hide them somewhere, go back to his tribe and announce his discovery, and tell his tribesmen that if they want any of the apples they&#39;ll have to give him some of their stuff.

Obviously, the first option is the right one. Well, actually, maybe it&#39;s not so obvious -- otherwise I wouldn&#39;t be wasting my time trying to explain this to you. I&#39;ll elaborate a little bit.

Caveman A has chosen the second option. Because of the annoyance of having to lug apples around all day he decides to "hire" a couple of other cavemen to help his little cave business out. Now he is faced with a second choice. He can either offer these cavemen an equal 3-way share of his profits (the items he aquires from the entire tribe), or he can give these two cave-workers an ultimatum -- either I decide what you get in return for your work, or the deal&#39;s off. He decides to choose the second option. Naturally, any self-respecting cave-worker would guffaw at the prospect of doing all of Caveman A&#39;s work for him while only receiving a tiny fraction of the overall apple-wealth Caveman A is making. But after realizing that it&#39;s either work for Caveman A and get a little bit, or don&#39;t do his bidding and get nothing, they decide that they&#39;d rather get a little bit rather than nothing.

Caveman A has now become a capitalist. He has successfully taken complete control over the source of the tribe&#39;s apples, and has set up his own little empire, whereby he essentially extorts the tribe in return for "allowing" them to eat. Because that&#39;s what it is, when it comes down to it. Extortion. There is no choice. There is no other source of apples available to the tribe. The cave-workers have no choice but to accept their woefully small portion of the profits made, while Caveman A lives in absolute luxery.

To elaborate even further, let&#39;s say that another caveman, Caveman B, finds an orange tree. After witnessing Caveman A&#39;s success, Caveman B decides to develop his own little orange enterprise, trading his oranges for the tribe&#39;s supplies. He too hires a couple of cave-workers to help his business, and they&#39;re also given a tiny share of the profit. A market has formed and competition develops. Caveman B, ever the businessman, decides to undermine Caveman A&#39;s business by offering his workers just a little bit more of the profit, causing one of Caveman A&#39;s cave-workers to leave him and join Caveman B. In return, Caveman A gives his cave-worker a little bit more profit, and replaces the lost worker. Caveman B is faced with a choice. He can continue to give his cave-workers a larger share of the wealth they are helping earn, or he can decide that he&#39;d rather keep the vast majority of the profit and hope that Caveman A is as greedy as him. He chooses the second option, and his hopes prove true. Caveman A doesn&#39;t budge on the amount of profit his workers get in return for their labour. Both have come to an acceptable compromise.

Here is where most capitalists will claim that this is completely fair and equal. They will claim that the market and competition will continue to drive employers to offer their workers more, as well as lower their prices, in order to maintain their business. They will attempt to use this as proof that corporations have the well-being of the people as their highest priority. Unfortunately, that is a completely utopian and untrue perspective. After successive generations of capitalist caveman, and the springing-up of countless cave-businesses, a system in which the weak are devoured by the strong has developed. A "moral" capitalist may come along and attempt to provide his workers or the people with prices and wages that are much better than the other businesses. But as history has shown, these people usually end up bankrupt, victims of hostile takeovers or being shoved out of the market entirely, as it isn&#39;t very hard for a caveman with enormous wealth to forcibly remove another caveman who has nowhere near the same wealth. History is rotten with examples of this, stretching back to the beginning of industrialized history; men and women who have attempted to turn back the capitalist clock and spark an industrial "rennaissance" have only ever succeeded temporarily before they realize that a business can only continue to survive if it is maximizing its profits. Such is the capitalist way. Any force that may push a business to provide better conditions for its workers and lower prices for its customers are infallably faced with a more powerful force to generate higher profit margins and create more capital, else they are simply swallowed up into competitor businesses who have no such moral obligations.

Anyway, I hope my little caveman story was informative. I had a great time writing it. Obviously it is an extremely simplistic way to look at the capitalist system but I feel that generally it does that system justice. Obviously there are an infinite number of factors I haven&#39;t mentioned, but I hope any potential readers try and keep an open mind.
Finds? I don&#39;t follow. What has finding anything have to do with capitalist ideals?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:16 am
Because it works, unlike anything advocated by the anti-capitalists here.
Yea, its working wonders in Africa, numerous impoverished European and Asiatic nations, Mexico, other various Central American countries; everyone is healthy, and isn&#39;t poor, starving, illiterate, backwards, fighting to survive, or diseased at all are they?

