A question for the Capitalists [Archive]

Tommy-K

12th April 2007, 13:45

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 12, 2007 12:40 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 12, 2007 12:40 pm)
Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 12, 2007 08:10 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:35 pm

Tommy-[email protected] 11, 2007 12:54 pm
"Capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty."

Easy, it isn't true, regardless of your proclamation that it is.

Next!
You don't provide a reason.

So tell us, why isn't it true?

Or were you just hoping we would read it and forget about it.
It's not true because he believes it isn't, even though all available evidence is to the contrary. [/b]
Typical capitalist.

"I'm right because I'm more rich and powerful than you."

It's just blatant immaturity really.

I take it from his silence that he doesn't have a reason to support his claim that the statement is not true.

colonelguppy

12th April 2007, 18:21

Originally posted by Tommy-K+April 12, 2007 07:45 am--> (Tommy-K @ April 12, 2007 07:45 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:40 pm

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 12, 2007 08:10 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:35 pm

Tommy-[email protected] 11, 2007 12:54 pm
"Capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty."

Easy, it isn't true, regardless of your proclamation that it is.

Next!
You don't provide a reason.

So tell us, why isn't it true?

Or were you just hoping we would read it and forget about it.
It's not true because he believes it isn't, even though all available evidence is to the contrary.
Typical capitalist.

"I'm right because I'm more rich and powerful than you."

It's just blatant immaturity really.

I take it from his silence that he doesn't have a reason to support his claim that the statement is not true. [/b]
it's not like you provided any evidence to the contrary, and after all you're the one who made the original claim.

Phalanx

12th April 2007, 21:58

The world has always been, after cavemen, rich surrounded by a sea of poor. But it's getting better. China brought 400 million out of poverty when they accepted capitalism, and India too is experiencing fantastic growth rates because of capitalism.

pusher robot

12th April 2007, 22:17

Heres a simple fact that proves its true, we produce enough food to easily feed everyone and yet people starve.

To the extent that some people starve because they refuse to choose to feed themselves, I defend it on principles of self-autonomy and human freedom. To the extent that large numbers of people starve because food is forcibly withheld from them, no capitalist would defend that, of course. Need I point out that the capitalist countries have by far the highest food production? It is not that the fault of capitalism that those goods cannot get to those who would buy them or even receive them as gifts. What would you have us do, invade every African village where some warlord steals food aid and village crops?

It is easier to destroy than it is to create. Capitalism is all about creation, but it lacks the power or the justification to prevent all destruction.

To the extent poverty exists on a large scale, it is because of insufficient capitalism.

bezdomni

13th April 2007, 00:50

Originally posted by patton+April 11, 2007 03:33 pm--> (patton @ April 11, 2007 03:33 pm)
Tommy-[email protected] 11, 2007 12:54 pm
"Capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty."

Please tell me how you justify this.
I guess your going to give me that bullshit functionalist response of 'poverty is essential in a sustainable society.'

And please don't try to refute or disprove the statement. We all know it is the truth and is backed up by hard fact.
It is the system, we will always the haves and the have nots under capitalism. [/b]
Which is why it must be done away with.

Phalanx

13th April 2007, 01:00

Originally posted by SovietPants+April 12, 2007 11:50 pm--> (SovietPants @ April 12, 2007 11:50 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:33 pm

Tommy-[email protected] 11, 2007 12:54 pm
"Capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty."

Please tell me how you justify this.
I guess your going to give me that bullshit functionalist response of 'poverty is essential in a sustainable society.'

And please don't try to refute or disprove the statement. We all know it is the truth and is backed up by hard fact.
It is the system, we will always the haves and the have nots under capitalism.
Which is why it must be done away with. [/b]
Great, so we'll replace it with a system of nothing but have-nots.

bezdomni

13th April 2007, 01:03

Originally posted by Phalanx+April 13, 2007 12:00 am--> (Phalanx @ April 13, 2007 12:00 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:50 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:33 pm

Tommy-[email protected] 11, 2007 12:54 pm
"Capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty."

Please tell me how you justify this.
I guess your going to give me that bullshit functionalist response of 'poverty is essential in a sustainable society.'

And please don't try to refute or disprove the statement. We all know it is the truth and is backed up by hard fact.
It is the system, we will always the haves and the have nots under capitalism.
Which is why it must be done away with.
Great, so we'll replace it with a system of nothing but have-nots. [/b]
Yep. That's exactly what I said. Great reading comprehension skills.

Phalanx

13th April 2007, 03:06

Yep. That's exactly what I said. Great reading comprehension skills.

That's what communism is.

t_wolves_fan

13th April 2007, 03:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:56 am
Heres a simple fact that proves its true, we produce enough food to easily feed everyone and yet people starve.
Some people are going to starve regardless of the system you put into place.

There is a huge amount of wealth in the world, yet a huge amout of people are in extreme poverty.

It's more complex than that simple statement.

In general people are actually better off now than they were 50, 100, and 200 years ago. When you factor that in, your simplistic statement doesn't make any sense. If just about everyone is better off now than they were 200 years ago, how can we say the system is a complete failure?

The sad fact is, there are not enough resources on the planet for everyone to live like Americans. Perhaps not everyone else is in poverty, maybe Americans and other western nations are just extremely wealthy vis a vis their baseline?

If you took all the wealth in the world and spread it out over all 6 billion people, the average person in the third world would not actually be that much better off because there is not actually that much wealth out there. That is why your simplistic worldview doesn't hold a lot of water.

Tommy-K

13th April 2007, 13:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:06 am

Yep. That's exactly what I said. Great reading comprehension skills.

That's what communism is.
You are very ignorant and need to brush up on the Communist manifesto instead of just regurgitating what you read in the papers.

RNK

13th April 2007, 16:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:26 am
In general people are actually better off now than they were 50, 100, and 200 years ago. When you factor that in, your simplistic statement doesn't make any sense. If just about everyone is better off now than they were 200 years ago, how can we say the system is a complete failure?
No. 25% of the world's population could be considered better off. This was only possible through the suppression and exploitation of the other 75%. Life for the average person living in Africa, most of Asia, and much of South America hasn't changed in centuries. Sure, they may have 30-year-old western-style clothes, jeans, some have radios and bicycles or whatever, but please don't be so naive as to think that they are reaping any sort of benefit from capitalism.

pusher robot

13th April 2007, 16:46

please don't be so naive as to think that they are reaping any sort of benefit from capitalism.

Of course not, they aren't capitalist.

Lenin II

13th April 2007, 17:03

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 11, 2007 02:16 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 11, 2007 02:16 pm)
Tommy-[email protected] 11, 2007 12:54 pm
"Capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty."

Please tell me how you justify this.
I guess your going to give me that bullshit functionalist response of 'poverty is essential in a sustainable society.'

And please don't try to refute or disprove the statement. We all know it is the truth and is backed up by hard fact.
And please don't try to refute or disprove the statement. We all know it is the truth and is backed up by hard fact.

Truth is not determined by consensus. I do not accept the terms of your request.[/b]
Then why did you bother to post?

It is the system, we will always the haves and the have nots under capitalism.

That's exactly what we don't like about it.

QUOTE (Tommy-K @ April 11, 2007 12:54 pm)
"Capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty."
Easy, it isn't true, regardless of your proclamation that it is.
Next!

Then explain why there are so many rich countries surrounded by a greater number of impoverished ones. Explain how China has more millionaires than America. Explain why most first world capitalist countries get their products from the third world, and why there is so much thrid world outsourcing of labor.

Phalanx

13th April 2007, 21:48

You are very ignorant and need to brush up on the Communist manifesto instead of just regurgitating what you read in the papers.

Actually, I was stuck in all this leftist propaganda just a short while ago, and I regurgitated leftist utopian bullshit about how we're gonna fix this earth. It wasn't until a few weeks ago i realized that was wishful thinking at best. Now I've wisened up, and so should you!

bezdomni

14th April 2007, 03:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:48 pm

You are very ignorant and need to brush up on the Communist manifesto instead of just regurgitating what you read in the papers.

