Capitalism 101

[Imperial Power]

. What is capitalism?
Laissez faire capitalism means the complete separation of economy and state, just like the separation of church and state. Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production which entails a completely uncontrolled and unregulated economy where all land is privately owned. But the separation of the state and the economy is not a primary, it is only an aspect of the premise that capitalism is based upon: individual rights. Capitalism is the only politico-economic system based on the doctrine of individual rights. This means that capitalism recognizes that each and every person is the owner of his own life, and has the right to live his life in any manner he chooses as long as he does not violate the rights of others.
2. What is capitalism's essential nature?
The essential nature of capitalism is social harmony through the pursuit of self-interest. Under capitalism, the individual's pursuit of his own economic self-interest simultaneously benefits the economic self-interests of all others. In allowing each individual to act unhampered by government regulations, capitalism causes wealth to be created in the most efficient manner possible which ultimately raises the standard of living, increases the economic opportunities, and makes available an ever growing supply of products for everyone. The free-market operates in such a way so that as one man creates more wealth for himself, he simultaneously creates more wealth and opportunities for everyone else, which means that as the rich become richer, the poor become richer. It must be understood that capitalism serves the economic self-interests of all, including the non-capitalists.
Contrary to widely held beliefs, capitalism is not a system which exploits a large portion of society for the sake of a small minority of wealthy capitalists. Ironically, it is actually socialism that causes the systematic exploitation of labor. Since the socialist state holds a universal monopoly on labor and production, no economic incentive exists for the socialist state to provide anything more than minimum physical subsistence for the workers except to perhaps prevent riots or revolutions. Exploitation is inherent to the nature of socialism because individuals cannot live for their own sake, rather, they exist merely as means to whatever ends the socialist rulers -- the self-proclaimed spokesman of "society," may have in mind.1

3. What are the philosophical underpinnings of capitalism?
All political systems are ultimately the expression of some underlying philosophy. For example, Marxian socialism upholds that man is a collective entity shaped by economic forces beyond his control whose greatest good is to serve the ends of "society." Capitalism, however, is implicitly based upon a world view which upholds that man's mind is competent in dealing with reality, that it is morally good for each person to strive for his own happiness, and that the only proper social arrangement for men to live under is one in which the initiation of physical force is banished. This is the ideological basis upon which the United States of America was implicitly founded. The importance of recognizing the philosophy upon which capitalism -- and America rests upon, lies in the fact that no social system can be properly understood or defended apart from its broader philosophical framework.
In regards to morality, capitalism is the only moral (meaning pro-human-life) social system because it safeguards a human's primary means of survival: his mind. Through upholding individual rights, capitalism recognizes the fact the each and every human being must use his own mind to grasp reality and act accordingly to better his own life. Capitalism is the only political system that is based upon man's true nature as a being who possesses the faculty of reason -- capitalism is the only system that recognizes that human beings can think. Indeed, individual rights and capitalism not only protect the individual person and property of each human being, but most importantly, they protect the individual mind of every human being.

Historically speaking, capitalism has been claimed to be consistent with philosophies such as utilitarianism, social Darwinism, and even fundamentalist Christianity. However, these philosophies are in fact antithecal to the true nature of capitalism because they subordinate the good of the individual's life on earth to some "higher good." In fact, the only philosophy that is completely consistent with the theoretical requirements for understanding and promoting capitalism is the philosophy of Objectivism.

4. What is the role of government in a capitalist society?
The only purpose of government would be to protect its citizens from force or fraud.
The protection from force, that is, the protection of individual rights, would be achieved through the use of a police force to protect the rights of citizens at home; a military, to protect the rights of citizens from foreign aggression; and a court system to enforce contracts and settle disputes between citizens. Since rights can only be violated by initiating force, the government would only use force in retaliation of those who initiated it.

The greatest aggressor against man -- the greatest spiller of human blood, has been the various governments that man has adopted throughout history. Because the government holds a legal monopoly for the use of force, the crimes committed by individuals acting on their own behalf are trivial compared to the crimes, tyrannies, and wholesale barbarism that governments are responsible for. This is why it is crucial that governments be limited in their ability to use force by a constitution based upon individual rights. That was the key insight of the Founding Fathers which made America freer than any other nation on earth.

Any other function of government than those listed above, no matter what its intentions, would necessitate the violation of rights by initiating the use of force against the people it is supposed to protect. For example, compulsory tax-supported education forces some people to pay for the schooling of others for whom they would not have voluntarily paid for.

5. What does capitalism have to do with freedom?
Everything. Capitalism the only system in which freedom and liberty can really exist.
Freedom means the absence of physical force, including all forms of fraud. An individual is free when force is not being initiated against him, which means that there is only one source of unfreedom for any individual: other men. That is, a man's freedom can only be infringed upon when another person or group of persons initiates the use of physical force against him. The fact that an individual is unfit to run a mile in under four minutes or too poor to buy food is not a violation of his freedom. Why? Because in both of these cases no one is forcibly stopping the individual from attaining his ends. However, the fact that an individual cannot start his own electric company is a violation of his freedom. Why? Because in this case his actions are impeded by the use of force -- the government's legal monopoly on utility companies prevents him from starting his own electric company through the threat of force. Freedom is only a negative, it imposes no positive constraints on other people's actions. In a free (or capitalist) society all men may act as they choose as so long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others -- by violating their rights through force. Subsequently, it is only a government limited to protecting individual rights that fails to violate the freedom its citizens. Since capitalism upholds individual rights as absolutes, capitalism upholds freedom as absolute.

All non-capitalistic societies force some men to live at the expense of others. Whether you are forced to live, in part or in whole, for the sake of God (as in a theocracy), "the underprivileged" (as in the welfare state), or the latest sadist in power (as in a dictatorship) does not matter, it is only the fact that some individuals are violating the freedom of others, not the method by which they do it, that matters.