Capitalism, fails in every area.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Adam Rand+March 10, 2007 10:54 am--> (Adam Rand @ March 10, 2007 10:54 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 06:03 am
No, capitalism is the possibility for one or two people to begin hoarding essentials, and force the majority to trade more than their products are worth, simply because they can. I&#39;ll put it in the simplest terms possible.

Let&#39;s say we have a tribe of cavemen. 10 of them.

One day, Caveman A stumbles upon a nice big apple tree while he&#39;s out foraging for food for his tribe. Two thoughts go through his head.

He can either take the apples back to the tribe and share them out to everyone as equally as possible, or he can take the apples, hide them somewhere, go back to his tribe and announce his discovery, and tell his tribesmen that if they want any of the apples they&#39;ll have to give him some of their stuff.

Obviously, the first option is the right one. Well, actually, maybe it&#39;s not so obvious -- otherwise I wouldn&#39;t be wasting my time trying to explain this to you. I&#39;ll elaborate a little bit.

Caveman A has chosen the second option. Because of the annoyance of having to lug apples around all day he decides to "hire" a couple of other cavemen to help his little cave business out. Now he is faced with a second choice. He can either offer these cavemen an equal 3-way share of his profits (the items he aquires from the entire tribe), or he can give these two cave-workers an ultimatum -- either I decide what you get in return for your work, or the deal&#39;s off. He decides to choose the second option. Naturally, any self-respecting cave-worker would guffaw at the prospect of doing all of Caveman A&#39;s work for him while only receiving a tiny fraction of the overall apple-wealth Caveman A is making. But after realizing that it&#39;s either work for Caveman A and get a little bit, or don&#39;t do his bidding and get nothing, they decide that they&#39;d rather get a little bit rather than nothing.

Caveman A has now become a capitalist. He has successfully taken complete control over the source of the tribe&#39;s apples, and has set up his own little empire, whereby he essentially extorts the tribe in return for "allowing" them to eat. Because that&#39;s what it is, when it comes down to it. Extortion. There is no choice. There is no other source of apples available to the tribe. The cave-workers have no choice but to accept their woefully small portion of the profits made, while Caveman A lives in absolute luxery.

To elaborate even further, let&#39;s say that another caveman, Caveman B, finds an orange tree. After witnessing Caveman A&#39;s success, Caveman B decides to develop his own little orange enterprise, trading his oranges for the tribe&#39;s supplies. He too hires a couple of cave-workers to help his business, and they&#39;re also given a tiny share of the profit. A market has formed and competition develops. Caveman B, ever the businessman, decides to undermine Caveman A&#39;s business by offering his workers just a little bit more of the profit, causing one of Caveman A&#39;s cave-workers to leave him and join Caveman B. In return, Caveman A gives his cave-worker a little bit more profit, and replaces the lost worker. Caveman B is faced with a choice. He can continue to give his cave-workers a larger share of the wealth they are helping earn, or he can decide that he&#39;d rather keep the vast majority of the profit and hope that Caveman A is as greedy as him. He chooses the second option, and his hopes prove true. Caveman A doesn&#39;t budge on the amount of profit his workers get in return for their labour. Both have come to an acceptable compromise.

Here is where most capitalists will claim that this is completely fair and equal. They will claim that the market and competition will continue to drive employers to offer their workers more, as well as lower their prices, in order to maintain their business. They will attempt to use this as proof that corporations have the well-being of the people as their highest priority. Unfortunately, that is a completely utopian and untrue perspective. After successive generations of capitalist caveman, and the springing-up of countless cave-businesses, a system in which the weak are devoured by the strong has developed. A "moral" capitalist may come along and attempt to provide his workers or the people with prices and wages that are much better than the other businesses. But as history has shown, these people usually end up bankrupt, victims of hostile takeovers or being shoved out of the market entirely, as it isn&#39;t very hard for a caveman with enormous wealth to forcibly remove another caveman who has nowhere near the same wealth. History is rotten with examples of this, stretching back to the beginning of industrialized history; men and women who have attempted to turn back the capitalist clock and spark an industrial "rennaissance" have only ever succeeded temporarily before they realize that a business can only continue to survive if it is maximizing its profits. Such is the capitalist way. Any force that may push a business to provide better conditions for its workers and lower prices for its customers are infallably faced with a more powerful force to generate higher profit margins and create more capital, else they are simply swallowed up into competitor businesses who have no such moral obligations.