Actually, I was stuck in all this leftist propaganda just a short while ago, and I regurgitated leftist utopian bullshit about how we're gonna fix this earth. It wasn't until a few weeks ago i realized that was wishful thinking at best. Now I've wisened up, and so should you!
No, you've gotten expoentially stupider.

You never understood leftism to begin with. If you think it is "wishful thinking" and "utopianism", you're completely wrong. Marxism is the science of understanding social change.

You speak of making the world a better place. How are we going to do that with your paradigm? Killing innocent Iraqis? Beliving in God? Moving to Israel? Ignoring all empirical eviding that suggests capitaism cannot maintain itself?

That's not just wishful thinking, that's plain delusional.

You are the worst member this forum has ever seen. I am not much for personal attacks in ideological struggles, but it is hard for me to contain myself.

Phalanx

14th April 2007, 05:05

You never understood leftism to begin with. If you think it is "wishful thinking" and "utopianism", you're completely wrong. Marxism is the science of understanding social change.

I understand it very well, the only difference is that you believe it's the way forward, while I believe it's no progress at all. To have a successfully run Marxist economy is just not feasible.

You speak of making the world a better place. How are we going to do that with your paradigm? Killing innocent Iraqis? Beliving in God? Moving to Israel? Ignoring all empirical eviding that suggests capitaism cannot maintain itself?

I don't believe in God, nor applaud killing innocent Iraqis or believe Israel is heaven on earth. But I think a controlled capitalist economy, like that of Scandinavia, is one of the best on earth. Extreme wealth and poverty don't exist, but there's motivation to try and to innovate. Which is something that is sorely lacking in a Marxist economy.

That's not just wishful thinking, that's plain delusional.

It would be, but I never said any of that is part of a better world.

You are the worst member this forum has ever seen. I am not much for personal attacks in ideological struggles, but it is hard for me to contain myself.

Wow

OneBrickOneVoice

14th April 2007, 20:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:58 pm
The world has always been, after cavemen, rich surrounded by a sea of poor. But it's getting better. China brought 400 million out of poverty when they accepted capitalism, and India too is experiencing fantastic growth rates because of capitalism.
umm no they didn't. They stripped the people of their healthcare, garunteed housing, food, and rights and turned them into Nike-wal-mart sweatshop slaves. That's the exact opposite. Free market capitalism did what it did to the rest of the world: institutionalized poverty, homelessness, and wage-slavery.

Some people are going to starve regardless of the system you put into place.

So instead of being content with defeatism and starvation, why not put into a place a system that slowly but surely destroys it: Socialism

Phalanx

14th April 2007, 21:39

umm no they didn't. They stripped the people of their healthcare, garunteed housing, food, and rights and turned them into Nike-wal-mart sweatshop slaves. That's the exact opposite. Free market capitalism did what it did to the rest of the world: institutionalized poverty, homelessness, and wage-slavery.

It is undeniable that quality of life in China has risen considerably since the late 80's. It is regrettable that healthcare in China has been taken away, but the advances they've made more than makes up for it. China still is a poor country, but it's come a long ways since the days of famine and extreme poverty.

So instead of being content with defeatism and starvation, why not put into a place a system that slowly but surely destroys it: Socialism

Socialism mires people in poverty, it doesn't "slowly but surely brng them out".

Rawthentic

15th April 2007, 02:07

Socialism mires people in poverty, it doesn't "slowly but surely brng them out".
:D :D :D :D :D

I can't stop laughing at such stupidity.

You must be referring to China and Russia when they were "socialist."

But unless you can actually analyze the material conditions of the region, both external and internal, then your argument is shit.

And you can't analyze it, because that would lead to finding out what socialism really is and why you can't blame poverty on a theory.

Tungsten

15th April 2007, 15:17

They stripped the people of their healthcare, garunteed housing, food, and rights and turned them into Nike-wal-mart sweatshop slaves. That's the exact opposite. Free market capitalism did what it did to the rest of the world: institutionalized poverty, homelessness, and wage-slavery.
Who guaranteed all these things? The state? What do you expect when you put a statist system in place? The state giveth and the state taketh away.

And your remedy? To put another statist/collectivist system in place. Great job. How about using your brain for once and telling me what's wrong with this.

Coggeh

15th April 2007, 15:26

Don't fall slave to your right wing corrupt propaganda , capitalism has also done bad things for western countries such as my own (Eire) for all this materialistic wealth we are now slaves to the american corporate machine we now have to do what the yanks want e.g Shannon airport being used to transport their mercenaries to Iraq.

ZX3

15th April 2007, 15:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:26 am
Don't fall slave to your right wing corrupt propaganda , capitalism has also done bad things for western countries such as my own (Eire) for all this materialistic wealth we are now slaves to the american corporate machine we now have to do what the yanks want e.g Shannon airport being used to transport their mercenaries to Iraq.
Ireland was long an economic backwater, famous for the famine and its chief export- Catholic priests. Ireland has made some sensible (capitalist) reforms and the country is booming, and immigration to Eire is now the norm, not emigration from. There is development everywhere. Why any socialist pans such a development is bizzare and leads to wonder whether the socialists actually dislike poverty as it so often claims it does.

RGacky3

15th April 2007, 19:38

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 13, 2007 02:26 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 13, 2007 02:26 am)
[email protected] 12, 2007 06:56 am
Heres a simple fact that proves its true, we produce enough food to easily feed everyone and yet people starve.
Some people are going to starve regardless of the system you put into place.

There is a huge amount of wealth in the world, yet a huge amout of people are in extreme poverty.

It's more complex than that simple statement.

In general people are actually better off now than they were 50, 100, and 200 years ago. When you factor that in, your simplistic statement doesn't make any sense. If just about everyone is better off now than they were 200 years ago, how can we say the system is a complete failure?

The sad fact is, there are not enough resources on the planet for everyone to live like Americans. Perhaps not everyone else is in poverty, maybe Americans and other western nations are just extremely wealthy vis a vis their baseline?

If you took all the wealth in the world and spread it out over all 6 billion people, the average person in the third world would not actually be that much better off because there is not actually that much wealth out there. That is why your simplistic worldview doesn't hold a lot of water. [/b]
Some people are going to starve regardless of the System? Really? Why is that the case? Starvation dispite pelnty of food production is'nt just a natural thing that happens, it happens for reasons, reasons that are tied to Capitalism, thats not the case that people will starve no matter what.

perhaps there is not enough wealth out there to allow everyone a 3 story house and a pool, but there is definately enough wealth out there to give everyone a decent oportunity at life and fulfil their basic physical needs. When you hear of people having billions of dollars or Corporations having trillions, or governemnts spending billions and trillions, think about how much money that actually is, its quite a lot, especially if it was used to fulfil basic human needs.

Rawthentic

15th April 2007, 20:18

Why any socialist pans such a development is bizzare and leads to wonder whether the socialists actually dislike poverty as it so often claims it does.

All relative. It might be "booming", but ask yourself, "for what class and people?"

And who are creating this "boom?"

As far as I am concerned, poverty, racism,etc., etc., still exist in Ireland.

But lets see how long your "boom" lasts, and who will suffer from its downfall.

t_wolves_fan

15th April 2007, 21:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:18 pm

As far as I am concerned, poverty, racism,etc., etc., still exist in Ireland.

And I'm sure that, as far as you're concerned, they always will.

Rawthentic

15th April 2007, 21:57

Yeah, as long as capitalism exists, the root of the problem.

And don't tell me capitalism will always be. :D :D :D

t_wolves_fan

15th April 2007, 21:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:38 pm
Some people are going to starve regardless of the System? Really?
Yes.

Why is that the case?

Because many people are stupid, because crops don't grow as planned, and because that's just the way it is.

Starvation dispite pelnty of food production is'nt just a natural thing that happens, it happens for reasons, reasons that are tied to Capitalism, thats not the case that people will starve no matter what.

I'm willing to bet people would starve in your system too, because it could not produce enough to meet everyone's needs and wants.

perhaps there is not enough wealth out there to allow everyone a 3 story house and a pool, but there is definately enough wealth out there to give everyone a decent oportunity at life and fulfil their basic physical needs.

As you get to define "decent opportunity at life" and "basic physical needs", I am willing to bet, right?

You get to choose what other people need and should want, right?