6. Is capitalism a just social system?
Yes.
In fact, capitalism is the complete embodiment of social justice. In social or political context justice means that every person gets no more, and no less, than what he gains through voluntary association with other men. A capitalist society is a just society because all individuals are considered equal under the law. Capitalism recognizes that it is just for a man to keep what he has earned and that it is unjust for a man, or group of men, to have the right to what other people have earned. Since all people must live independently under capitalism, all of the material values that a person acquires must be earned. Thus, the expression of social justice under capitalism is that what a man earns is directly proportional to what he produces, with no antitrust laws or progressive income taxes stifling his achievement for the sole fact the he did achieve. All other forms of government, such as the welfare state, institutionalize injustice by legally expropriating the property of some men and giving it to others.

Many people have trouble accepting that capitalism is a just system because of the existence of economic inequality. It is observed that famous celebrities and sports stars have very large incomes for work that is perceived as trivial, and that many hard working people make incomes which pale in comparison for jobs that are perceived to be a greater benefit to society. What people must realize is that it is perfectly just for a superstar athlete, even with little or no education, to make a hundred times the income of a scientist who has a Ph.D. and works much longer and strenuous hours. Why? Because the athlete creates enormous profits through ticket sales and product endorsements whereas the scientist generates very little revenue through his research. That is, each of them deserves what they earn, and what they earn is the result of how much wealth each of them creates (Incidentally, this is not to say that the athlete is morally superior to the scientist because he is wealthier). Since each man has the right to the product of his labor, it is completely just for the disparity in incomes to exist, and the only injustice to occur would be or the government to take money from the athlete and give it to those who supposedly deserve it on the basis of their "need."

7. What is a capitalist?
From a purely economic point of view, a capitalist is a person who buys in order to sell for profit. However, the productive role that capitalists and businessman serve cannot be overstated.
Far from being exploiters, the true function of capitalists and businessmen "... is to raise the productivity, and thus the real wages, of manual labor by means of creating, coordinating, and improving the efficiency of the division of labor."2 By continuously improving the efficiency of labor, capitalists and businessmen are responsible for raising wages and creating employment which serve to raise the standard of living of everyone. Furthermore, by funding research and capital investments, corporations and capitalists make possible all of the modern day conveniences, from laser surgery to orchestra halls, that most people take for granted every day. In fact, since capitalists make available so much life-saving and labor-saving technology to so many people, they should be regarded as some of mankind's greatest benefactors. A few capitalists and businessmen have done more to help mankind live a more enjoyable life (indeed, most people would not even be alive today if it weren't for capitalists) than all of the humanitarians, social workers, and clergy men combined. If one considers human life a value, then they should regard capitalists as one of its greatest promoters. (If Mother Theresa really wanted to help people, she should try and accumulate enough capital to start a factory in a poor nation and employ thousands of people who would not have jobs without her.)

In a more fundamental sense, a capitalist is anyone (from a janitor to a millionaire) who lives solely by his own effort and who respects the rights of others. The best symbol of a capitalist is the trader. That is, the man or woman who only deals with other people on a voluntary basis. A capitalist is not an "exploiter" nor necessarily a "greedy" individual.

8. How is democracy related to capitalism?
An absolute democracy, which means unlimited majority rule, is incompatible with capitalism and freedom. This is so because capitalism rests on the principle of individual rights. In an absolute democracy, rights would really have no legitimate meaning because they could always be voted away in the next election. Individual rights must be consistently upheld if capitalism is to be achieved, and if the majority may do whatever it wants regardless of the rights of the minority, capitalism cannot exist, not even in principle.
When most people think of "democracy" they usually mean a constitutionally limited democracy. The function of a limited democracy is to decide who held political power and how that power is specifically exercised (such as how many policemen or judges are needed), but what that power is should be strictly defined and limited in the constitution. (This is basically the original American system.) In a proper capitalist nation, a constitution based upon individual rights would be necessary to limit the actions of its citizens and the government. Under capitalism, the majority would never be able to vote to violate the rights of the minority, no matter how large the majority or how small the minority. Individual rights would not be subject to vote.

9. What is the opposite of capitalism?
Statism, in any form.
Statism is the concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual freedom. Capitalism is the only system which protects individual rights and freedom, but the variety of political systems which violate individual freedom are numerous: socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism, absolute monarchies, military dictatorships, theocracies, or the welfare state are all systems which infringe upon individual rights, which means they institutionalize the initiation of force against their citizens.

It must be realized that there are only two fundamental political philosophies: those who are for freedom and individual rights and those who are against them. The types of political systems who are against freedom and individual rights are numerous, for there are many ways to violate the rights of man, but there is only one political-economic philosophy which upholds that the rights of man are absolute and immutable -- capitalism.

10. Is socialism ideal?
In order to answer one must first ask: What is an ideal and what purpose does it serve? An ideal is that which is held as a standard of measurement, or of excellence. As a standard, it is used to determine the merits of any system put forth to a specific end. A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. The measurement of social systems consists of the appraisal of, the relationships between men and the laws and institutions which govern the forms of association. In order to measure a social system, one must hold to an ideal, i.e. have a standard against which performance can be gauged. There is only one such possible standard: man's life.
A social system must be measured according to its ability to sustain each man's right to life, i.e. its recognition of man's nature and as such its defense of the requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Recognition of man's right to life means the recognition of the necessity of the freedom of man's mind, with reason as his sole means of survival, and of the freedom of man's body, by which the products of the mind are brought into reality. Therefore, an ideal social system must respect the nature of man, and provide a context in which the defining moral principle is the freedom to sustain one's own life by voluntary, uncoerced choice. Such an ideal system exists, if only in the minds of men, but it's name is not socialism.

Socialism holds that man is not an end in himself, and that he must sacrifice his own convictions for the sake of the "greater good" of the collective. Socialism requires the sacrifice of the individual mind, and hence denies the sole means of survival of man and in fact his very nature as a rational being. Such a system cannot honestly be held as an ideal.

