Capitalism.org/Capitalism Forum

[lvleph]

So I stumbled across this site Capitalism.org (http://capitalism.org/index.htm) and its forum Capitalism-informe.com (http://capitalism.informe.com/). I decided to look into the FAQs (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/).


Originally posted by Capitalism.org+--> (Capitalism.org) Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights

What is capitalism?

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.
What is a capitalist?

An advocate of laissez-faire is known as a capitalist, e.g., novelist Ayn Rand is a capitalist; e.g., though economically Engels came from a wealthy background, politically he is recognized as a socialist/communist because of his ideas; e.g., billionaire George Soros is not a capitalist as he does not advocate capitalism, but he advocates some form of a mixed economy statism. Soros like Ted Turner is a "socialist at heart."[/b]


Originally posted by [email protected]
Anarchism is not a form of capitalism; anarchism is a form of collectivism, where individual rights are subject to the rule of competing gangs.
Under capitalism wouldn't "corporate organizations" be able to provide all of the physical protection necessary for their customers and or employees, making government unnecessary?

Whatever you are proposing it is not capitalism. The proper name for what you purpose is not 'corporations', but street gangs, who fund their business through extortion of their victims (which you would call 'customers'). Government is an agency with a monopoly on the power to legally use force in a specific geographic area. What you purpose are multiple agencies (what you incorrectly accuse to be private corporations) in the same geographic area, that have the power to use force subject to no rule of law: anarchism.
Why can't corporations exist without government?

Under capitalism, corporations are the result of a specific contractual legal framework (provided by government), based on the principle of individual rights. Without government, the distinction between public (state owned) and private no longer exists. Corporations cannot exist without individual rights, and governments to protect those individual rights. [However, keep in mind that corporations are not creatures of the state, no more then individuals are.]
Why is "anarcho-capitalism" a contradiction in terms?

Those who attempt to combine anarchism with capitalism, make the error of confusing the peaceful form of competition of capitalism -- trade, ideas, and dollars -- with the brutal "jungle" form of competition of anarchism -- brutality, whims, and bombs.

Have you ever thought what happens when one 'corporate protection agency' disagrees with another? By what method do they solve their dispute? They do it by competition not with dollars, but with guns. They seek to solve their dispute by resorting to force against each other, i.e., a perpetual state of civil war. Under such a system, which gang wins? The one that is the most brutal.

Anarchism is not a form of capitalism; anarchism is a form of collectivism, where individual rights are subject to the rule of competing gangs. Under such a system, any individual would beg to be placed in the relative safety of a dictatorship.
What is the solution to anarchism?

The only peaceful solution to such disputes is to have one agency with the power to settle those disagreements, according to one set of objectively defined laws -- a government. This is what corporations do under capitalism, when they have a dispute with each other -- they go to court (government).
What about the "competing-governments" concept of "anarcho-capitalists"?

Those who advocate anarchism seek to replace a rule of law, with a rule of the jungle. The kind of 'corporations' they envision are not corporations like those under capitalism (which have no power to resort to force), but outlaw 'competing governments', i.e., gangs.
What are some modern day examples of anarchism?

For those who want an illustration of what happens when two 'competing-governments' are arguing with each other in the same geographical area, I give you the libertarian ideal: Bosnia. This is the result of the anarcho-capitalist's ill-thought out nightmare: a species of collectivism, where one is subject to the whims of the tribe or gang in power.

On a micro-level one can observe anarchism in black markets, where drug dealers compete with each other on the same "turf" to "protect" their interests. It is to subject "might" to "right", that one requires rights, and that one requires a government to protect those rights.


Capitalism.org
Pure democracy is collectivist mob-rule
What is the relation of Capitalism to democratic principles?

Capitalism limits the democracy -- the majority of the moment -- to its only useful purpose: the electing of various individuals to various positions of public office. Other then this limited aspect, the power of the majority is severely limited. Capitalism in this sense only supports a limited "democracy", but not a pure one.

Under capitalism no individual, nor any group of individuals, whether they be a minority or a majority, can violate the inalienable rights of any other minority, including the most oppressed minority that has ever existed -- the individual. In the sense, commonly used, that democracy means egalitarianism -- the equality of results (wealth), by an unequal protection (violation) of rights -- capitalism is entirely opposed to it.
What did the founding fathers of America have to say about democracy?

To quote The Federalist, on democracies: "it may be concluded that a pure democracy...can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction...[as] there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Politically, in today's context, what is a capitalist system?

A capitalist system is a republic and not a [pure] democracy. It is a system of checks and balances so ordered to protect the rights of the individual, from criminals and most importantly from the democratically elected voices who claim to speak for the "public good." It is a limited "democracy".

For those who are confused by the issue, the essential point is this: is it right for another man to rape, rob and murder another? Capitalism says never; democracy says yes -- if the majority wills it.

What a crock of shit!

Obviously, they have some things right. Anarchism and Capitalism don't mix. And Democracy and Capitalism don't mix well.

[bluescouse]

Quite right, this is a crock of shit. Aren't these people members of that lunatic Ayn Rand cult?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I see a trend in libertarian thought where capitalism equates to individual freedom and that direct democracy, be it political or social, is mob-rule. This conclusion is false but often cited by advocates of republicanism for the same reason the conservatives of the 19th century advocated monarchies -- the people are seen as wild beasts meant to be tamed. The fence that encircles us has grown, but we're still being shuffled into a nice pretty position because we can't handle ourselves. We need politicians. We need capitalists. We need regulation. They don't.

I'm glad the libertarians see that anarcho-capitalism is impossible unless you want to end up with a Somalia model, which many anarcho-capitalists actively advocate. However, what they advocate isn't much better.

Returning to the topic of republicanism, libertarians can't account for the injustices that happen under republicanism. I find it remarkable those who complain about people interfering in their lives the most champion republicanism and capitalism when both of these are inherently anti-libertarian [when speaking of the original, non-dumbed down version]. I think it's safe to discriminate here by assuming most libertarians are white, upper-middle class kids between 16-30. But hey, the demographics of Leftists can probably be identified in a similar fashion. Oh well.

Direct democracy ensures a free society better than anything else. The European countries like Sweden have some of the most relaxed laws on the planet. Why is this? Because people generally don't give a damn what their neighbors do so long as it doesn't affect them, and that's how government should operate. It takes the politicians using issues like gay marriage to rally up people to the polls.

The way I look at it, capitalism exists because the people allow it to. If [read as when] they become discouraged with the problems of capitalism, they have every right to abolish it in favor of something better. Something similar to this idea is written in our Constitution.

The FAQ states corporations enter agreements with the public but still operate on the basis of private ownership. This is false. Corporations are public entities that owe everything to us. It is "private ownership" which is breaking with what's "right." There can be a case made of private businesses making contracts with their local communities, but libertarians get their panties dirty when people even suggest there be stipulations to operations. This is just one of many flaws in the logic of libertarian capitalism. The resources aren't individually owned until the community sells it. The land isn't individually owned until the community sells it. And before this transaction takes place it is the right of the community to attach whatever they want with the sale.

[Bilan]

Anarchism is not a form of capitalism; anarchism is a form of collectivism, where individual rights are subject to the rule of competing gangs.

:lol:

[Matty_UK]

haha the vast majority of the posts on that site is porn-spam!

[Demogorgon]

Randroids :lol:

[Herman]

Anarchism is not a form of capitalism; anarchism is a form of collectivism, where individual rights are subject to the rule of competing gangs.