When you hear of people having billions of dollars or Corporations having trillions, or governemnts spending billions and trillions, think about how much money that actually is, its quite a lot, especially if it was used to fulfil basic human needs.

Wouldn't be enough to but everything everyone needs and wants.

Rawthentic

15th April 2007, 22:32

I'm willing to bet people would starve in your system too, because it could not produce enough to meet everyone's needs and wants.
But we will at least have the ability to decide better the next time and plan for our needs, which are not blind forces, like the market is.

You get to choose what other people need and should want, right?
No, they do. Wants will be created according to need and human development, not profit.

higgs629

16th April 2007, 02:03

Originally posted by Tommy-K+April 13, 2007 12:14 pm--> (Tommy-K @ April 13, 2007 12:14 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 02:06 am

Yep. That's exactly what I said. Great reading comprehension skills.

That's what communism is.
You are very ignorant and need to brush up on the Communist manifesto instead of just regurgitating what you read in the papers. [/b]
The intentions of communism has almost nothing to do with the actual result of communism. While he was wrong about your intention (that you wish to create a world of have-nots), he is not wrong about the results of your intentions (that is in fact what will occur).

Furthermore regarding this claim:

Capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty.

Ironically this is true though not in the sense you mean. Capitalism is a small island, and around it is a sea of poverty. The only escape from poverty is capitalism.

However, this is not the thrust of the argument so we will set it aside.

The argument is:

Given this premise which we all know to be true, how can you justify capitalism. The answer is that you can't. This leaves us with three possibilities. First, that the premise is false. Second, Capitalism is inherently immoral. Third, I lied, and you actually can.

I suppose it is time for a lesson in science. The burden of proof lies on the maker of the claim. The claim is that "capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty" and the evidence submitted is: We all believe it and it is backed up by hard facts. Firstly consensus is not evidence. Secondly the hard facts are mysteriously absent.

The reason that the burden of proof lies on the accuser is that in absence of that rule there is to prevent the "indetectable unicorn argument".

--Higgs

higgs629

16th April 2007, 02:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:56 am
Heres a simple fact that proves its true, we produce enough food to easily feed everyone and yet people starve. There is a huge amount of wealth in the world, yet a huge amout of people are in extreme poverty.

now then, answer the question.
This is not proof that the original statement is true because, it assumes that capitalism controls the world, while there is not one truly capitalistic country on the planet.

higgs629

16th April 2007, 02:09

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 12, 2007 12:40 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 12, 2007 12:40 pm) s
Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 12, 2007 08:10 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:35 pm

Tommy-[email protected] 11, 2007 12:54 pm
"Capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty."

Easy, it isn't true, regardless of your proclamation that it is.

Next!
You don't provide a reason.

So tell us, why isn't it true?

Or were you just hoping we would read it and forget about it.
It's not true because he believes it isn't, even though all available evidence is to the contrary. [/b]
Again we should note the curious claim that the evidence is available but the poster seems to have made the oversight of not providing any.

higgs629

16th April 2007, 02:13

Originally posted by RNK+April 13, 2007 03:06 pm--> (RNK @ April 13, 2007 03:06 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 02:26 am
In general people are actually better off now than they were 50, 100, and 200 years ago. When you factor that in, your simplistic statement doesn't make any sense. If just about everyone is better off now than they were 200 years ago, how can we say the system is a complete failure?
No. 25% of the world's population could be considered better off. This was only possible through the suppression and exploitation of the other 75%. Life for the average person living in Africa, most of Asia, and much of South America hasn't changed in centuries. Sure, they may have 30-year-old western-style clothes, jeans, some have radios and bicycles or whatever, but please don't be so naive as to think that they are reaping any sort of benefit from capitalism. [/b]
Perhaps this is because the other 75% of people do not live in countries which are generally free market. In fact I challenge you to provide me evidence of one free-market country whose residence generally live under 10 dollars a day.

And on another note, you just made up 75% and 25% didn't you? The statistics in your ass are not accurate, don't pull any from there.
-- Higgs

higgs629

16th April 2007, 02:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:32 pm

I'm willing to bet people would starve in your system too, because it could not produce enough to meet everyone's needs and wants.
But we will at least have the ability to decide better the next time and plan for our needs, which are not blind forces, like the market is.

You get to choose what other people need and should want, right?
No, they do. Wants will be created according to need and human development, not profit.
The market is a collection of the descisions of millions of autonomous individuals. Why do you think that your "we" could possibly compare?

For instance, what would produce more biodiversity, natural evolution (I suppose the blind force of nature) or majority vote on animal design?

The answer should be obvious, it should also be noted that natural evolution has no power to plan ahead, it only has power to make predictions based on history, not upon logic. The market has an advantage in that individual members make their decision based upon what they believe is the most logical for them. So the market can and routinely does plan ahead.

Regarding your claim that "Wants will be created..." I hope that you mean goods, rather than wants, because if you pine for omnipotent control over man's desires you have become a despot, or worse, because a despot only really seeks to control man's body, while you'd be seeking to control his mind. I will assume for your sake that this is an error and hope that it will be edited in all haste.

--Higgs

t_wolves_fan

16th April 2007, 02:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:32 pm

But we will at least have the ability to decide better the next time and plan for our needs, which are not blind forces, like the market is.

How do you intend to measure people's wants and needs other than the market?

Be specific.

Rawthentic

16th April 2007, 02:44

Working people gathering in their assembly or council to make the best estimate what all people need, and then produce. It is quite simple.

t_wolves_fan

16th April 2007, 02:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:44 am
Working people gathering in their assembly or council to make the best estimate what all people need, and then produce. It is quite simple.
So they would take a census, and everything that everyone says at that time would be produced without question.

Is that correct?

What happens if people need something else during the month/quarter/year? Would that just get added to the list?

Rawthentic

16th April 2007, 02:50

Of course, I don't see why not.

We would have the power to control, as a people, what we need and dont need. Thats fundamental.

Jazzratt

16th April 2007, 20:48

Originally posted by higgs629+April 16, 2007 01:09 am--> (higgs629 @ April 16, 2007 01:09 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:40 pm
s
Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 12, 2007 08:10 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:35 pm

Tommy-[email protected] 11, 2007 12:54 pm
"Capitalism is a small island swimming in a sea of poverty."

Easy, it isn't true, regardless of your proclamation that it is.

Next!
You don't provide a reason.

So tell us, why isn't it true?

Or were you just hoping we would read it and forget about it.
It's not true because he believes it isn't, even though all available evidence is to the contrary.
Again we should note the curious claim that the evidence is available but the poster seems to have made the oversight of not providing any. [/b]
Do you understand the concept of "first world" an "third world"? One is capitalism, the other poverty.

Do you understand what the breadline is? If there is no poverty why is it necessary as a concept?

Twat.

t_wolves_fan

16th April 2007, 21:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:48 pm
Do you understand the concept of "first world" an "third world"? One is capitalism, the other poverty.

A group of countries = an economic system?

Fess up Jazz, how many pills you swallow before typing this?

Jazzratt

16th April 2007, 21:22

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 16, 2007 08:17 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 16, 2007 08:17 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 07:48 pm
Do you understand the concept of "first world" an "third world"? One is capitalism, the other poverty.

A group of countries = an economic system?

Fess up Jazz, how many pills you swallow before typing this? [/b]
Well, to be fair they're all under capitalism.

Also, if I had taken pills I would be less inclined to post on here, especially to you guys.

OneBrickOneVoice

16th April 2007, 23:06

It is undeniable that quality of life in China has risen considerably since the late 80's.

hard throbbing horse cock.

Unless of course, we are third graders, and today is "opposite day"

In that case yes totally. Who could deny enrolling the masses in slaveshop work, taking away their land that they earned from the socialist state and all their rights from healthcare to housing to worker's rights is not "improvement"

seriously though you have to be a moron to think that Homelessness as a new phenomenon since 1976 is "progress"

but it's come a long ways since the days of famine and extreme poverty

haha yeah it has, funny you mention that since it was under Mao that Famine was completely erradictated from China, yet today, with the seizure of farmer's land to build another sweatshop, it seems more and more likely to return!, especially with all the flashfloods that occur in China

Socialism mires people in poverty, it doesn't "slowly but surely brng them out".

erm no, I consider eradicating homelessness, skyrocketing literacy through education, and universalizing healthcare a big step up from "poverty"

A group of countries = an economic system?

yes countries in a random grouping do have economic systems

OneBrickOneVoice

16th April 2007, 23:09

Secondly the hard facts are mysteriously absent.