Anyway, I hope my little caveman story was informative. I had a great time writing it. Obviously it is an extremely simplistic way to look at the capitalist system but I feel that generally it does that system justice. Obviously there are an infinite number of factors I haven&#39;t mentioned, but I hope any potential readers try and keep an open mind.
Finds? I don&#39;t follow. What has finding anything have to do with capitalist ideals? [/b]
Sure it does. You cannot "work" resources into existence.

I take it that you are assuming a universal human nature that remains unchanging and so on? So could you please explain why pr-colonial Australia remained in a state of primitive communism? Or are you simply assuming we should put your eurocentric view of humanity on everyone in which case I would like to ask what exactly your proof for a fundamental human nature actually is?

[RNK]

The "finds" aspect is a general term to describe any number of ways that capitalists get their hands on an essential resoure or commodity and keep it away from the rest of humanity. Invent, patent, discover, etc. Like Jazz said, you don&#39;t "create" a source of oil.

[ZX3]

The caveman story is nice. But it is standard in that it reflects the typical socialist conception of a community as being perpetually static.



Caveman A coerces nobody to work for him. Nor for that matter, coerces nobody to desire apples. The only reason he becomes wealthy is because his fellow cavemen desire apples. They trade what they have produced for the apples. You say, he has produced nothing. Nonsense&#33; In order to keep his revenue flowing, to keep the apples in stock, has to ensure the protection, and probable expansion, of his apple grove. Maybe it means camping out and driving off mammoth or deer who would also like the apples. Maybe he has to build a fence. In any event, you have a person who is becoming skilled in the production of apples. The community benefits from this, no less than by the efforts of Cavenan D who learns how to turn some critters fur into a coat.

So caveman A needs assistance and hires Caveman E and F to lug the apples to town. But he does not give those two an equal stake. But why should he? Caveman A benefit to the community is not in his ability to carry apples; its in his ability to grow and develop the apples. As such, it is a higher skill. It makes no sense to let E and F an equal say in running the apple tree when they do not have equal knowledge. Nor does it make sense to for A to carry apples to market. Nor is it unjust that he gets a bigger take, since his contribution is greater and more important than E & F. Caveman Y & Z could also carry the apples. In any event, you are not utilising resources properly for their optimal result. The result is that the community suffers, it does not benefit.

Caveman B is not a direct competitor to A, since his expertise is in oranges, not apples. But a community which has both is a better community, and E & F, if unhappy with A, can just as easily carry oranges as apples. Maybe E & F find another apple tree, and based upon what they have learned from A, provide apples as well. Perhaps their apples are better. Who knows.

What we do know is that the objective is to increase production so as to benefit all. the apples, as a form of nutrition, can make others workers stronger and healthier, thus increasing their production. The idea that THEIR production remains fixed, and thus eventually devoured by Caveman A is simply not realistic. But it is a common belief, and feature, of socialism. Which is yet another reason as to the weakness and wrongness of socialism.

[RNK]

Caveman A coerces nobody to work for him. Nor for that matter, coerces nobody to desire apples.

Yawn. I read that and realized there&#39;s absolutely no reason to read the rest of your post. In the matter of two sentences you&#39;ve managed to make it perfectly clear that you are incapable of grasping the most basic of principles, even when they are explained in the most rudimentary and simplistic way.

Enjoy yourself here in OI.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:21 pm

Caveman A coerces nobody to work for him. Nor for that matter, coerces nobody to desire apples.

Yawn. I read that and realized there&#39;s absolutely no reason to read the rest of your post. In the matter of two sentences you&#39;ve managed to make it perfectly clear that you are incapable of grasping the most basic of principles, even when they are explained in the most rudimentary and simplistic way.

Enjoy yourself here in OI.

Of course. Not only are socialists famously unable and unwilling to prove socialism, they are now aparently famously unable and unwilling to defend their critiques of capitalism.

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Why should you support capitalism?

Well, like Larry Kudlow says, "Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity."

[Tungsten]

Cryotank Screams

Yea, its working wonders in Africa, numerous impoverished European and Asiatic nations, Mexico, other various Central American countries; everyone is healthy, and isn&#39;t poor, starving, illiterate, backwards, fighting to survive, or diseased at all are they?

Capitalism, fails in every area.
Your second statement contradicts your first: numerous impoverished European and Asiatic nations implies that there are some in which is hasn&#39;t failed. Not that your first statement was correct in the first place.

Also, Central American people are illiterate, backwards and poor relative to who?