:lol:

Yeah, I know! What do they have in mind? Random people with baseball bats and guns extorting people for their "protection racket"?

It's ridiculous the misinformation that these "pure" Ayn Randists have!

[hajduk]

are the capitalists the guys who got lot of money :D

[Dr Mindbender]

what pisses me off about these pro corporate randroids is theyre all for individual freedom yet they dont mind big business having all the autonomy and the workers none. So ordinary people are basically co-erced into pledging loyalty to the bosses. Why dont they see the dichotomy ?!?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:02 pm
what pisses me off about these pro corporate randroids is theyre all for individual freedom yet they dont mind big business having all the autonomy and the workers none. So ordinary people are basically co-erced into pledging loyalty to the bosses. Why dont they see the dichotomy ?!?
Remember they don't see personal freedom in the normal sernse. To them it doesn't involve anything like how we would see it. Rather all they see it as is freedom of commerce

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:02 pm
what pisses me off about these pro corporate randroids is theyre all for individual freedom yet they dont mind big business having all the autonomy and the workers none. So ordinary people are basically co-erced into pledging loyalty to the bosses. Why dont they see the dichotomy ?!?
they dont whant to see,
they understand the rules of capitalism and also what is that mean in the system and what kind of influences got on them, but they dont whant accept reality becouse they like to be sheeps and nothing else,you have good boock about this from Erich Fromm "Escape from freedom" its shows the mental mechanisms of accepting the autocracy like something normal in human life

[Dr Mindbender]

fuck this site really riles me. I wish someone could hack this shit and take it down.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:16 pm
fuck this site really riles me. I wish someone could hack this shit and take it down.
me to ;)

[lvleph]

Originally posted by hajduk+October 31, 2007 05:24 pm--> (hajduk @ October 31, 2007 05:24 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:16 pm
fuck this site really riles me. I wish someone could hack this shit and take it down.
me to ;) [/b]
It would be easy to do a denial of service using iframes. In fact, you could do a google video search for denial of service and iframes. Get a few friends to do it with you...

[Comrade Nadezhda]

This site is fucked up.


what pisses me off about these pro corporate randroids is theyre all for individual freedom yet they dont mind big business having all the autonomy and the workers none. So ordinary people are basically co-erced into pledging loyalty to the bosses. Why dont they see the dichotomy ?!?
capitalism is fucked up-- unfortunately everyone buys into the bullshit-- and the bullshit argument in regards to "individual freedom"--- the majority living in capitalist society are subordinate to the bourgeoisie-- yet they buy into the bullshit with these kind of bullshit statements which ultimately hold no truth. that's what is fucked up about capitalist society-- the bourgeois ruling class use the coercive institution of the state to achieve their own interests-- and they talk about "democracy" like what they have is "democracy" what they have is bourgeois democracy -- ie. the subordination of the working class to the bourgeois ruling class through their power of the coercive institution (their state which rules in their bourgeois interests). basically the bourgeoisie takes away all the rights of the working-class through the whole bullshit conception of "property rights" and "individual rights" when only the bourgeois minority actually have the such.


fuck this site really riles me. I wish someone could hack this shit and take it down.
unfortunately I don't know how to hack a site properly-- it would be great if someone did-- get rid of this bullshit

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:16 pm
fuck this site really riles me. I wish someone could hack this shit and take it down.
Wow. Do you really wonder why people fear the society you advocate when you talk in such repressive terms?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 31, 2007 06:01 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 31, 2007 06:01 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:16 pm
fuck this site really riles me. I wish someone could hack this shit and take it down.
Wow. Do you really wonder why people fear the society you advocate when you talk in such repressive terms?[/b]
Repressive?? :huh: The conditions under the bourgeois state and in capitalism society are REPRESSIVE.

It seems as you are completely ignorant to this in making such a idiotic statement based upon bullshit bourgeois arguments that someone would not make if they had an understanding for revolutionary theory/practice/movement, the repression in capitalist society through the existence of the bourgeois state.

[pusher robot]

Repressive?? :huh: The conditions under the bourgeois state and in capitalism society are REPRESSIVE.

Nonsequitur. Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct and that the status quo is repressive, desiring to physically prevent people from expressing ideas that oppose your own is ALSO repressive. There is no logical reason both cannot be repressive at the same time.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 31, 2007 11:01 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 31, 2007 11:01 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:16 pm
fuck this site really riles me. I wish someone could hack this shit and take it down.
Wow. Do you really wonder why people fear the society you advocate when you talk in such repressive terms? [/b]
Because internet posturing about hacking websites is so dangerous and repressive right? :lol:

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 06:37 pm

Repressive?? :huh: The conditions under the bourgeois state and in capitalism society are REPRESSIVE.

Nonsequitur. Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct and that the status quo is repressive, desiring to physically prevent people from expressing ideas that oppose your own is ALSO repressive. There is no logical reason both cannot be repressive at the same time.
So the proletariat should follow like blind sheep behind the bourgeois state and ignore the exploitive conditions existent it capitalist society?

question---

Do you honestly think that justifies your argument against communism?

It doesn't.

- Repression cannot be fought without force; leading me to conclude that---> (see below)

1.) the forces existent which cause repression in the first place must be eliminated
2.) these forces must be eliminated through aggressive means (ex. violent force)
3.) the forces include the bourgeois ruling class and the state apparatus which they control so that it serves in their interest (the bourgeois state; the bourgeoisie)
4.) the destruction of these forces allow for the formation of a worker's state
5.) after this formation, effort must be made against all counterrevolutionary movements which threaten the worker's state formed
6.) this involves eliminating not only counterrevolutionary movement but the threats they bring into existence through their activity
7.) eliminating such threats requires the use of violent force because it isn't possible to combat threats without the use of violence-- otherwise they cannot successfully be eliminated and the same problem will still exist-- which will ultimately have to be taken care of later
8.) eliminating any other threats of any kind (which cannot possibly be known until then)
9.) when all of those measurs are taken-- the worker's state can be secured.

I don't consider the above to be repressive-- either way it is necessary action in order for the repressive forces existent under the bourgeois state to be eliminated.

[pusher robot]

Do you honestly think that justifies your argument against communism?

Well, yes. If capitalism is bad because it is repressive, it is irrational to replace it with yet another repressive system.

I don't care what the justification or the excuse - preventing people from expressing their opinions is repression and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.

[freakazoid]

While I do believe that force is needed to stop the oppression, I do not agree with the idea of doing things like hacking the site.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 09:47 pm


Do you honestly think that justifies your argument against communism?

Well, yes. If capitalism is bad because it is repressive, it is irrational to replace it with yet another repressive system.

I don't care what the justification or the excuse - preventing people from expressing their opinions is repression and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.
It is not repressive when it eliminates threats to the worker's state.

Repression of the ruling class is not 'repression'. It is movement in defense of the proletariat.

There is a difference.

[Tower of Bebel]

"Real" capitalists don't even join that clique.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 01, 2007 11:44 am--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 01, 2007 11:44 am)
pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 09:47 pm


Do you honestly think that justifies your argument against communism?

Well, yes. If capitalism is bad because it is repressive, it is irrational to replace it with yet another repressive system.

I don't care what the justification or the excuse - preventing people from expressing their opinions is repression and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.
It is not repressive when it eliminates threats to the worker's state.

Repression of the ruling class is not 'repression'. It is movement in defense of the proletariat.

There is a difference. [/b]
Yeah, I think people forget that repression can only exist if it is used by a "ruling" class over a "subordinate" class.