Fun Fun Fun!!! hard fact proving capitalism sucks monster cock!!! Click here!!! (http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/12/05/globalwealth.html)

Let's pull out some fun facts!!!

'Income inequality has been rising for the past 20 to 25 years'

The richest one per cent of the world's population owns 40 per cent of the total household wealth, while the bottom half of the world makes do with barely one per cent, according to a research report released Tuesday

The bulk of the wealthiest adults (almost 90 per cent) are concentrated in North America, Europe and Japan, the researchers said. For example, North America accounts for only six per cent of adults, but held 34 per cent of the globe's household wealth.

Oh here's some more (http://www.alternet.org/story/23369/)

Selina, her husband, and four children are among the 1.2 billion people in the world living on less than a dollar a day -- what the United Nations calls 'extreme poverty.'

Oh but don't worry, 1 in 6 people is not that bad, right?

t_wolves_fan

17th April 2007, 14:39

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 16, 2007 08:22 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 16, 2007 08:22 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:17 pm

[email protected] 16, 2007 07:48 pm
Do you understand the concept of "first world" an "third world"? One is capitalism, the other poverty.

A group of countries = an economic system?

Fess up Jazz, how many pills you swallow before typing this?
Well, to be fair they're all under capitalism.

Also, if I had taken pills I would be less inclined to post on here, especially to you guys. [/b]
To varying degrees. Capitalism in Germany or France is very different from capitalism in the Unitd States.

What's your favorite way to whack? Pills, smoke, or injection?

Do tell.

Tungsten

17th April 2007, 15:13

Of course, I don't see why not.

We would have the power to control, as a people, what we need and dont need. Thats fundamental.
I doubt more than 6 people would be able to do that without disagreement, let alone 6 billion. Try it, if you don't believe me.

-

'Income inequality has been rising for the past 20 to 25 years'
The inequality is only economic.

The richest one per cent of the world's population owns 40 per cent of the total household wealth, while the bottom half of the world makes do with barely one per cent, according to a research report released Tuesday
What the hell is household wealth? Whatever it is, it's not like everyone on earth pools together their money and then the richest 1% come and take 40% of it, is it?

Selina, her husband, and four children are among the 1.2 billion people in the world living on less than a dollar a day -- what the United Nations calls 'extreme poverty.'
It's not like the cost of living is the same over the entire world, is it? And how is this supposedly the fault of capitalism? Come on, explain it.

Jazzratt

17th April 2007, 15:17

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 17, 2007 01:39 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 17, 2007 01:39 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:22 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:17 pm

[email protected] 16, 2007 07:48 pm
Do you understand the concept of "first world" an "third world"? One is capitalism, the other poverty.

A group of countries = an economic system?

Fess up Jazz, how many pills you swallow before typing this?
Well, to be fair they're all under capitalism.

Also, if I had taken pills I would be less inclined to post on here, especially to you guys.
To varying degrees. Capitalism in Germany or France is very different from capitalism in the Unitd States. [/b]
Capitalism still has at its core the worker/boss relationship. It still has the price system and it is still a scarcity economy.

What's your favorite way to whack? Pills, smoke, or injection?

Do tell.

Fuck off?

t_wolves_fan

17th April 2007, 16:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:17 pm
Capitalism still has at its core the worker/boss relationship. It still has the price system and it is still a scarcity economy.

So will any system inevitably. If consumer demand is to be met, labor has to be organized in some fashion, doesn't it?

Resources are in fact limited are they not? I mean as far as I know, we have not yet invented a machine that just creates food or anything else out of thin air.

I'm afraid those machines only exist in your drug-induced escapes from reality.

What's your favorite way to whack? Pills, smoke, or injection?

Do tell.

Fuck off?

All of the above then?

t_wolves_fan

17th April 2007, 16:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:09 pm

Oh but don't worry, 1 in 6 people is not that bad, right?
If you were in charge, it'd be 5.9 of 6.

Jazzratt

17th April 2007, 16:13

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 17, 2007 03:10 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 17, 2007 03:10 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 02:17 pm
Capitalism still has at its core the worker/boss relationship. It still has the price system and it is still a scarcity economy.

So will any system inevitably. If consumer demand is to be met, labor has to be organized in some fashion, doesn't it? [/b]
Horizontally for example. Not every labour relationship needs to be vertical as it is in capitalism.

Resources are in fact limited are they not? I mean as far as I know, we have not yet invented a machine that just creates food or anything else out of thin air.

I'm afraid those machines only exist in your drug-induced escapes from reality.

What's your favorite way to whack? Pills, smoke, or injection?

Do tell.

Fuck off?

All of the above then?
What is the relevance of this in regards to this argument?

t_wolves_fan

17th April 2007, 16:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:13 pm

Horizontally for example. Not every labour relationship needs to be vertical as it is in capitalism.

Explain how global trade of resources and a planned economy will happen "horizontally".

What is the relevance of this in regards to this argument?

I just want to know how you come up with the stuff you spout.

You didn't answer my question: you do realize resources are limited, don't you?

Jazzratt

17th April 2007, 16:23

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 17, 2007 03:15 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 17, 2007 03:15 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 03:13 pm

Horizontally for example. Not every labour relationship needs to be vertical as it is in capitalism.

Explain how global trade of resources and a planned economy will happen "horizontally". [/b]
Why? You
A) Wouldn't understand it.
B) Would play your "I pretend to be a government official on the internet and j00 is a h4x" card.

You didn't answer my question:
You added it after I replied to your quote you fucking cut.

you do realize resources are limited, don't you?
A post-scarcity society is possible even today.That's pretty much taken as read by most people.

t_wolves_fan

17th April 2007, 16:38

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 17, 2007 03:23 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 17, 2007 03:23 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:15 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 03:13 pm

Horizontally for example. Not every labour relationship needs to be vertical as it is in capitalism.

Explain how global trade of resources and a planned economy will happen "horizontally".
Why? You
A) Wouldn't understand it.
B) Would play your "I pretend to be a government official on the internet and j00 is a h4x" card.

[/b]
Try me.

For once, actually explain it instead of swearing. It's quite a challenge but I bet you're up to it.

You didn't answer my question:
You added it after I replied to your quote you fucking cut.

Then please answer it now?

you do realize resources are limited, don't you?
A post-scarcity society is possible even today.That's pretty much taken as read by most people.

How?

Do you care to explain it more thoroughly than an expletive-laden sentence, if you would.

I'm serious. No more personal insults. Let's actually discuss this.

pusher robot

17th April 2007, 16:42

Let's actually discuss this.

Yes, let's. I'd be very interested to hear how a post-scarcity economy could be accomplished in our time.

OneBrickOneVoice

17th April 2007, 22:01

The inequality is only economic.

In other words, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer

What the hell is household wealth?

wealth produced by the households ie families of the world.

Whatever it is, it's not like everyone on earth pools together
their money and then the richest 1% come and take 40% of it, is it?

As a matter of fact, that is essentially what happens. 1% of the population take 40% of the pie and 50% of the population take less than 1% of the pie.

It's not like the cost of living is the same over the entire world, is it?

Uh that's kind of taken into account, don't you think?

And how is this supposedly the fault of capitalism? Come on, explain it.

uh capitalism and imperialism exsists all over the world today

OneBrickOneVoice

17th April 2007, 22:03

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 17, 2007 03:12 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 17, 2007 03:12 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 10:09 pm

Oh but don't worry, 1 in 6 people is not that bad, right?
If you were in charge, it'd be 5.9 of 6. [/b]
:lol: bullshit. Your arguement has been refuted.

Johngalt137

17th April 2007, 23:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:09 pm

Secondly the hard facts are mysteriously absent.

Fun Fun Fun!!! hard fact proving capitalism sucks monster cock!!! Click here!!! (http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/12/05/globalwealth.html)

Let's pull out some fun facts!!!