11. Who are the defenders of capitalism?
There are two thinkers who stand as virtual twin towers in the history of pro-capitalist thought, namely the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand and economist Ludwig von Mises.
The importance of Rand's ideas to the furthering of capitalism cannot be overstated, for she gave capitalism what it has badly needed: a philosophic defense. Rand recognized that the supremacy of reason and the morality of egoism are the indispensable philosophical foundations upon which capitalism is based. In particular, her connection of capitalism to individual rights, and her recognition that individuals have the moral right to live for their own sake makes her philosophy of Objectivism of utmost importance for a thorough and consistent defense of capitalism.

The other tower of pro-capitalist thought is the most prominent member of the Austrian school of economics, and the greatest economic thinker of all time, Ludwig von Mises. (The Austrian school has been the leading school of pro-capitalist economic thought since 1871). Mises's identification of capitalism as being the system which benefits all, his refutation of virtually every accusation made against capitalism (such as the claims that capitalism leads to exploitation and depressions), and his proof of the economic impossibility of socialism rank him the as other great defender of capitalism of all time. Other major pro-capitalist economists are the members of the Austrian school such as Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk and Carl Menger, the French economist Frederic Bastiat, and members of the British classical school such as Adam Smith and Dave Ricardo. Furthermore, economists and political philosophers such as George Reisman, Henry Hazlitt, Tibor Machan, John Locke, and the Founding Fathers of the United States, and less consistent defenders such as Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, and Murray Rothbard all constitute important names in the defense of capitalism.

12. How is theory related to practice?
The Capitalism FAQ is divided into two parts: Theory and Practice. This is not to suggest a dichotomy between the two. Theory does not exist qua floating abstraction, without reference or basis in reality. It is not an "essence" apart from cognition. Theory is human theory, and it is theory about something: existence. As such it is a reflection on the nature of existence, the nature of man, and the relationship between the two. Practice, or action, is human action. It is volitional, i.e. chosen (among alternatives), directed at a specific end, and based on a value judgment(s) of the facts of reality.
Political-Economic theory is the body of fundamental principles underlying the science of human action. Theory is abstraction. It is a process of identification; an attempt to describe perceptual data by means of a conscious focus of the human mind. To identify the ideal economic system, one must observe and understand what is, and what man is. Obviously then, theory is not an object (idea) detached from its subject (man). If a theory is correctly formulated, it is eminently practical. After all, if theory has nothing to do with reality, i.e. cannot be "put into practice", then how does one evaluate whether it is good or not? Ideas are not apart from those who think them. Actions are not apart from those who act. And actions are implementations of ideas. One may defend capitalism on the basis of its practicability as long as one is aware that the reason "it works" is because it is good theory.

[vox]

More specious claims by the right-wing idiot troupe that dances here for our amusement.

Let's go step by step:

Re:

Q. 1: Since it's so important to have a sepraration of state and economic interests, does that mean that there should be a limit in campaign contributions? After all, a billionare can buy politicians, whereas the vast majority cannot, and also, since you recommend that everyone act in their own economic self-interest, that would mean that the billionare would be acting in his own economic self-interest, but that self-interest would have to involve state influence, otherwise campaign contributions wouldn't be an issue. So you recommend limiting personal freedom in this case, right?

Q. 2: "In allowing each individual to act unhampered by government regulations, capitalism causes wealth to be created in the most efficient manner possible which ultimately raises the standard of living, increases the economic opportunities, and makes available an ever growing supply of products for everyone."

Hmmm, so if I, a capitalist who own a paper mill, pour industrial waste into a river that is on my property, and you, a capitalist who owns a farm, suffers serious crop loss due to that waste, that's for the best? Okay....

I'm afraid your copy and paste sources are a little simplistic.

Q. 3: "Marxian socialism upholds that man is a collective entity shaped by economic forces beyond his control whose greatest good is to serve the ends of "society.""

Perhaps you should do a little research on what Marx and Engels said about collectivism before you copy and paste again. After all, Marx rejected the Hegelian notion that the State is a kind of super-person. I don't expect you to know such things, for I don't expect capitalists to know what they are saying. It's enough that I know these things, and can show you that you're wrong.

"Capitalism is the only political system that is based upon man's true nature as a being who possesses the faculty of reason -- capitalism is the only system that recognizes that human beings can think."

Oh this is rich!!!! Forgive me while I laugh at you! First off, you say (or copy and paste, as the case may be, without giving any credit) that capitalism has to be independent from the government, but here you say it's a political system? How can it be both independent from the political organization of a society and still be a political system? Hee! This is too easy!

Beyond that, you say that capitalism "is based upon man's true nature," but if that were true, wouldn't capitalism have always existed? If human nature is recognized only through capitalist social relations, then why has humanity existed for so many centuries without it? Indeed, it would only make sense that, given our nature, man would have organized into a capitalist society a long time ago. Of course, we did not.

By the way, Objectivism relies on faith, not on reason. If you'd like a lesson, I'll be happy to make a fool of your yet again.

Q. 4: It's always funny when Objectivist fools spout such nonsense. See, you folks always want it to start now, after everything has been built for you with public dollars, or would you have had Henry Ford building the roads as well as the cars? You NEED puclic funding, but you don't recognize that you need it. Truly foolish, and truly typical.

Q. 5: "Freedom means the absence of physical force, including all forms of fraud."

So I would be free to start a political party that wanted to institute taxes and a welfare program? After all, I'm not forcing anyone to vote for the party, I'm just offering it up in the marketplace of ideas.

Also, do we need an alternative to protect freedom? After all, isn't that what the ACLU does? If no one wants taxes, then let the No Tax party run its campaign. I won't try to stop it. Indeed, doesn't the Libertarian Party have as much success as the Socialist Party?

As Anatole French said, "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges."

Q. 6: First you quote this, "Because the athlete creates enormous profits through ticket sales and product endorsements whereas the scientist generates very little revenue through his research."

And then this, "Since each man has the right to the product of his labor...."

However, the research scientist may find a cure for a blight, but he does NOT have a right to the product of his labor, given the social relations of capitalist production, but rather the company for which he labors has that right. And beyond that, it is ridiculous to think that any person, regardless of profession, works alone. Commodities are a sum of the socially necessary labour-power used to produce them. Your individualism fails.