[hajduk]

if you hack one capitalist web site they have enough money to make another two
if you hack two capitalist web site they have enough money to make another four
etc. etc. etc.
hacking capitalists web sites is not opressed method becouse moust of time is not so useful,even this site was hacking few times by fascist and every time comraders bring him back,but in the other hand hacking its shows that there is people who dont like that kind of stuff on the net and shows that there is people who understand game behind the game so hacking is just action whitch shows oppinion of some people and nothing else
until we not start to use fascist opressing methods, hacking capitalist web sites is not harmfull for capitalist at all

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:51 pm
if you hack one capitalist web site they have enough money to make another two
if you hack two capitalist web site they have enough money to make another four
etc. etc. etc.
hacking capitalists web sites is not opressed method becouse moust of time is not so useful,even this site was hacking few times by fascist and every time comraders bring him back,but in the other hand hacking its shows that there is people who dont like that kind of stuff on the net and shows that there is people who understand game behind the game so hacking is just action whitch shows oppinion of some people and nothing else
until we not start to use fascist opressing methods, hacking capitalist web sites is not harmfull for capitalist at all
But it is entertaining.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 01, 2007 01:10 pm--> (lvleph @ November 01, 2007 01:10 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 12:51 pm
if you hack one capitalist web site they have enough money to make another two
if you hack two capitalist web site they have enough money to make another four
etc. etc. etc.
hacking capitalists web sites is not opressed method becouse moust of time is not so useful,even this site was hacking few times by fascist and every time comraders bring him back,but in the other hand hacking its shows that there is people who dont like that kind of stuff on the net and shows that there is people who understand game behind the game so hacking is just action whitch shows oppinion of some people and nothing else
until we not start to use fascist opressing methods, hacking capitalist web sites is not harmfull for capitalist at all
But it is entertaining. [/b]
what do you mean?

[lvleph]

Originally posted by hajduk+November 01, 2007 01:40 pm--> (hajduk @ November 01, 2007 01:40 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:10 pm

[email protected] 01, 2007 12:51 pm
if you hack one capitalist web site they have enough money to make another two
if you hack two capitalist web site they have enough money to make another four
etc. etc. etc.
hacking capitalists web sites is not opressed method becouse moust of time is not so useful,even this site was hacking few times by fascist and every time comraders bring him back,but in the other hand hacking its shows that there is people who dont like that kind of stuff on the net and shows that there is people who understand game behind the game so hacking is just action whitch shows oppinion of some people and nothing else
until we not start to use fascist opressing methods, hacking capitalist web sites is not harmfull for capitalist at all
But it is entertaining.
what do you mean? [/b]
Hacking someone's site can be used as entertainment.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 31, 2007 11:01 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 31, 2007 11:01 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:16 pm
fuck this site really riles me. I wish someone could hack this shit and take it down.
Wow. Do you really wonder why people fear the society you advocate when you talk in such repressive terms? [/b]
This is some bluster on the internet it's kind of the equivalent of someone shouting "shut the fuck up" at a bunch of people - something I'm sure you'll understand has nothing to do with how someone envisions a future society.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+October 31, 2007 11:01 pm--> (pusher robot @ October 31, 2007 11:01 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:16 pm
fuck this site really riles me. I wish someone could hack this shit and take it down.
Wow. Do you really wonder why people fear the society you advocate when you talk in such repressive terms? [/b]
As i've said before it's about class war, its not some picnic where we sing songs and suck each other's dicks.

Also dont kid yourself. I bet most of their membership would be happy to see the end of this board. Much like old Dubya tried to shut up political dissent in real life with his 'patriot act'. So theres no need to fear a 'repressive' society, you're already living in one .

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 11:37 pm

Repressive?? :huh: The conditions under the bourgeois state and in capitalism society are REPRESSIVE.

Nonsequitur. Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct and that the status quo is repressive, desiring to physically prevent people from expressing ideas that oppose your own is ALSO repressive. There is no logical reason both cannot be repressive at the same time.
the establishment class not only attempt to silence political challenge, but they also do so EFFECTIVELY. My fantasy of shutting down this one pathetic site is the activist equivalent of throwing a grain of rice at a charging rhino.

The right wing bias of tabloids, TV channels and their pro-neoliberal/con agenda do nothing to create a stable balance between left and right. There is no BIG left wing media source. The right wingers own all of them.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 01, 2007 12:37 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 01, 2007 12:37 pm)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 11:01 pm

Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:16 pm
fuck this site really riles me. I wish someone could hack this shit and take it down.
Wow. Do you really wonder why people fear the society you advocate when you talk in such repressive terms?
As i've said before it's about class war, its not some picnic where we sing songs and suck each other's dicks.

Also dont kid yourself. I bet most of their membership would be happy to see the end of this board. Much like old Dubya tried to shut up political dissent in real life with his 'patriot act'. So theres no need to fear a 'repressive' society, you're already living in one .[/b]
exactly, they just fail to realize it.

advocating that a worker's state is 'repressive' is a bullshit argument--

just as the stupid bullshit americans speak of in regards to the soviet union- they claim the soviet union was 'repressive' (by all means-- regardless of conditions, circumstances, etc) that the media is "controlled" and bullshit like that-- and then they talk about communism as if it is fucked up-- they should look at their own media- bourgeois bullshit being broadcast as truth. they are blind sleep so they fail to come to the realization that their own state is repressive. that's exactly what the bourgeois state wants, too- so that there aren't too many revolutionary movements forming which they have to "get rid of" so that they don't cause harm to their lovely private property and monopolist organizations-- they are self-interested pigs and they simply don't give a fuck if they exploit the entire working class as long as it benefits them. they blame communists for creating repressive societies but they can't look at their own states and recognize that it is their bourgeois state which is repressive.

[pusher robot]

advocating that a worker's state is 'repressive' is a bullshit argument--

Utterly asinine. I am seriously supposed to listen to you argue that someone coming to physically stop me from speaking just because my opinion is unpopular is not repressive?

I think not. I demand the unconditional freedom to speak my mind to anybody who is willing to listen. Anything less is unacceptable and I don't care what justifications you offer.

I wouldn't complain if you said "I wish those guys would give up" or "I wish they would realize how stupid they are" or even "I wish they'd suffer some horrible accident." But no, you immediately express the totalitarian impulse to stop them from speaking. I'm not supposed to find that troubling in the slightest?

Honestly, I didn't even think it was that big of a deal when I made the comment, just that it's awfully hypocritical. But I didn't think people would actually defend this.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 02:08 am

advocating that a worker's state is 'repressive' is a bullshit argument--

Utterly asinine. I am seriously supposed to listen to you argue that someone coming to physically stop me from speaking just because my opinion is unpopular is not repressive?

I think not. I demand the unconditional freedom to speak my mind to anybody who is willing to listen. Anything less is unacceptable and I don't care what justifications you offer.

I wouldn't complain if you said "I wish those guys would give up" or "I wish they would realize how stupid they are" or even "I wish they'd suffer some horrible accident." But no, you immediately express the totalitarian impulse to stop them from speaking. I'm not supposed to find that troubling in the slightest?

Honestly, I didn't even think it was that big of a deal when I made the comment, just that it's awfully hypocritical. But I didn't think people would actually defend this.
I might point out, that this is one of the only boards representing a particular political positiont hat I know of that allows people of radically different views to post on it. Indeed in the past we didn't even restrict, though that led to too many threads being bogged down. So really, we aren't that inclined towards preventing you from speaking your mind.