Oh here's some more (http://www.alternet.org/story/23369/)

Selina, her husband, and four children are among the 1.2 billion people in the world living on less than a dollar a day -- what the United Nations calls 'extreme poverty.'

Oh but don't worry, 1 in 6 people is not that bad, right?
This article does not even prove that poverty exists it merely proves that income equality exists, these are not the same thing. Moreover the article does not prove that the income inequality exists because of capitalism. There is no perfectly capitalistic nation and there majority of nations are not, in my estimation even mostly capitalistic. Thus showing that the world has income inequality does not show even remotely that capitalism causes poverty. This is not evidence and still does not justify the original statement.

Next!

Oh here's some more (http://www.alternet.org/story/23369/)

Selina, her husband, and four children are among the 1.2 billion people in the world living on less than a dollar a day -- what the United Nations calls 'extreme poverty.'

Oh but don't worry, 1 in 6 people is not that bad, right?

This is a logical fallacy. The idea that capitalism is the cause of extreme poverty does not follow from the statement that extreme poverty exists.

That would be sufficient evidence, if those 1 in 6 were from capitalistic countries. Trouble is, that they aren't. In fact the astonishing fact is that there are no poor countries with "free-market" economies as defined by the heritage foundation. This should give us pause, there are no third-world countries who are capitalistic. Shocking, eh? If you could show that 1 in 6 people in Hong Kong were living on under a dollar a day this would at least somewhat show that capitalism and poverty are correlated, but unfortunately you haven't managed even to correlate the two, by what gap in your logic do you allow yourself to claim causation?

--Higgs

Johngalt137

17th April 2007, 23:32

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 17, 2007 03:23 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 17, 2007 03:23 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:15 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 03:13 pm

Horizontally for example. Not every labour relationship needs to be vertical as it is in capitalism.

Explain how global trade of resources and a planned economy will happen "horizontally".
Why? You
A) Wouldn't understand it.
B) Would play your "I pretend to be a government official on the internet and j00 is a h4x" card.

[/b]
So this is a tacit admission that the explanation does not exist. Unless you simply wish us to take you on faith?

You didn't answer my question:
You added it after I replied to your quote you fucking cut.

you do realize resources are limited, don't you?
A post-scarcity society is possible even today.That's pretty much taken as read by most people.

:blink:

Is this a common argument on this board? Post-scarcity society is possible?

What you are saying is that it is possible for finite resources to fulfill infinite wants (or needs [1] (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65494&view=findpost&p=1292300890).)

Bullocks.

--higgs

Demogorgon

17th April 2007, 23:50

Originally posted by ZX3+April 15, 2007 02:34 pm--> (ZX3 @ April 15, 2007 02:34 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 09:26 am
Don't fall slave to your right wing corrupt propaganda , capitalism has also done bad things for western countries such as my own (Eire) for all this materialistic wealth we are now slaves to the american corporate machine we now have to do what the yanks want e.g Shannon airport being used to transport their mercenaries to Iraq.
Ireland was long an economic backwater, famous for the famine and its chief export- Catholic priests. Ireland has made some sensible (capitalist) reforms and the country is booming, and immigration to Eire is now the norm, not emigration from. There is development everywhere. Why any socialist pans such a development is bizzare and leads to wonder whether the socialists actually dislike poverty as it so often claims it does. [/b]
Not really. Ireland was always a right wing country without much devotion to social welfare compared to other European countries. It didn't really change anything on the policy front, it just found itself as the poorest country in the EU, the largest beneficiary of EU development money that was spent building the country up.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 00:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:01 pm

The inequality is only economic.

In other words, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer

What the hell is household wealth?

wealth produced by the households ie families of the world.

Whatever it is, it's not like everyone on earth pools together
their money and then the richest 1% come and take 40% of it, is it?

As a matter of fact, that is essentially what happens. 1% of the population take 40% of the pie and 50% of the population take less than 1% of the pie.

It's not like the cost of living is the same over the entire world, is it?

Uh that's kind of taken into account, don't you think?

And how is this supposedly the fault of capitalism? Come on, explain it.

uh capitalism and imperialism exsists all over the world today
Increasing income inequality does not mean that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It means that the difference between what defines rich and what defines poor is growing.

Let us do a thought experiment.

We double both the real GDP and the individual wealth of each person in the world. The poor are twice as well off as they were before, and what did income equality do?

It grew as well. Income inequality is not a measure of poverty, number of people living on a dollar a day or the like is. One should also note, that among nations who have generally capitalistic economic systems the likelihood of having to live on less than a dollar a day is absurdly low (on the order of less than one tenth of one percent, does this vary significantly from zero, I don't think so) compared to countries who have command economies.

--Higgs

higgs629

18th April 2007, 00:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:01 pm

Whatever it is, it's not like everyone on earth pools together
their money and then the richest 1% come and take 40% of it, is it?

As a matter of fact, that is essentially what happens. 1% of the population take 40% of the pie and 50% of the population take less than 1% of the pie.

This is patently false, in a free market one gets wealthy by baking a whole new pie. There is no coercion in a free market. But I don't want to debate the pie analogy anyway the more important note is that most of the worlds population does not live in free market economies at best only 19 countries in the world actually have a free-market economy. Also note that china isn't one of them and neither is India.

--Higgs

Rawthentic

18th April 2007, 01:51

This is patently false, in a free market one gets wealthy by baking a whole new pie.
Shut up.

The pie is there, and is almost entirely controlled by a wealthy minority, while the majority must slave off to try and take a piece of it.

Some get lucky and some don't.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 01:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:51 pm

This is patently false, in a free market one gets wealthy by baking a whole new pie.
Shut up.

The pie is there, and is almost entirely controlled by a wealthy minority, while the majority must slave off to try and take a piece of it.

Some get lucky and some don't.
A whole paragraph of other information in there and you choose to pick on the pie. The pie is a poor analogy in the first place, why don't you discuss the content of the remainder of my post?

--Higgs

Rawthentic

18th April 2007, 02:10

But I don't want to debate the pie analogy anyway the more important note is that most of the worlds population does not live in free market economies at best only 19 countries in the world actually have a free-market economy.
No matter, we all live under capitalism.

t_wolves_fan

18th April 2007, 03:54

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+April 17, 2007 09:03 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ April 17, 2007 09:03 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:12 pm

[email protected] 16, 2007 10:09 pm

Oh but don't worry, 1 in 6 people is not that bad, right?
If you were in charge, it'd be 5.9 of 6.
:lol: bullshit. Your arguement has been refuted. [/b]
I've been here for more than 2 years and seen my arguments neither answered with any significance, nor refuted.

Rawthentic

18th April 2007, 04:59

I've been here for more than 2 years and seen my arguments neither answered with any significance, nor refuted.

Then you are not paying attention. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 05:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:59 pm

I've been here for more than 2 years and seen my arguments neither answered with any significance, nor refuted.

Then you are not paying attention. The burden of proof is on you, not us.
Unfortunately this is not true. The OP was

Statement of principle X. Since principle x is obviously true, how can you justify capitalism.

You must first prove that principle x ("Capitalism is an island surrounded by a sea of poverty") is true for us to respond. The burden of proof in this case lies upon you, just as the burden of proof lies upon me if I were to say "Communism is a sea of poverty".

Does that make sense? The easiest way to make sure that you are not being biased about burden of proof is to switch ideologies. ie change instances of capitalism to communism and vice versa.

Of course if you say this in the context of the debate between capitalism and communism that you particularly have with this person (t wolves fan) rather than this thread, then you may claim a draw as I haven't seen your previous arguments with him.

--Higgs

Rawthentic

18th April 2007, 05:11

Well, I don't know about any of that "sea" shit, but poverty is a characteristic of capitalism, and all class societies.

18th April 2007, 05:12

This is patently false, in a free market one gets wealthy by baking a whole new pie.

So your claim is that in a free market it is impossible to compete in a given market and one must create a whole new market to start a successful business? That's essentially right.

There is no coercion in a free market.

Workers have to work for capitalists.

But I don't want to debate the pie analogy anyway the more important note is that most of the worlds population does not live in free market economies at best only 19 countries in the world actually have a free-market economy. Also note that china isn't one of them and neither is India.