Q. 7: I've had the "productivity" debate with Agusto in the past. To sum it up, productivity is not the friend, but the enemy of the working class. Through greater productivity, all other things being equal, comes the crisis of overproduction, perhaps a new phrase to you.

"A few capitalists and businessmen have done more to help mankind live a more enjoyable life (indeed, most people would not even be alive today if it weren't for capitalists) than all of the humanitarians, social workers, and clergy men combined."

A grand claim, but, as is so very common with you, imperialist, nothing to support the claim. Nothing at all. You may as well start sprinkling fairy dust. You do realize, of course, that taxes, distributed through the NEA and especially the NEH, support most concert halls, right?

"In a more fundamental sense, a capitalist is anyone (from a janitor to a millionaire) who lives solely by his own effort and who respects the rights of others."

COMRADES, notice how this worm turns the definition of capitalist on its head! Captialists are the OWNERS OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. There is no ambiguity here. To call a janitor a capitalist is to render the word itself meaningless, which, of course, is the plan.

Q. 8: It sounds good, right? Protect the minority from the majority. However, in imperialist's Objectivist view, that also means not hiring blacks if you don't want to, or maybe you don't like Jews, or Queers. All of a sudden, this grand capitalist scheme to protect the "minority" classes falls apart. Indeed, the only minority which the Objectivist libertarian wants to protect is the wealthy minority, which profits from the labor of others, which tiles its floors with gelt stolen from the sweat of the working class.

Q. 9: "It must be realized that there are only two fundamental political philosophies: those who are for freedom and individual rights and those who are against them."

Again, dear reader, we have my favorite of the Logical Fallacies, the fallacy of the excluded middle. Set up two choices as the only two and thereby disallow all others.

Now, if I say that I am for freedom, and I'm for individual rights, but I am against capitalism, where does that leave me? According to imperialist's sophomoric dogma, nowhere. Indeed, it comes down to how we define "rights." Objectivists always make a big deal about the "Founding Fathers," a sexist phrase that they seem to enjoy. "Original Intent," they below, as if handed down on stone tablets from on high. However, the US revolution started because of taxation WITHOUT representation. Anyone remember the Boston Tea Party, which was a racist rebellion against imperialist England? The "Founding Fathers" thought that taxes were just dandy, as long as there was representation.

Objectivist libertarians make such little sense it's difficult to argue against them. We've already seen how they lie about whether capitalism is an economic system or a political system. Now they use a fallacy to prop up the absurd notion that only by giving up rights (like the right to decide about taxes) can we truly be free. Pathetic.

Q. 10: This question and answer gave me pause. Foucault once said of Derrida, "He's the kind of philosopher who gives bullshit a bad name," which leaves me to think that Foucault never wasted his time with Objectivists.

Everyone, please not the changing definitions that are used: "There is only one such possible standard: man's life." Notice what it says, "man's life."

"A social system must be measured according to its ability to sustain each man's right to life...." Notice that it now says "right" to life, as if a life has to prove itself, somehow, in order to be alive. Life itself is not good enough for the capitalist.

"Recognition of man's right to life means the recognition of the necessity of the freedom of man's mind, with reason as his sole means of survival...." Notice that now even the "right" to life has been qualified, "with reason as his sole means of survival." I guess that the poets of the world, so often raging against reason, do not have this right to life. Indeed, it seems a very limited life that these capitalists adore.

"Therefore, an ideal social system must respect the nature of man...." Ahhh, here again we have the "human nature" argument, which I wrote about previously.

It seems a strange thing to me that our true nature should be so long neglected, and that, cross culturally, we find so many varied patterns of behavior, yet we don't find capitalism. Eastern philosophy supposes that God, or Purusha or Atman, is our true nature, but it's hidden. Objectivists claim that reason and capitalist social relations are our true nature, but it's been hidden from us, somehow, lo these long centuries. Dare I say that Objectivism requires faith? In the face of so much historical data, an overwhelming amount, I have to say that yes, I dare say that it does.

"Socialism holds that man is not an end in himself, and that he must sacrifice his own convictions for the sake of the "greater good" of the collective."

Rubbish. Marx opposed collectivism as well as the methodological individualism that Objectivists hold so dear. The only way an Objectivist can make a point is by lying.

Q. 11: "There are two thinkers who stand as virtual twin towers in the history of pro-capitalist thought, namely the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand and economist Ludwig von Mises."

I've refuted von Mises time and time again. I suggest that every comrade take the time to read his foul manifestoes, only in order to attack them. Rand, thankfully, has already been taken care of. After all, she demanded faith, not reason.

By the way, imperialist, if you're up to it, and I very much doubt that you are, I'm more than happy to defeat you in a discussion about von Mises. There is a reason you've never heard of him, folks. It's because he is a right-wing fringe economist who doesn't understand economics.

Q. 12: "Political-Economic theory is the body of fundamental principles underlying the science of human action."

Again, they come back to politics, for no system of economy can exist without regard to the political arena, and it is only in the POLITCAL arena that the many may have a say over the few, where the workers can limit the power of the capitalists.

Now then, imperialist, if your response to this is as sad and hopelessly pathetic as your responses to me in the past, I suggest you entertain notions of copying and pasting in another forum, cuz I'm on you like wet on water. My guess is that you will act like your fellow right-winger, reagan lies, and not respond at all, for your kind are dumb, and insensitive to humiliation.

vox

[peaccenicked]

here is chomsky again, on free market practice.

The free market is 'socialism' for the rich: the public pays the costs and the rich get the benefit - markets for the poor and plenty of state protection for the rich.

There's a conventional doctrine about the era we're entering and the promise that it's supposed to afford. In brief, the story is that the good guys won the Cold War and they're firmly in the saddle. There may be some rough terrain ahead, but nothing that they can't handle. They ride off into the sunset, leading the way to a bright future, based on the ideals that they've always cherished: democracy, free markets and human rights.

In the real world, however, human rights, democracy and free markets are all under serious attack in many countries, including the leading industrial societies. Power is increasingly concentrated in unaccountable institutions. The rich and the powerful are no more willing to submit themselves to market discipline or popular pressures than they ever have been in the past.