Anyway I certainly would not advocate any restriction on your speech, but I fail to see how tough guy posturing concerning hacking a website is particularly disturbing.

[pusher robot]

Anyway I certainly would not advocate any restriction on your speech, but I fail to see how tough guy posturing concerning hacking a website is particularly disturbing.

It's not, really - just hypocritical. But the reflexive defense of his attitude is disturbing.

[Axel1917]

Nothing is more ignorant than a Randroid, it seems. They are just a cult though, and the bourgeoisie are not insane enough to implement such policies that would endanger their system. I don't see why people act like Randroids are some lethal threat or anything like that. They don't seem to exist outside of the internet.

Randites are to the right what the MIM is to the left. Just some lunatic cult that is totally isolated from the rest of the spectrum it is on.

[bluescouse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:15 am
Nothing is more ignorant than a Randroid, it seems. They are just a cult though, and the bourgeoisie are not insane enough to implement such policies that would endanger their system. I don't see why people act like Randroids are some lethal threat or anything like that. They don't seem to exist outside of the internet.

Randites are to the right what the MIM is to the left. Just some lunatic cult that is totally isolated from the rest of the spectrum it is on.
Yes I have never met one personally. They just haunt the internet like a virus.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:15 am
Nothing is more ignorant than a Randroid, it seems. They are just a cult though, and the bourgeoisie are not insane enough to implement such policies that would endanger their system. I don't see why people act like Randroids are some lethal threat or anything like that. They don't seem to exist outside of the internet.

Randites are to the right what the MIM is to the left. Just some lunatic cult that is totally isolated from the rest of the spectrum it is on.
Oh well, thats a relief. Heres me thinking they were speaking on behalf of mainstream capitalism. Doesnt mean i wouldnt like to throw a spanner in their works though, just for lulz if nothing else.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 02:08 am

advocating that a worker's state is 'repressive' is a bullshit argument--

Utterly asinine. I am seriously supposed to listen to you argue that someone coming to physically stop me from speaking just because my opinion is unpopular is not repressive?

I think not. I demand the unconditional freedom to speak my mind to anybody who is willing to listen. Anything less is unacceptable and I don't care what justifications you offer.

I wouldn't complain if you said "I wish those guys would give up" or "I wish they would realize how stupid they are" or even "I wish they'd suffer some horrible accident." But no, you immediately express the totalitarian impulse to stop them from speaking. I'm not supposed to find that troubling in the slightest?

Honestly, I didn't even think it was that big of a deal when I made the comment, just that it's awfully hypocritical. But I didn't think people would actually defend this.
grain of rice at a charging rhino.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:15 am
Nothing is more ignorant than a Randroid, it seems. They are just a cult though, and the bourgeoisie are not insane enough to implement such policies that would endanger their system. I don't see why people act like Randroids are some lethal threat or anything like that. They don't seem to exist outside of the internet.

Randites are to the right what the MIM is to the left. Just some lunatic cult that is totally isolated from the rest of the spectrum it is on.
Unfortunately thay are a bit more relevant than the MIM. They do have quite a lot of influence in Government, particularly the US government. Alan Greenspan being involved with them for instance.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by bluescouse+November 02, 2007 01:25 pm--> (bluescouse @ November 02, 2007 01:25 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 05:15 am
Nothing is more ignorant than a Randroid, it seems. They are just a cult though, and the bourgeoisie are not insane enough to implement such policies that would endanger their system. I don't see why people act like Randroids are some lethal threat or anything like that. They don't seem to exist outside of the internet.

Randites are to the right what the MIM is to the left. Just some lunatic cult that is totally isolated from the rest of the spectrum it is on.
Yes I have never met one personally. They just haunt the internet like a virus. [/b]
Perhaps they do as such because their arrogant attitudes and blatantly reactionary politics prevent them from having any friends.


Unfortunately thay are a bit more relevant than the MIM. They do have quite a lot of influence in Government, particularly the US government. Alan Greenspan being involved with them for instance.

Isn't he a former Randite? And participating in the Fed probably goes against Randism, a reactionary doctrine that wants zero state activity in the economy and 100% ultra-totalitarian state activity against the working class.

Even if there were some Randites in the government, the bourgeoisie would clip their wings if they ever became somewhat predominant, as their politics would greatly exacerbate the class struggle and weaken the economy.


Oh well, thats a relief. Heres me thinking they were speaking on behalf of mainstream capitalism. Doesnt mean i wouldnt like to throw a spanner in their works though, just for lulz if nothing else.

It is good to know that they are just internet freaks. And as far as lulz go, it is a fact that Ayn Rand based all of this nonsense on works of fiction. Her magnum opus, a work of fiction, Atlas Shrugged, from what I have heard, essentially depicts a society that collapses because the capitalists leave due to not feeling appreciated! :lol: I think COMRADE CRUM stated that Atlas Shrugged is the greatest insult to literature since Mein Kampf.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:47 am
"Real" capitalists don't even join that clique.
Evidently. And what those guys call "capitalism" is surely not capitalism at all.

If someone wants a real capitalism.org (or .com, which would make more sence), they should access the stock market websites.

Luís Henrique

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:29 am

Isn't he a former Randite? And participating in the Fed probably goes against Randism, a reactionary doctrine that wants zero state activity in the economy and 100% ultra-totalitarian state activity against the working class.

Even if there were some Randites in the government, the bourgeoisie would clip their wings if they ever became somewhat predominant, as their politics would greatly exacerbate the class struggle and weaken the economy.

Well Rand herself attended his swearing in as Chairman Of THe Council of Economic Advisers when he was appointed by Ford. So they weren't exactly seperated when he went into Government. He says he still believes in objectivism but believes he has to make compromises to achieve anything.

Clearly still a very dangerous individual.

And don't forget there are plenty of other examples of them infecting Government. She has plenty of fans in the US Congress. Ron Paul for instance.

[Ismail]

Ron Paul seems to be a bit more on the side of Austrian economics. (Not that they are immensely different, but still)

[Tungsten]

Comrade Nadezhda

basically the bourgeoisie takes away all the rights of the working-class through the whole bullshit conception of "property rights" and "individual rights" when only the bourgeois minority actually have the such.


unfortunately I don't know how to hack a site properly-- it would be great if someone did-- get rid of this bullshit
If you're like this now, what are you going to be like when you achieve power?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/Stalin.PNG/181px-Stalin.PNG

?


Repressive?? The conditions under the bourgeois state and in capitalism society are REPRESSIVE.

It seems as you are completely ignorant to this in making such a idiotic statement based upon bullshit bourgeois arguments that someone would not make if they had an understanding for revolutionary theory/practice/movement, the repression in capitalist society through the existence of the bourgeois state.
Way to go to miss the point.


So the proletariat should follow like blind sheep behind the bourgeois state and ignore the exploitive conditions existent it capitalist society?
What an appaling evaluation of society. It wouldn't be so bad if this was your evaluation, but I get the feeling it isn't.


1.) the forces existent which cause repression in the first place must be eliminated
2.) these forces must be eliminated through aggressive means (ex. violent force)
3.) the forces include the bourgeois ruling class and the state apparatus which they control so that it serves in their interest (the bourgeois state; the bourgeoisie)
4.) the destruction of these forces allow for the formation of a worker's state
5.) after this formation, effort must be made against all counterrevolutionary movements which threaten the worker's state formed
6.) this involves eliminating not only counterrevolutionary movement but the threats they bring into existence through their activity
7.) eliminating such threats requires the use of violent force because it isn't possible to combat threats without the use of violence-- otherwise they cannot successfully be eliminated and the same problem will still exist-- which will ultimately have to be taken care of later
8.) eliminating any other threats of any kind (which cannot possibly be known until then)
9.) when all of those measurs are taken-- the worker's state can be secured.