The thing is that what you've said of a free market in this post is applicable to capitalism in general.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 07:58

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 17, 2007 09:12 pm

This is patently false, in a free market one gets wealthy by baking a whole new pie.

So your claim is that in a free market it is impossible to compete in a given market and one must create a whole new market to start a successful business? That's essentially right.

Your error is that the idea that the pie is a market, the context which we have been using it in thus far in the thread is as wealth. Perhaps you missed that part of the discussion. I apologize for the use of such a questionable analogy in the first place, but you really ought to read the replies in chronological order so that you don't make mistakes like this.

(Sorry for the somewhat impolite response, you are probably a nice enough fellow, its been a long day.)

There is no coercion in a free market.

Workers have to work for capitalists.

"Workers" are not coerced into being workers, neither are capitalists. Your statement is similar to the statement that "People who go into McDonald's have to purchase McDonald's to get food from McDonald's"

BobKKKindle$

18th April 2007, 09:31

"Workers" are not coerced into being workers, neither are capitalists.

If one does not have ownership of the means of production, the only way in which one can survive, assuming one does not draw benefits from the state or charity, is through selling one's labour as a commodity - in other words, to be a member of the proletariat class. The absence of a clear degree of choice and the immensity of the consequences of not being able to purchase basic goods and services means that the worker is subject to coercion. It is rarely the case that the Capitalist is 'forced' to have ownership of the means of production - because doing so often ensures a high standard of living without physical or even adminstrative involvement in the production process. It's as simple as that. You are wrong. How your confused and absurd second comment relates to this idea is beyond me - some actual explanation would be nice.

Tungsten

18th April 2007, 15:00

The absence of a clear degree of choice and the immensity of the consequences of not being able to purchase basic goods and services means that the worker is subject to coercion.
Like a subsistence farmer, he has two choices: work or starve. It doesn't follow that because his choices are limited, he's being coerced. Certainly, coercion limits one's choices, but not all things that limit choices are coercion.

colonelguppy

18th April 2007, 15:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:31 am

"Workers" are not coerced into being workers, neither are capitalists.

If one does not have ownership of the means of production, the only way in which one can survive, assuming one does not draw benefits from the state or charity, is through selling one's labour as a commodity - in other words, to be a member of the proletariat class. The absence of a clear degree of choice and the immensity of the consequences of not being able to purchase basic goods and services means that the worker is subject to coercion. It is rarely the case that the Capitalist is 'forced' to have ownership of the means of production - because doing so often ensures a high standard of living without physical or even adminstrative involvement in the production process. It's as simple as that. You are wrong. How your confused and absurd second comment relates to this idea is beyond me - some actual explanation would be nice.
ok, so does communism seek to remove these consequences and thus coercion?

18th April 2007, 17:17

Your error is that the idea that the pie is a market, the context which we have been using it in thus far in the thread is as wealth. Perhaps you missed that part of the discussion. I apologize for the use of such a questionable analogy in the first place, but you really ought to read the replies in chronological order so that you don't make mistakes like this.

Usually the pie is used in terms of market control. I didn't read the earlier responses because most of them are shit. Anyways, my point still stands.

"Workers" are not coerced into being workers, neither are capitalists.

What other option do they have? Start a business and become a capitalist? The vast majority of workers can't afford that. So they're either workers or homeless or dead. That's their options.

Like a subsistence farmer, he has two choices: work or starve. It doesn't follow that because his choices are limited, he's being coerced. Certainly, coercion limits one's choices, but not all things that limit choices are coercion.

Again, you come in with this shit. I've already discussed this to death. The fact isn't that he has to work or starve; it's that he has to work on the conditions that the capitalists sets or he starves. The coercion isn't in the fact that he has to work; it's in the terms of the relationship between the worker and the capitalist.

Now, you're probably going to want to say something like "but the worker can demand a certain amount of pay, or find a better paying job if he doesn't like the job he has!" But of course the fact of the matter is that no matter where the worker goes three things are true:

1. He has to work for capitalists.
2. He has to work under the terms set by the capitalist.
3. He will always be exploited no matter how much he gets paid, because if the capitalist paid him the full value of his labour the business would go under.

ok, so does communism seek to remove these consequences and thus coercion?

Of course it does. It does away with the bourgeois-proletarian relationship completely with the abolition of classes and thus class relations.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 17:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:31 am

"Workers" are not coerced into being workers, neither are capitalists.

If one does not have ownership of the means of production, the only way in which one can survive, assuming one does not draw benefits from the state or charity, is through selling one's labour as a commodity - in other words, to be a member of the proletariat class. The absence of a clear degree of choice and the immensity of the consequences of not being able to purchase basic goods and services means that the worker is subject to coercion. It is rarely the case that the Capitalist is 'forced' to have ownership of the means of production - because doing so often ensures a high standard of living without physical or even adminstrative involvement in the production process. It's as simple as that. You are wrong. How your confused and absurd second comment relates to this idea is beyond me - some actual explanation would be nice.
hmmm... Hypothetically speaking, would you accept that free-market capitalism is a moral economic system if I could show beyond reasonable doubt that there is a possibility for one to not start their life with ownership of the means of production, not recieve any unusual charity of any kind (say born to a Ford factory worker and you go to a community college), and survive without working in a factory or anywhere for more than 5 years and of course without depending on state or private charity?

Since you stated that working for capitalists was the "only" way I think it fair that I only need to show that such a life-path is possible, and I do not have to show that it is probable, otherwise you would have said was very hard not to end up working for capitalists.

--Higgs

PS regarding the capitalist comment I was merely showing that no one is coerced in free-market capitalism, contrasting it with communism in which the capitalists are coerced as well as workers who don't want to play.

18th April 2007, 17:51

hmmm... Hypothetically speaking, would you accept that free-market capitalism is a moral economic system if I could show beyond reasonable doubt that there is a possibility for one to not start their life with ownership of the means of production, not recieve any unusual charity of any kind (say born to a Ford factory worker and you go to a community college), and survive without working in a factory or anywhere for more than 5 years and of course without depending on state or private charity?

Of course, you can't do that. So your query is irrelevant.

PS regarding the capitalist comment I was merely showing that no one is coerced in free-market capitalism

Of course they are, more than ever.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 18:01

Like a subsistence farmer, he has two choices: work or starve. It doesn't follow that because his choices are limited, he's being coerced. Certainly, coercion limits one's choices, but not all things that limit choices are coercion.

Again, you come in with this shit. I've already discussed this to death. The fact isn't that he has to work or starve; it's that he has to work on the conditions that the capitalists sets or he starves. The coercion isn't in the fact that he has to work; it's in the terms of the relationship between the worker and the capitalist.

Discussing it to death has nothing to do with proving it, neither does restating your assertions and claiming them as fact. Again I ask, if I could show that there was a third choice would you at least abandon the claim that free-market capitalism is coercive?

Now, you're probably going to want to say something like "but the worker can demand a certain amount of pay, or find a better paying job if he doesn't like the job he has!"

While this is an important point, no this isn't what I was going to claim.

But of course the fact of the matter is that no matter where the worker goes three things are true:
1. He has to work for capitalists.
2. He has to work under the terms set by the capitalist.
3. He will always be exploited no matter how much he gets paid, because if the capitalist paid him the full value of his labour the business would go under.

Point 1 is, in my opinion untrue, Point 2 is demonstrably untrue and depends on point 1 being true, Point 3 depends on the labor theory of calue which the scientific consensus has shown to be untrue.

I will show in what way point 1 is untrue if you agree to retract your assertion that capitalism is coercive if I can show the possibility (not probability) of not having to work for the "capitalists".

ok, so does communism seek to remove these consequences and thus coercion?

Of course it does. It does away with the bourgeois-proletarian relationship completely with the abolition of classes and thus class relations.

This is a lie, because in order to do this you first have to coerce the "capitalists". I know this to be true, and at the very least you will have to coerce or kill me in order to establish communism in the first place. I define coercion as being deprived of my rights by physical force for the record. These rights include but are not limited to the rights of Locke, and the Bill of Rights.