Let's begin with human rights, because it's the easiest place to start: they're actually codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in December, 1948. In the United States there's a good deal of very impressive rhetoric about how we stand for the principle of the universality of the Universal Declaration, and how we defend the principle against backward, Third World peoples who plead cultural relativism.

All this reached a crescendo about a year ago, at the Vienna Conference. But the rhetoric is rarely besmirched by any reference to what the Universal Declaration actually says. Article 25, for example, states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood."

How are these principles upheld in the richest country in the world, with absolutely unparalleled advantages and no excuses for not completely satisfying them? The US has the worst record on poverty in the industrialized world - a poverty level which is twice as high as England's. Tens of millions of people are hungry every night, including millions of children who are sufering from discase and malnutrition. In New York City 40% of children live below the poverty line, deprived of minimal conditions that ofrer some hope of escape from misery and destitution and violence.

Let's turn to Article 23. It states: "Everyone has a right to work under just and favourable conditions." The ILO has just published a report estimating the level of global unemployment - understood to mean the position of not having enough work for subsistence - in January 1994 at about 30%. That, it says accurately, is a crisis worse than that in the 1930s. lt is, moreover, just one part of a general worldwide human rights catastrophe. UNESCO estimates that about 500,000 children die every year from debt repayment alone. Debt repayment means that commercial banks made bad loans to their favourite dictators, and those loans are now being paid by the poor, who have absolutely nothing to do with it, and of course by the taxpayers in the wealthy countries, because the debts are socialized. That's under the system of socialism for the rich that we call free enterprise: nobody expects the banks to have to pay for the bad loans - that's your job and my job.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organisation estimates that 11 million children die every ycar from easily treatable diseases. WHO's head calls it a silent genocide: it could be stopped for pennies a day.

In the US, of course, there is currently a recovery. But it's remarkably sluggish, with less than a third of the job growth of the previous six recoveries. Furthermore, of the jobs that are being created, an enormous proportion - more than a quarter in 1992 - are temporary jobs and most are not in the productive part of the economy. Economists welcome this vast increase in temporary jobs as an "improvement in the flexibility of labour markets". No matter that it means that when you go to sleep at night you don't know if you're going to have work the next morning - it's good for profits, not people, which means that it's good for the economy in the technical sense.

Another aspect of the recovery is that people arc working longer for less money. The workload is continuing to increase, while wages are continuing to decline - which is unprccedented for a recovery. US wages - as measured by labour costs per unit Output - are now the lowest in the industrial world except for Britain. In 1991 the US even went below England, although England caught up and regained first place in the competition to crush poor and working people. Having been the highest in the world in 1983 (as one might expect in the world's richest country), US labour costs are today lower than Germany's and 20% lower than Italy's. The Wall Strett Journal called this turnaround "a welcome development of transcendent importance". It is usually claimed that these welcome developments just result from market forces, like laws of nature, and the usual factors are identified, such as international trade and automation. To put it kindly, that's a bit misleading: neither trade nor automation has much to do with market forces.

Take trade. One well-known fact about trade is that it's highly subsidized with huge market-distorting factors, which I don't think anybody's ever tried to measure. The most obvious is that every form of transport is highly subsidized, whether it's maritime, aeronautical, or roads or rail. Since trade naturally requires transport, the costs of transport enter into the calculation of the efficiency of trade. But there are huge subsidies to reduce the costs of transport, through manipulation of energy costs and all sorts of market-distorting fashion. If anybody wanted to measure this, it would be quite a job.

Take the US Pentagon - a huge affair. A very substantial part of the Pentagon is intervention forces directed at the Middle East, across the whole panoply of intimidation devices to make sure nobody gets in the way if the US tries to intervene. And a large part of the purpose of that is to keep oil prices within a certain range. Not too low, because the US and British oil companies have to make plenty of profit, and these countries also have to earn profits which they can then send back to their masters in London and New York. So, not too low. But also not too high, because you want to keep trade efficient. I'm not even mentioning so-called externalities, like pollution and so on. If the real costs of trade were calculated, the apparent efficiency of trade would certainly drop sub- stantially. Nobody knows how much.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Furthermore, what's called trade isn't trade in any serious sense of the term. Much of what's called trade is just internal transactions, inside a big corporation. More than half of US exports to Mexico don't even enter the Mexican market. They're just transferred by one branch of General Motors to another branch, because you can get much cheaper labour if you happen to cross a border, and you don't have to worry about pollution. But that's not trade in any sensible sense of the term, any more than if you move a can of beans from one shelf to another of a grocery store. It just happens to cross an international border, but it's not trade. In fact, by now it's estimated that about 40% of what's called world trade is internal to corporations. That means centrally-managed transactions run by a very visible hand with major market distortions of all kinds, sometimes called a system of corporate mercantilism, which is fairly accurate.

GATT and NAFTA just increase these tendencies, hence harming markets in incalculable ways. And if we proceed, we find that the alleged efficiencies of trade are to a large extent an ideological construction. They don't have any substantive meaning. With automation, for instance, there's no doubt that it puts people out of work. But the fact of the matter is that automation is so inefficient that it had to be developed in the state sector for decades - meaning the US military system. And the kind of automation that was developed in the state sector - at huge public cost and enormous market distortion - was a very special kind. It was designed in order to de-skill workers and to enhance managerial power. This has nothing to do with economic efficiency; it's to do with power relations.

There have been a number of academic and management-affirmed studies which have shown over and over that automation is introduced by managers, even when it increases costs - when it's inefficient - just for power reasons. Take containerization. It was developed by the US Navy - that is, by the state sector in the economy - masking market distortions. In general, invocation of market forces, as if they were laws of nature, has a large element of fraud associated with it. It's a kind of ideological warfare. In the post Second World War period, this includes just about everything; electronics, computers, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, for instance, were all initiated and maintained by enormous state subsidies and intervention - otherwise they would not exist. Computers, for example - in the 1950s, before they were marketable - were virtually 100% supported by the taxpayer. About 85% of all electronics was state-supported in the 1980s. The idea is that the public is supposed to pay the cost. If anything comes out of it, you hand it over to the corporations. It's callcd free enterprise!