I don't consider the above to be repressive
That's what worries us. And the working class. And probably a large number of socialists too. More on this one, though:

6.) this involves eliminating not only counterrevolutionary movement but the threats they bring into existence through their activity

This won't bring you a communist paradise, only perpetual revolution run by paranoiacs.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What a load of fucking shit. Their slandering of anarchists as bomb throwing psychopaths is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:02 pm

So the proletariat should follow like blind sheep behind the bourgeois state and ignore the exploitive conditions existent it capitalist society?
What an appaling evaluation of society. It wouldn't be so bad if this was your evaluation, but I get the feeling it isn't.
More appaling is that people like you support the perpetuation of such conditions.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You know, I've known and had the pleasure of discussing issues with and debating very intelligent and articulate capitalists, which puzzles me all the more as to why a website called "Capitalism.org" has an FAQ that sounds like they hired a 5 year old on acid to write it.

[Tungsten]

Dean

More appaling is that people like you support the perpetuation of such conditions.
I bother to question whether such conditions exist in the first place, and if the do, whether they actually exist as described. Needless to say, I'm far from convinced.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 07:11 pm
Dean

More appaling is that people like you support the perpetuation of such conditions.
I bother to question whether such conditions exist in the first place, and if the do, whether they actually exist as described. Needless to say, I'm far from convinced.
Yes, everyone lives in candyland. Take some more Soma.

[hajduk]

Resistance Is Surrender
by
Slavoj Žižek

One of the clearest lessons of the last few decades is that capitalism is indestructible. Marx compared it to a vampire, and one of the salient points of comparison now appears to be that vampires always rise up again after being stabbed to death. Even Mao’s attempt, in the Cultural Revolution, to wipe out the traces of capitalism, ended up in its triumphant return.

Today’s Left reacts in a wide variety of ways to the hegemony of global capitalism and its political supplement, liberal democracy. It might, for example, accept the hegemony, but continue to fight for reform within its rules (this is Third Way social democracy).

Or, it accepts that the hegemony is here to stay, but should nonetheless be resisted from its ‘interstices’.

Or, it accepts the futility of all struggle, since the hegemony is so all-encompassing that nothing can really be done except wait for an outburst of ‘divine violence’ – a revolutionary version of Heidegger’s ‘only God can save us.’

Or, it recognises the temporary futility of the struggle. In today’s triumph of global capitalism, the argument goes, true resistance is not possible, so all we can do till the revolutionary spirit of the global working class is renewed is defend what remains of the welfare state, confronting those in power with demands we know they cannot fulfil, and otherwise withdraw into cultural studies, where one can quietly pursue the work of criticism.

Or, it emphasises the fact that the problem is a more fundamental one, that global capitalism is ultimately an effect of the underlying principles of technology or ‘instrumental reason’.

Or, it posits that one can undermine global capitalism and state power, not by directly attacking them, but by refocusing the field of struggle on everyday practices, where one can ‘build a new world’; in this way, the foundations of the power of capital and the state will be gradually undermined, and, at some point, the state will collapse (the exemplar of this approach is the Zapatista movement).

Or, it takes the ‘postmodern’ route, shifting the accent from anti-capitalist struggle to the multiple forms of politico-ideological struggle for hegemony, emphasising the importance of discursive re-articulation.

Or, it wagers that one can repeat at the postmodern level the classical Marxist gesture of enacting the ‘determinate negation’ of capitalism: with today’s rise of ‘cognitive work’, the contradiction between social production and capitalist relations has become starker than ever, rendering possible for the first time ‘absolute democracy’ (this would be Hardt and Negri’s position).

These positions are not presented as a way of avoiding some ‘true’ radical Left politics – what they are trying to get around is, indeed, the lack of such a position. This defeat of the Left is not the whole story of the last thirty years, however. There is another, no less surprising, lesson to be learned from the Chinese Communists’ presiding over arguably the most explosive development of capitalism in history, and from the growth of West European Third Way social democracy. It is, in short: we can do it better. In the UK, the Thatcher revolution was, at the time, chaotic and impulsive, marked by unpredictable contingencies. It was Tony Blair who was able to institutionalise it, or, in Hegel’s terms, to raise (what first appeared as) a contingency, a historical accident, into a necessity. Thatcher wasn’t a Thatcherite, she was merely herself; it was Blair (more than Major) who truly gave form to Thatcherism.

The response of some critics on the postmodern Left to this predicament is to call for a new politics of resistance. Those who still insist on fighting state power, let alone seizing it, are accused of remaining stuck within the ‘old paradigm’: the task today, their critics say, is to resist state power by withdrawing from its terrain and creating new spaces outside its control. This is, of course, the obverse of accepting the triumph of capitalism. The politics of resistance is nothing but the moralising supplement to a Third Way Left.

Simon Critchley’s recent book, Infinitely Demanding, is an almost perfect embodiment of this position. For Critchley, the liberal-democratic state is here to stay. Attempts to abolish the state failed miserably; consequently, the new politics has to be located at a distance from it: anti-war movements, ecological organisations, groups protesting against racist or sexist abuses, and other forms of local self-organisation. It must be a politics of resistance to the state, of bombarding the state with impossible demands, of denouncing the limitations of state mechanisms. The main argument for conducting the politics of resistance at a distance from the state hinges on the ethical dimension of the ‘infinitely demanding’ call for justice: no state can heed this call, since its ultimate goal is the ‘real-political’ one of ensuring its own reproduction (its economic growth, public safety, etc). ‘Of course,’ Critchley writes,:

history is habitually written by the people with the guns and sticks and one cannot expect to defeat them with mocking satire and feather dusters. Yet, as the history of ultra-leftist active nihilism eloquently shows, one is lost the moment one picks up the guns and sticks. Anarchic political resistance should not seek to mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty it opposes.

So what should, say, the US Democrats do? Stop competing for state power and withdraw to the interstices of the state, leaving state power to the Republicans and start a campaign of anarchic resistance to it? And what would Critchley do if he were facing an adversary like Hitler? Surely in such a case one should ‘mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty’ one opposes? Shouldn’t the Left draw a distinction between the circumstances in which one would resort to violence in confronting the state, and those in which all one can and should do is use ‘mocking satire and feather dusters’? The ambiguity of Critchley’s position resides in a strange non sequitur: if the state is here to stay, if it is impossible to abolish it (or capitalism), why retreat from it? Why not act with(in) the state? Why not accept the basic premise of the Third Way? Why limit oneself to a politics which, as Critchley puts it, ‘calls the state into question and calls the established order to account, not in order to do away with the state, desirable though that might well be in some utopian sense, but in order to better it or attenuate its malicious effect’?

These words simply demonstrate that today’s liberal-democratic state and the dream of an ‘infinitely demanding’ anarchic politics exist in a relationship of mutual parasitism: anarchic agents do the ethical thinking, and the state does the work of running and regulating society. Critchley’s anarchic ethico-political agent acts like a superego, comfortably bombarding the state with demands; and the more the state tries to satisfy these demands, the more guilty it is seen to be. In compliance with this logic, the anarchic agents focus their protest not on open dictatorships, but on the hypocrisy of liberal democracies, who are accused of betraying their own professed principles.