--Higgs

higgs629

18th April 2007, 18:03

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 18, 2007 09:51 am

hmmm... Hypothetically speaking, would you accept that free-market capitalism is a moral economic system if I could show beyond reasonable doubt that there is a possibility for one to not start their life with ownership of the means of production, not recieve any unusual charity of any kind (say born to a Ford factory worker and you go to a community college), and survive without working in a factory or anywhere for more than 5 years and of course without depending on state or private charity?

Of course, you can't do that. So your query is irrelevant.

But you would nonetheless accept that capitalism is not coercive?

18th April 2007, 18:12

Discussing it to death has nothing to do with proving it, neither does restating your assertions and claiming them as fact. Again I ask, if I could show that there was a third choice would you at least abandon the claim that free-market capitalism is coercive?

Instead of saying this why don't you get on with it already and show me your "third choice".

Point 1 is, in my opinion untrue, Point 2 is demonstrably untrue and depends on point 1 being true

Point one is most certainly true in contemporary society. While you believe that it's not true in a free market economy is irrelevant, because that will never exist outside of your head.

Point 3 depends on the labor theory of calue which the scientific consensus has shown to be untrue.

Actually, it's been mathematically proven to be true while neo-classical economics has been proven mathematically untrue.

I will show in what way point 1 is untrue if you agree to retract your assertion that capitalism is coercive if I can show the possibility (not probability) of not having to work for the "capitalists".

I'm not going to agree to anything. You present your assertion and I will reply.

This is a lie, because in order to do this you first have to coerce the "capitalists". I know this to be true, and at the very least you will have to coerce or kill me in order to establish communism in the first place. I define coercion as being deprived of my rights by physical force for the record. These rights include but are not limited to the rights of Locke, and the Bill of Rights.

Your definition of coercion more or less fits the definition of oppression to me. And yes, of course capitalists will have to be oppressed and coerced. So what?

RNK

18th April 2007, 18:18

Higgs>

Go a month without working and without spending a single cent (or having someone else spend for you). Then tell me if capitalism is coercive.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 18:37

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 18, 2007 10:12 am

Discussing it to death has nothing to do with proving it, neither does restating your assertions and claiming them as fact. Again I ask, if I could show that there was a third choice would you at least abandon the claim that free-market capitalism is coercive?

Instead of saying this why don't you get on with it already and show me your "third choice".

First I want an absolute agreement that if I can illustrate the possibility you will retract the statement that capitalism is coercive.

Point 3 depends on the labor theory of calue which the scientific consensus has shown to be untrue.

Actually, it's been mathematically proven to be true while neo-classical economics has been proven mathematically untrue.

Why then does the scientific consensus not support this proof?

Please post the 'proof'?

I will show in what way point 1 is untrue if you agree to retract your assertion that capitalism is coercive if I can show the possibility (not probability) of not having to work for the "capitalists".

I'm not going to agree to anything. You present your assertion and I will reply.

I won't because then it will be all to easy for you to pretend it doesn't exist if I don't have agreement. It doesn't bother me if you think that it doesn't currently, but I am not going to show it barring your agreement.

This is a lie, because in order to do this you first have to coerce the "capitalists". I know this to be true, and at the very least you will have to coerce or kill me in order to establish communism in the first place. I define coercion as being deprived of my rights by physical force for the record. These rights include but are not limited to the rights of Locke, and the Bill of Rights.

Your definition of coercion more or less fits the definition of oppression to me. And yes, of course capitalists will have to be oppressed and coerced. So what?

So then you are claiming that it is okay to sacrifice some people to achieve a greater good?

--Higgs
"...of course capitalists will have to be...coerced. So what?" --Zampano

18th April 2007, 18:45

First I want an absolute agreement that if I can illustrate the possibility you will retract the statement that capitalism is coercive.

Well I'm not going to give you an "absolute agreement" so either present your argument or stop posting.

Why then does the scientific consensus not support this proof?

Because economics is a system used to support capitalist society. If economics was known to have proven that capitalist society is coercive and exploitative then we'd be living in a very different time.

Please post the 'proof'?

Anwar M. Shaikh
http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/labthvalue.pdf]The (http://anonym.to/?[url) Empirical Strength of the Labour Theory of Value[/url]

If you want to check out why neo-classical economics is massively flawed, I suggest checking out ComradeRed's contributions in this area as well as the book Debunking Economics (http://www.debunking-economics.com/) by Steve Keen.

I won't because then it will be all to easy for you to pretend it doesn't exist if I don't have agreement. It doesn't bother me if you think that it doesn't currently, but I am not going to show it barring your agreement.

Then don't show it and concede that I'm right.

So then you are claiming that it is okay to sacrifice some people to achieve a greater good?

Who said anything about sacrifice? I said that capitalists would have to be oppressed, and yes I think that's perfectly acceptable.

RNK

18th April 2007, 23:44

So then you are claiming that it is okay to sacrifice some people to achieve a greater good?

Are you claiming that it is okay to sacrafice the greater good for the benefit of a few?

"...of course capitalists will have to be...coerced. So what?"

Capitalists will have to be "coerced" inso far as a murderer is "coerced" into not murdering people. A 'capitalist', in this case, would pursue gaining control over a source of a necessary product of society and then forcing society to give him undue wealth in return for it, so that he may elevate himself above the rest of society and live in complete and utter comfort -- at the expense of the comfort of others. If someone broke into my house, attached some sort of device to every water faucet and then told me I had to pay him every time I wanted water, I'd sure as hell 'coerce' him, as he would be attempting to coerce me. I could, of course, buy all of my water in bottled form -- but that'd simply be paying another person who had forcefully claimed ownership of another source of water, who is also forcing me to pay for it. I could drink from the local river -- and probably die within days, as most natural water has become completely unsuitable for consumption (because of who?).

So unless you can let us in on your secret way to aquire drinkable water -- one of, if not THE most important necessities of life -- without having to pay someone for it, then that disproves your claim that capitalism isn't coercive.

wtfm8lol

18th April 2007, 23:58

So unless you can let us in on your secret way to aquire drinkable water -- one of, if not THE most important necessities of life -- without having to pay someone for it, then that disproves your claim that capitalism isn't coercive.

uhh...walk to a stream? :blink:

pusher robot

19th April 2007, 00:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:44 pm
So unless you can let us in on your secret way to aquire drinkable water -- one of, if not THE most important necessities of life -- without having to pay someone for it, then that disproves your claim that capitalism isn't coercive.
I don't think I'm revealing any great secret by revealing that most city parks, retail stores, and government-owned facilities have public drinking fountains that are free of charge.

Also, most freshwater from any source can be rendered safely drinkable by boiling and filtering through ordinary sand and optionally charcoal.

And this is all assuming, of course, a complete lack of any kind of private charity, which is highly atypical of capitalist societies.

higgs629

19th April 2007, 00:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:44 pm

"...of course capitalists will have to be...coerced. So what?"

Capitalists will have to be "coerced" inso far as a murderer is "coerced" into not murdering people. A 'capitalist', in this case, would pursue gaining control over a source of a necessary product of society and then forcing society to give him undue wealth in return for it, so that he may elevate himself above the rest of society and live in complete and utter comfort -- at the expense of the comfort of others. If someone broke into my house, attached some sort of device to every water faucet and then told me I had to pay him every time I wanted water, I'd sure as hell 'coerce' him, as he would be attempting to coerce me. I could, of course, buy all of my water in bottled form -- but that'd simply be paying another person who had forcefully claimed ownership of another source of water, who is also forcing me to pay for it. I could drink from the local river -- and probably die within days, as most natural water has become completely unsuitable for consumption (because of who?).

So unless you can let us in on your secret way to aquire drinkable water -- one of, if not THE most important necessities of life -- without having to pay someone for it, then that disproves your claim that capitalism isn't coercive.
In addition to the arguments against your reasoning already given by others. Your premise is faulty. It assumes that you have no right to property (someone can go tinkering with your faucet), which is not true in a capitalist society. Our villain can only put special stuff on his faucets, not on your's.

RNK

19th April 2007, 00:38

uhh...walk to a stream?

Not even worth replying to.

I don't think I'm revealing any great secret by revealing that most city parks, retail stores, and government-owned facilities have public drinking fountains that are free of charge.

When was the last time you thought about lugging a bathtub filled with water to a mall or park, filling it with tapwater, and then dragging it back home?