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



All of this quite sharply increased under the Reagan administration. The state share or GNP rose to new heights in the first couple of years of the Reagan administration. And they were proud of it. To the public they had all kinds of free-market talk, but when they were talking to the business community, they talked differently. So James Baker, when he was Secretary of the Treasury, announced with grcat pride to a business convention, that the Reagan administration had offered more protection to US manufacturers than any of the preceding post-war administrations, which was true, but he was being too modest; it actually offered more protection than all of them combined.

One of the reasons why Clinton had unusual corporate support for a Democrat is that he planned to go even beyond that level of market distortion and market interference, for the benefit of domestic-based capital. His Secretary of Treasury, Lloyd Bentsen, was quoted in the Wall Street journal as saying, "I'm tired of this level playing field business. We want to tilt the playing field in favour of US industry." Meanwhile, there's a lot of very passionate rhetoric about free markets but, of course, that's free markets for the poor, at home and abroad.

The fact is that people's lives are being destroyed on an enormous scale through unemployment alone. Meanwhile, "everywhere you tum you find work that these people would be delighted to do if they had a chance. Work that would be highly beneficial both for them and their communities. But here you have to be a little careful. It would be beneficial to people, but it would be harmful to the economy, in the technical sense, And that's a very important distinction to learn, All of this is a brief way of saying that the econonimic system is a catastrophic fai- lure. There's a htige amount of needed work. There's an enormous number of idle hands of suffering people, but the economic system is simply incapable of bringing them together. Now of course this catastrophic failure is hailed as a grand success. And indeed it is - for a narrow sector of privileged; profits are sky-rocketing. The economy is working just fine for some people, and they happen to be the ones who write the articles, and give the speeches, so it all sounds great in the intellectual culture.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Looking at these major tendencies, especially in the past twenty years, one crucial event was Richard Nixon's demolition of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s. That was the post-war system for regulating international currencies, with the US serving as a kind of international banker. He dismantled that with a lot of consequences.

One effect of the de-regulation of currencies was a huge increase of capital and financial markets, The World Bank estimated it at about 14 trillion dollars, which totally swamps government. And the amount of capital that's being transferred daily is increasing. It's probably now about a trillion dollars a day - again swamping government.

In addition to a huge increase in the amount of unregulated capital, there's also a very radical change in its composition. John Eatwell, an economist at Cambridge, and a specialist on finance, pointed out recently that in 1970 - before Nixon dismantled the system - about 90% of the capital used in financial transactions, internationally, was for long-term investment trade and about 10% for speculation. Now figures have reversed. It's 90% for speculation, and about 10% for investment and trade Eatwell suggested that that may be a big factor in the considerable decline in growth rates since this happened in 1970.

The USA is the richest country in the world and it can't carry out even minimal ecmnomic planning because of the impact of speculative, unregulated capital. For a Third World country the situation is hopeless. There's no such thing as economic planning. Indeed the new GATT agreements are designed to undercut those possibilities by extending the so-called liberalization, and what they call services, meaning that big Western banks - the Japanese, British and American banks - can displace the banks in smaller countries, eliminating any possibility of domestic national planning.

The accelerating shift from a national to a global economy has the effect of increasing polarization across countries, between rich and poor countries, but also, even more sharply, within the countries. It also has the effect of undermining functioning democracy. We're moving to a situation in which capital is highly mobile, and labour is immobile, and becoming more immobile. It means that it's possible to shift production to low-wage, high- repression areas, with low environmental standards. It also makes it very easy to play off one immobile, national labour force against another.

During the NAFTA debate in the United States just about everybody agreed that the effect of NAFTA would be to lower wages in the United States for what are called unskilled workers, which means about 70% or 75% of the workforce. In fact, to lower wages you don't have to move manufacturing, you just have to be able to threaten to do it. The threat alone is enough to lower wages and increase temporary employment. Consider the matter of democracy. Power is shifting into the hands of huge transnational corporations. That means away from parliamentary institutions. Furthermore, there's a structure of governance that's coalescing around these transnational corporations. This is not unlike the developments of the last couple of hundred years, when national states more or less coalesced around growing national economics. Now you've got a transnational ecc)nomy, you're getting a transnational state, not surprisingly. The Financial Times described this as a de facto world government, including the World Bank and the IMF, and GATT, now the World Trade Organisation, the G7 Executive, and so on. Transnational bodies remove power from parliamentary institutions. It's important to keep the technocrats insulated - that's World Bank lingo: you want to make sure you have technocratic insulation. The Economist magazine describes how it's important to keep policy insulated from politics.

Power is drifting not only to corporations but into the structure around them - all of them completely unaccountable. The corporation itself has got a stricter hierarchy than exists in any human institution. That's a sure form of totalitarianism and unaccountability - the economic equivalent of fascism - which is exactly why corporations are so strongly opposed by classical liberals. Thomas Jefferson, for example, who lived just about long enough to see the early development of the corporate system, warned in his last years that what he called banking institutions, money and corporations would simply destroy liberty and would restore absolutism, eliminating the victories of the American Revolution. Adam Smith was also concerned about their potential power, particularly if they were going to be granted the rights of "immortal persons".





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The end of the Cold War accelerates all this. The Financial Times, for example, had an article called "Green shoots in communism's ruins"; one or the good things it saw going on was that the pauperization of the workforce and a high level of unemployment were offering new ways to undercut "pampered Western European workers" with their "luxurious lifestyles".

A British industrialist explained in the Wall Street Journal that when workers see jobs disappearing it has a salutary effect on people's attitudes. This was part of an article praising the Thatcher reforms for bringing about a low-wage, low-skill economy in England with great labour flexibility, and wonderful profits. Take General Motors, already the biggest employer in Mexico - it is now moving into Eastern Europe but in a very special way. When General Motors set up a plant in Poland they insisted upon high tariff protection; similarly, when Volkswagen sets up a plant in the Czech Republic it insists on tariff protection and also externalization of costs. They want the Czech people and the Czech Republic to pay the costs; they just want the profit and they get it. That's the tradition: markets for the poor and plenty of state protection for the rich.