The big demonstrations in London and Washington against the US attack on Iraq a few years ago offer an exemplary case of this strange symbiotic relationship between power and resistance. Their paradoxical outcome was that both sides were satisfied. The protesters saved their beautiful souls: they made it clear that they don’t agree with the government’s policy on Iraq. Those in power calmly accepted it, even profited from it: not only did the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision to attack Iraq; they also served to legitimise it. Thus George Bush’s reaction to mass demonstrations protesting his visit to London, in effect: ‘You see, this is what we are fighting for, so that what people are doing here – protesting against their government policy – will be possible also in Iraq!’

It is striking that the course on which Hugo Chávez has embarked since 2006 is the exact opposite of the one chosen by the postmodern Left: far from resisting state power, he grabbed it (first by an attempted coup, then democratically), ruthlessly using the Venezuelan state apparatuses to promote his goals. Furthermore, he is militarising the barrios, and organising the training of armed units there. And, the ultimate scare: now that he is feeling the economic effects of capital’s ‘resistance’ to his rule (temporary shortages of some goods in the state-subsidised supermarkets), he has announced plans to consolidate the 24 parties that support him into a single party. Even some of his allies are sceptical about this move: will it come at the expense of the popular movements that have given the Venezuelan revolution its élan? However, this choice, though risky, should be fully endorsed: the task is to make the new party function not as a typical state socialist (or Peronist) party, but as a vehicle for the mobilisation of new forms of politics (like the grass roots slum committees). What should we say to someone like Chávez? ‘No, do not grab state power, just withdraw, leave the state and the current situation in place’? Chávez is often dismissed as a clown – but wouldn’t such a withdrawal just reduce him to a version of Subcomandante Marcos, whom many Mexican leftists now refer to as ‘Subcomediante Marcos’? Today, it is the great capitalists – Bill Gates, corporate polluters, fox hunters – who ‘resist’ the state.

The lesson here is that the truly subversive thing is not to insist on ‘infinite’ demands we know those in power cannot fulfil. Since they know that we know it, such an ‘infinitely demanding’ attitude presents no problem for those in power: ‘So wonderful that, with your critical demands, you remind us what kind of world we would all like to live in. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where we have to make do with what is possible.’ The thing to do is, on the contrary, to bombard those in power with strategically well-selected, precise, finite demands, which can’t be met with the same excuse.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 02:32 pm
are the capitalists the guys who got lot of money :D

Eh, that's not how we define capitalists.

By your definition, any medieval feudal lord sitting on a treasure chest could as well be a "capitalist". Just another one of your one-liner "theories".

Anyway.

Capitalist is an individual who exploits labor power for creating surplus value. (Now let's sit and wait for Hajduk to make a "philosophical trap" for me. :lol: Scandalous.)

[hajduk]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+November 07, 2007 12:56 pm--> (DJ-TC @ November 07, 2007 12:56 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 02:32 pm
are the capitalists the guys who got lot of money :D

Eh, that's not how we define capitalists.

By your definition, any medieval feudal lord sitting on a treasure chest could as well be a "capitalist". Just another one of your one-liner "theories".

Anyway.

Capitalist is an individual who exploits labor power for creating surplus value. (Now let's sit and wait for Hajduk to make a "philosophical trap" for me. :lol: Scandalous.) [/b]
it was a joke DJ-TC :D
but anuway thanx for explanation of capitalist :D

[Tungsten]

Yes, everyone lives in candyland.

It doesn't follow that because we're not living in some imaginary dystopia, we must be living in candyland instead.

Take some more Soma.
Oh I see, so if I have a different opinion, it's not that I've seen different evidence and come to a different conclusion, it must be that I'm mentally ill and in need of medication?

Typical militant utopian. <_<

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:16 pm

Yes, everyone lives in candyland.

It doesn&#39;t follow that because we&#39;re not living in some imaginary dystopia, we must be living in candyland instead.
The western world is a sick manifestation of a dehumanizing, drugged culture. The conditions described are clearly present in our modern age; famine and war are rampant, yet you call the recognition of such conditions "appaling."




Take some more Soma.
Oh I see, so if I have a different opinion, it&#39;s not that I&#39;ve seen different evidence and come to a different conclusion, it must be that I&#39;m mentally ill and in need of medication?
Have you read Brave New World? Or do you just take everything from your narrow view of fantastic jingoism?


Typical militant utopian. <_<
Typical capitalist troll. :mellow: :huh: :o :D ;) :lol: :rolleyes: <_< - enough childishness yet? Are you ready to actually make a coherant argument, or keep calling lefitst ideologies "appaling" &c?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Oh I see, so if I have a different opinion, it&#39;s not that I&#39;ve seen different evidence and come to a different conclusion, it must be that I&#39;m mentally ill and in need of medication?
You misunderstood. Read Huxley&#39;s Brave New World.

[Tungsten]

Dean

The western world is a sick manifestation of a dehumanizing, drugged culture. The conditions described are clearly present in our modern age; famine and war are rampant, yet you call the recognition of such conditions "appaling."
Famine and war are rampant where? In the western world? I don&#39;t think so. Has there ever been a time in history where none of these things existed anywhere? Let&#39;s stop pretending that this age is worse than any other, shall we?

Have you read Brave New World? Or do you just take everything from your narrow view of fantastic jingoism?
That statement doesn&#39;t make sense. And what have I said that&#39;s jingoistic?

RedStar1916

You misunderstood. Read Huxley&#39;s Brave New World.
I&#39;ve not read it. Soma is a real life drug, however.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:10 pm
Dean

The western world is a sick manifestation of a dehumanizing, drugged culture. The conditions described are clearly present in our modern age; famine and war are rampant, yet you call the recognition of such conditions "appaling."
Famine and war are rampant where? In the western world? I don&#39;t think so. Has there ever been a time in history where none of these things existed anywhere? Let&#39;s stop pretending that this age is worse than any other, shall we?
-I never claimed "this age was worse than any other"
-War is rampant in the western world; however, I never said either were common. I only said that the conditions of a drugged, enslaved population are clearly present



Have you read Brave New World? Or do you just take everything from your narrow view of fantastic jingoism?
That statement doesn&#39;t make sense. And what have I said that&#39;s jingoistic?
-*Have you not
-Yuor entire line of arguments have been nonsensical, apologetic nonsense for our current institutional powers. So, therein lies your nationalism.


RedStar1916

You misunderstood. Read Huxley&#39;s Brave New World.
I&#39;ve not read it. Soma is a real life drug, however.
-I have been long aware that Soma exists in reality apart from a cultural icon; I also recognized your implication that I said you needed medication as showing that you are aware of the drug but not the book (which was written long before the drug came about).
-Stop trolling. You&#39;re a joke.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:01 pm
what pisses me off about these pro corporate randroids is theyre all for individual freedom yet they dont mind big business having all the autonomy and the workers none. So ordinary people are basically co-erced into pledging loyalty to the bosses. Why dont they see the dichotomy ?&#33;?
It&#39;s not a dichotomy (at least not from their [and my] point of view).

The workers choose to work for the company; if they want to quit, they&#39;re free to do so. There will be consequences, but the threat of force is never used to keep them working (at least, not in a pure capitalist/Randian system).

Now, granted, the company may impose restrictions, but, again, the workers agree to these: all parties are involved by mutual, voluntary consensus.