Also, most freshwater from any source can be rendered safely drinkable by boiling and filtering through ordinary sand and optionally charcoal.

Wrong. Most tapwater can be rendered drinkable by boiling or using soft chemicals -- not natural freshwater.

Here's a link (http://www.veoliawater.com/diagrams/CC6E454ZpV5ftw6pbdoU.php) to a page that simplistically describes what your tapwater goes through before it can be suitable for consumption (and even then, often it still requires boiling).

It assumes that you have no right to property (someone can go tinkering with your faucet), which is not true in a capitalist society. Our villain can only put special stuff on his faucets, not on your's.

Don't use semantics to avoid the point; Someone else controls the source of a vital necessity, and you have no choice but to pay him for it.

pusher robot

19th April 2007, 01:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:38 pm
When was the last time you thought about lugging a bathtub filled with water to a mall or park, filling it with tapwater, and then dragging it back home?
I really must ask...why are you drinking your bathwater?

Wrong. Most tapwater can be rendered drinkable by boiling or using soft chemicals -- not natural freshwater.
Am I to believe that before the invention of ozonation and chlorination, humans did not drink water and live to tell? Ozonation improves the taste; it is generally not necessary for safety; chlorine only makes it potable.

RNK

19th April 2007, 03:27

That was before most natural water became the chemical and biological soup that it is today.

Also, keep in mind that sources of water differ from one another depending on the location. Some freshwater is "okay", but in many areas it has become completely contaminated.

higgs629

19th April 2007, 06:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:38 pm

It assumes that you have no right to property (someone can go tinkering with your faucet), which is not true in a capitalist society. Our villain can only put special stuff on his faucets, not on your's.

Don't use semantics to avoid the point; Someone else controls the source of a vital necessity, and you have no choice but to pay him for it.
This has nothing to do with somantics, it is the important distinction between a criminal, someone who violated your property rights to take control of this "vital" necessity, versus someone who does that peacefully. The reason the poster did not use an example of someone who does this peacefully is because it is in practice impossible to do so.

19th April 2007, 07:35

This has nothing to do with somantics, it is the important distinction between a criminal, someone who violated your property rights to take control of this "vital" necessity, versus someone who does that peacefully. The reason the poster did not use an example of someone who does this peacefully is because it is in practice impossible to do so.

I don't understand; how can relations between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie be considered "peaceful" when the very purpose of the state - i.e. the monopoly on violence - is to maintain the conditions of bourgeois rule? That's like saying on a particular plantation slavery is a peaceful relationship because there's no open violence between the slave and the master. The fact is that the very threat of violence is what is used as a measure of coercion. In many instances this threat isn't even necessary, as culture creates an ideology of submission.

Demogorgon

19th April 2007, 08:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:00 pm

The absence of a clear degree of choice and the immensity of the consequences of not being able to purchase basic goods and services means that the worker is subject to coercion.
Like a subsistence farmer, he has two choices: work or starve. It doesn't follow that because his choices are limited, he's being coerced. Certainly, coercion limits one's choices, but not all things that limit choices are coercion.
Which makes me wonder why coercion is so uniquely bad if it is only one thing that limits choice

Tungsten

19th April 2007, 17:07

Again, you come in with this shit. I've already discussed this to death. The fact isn't that he has to work or starve; it's that he has to work on the conditions that the capitalists sets or he starves.
Well that's too bad. If you want something off someone else, no matter who it is or what you want, you'll have to do it under their terms or find someone else.

The coercion isn't in the fact that he has to work; it's in the terms of the relationship between the worker and the capitalist.
Having to ask people's permission for things isn't coercion, demanding it without permission is.

Now, you're probably going to want to say something like "but the worker can demand a certain amount of pay, or find a better paying job if he doesn't like the job he has!"
Well, both of those things are true, but...

But of course the fact of the matter is that no matter where the worker goes three things are true:

1. He has to work for capitalists.
2. He has to work under the terms set by the capitalist.
3. He will always be exploited no matter how much he gets paid, because if the capitalist paid him the full value of his labour the business would go under.
He has to work for capitalists? The capitalists need his work.
He has to work under the terms set by the capitalist? The capitalist has to pay under the terms set by the worker too.
Like I said in the other thread, your worldview is non-neutral. You assume that because some are better off than others, the system is unfair. It isn't.

#3 is unaddressed because it's just the labour theory of value all over again and I'm sick of refuting it.

That's like saying on a particular plantation slavery is a peaceful relationship because there's no open violence between the slave and the master. The fact is that the very threat of violence is what is used as a measure of coercion.
Bingo. The slave is being threatend with violence for not working, you have no such threat hanging over you now.

In many instances this threat isn't even necessary, as culture creates an ideology of submission.
And what is that supposed to mean?

-

Go a month without working and without spending a single cent (or having someone else spend for you). Then tell me if capitalism is coercive.
Why, will Ronald McDonald knock on my door, shotgun in hand, and force me to work in one of his restaurants? Use your brain. Having to work for a living isn't coercion, it's a necessity under any system.

Capitalists will have to be "coerced" inso far as a murderer is "coerced" into not murdering people. A 'capitalist', in this case, would pursue gaining control over a source of a necessary product of society and then forcing society to give him undue wealth in return for it, so that he may elevate himself above the rest of society and live in complete and utter comfort -- at the expense of the comfort of others.
Walking to the market to buy food is less convenient than having to grow it for yourself? How is the food produced at your expense.

If someone broke into my house, attached some sort of device to every water faucet and then told me I had to pay him every time I wanted water, I'd sure as hell 'coerce' him, as he would be attempting to coerce me.
All this displays is lack of intelligence. Someone had to put the faucet there, purify and pump this water in the first place. Wanting payment for the privelage is hardly coercion. You could always do it yourself, or even dig a well, although it would be a lot less convenient.

So unless you can let us in on your secret way to aquire drinkable water -- one of, if not THE most important necessities of life -- without having to pay someone for it, then that disproves your claim that capitalism isn't coercive.
And you want to replace it with a something-for-nothing system that somehow doesn't involve coercion. Talk about utopian.

RNK

When was the last time you thought about lugging a bathtub filled with water to a mall or park, filling it with tapwater, and then dragging it back home?
This was a discussion about coercion, not convenience.

higgs629

19th April 2007, 20:40

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 18, 2007 11:35 pm

This has nothing to do with somantics, it is the important distinction between a criminal, someone who violated your property rights to take control of this "vital" necessity, versus someone who does that peacefully. The reason the poster did not use an example of someone who does this peacefully is because it is in practice impossible to do so.

I don't understand; how can relations between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie be considered "peaceful" when the very purpose of the state - i.e. the monopoly on violence - is to maintain the conditions of bourgeois rule? That's like saying on a particular plantation slavery is a peaceful relationship because there's no open violence between the slave and the master. The fact is that the very threat of violence is what is used as a measure of coercion. In many instances this threat isn't even necessary, as culture creates an ideology of submission.
Let me boil down what you just said.

$ = Whip.

RNK

20th April 2007, 02:41

This has nothing to do with somantics, it is the important distinction between a criminal, someone who violated your property rights to take control of this "vital" necessity, versus someone who does that peacefully. The reason the poster did not use an example of someone who does this peacefully is because it is in practice impossible to do so.

I could waste the next 3 hours of my life finding an unimaginably large pile of links and sources revealing the many, many, many, many instances where violent force has been used by a company or state to take and secure a resource that does not belong to it, but instead, I'll simply invite you to use your own damned fucking free time and google it up.

higgs629

20th April 2007, 06:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:41 pm

This has nothing to do with somantics, it is the important distinction between a criminal, someone who violated your property rights to take control of this "vital" necessity, versus someone who does that peacefully. The reason the poster did not use an example of someone who does this peacefully is because it is in practice impossible to do so.

I could waste the next 3 hours of my life finding an unimaginably large pile of links and sources revealing the many, many, many, many instances where violent force has been used by a company or state to take and secure a resource that does not belong to it, but instead, I'll simply invite you to use your own damned fucking free time and google it up.
The use of physical force under a capitalistic system is illegal. So check your premises, you are asserting that there are many instances of corporation using physical force. The possibilities are as follows, 1) they are not under a capitalistic system, 2) they are criminals.