The biggest test is Poland. A country where multinational corporations can get people who are well-trained and well-educated and they'll have blue eyes and blond hair unlike in the Third World, and they'll work for 10% of your wages, with no benefits, because of the effectiveness of capitalist reforms in pauperizing the populations and in increasing unemployment.

That in fact tells us something about what the Cold War was about. We learn a lot about what it was about just by asking a simple question; who's cheering and who's despairing? If we take the East. Who's cheering? The old Communist Party hierarchy is; they think it's wonderful. They are now working for international capitalism. What about the population? Well, they lost the Cold War, they're in despair, despite their victory over the Soviet experiment.

What about the West? There's a lot of cheering from corporations and banks and management firms about the experts who were sent to Eastern Europe to clinch a friendly takeover, as the Wall Street journal put it, but ran away with all the aid, it turns out. Very little of the aid got there; instead it went into the pockets of the Western experts and management firms. The workers in General Motors and Volkswagen lost the Cold War because now the end of the Cold War just gives another weapon to undermine their "luxurious lifestyles".





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



These misnamed free-trade agree ments, GATT and NAFTA, carry that process forwards. They are not free trade agreements but investor rights agreements and they are designed to carry forward the attack on democracy. If you look at them closely, you realize they are a complicated mixture of liberalization and protectionism carefully crafted in the interest of the transnational corporations. So, for example, GATT excludes subsidies except for one kind: military expenditures.

Military expenditures are a huge welfare system for the rich and an enormous form of government subsidy that distort markets and trade. Military expenditures are staying very high: under Clinton they're higher in real terms than they werc under Nixon and they are expected to go up. That is a system of market interference and benefits for the wealthy.

Another central part of the GATT agreement, and NAFTA, is what are called intellectual property rights - which is protectionism: protection for ownership of knowledge and technology. They want to make sure that the technology of the future is monopolized by huge and gencrally government-subsidized nprivate corporations. GATT includes an important extension of patents to include product patents; this means that if someone designs a new technique for producing a drug, they can't do it because they violate the patent. The product patents reduce economic efficiency and cut back technical innovation. France, for example, had product patents about a century ago and that was a reason why it lost a large part of its chemical industry to Switzerland which didn't, and therefore could innovate.

It means that a country like India, where there is a big pharmaceutical industry which has been able to keep drug costs very low simply by designing smarter processes for producing things, cannot do that any longer.

Right after his NAFTA triumph Clinton went off to the Asia Pacific summit in Seattle where he proclaimed his "grand vision" of the free-market future. Corporations to emulate were the Boeing Corporation, for example, and in fact he gave a speech about the grand vision in a hangar of the Boeing Corporation. That was a perfect choice, as Boeing is an almost totally subsidized corporation. In fact, the aeronautical industry - the leading export industry in the 1930s - couldn't survive, and then the war came along and it made a huge amount of money, but it was understood right after the Second World War that they were not going to survive in the market. If you read Fortune magazine, it would explain how the aeronautical industry can't survive in the market. The public has to come in and subsidize them, and in fact the aircraft industry, which includes avionics and electronics and complicated metallurgy, is simply subsidized through the Pentagon and NASA. This is the model for the free-market future. The profits are privatized and that's what counts - it's socialism for the rich: the public pays the costs and the rich get the profits. That's what the free market is in practice.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noam Chomky is a Professor of Linguistics at the University of Cambridge, Massachussets, USA. He is the author of many books, including Manufacturing Consent, published by Pantheon Books (1988). The above article is edited extracts from Chomsky's speech given in London in May, 1994.

For an extended and in-depth exploration of Chomsky's ideas, you are recommended to read David Edwards' new book, Free to be Human, published by Green Books at £9.95.

Resurgence is a bimonthly magazine that provides an international forum for ecological and spiritual thinking. They can be reached on 00 44 1237 441 293 (editorial) and 00 44 1208 851 304 (subscriptions).






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Moskitto]

The Website you got that from (http://www.capitalism.org) says

1. "True Democracy" is the opposite of capitalism.

2. Doesn't accept that the US is capitalist (yet calls socialists idiots for saying the USSR wasn't socialist)

3. Attacks social security systems as oppressive. (Tell that to the homeless, tell that to the elderly, tell that to the sick)

4. Says it's good to be greedy.

5. Suggests unworkable ideas such as the idea that charities can pay for armies (if everyone is greedy, charities won't work)

6. Suggests that education be paid for. If education is not free, the only people who can get jobs are the rich people who have education. Therefore their is a huge growing gap between rich and poor because the demand for highly skilled workers goes up (and thus wages rise) whereas it goes down for the unskilled workers (and thus wages go down)

Annother think with Laissez-Faire capitalism, I think you'll find that if everyone is greedy, everyone will look to make the higherst profits, If this means dumping toxic waste into rivers rather than recycling then fine, it's cheaper, people make more profits, so it's better.

Even Adam Smith (praised as the most capitalist of thinkers) admitted that if capitalists are let loose they'll destroy the world.

Annother thing with any of this whole capitalism vs socialism arguement is that all you have to do is present something which is indoctrinated into the people.

for example.

A doctor was giving a talk on how home births affect the chances of infant mortallity, so he presented a graph, it clearly showed that home births had a higher rate of infant mortality. Yes that's what we'd thought said the other doctors

But wait, the graph was upside down.

So the doctor turned it round. Now it appears that there is a higher risk of infant mortality in hospital births. Oh no on, the other doctors said, that can't be so.

[pce]

my parents are calling me to go down to eat so i can't read all this right now (nor do i want to, thanks for the gesture though). however, here are some things i notice just from the opening lines which desuade (is that a word?) me even more.