[MT5678]

The voluntary consensus meaning that you have the choice to slave for someone in a sweatshop for 30 cents an hour and still live a crappy life, or try to get by on begging others who work for 30 cents an hour (no comment necessary).

How much choice do minimum wage workers and undocumented immigrants have?

People have to work for some capitalist or another, or they die. Any such "choice" is made with a gun to the worker&#39;s head.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:29 am
The voluntary consensus meaning that you have the choice to slave for someone in a sweatshop for 30 cents an hour and still live a crappy life, or try to get by on begging others who work for 30 cents an hour (no comment necessary).

How much choice do minimum wage workers and undocumented immigrants have?

People have to work for some capitalist or another, or they die. Any such "choice" is made with a gun to the worker&#39;s head.
What you&#39;re describing is called being between a rock and a hard place. Just about everyone has to deal with it. Do companies pay meager wages? Yes. Are they forcing you to take the wages or jobs? No.

Why shouldn&#39;t they be able to offer you a job at whatever wage they want? They don&#39;t owe you anything.

[MT5678]

ah. here we arrive at a values conflict. You would say that companies have the right to exploit people (meager wages, in your words). Whereas I would say that people are entitled to the right to live a decent life.

I find your last comment interesting. It confirms your acknowledgement of class struggle, that there is no "community of interest" between worker and employer.

[w0lf]

HAHA. wow. They make capitalism seem like its a savior of our rights.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:46 am
ah. here we arrive at a values conflict. You would say that companies have the right to exploit people (meager wages, in your words). Whereas I would say that people are entitled to the right to live a decent life.

I find your last comment interesting. It confirms your acknowledgement of class struggle, that there is no "community of interest" between worker and employer.

Whereas I would say that people are entitled to the right to live a decent life.

Oh? What is the source of this entitlement? An entitlement, by definition, must come from somewhere. From whence does this one come?

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:46 am
ah. here we arrive at a values conflict. You would say that companies have the right to exploit people (meager wages, in your words). Whereas I would say that people are entitled to the right to live a decent life.

I find your last comment interesting. It confirms your acknowledgement of class struggle, that there is no "community of interest" between worker and employer.
What&#39;s a "decent life?" Even a poor worker in the US today enjoys a standard of living well-beyond what a feudal lord would have. Besides, the capitalist doesn&#39;t prevent people from having a decent life: he just refuses to pay for it. You may have the right, but that doesn&#39;t entitle you to take it at someone elses expense.

I don&#39;t, per se, acknowledge class struggle, because I don&#39;t necessarily acknowledge classes. I think human society is too finely varieted for such broad groupings. Furthermore, I do think that the worker and the employer have many interests in common. They both want money; the employer organizes the workers, the workers produce, and everybody profits. Of course, since they both desire indefinite amounts of money, and since there&#39;s only a finite supply, there will be competition and systemic breakdowns (just like symbiots in nature sometimes fight).

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 08:29 pm
What&#39;s a "decent life?" Even a poor worker in the US today enjoys a standard of living well-beyond what a feudal lord would have. Besides, the capitalist doesn&#39;t prevent people from having a decent life: he just refuses to pay for it. You may have the right, but that doesn&#39;t entitle you to take it at someone elses expense.
You don&#39;t seem to realize that the bourgeois ruling class existent in capitalism owns the means of production - i.e. the factories the workers labor in. It isn&#39;t just one or two factories either. Proletarians can&#39;t just find better work from better employers. This doesn&#39;t work. The reason is proletarians don&#39;t own it, the bourgeois do. Proletarians don&#39;t determine the availability of work, the rate of wage, etc.; the bourgeois do.

Enough with the bullshit about "individual rights" and "someone else&#39;s expense" already.

You should note that not only do the bourgeoisie determine wages, but they determine everything in the capitalism system - this goes for availability of work, the amount of unpaid labor workers must do to continue working- because if the bourgeoisie doesn&#39;t make a surplus than they cannot maintain/increase profit. This requires the bourgeoisie to keep wages at a minimum rate so that the profit is higher and continues to increase- for their benefit- while paying workers a very small piece of the value of the commodity produced from their labor. The bourgeoisie also determines the relations of production, as they own all enterprises/industries and therefore control the market, all productive forces, and all relations under it.

So cut the bullshit about it being at someone else&#39;s expense, because it&#39;s irrelevant. (unless you&#39;re just bourgeois yourself- which is quite obvious.)

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+December 06, 2007 03:43 am--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ December 06, 2007 03:43 am)
Unapologetic [email protected] 05, 2007 08:29 pm
What&#39;s a "decent life?" Even a poor worker in the US today enjoys a standard of living well-beyond what a feudal lord would have. Besides, the capitalist doesn&#39;t prevent people from having a decent life: he just refuses to pay for it. You may have the right, but that doesn&#39;t entitle you to take it at someone elses expense.
You don&#39;t seem to realize that the bourgeois ruling class existent in capitalism owns the means of production - i.e. the factories the workers labor in. It isn&#39;t just one or two factories either. Proletarians can&#39;t just find better work from better employers. This doesn&#39;t work. The reason is proletarians don&#39;t own it, the bourgeois do. Proletarians don&#39;t determine the availability of work, the rate of wage, etc.; the bourgeois do.

Enough with the bullshit about "individual rights" and "someone else&#39;s expense" already.

You should note that not only do the bourgeoisie determine wages, but they determine everything in the capitalism system - this goes for availability of work, the amount of unpaid labor workers must do to continue working- because if the bourgeoisie doesn&#39;t make a surplus than they cannot maintain/increase profit. This requires the bourgeoisie to keep wages at a minimum rate so that the profit is higher and continues to increase- for their benefit- while paying workers a very small piece of the value of the commodity produced from their labor. The bourgeoisie also determines the relations of production, as they own all enterprises/industries and therefore control the market, all productive forces, and all relations under it.

So cut the bullshit about it being at someone else&#39;s expense, because it&#39;s irrelevant. (unless you&#39;re just bourgeois yourself- which is quite obvious.) [/b]
I&#39;m not bourgeoisie. I don&#39;t own much property myself, certainly no means of production. I just happen to believe in property rights.

[MT5678]

Oh? What is the source of this entitlement? An entitlement, by definition, must come from somewhere. From whence does this one come?

Pardon me, I should have rephrased myself: if you keep treating workers like shit, they will stick your head on the end of a pole. Unless the counter-revolution wins (and up until now, it has kept on winning).

There is something very interesting: let&#39;s say we were to go to 1945. Everyone in the economist community would be Keynesian, corporatist, or some shade of Marxist. Proposing neoliberal ideas, like no minimum wage and complete deregulation, would land you in an insane asylum rather than at a think tank. For good reason: if Hoover&#39;s capitalism had persisted instead of FDR&#39;s Keynesianism, the U.S. would have been torn apart.

And that is what we wait for. The moment you get to profit-obsessed, you will screw over enough people for you to meet your own demise.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 06, 2007 12:20 am--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 06, 2007 12:20 am)
Ulster [email protected] 31, 2007 05:01 pm
what pisses me off about these pro corporate randroids is theyre all for individual freedom yet they dont mind big business having all the autonomy and the workers none. So ordinary people are basically co-erced into pledging loyalty to the bosses. Why dont they see the dichotomy ?&#33;?
It&#39;s not a dichotomy (at least not from their [and my] point of view).

The workers choose to work for the company; if they want to quit, they&#39;re free to do so. There will be consequences, but the threat of force is never used to keep them working (at least, not in a pure capitalist/Randian system).

Now, granted, the company may impose restrictions, but, again, the workers agree to these: all parties are involved by mutual, voluntary consensus. [/b]
By that logic dictatorial states would be justified so long as people were free to move between them. So long as that were the case you could say the implied social contract meant everyone living in the country agreed to the dictatorship. That is a weak position to me.

[Demogorgon]

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

Oh? What is the source of this entitlement? An entitlement, by definition, must come from somewhere. From whence does this one come?
Well where do property rights or all the other ones you believe in come from?

The "right" or "entitlement" to a decent life quite simply comes down to what kind of society you want to live in. You won&#39;t be convinced by socialist arguments, so we&#39;ll try Liberal arguments (and I am not a Liberal before some idiot thinks it a good idea to accuse me).

Your a free and rational person apparently. From behind the veil of ignorance what kind of society would you choose to live in?

I don&#39;t think you would choose a socialist society. But I don&#39;t think you would be too keen on a society where you could potentially find yourself living the life of an Afghan peasant either. ANy rational person is going to want some kind of basic standard of living to be guaranteed.

[pusher robot]

Well where do property rights or all the other ones you believe in come from?

I believe they are derived from the fundamental nature of Man.


From behind the veil of ignorance what kind of society would you choose to live in?I would choose to live in a liberal society. I would want a society that accords me the widest possible latitude to say whatever I want, think whatever I want, and do whatever I want. Afghanistan is definitely not a liberal society.

You want to compare the actual outcome of liberal societies with the theoretical outcome of a communist society. If we are going to assume a "veil of ignorance," then we should also be ignorant as to how this communist society is going to shake out. Based on historical precedent, we should accord a fairly high probability the actual result is going to be an inefficient totalitarian dictatorship.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 01:53 pm

I believe they are derived from the fundamental nature of Man.


Oh for heaven&#39;s sake :lol:

Anyone can attribute anything to coming from "the fundamental nature of man". I could say the right to a decent life came from that for instance.
I would choose to live in a liberal society. I would want a society that accords me the widest possible latitude to say whatever I want, think whatever I want, and do whatever I want. Afghanistan is definitely not a liberal society.

You want to compare the actual outcome of liberal societies with the theoretical outcome of a communist society. If we are going to assume a "veil of ignorance," then we should also be ignorant as to how this communist society is going to shake out. Based on historical precedent, we should accord a fairly high probability the actual result is going to be an inefficient totalitarian dictatorship.Hang on a moment here. You would want to live in a Liberal society? Well we live in a liberal society currently. But that is not what you argue for, is it? You want to see something more akin to 19th century liberalism after all.

Now it would be remiss for me to say that there is nothing good about the current state of affairs. I can get a good education because the state pays for that all the way through to University level. Why would I choose to see that privitised? It sure as hell wouldn&#39;t benefit me, wouldn&#39;t benefit most people and wouldn&#39;t be what someone would choose from behind a veil of ignorance. The same goes for healthcare as it happens. Hell, based ont he American model if we were to privatise that, we could end up paying more in taxes as a result of the inefficiency and leaching by insurance companies.

All of these are good things the current liberal state gives us that you would take away. So you are in no position to pretend you support the benefits of the current system. You offer something as radically different as I do and you are far worse than most here for wanting to apply theoretical results.

Now how do we expect a Communist society to "shake out". Well naturally we draw on historical precedents, what went right and what went wrong. We also draw on present circumstnaces, see what works now and how we may want it to continue and so on.

So what went wrong before? Seems to me it was a lack of democracy and the inefficiency of central planning on that scale. If we know that and choose not to pursue policies that lead to that, why are we so sure we get a totalitarian nightmare? One set of policies in one set of circumstances led to totalitarianism. A different set of policies in a different set of circumstances wont necessarilly.

So what are the alternatives? Well we want a very democratic society. Currently under Western style capitalism we stretch from really quite undemocratic (USA, Japan*, France) through middling levels (Italy, Germany) through to really quite democratic indeed (Switzerland, Sweden). Of course members from the countries I list as democratic might say it still they aren&#39;t that demcoratic, and no they aren&#39;t, but they are the best we have and if a Communist state could start with even that level of citizen involvement we would be on the way. And if a country like America could make the shift that far even without economic changes it would be revolutionary enough.

Now inefficieny. Yes the Soviet Union was inefficient. Were all the Communist countries? Well not quite, Yugoslavia wasn&#39;t. I have said it over and over and you always pretend not to see me say it because it isn&#39;t convenient to you, but opposing capitalist markets does not equate to opposing all markets. I am not saying that is the only solution to the inefficiency conundrum, but it is one possibility to consider.

*I know Japan isn&#39;t in the west but you know what I mean

[pusher robot]

Anyone can attribute anything to coming from "the fundamental nature of man". I could say the right to a decent life came from that for instance.

Well, my beliefs are not that conclusory; I have posted on this board before how I believe that liberal rights are derived from the fact of Man as a rational animal. But fair enough to claim that they are, after all, beliefs. I, at least, do not deny that I have certain axioms that are fundamentally unprovable.


Hang on a moment here. You would want to live in a Liberal society? Well we live in a liberal society currently. But that is not what you argue for, is it? You want to see something more akin to 19th century liberalism after all.No, that&#39;s not true. Just as you claim about communism:

Well naturally we draw on historical precedents, what went right and what went wrong. We also draw on present circumstnaces, see what works now and how we may want it to continue and so on.
So I claim about capitalism. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s necessarily anti-liberal, for example, to use government power to provide public goods. Part of liberalism is the primacy of self-government, so that if the people choose to act collectively and that action does not violate the fundamental liberal rights of others, then that is their prerogative.


A different set of policies in a different set of circumstances wont necessarilly.It&#39;s won&#39;t not necessarily either. I&#39;m not "so sure" we get a totalitarian nightmare, I&#39;m saying that there is at least a non-trivial possibility that should be factored in, and it seems you agree with me.


So what are the alternatives? Well we want a very democratic society.Democracy isn&#39;t necessarily liberal.

[jasmine]

So what went wrong before? Seems to me it was a lack of democracy and the inefficiency of central planning on that scale. If we know that and choose not to pursue policies that lead to that, why are we so sure we get a totalitarian nightmare? One set of policies in one set of circumstances led to totalitarianism. A different set of policies in a different set of circumstances wont necessarilly.

Okay, but you assume that this is a simple matter of choice. In the end democracy is a matter of consciousness - ie how many people really want to participate in the decison making process versus how many prefer to allow others decide. You could assume that were a revolution to take place, the immediate aftermath would see a high level of consciousness. But how would that look 50 years or a couple of generations later?

Max Weber made some very interesting observations on the tendency of human organisation to bureaucratise.

Central planning is an incredibly difficult undertaking. Knowing what to produce when and where in the absence of a market requires mass participation in the process. Actually it requires mass participation at a level of consciousness that recognises the needs of society as a whole.

I&#39;m not saying this cannot happen but it&#39;s not a matter of will, desire or policy. It really does need to develop organically from a stage of human development. Marx recognised this but his prognosis was wrong. We may have to wait some considerable time before the socialism Marx thought was prefigured in the Paris Commune can be realised.


through to really quite democratic indeed (Switzerland, Sweden).

Switzerland isn&#39;t especially democratic - it&#39;s just extremely rich, low taxes, pay for your own health care etc.