"Laissez faire capitalism means the complete separation of economy and state, just like the separation of church and state."

the founders of the constitution looked at history and saw that the two main factors in every war have been either religion or money (property). so they seperated church and state. but they did not seperate money because money back then was basically the same as property and land. so they wanted the opportunity to steal as much land as possible from anyone and everyone, this is why economy was not separated from the state. today the involvement of the economy has evolved to the campaign donations that vox mentioned. this, (like the opportunity for more land) is something no politician wants to give up. without donations no one gets elected into any office. a couple of the biggest donators are the tobacco industries and the walt disney company. why would these huge companies donate such large amounts of money to the government? they do it because they expect something in return. protection. so don't give us that crap about laissez faire.

"Capitalism is the social system... "

crazy me, all this time i thought capitalism was an economic system.
-----------
anyways, i must go now and i can't read the rest of your enlightening article. but that's cool because i didn't want to in the first place. maybe later.

and excuse me if my points have already been addressed later on in the above mentioned passage.

[Imperial Power]

I believe this bears repeating:

What are the philosophical underpinnings of capitalism?
All political systems are ultimately the expression of some underlying philosophy. For example, Marxian socialism upholds that man is a collective entity shaped by economic forces beyond his control whose greatest good is to serve the ends of "society." Capitalism, however, is implicitly based upon a world view which upholds that man's mind is competent in dealing with reality, that it is morally good for each person to strive for his own happiness, and that the only proper social arrangement for men to live under is one in which the initiation of physical force is banished. This is the ideological basis upon which the United States of America was implicitly founded. The importance of recognizing the philosophy upon which capitalism -- and America rests upon, lies in the fact that no social system can be properly understood or defended apart from its broader philosophical framework.
In regards to morality, capitalism is the only moral (meaning pro-human-life) social system because it safeguards a human's primary means of survival: his mind. Through upholding individual rights, capitalism recognizes the fact the each and every human being must use his own mind to grasp reality and act accordingly to better his own life. Capitalism is the only political system that is based upon man's true nature as a being who possesses the faculty of reason -- capitalism is the only system that recognizes that human beings can think. Indeed, individual rights and capitalism not only protect the individual person and property of each human being, but most importantly, they protect the individual mind of every human being.

[Imperial Power]

Vox:

I don’t have much time but here’s the start to your questions; it seems your argument is "your wrong"

1. Campaign finance reform is currently going through congress, a lame argument anyways considering the IRS watches like hawks for illegal contributions.

2. Have you not heard of the Environmental Protection Agency? I don’t think they would allow you to dump chemicals in a river.

3. Here’s a "your wrong" argument. Read the quote again this time for meaning and understanding. Capitalism lets people think as one. It guarantees Independence, and Freedom. Society gains contributions from free minds.

4. Income tax paid for those roads. Guess were the most income tax comes from...Corporations

5. Yes in America you start in party you desire. Land of the free.

6. Yes the scientist does own the product. He is given a patent for his work.

7. Capitalism is an ideal not a person who owns capital. Your arguments on productivity are simple economics gone wrong. When production in one area becomes to high the market corrects itself because some companies will either change products or go bankrupt because there is too much competition, but it benefits the consumer.

8. Civil rights have come a long way your argument has no merit in modern America.

This is all I have time to answer right now Vox. Come up with something more challenging for me.

[peaccenicked]

http://www.attackcartoons.com/lmobjectiv.GIF

[Hayduke]

COMMUNSIM FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE

[Imperial Power]

Vox:

9. Causes of the revoltuion are deeper than taxation without representation. I fail to see how this relates to Capitalism vs. Socialism. What is your point on taxes. Have you found a new way to fund goverment?

10. You think everything is sexist. Man is a general term for humans. It has been used for hundreds of year. There is no question in your Q10.

11. Your not debating anything here.

12. Not debating here either.

Vox at the end of your post I especially enjoyed "your kind are dumb." This is insight to us all of your intellectual wisdom and humbleness.

[peaccenicked]

"I think many of you do understand why I am here. Every thread is a victory for me. I'm obviously not going to convince socialist drones like vox and peace that Capitalism is the key to protecting the free world. But many people look at these threads without responding and every person that reads and learns of truths of capitalism"
http://www.attackcartoons.com/justice.GIF

[Jurhael]

I fail to see how Capitalism protects anything the but money.

The "free world", suuuure the free world for corporations to run amok.

[peaccenicked]

Here is what one anarchist thinks.
LIBERTARIAN LIES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party is an American phenomenon, as the term "libertarian" has been historically associated with anarchism. Indeed, to Europeans, libertarian retains its original meaning. The LPUSA has been around since 1971, and since this time has garnered quite a following on the ideas of defending the common man from the evils of government.
The degree of political dyslexia in the United States is so severe that many Libertarians actually have adopted the term "anarchist" to refer to what they're espousing. In the interests of clarity and truthfulness, I'm going to analyze the Libertarian Party line and see if the "party of principle" actually lives up to its allegedly libertarian ideals.

I highlighted sections that stand out to me as revealing the hidden true nature of the LPUSA. If you don't know what I mean by BUZZWORDS, by all means check it out.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LPUSA POSITION
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

Already, you see some qualifiers--they object to the OMNIPOTENT state, rather than objecting to the state itself. This would make them minarchists, not anarchists! American "Libertarians" want a smaller state; they do not want to get rid of the state!

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

The above is the main theme of their party. As a platitude, is sounds very nice. But the buzzwords continue buzzing--"sole dominion", "forcibly interfere", "whatever manner they choose".

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

One word to sum this up: TAXATION (aka, "fruits of labor"). This gets downplayed by the emphasis on their opposition to lifestyle legislation--this is a good thing, but is invidious in that it creates the illusion that Libertarians are libertines, when economically, they are reactionaries. Again, I'll touch on this soon enough.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Here is the classic Americanism in action: life, liberty, and property (aka, "the pursuit of happiness"). Property is the foundation upon which the Libertarian Party rests; liberty and life are secondary considerations. Libertarians see property as the means to perpetuate life and to maximize liberty.
This is where the schizophrenic nature of the LPUSA comes into play. Against censorship? Great. Pro free speech? Better still. The right to property? Hold the presses! There can be NO property rights maintained without the state...so, we see the LPUSA talking a good game about opposing the intervention of the state in their affairs, yet we suddenly see it recognizing a "right" to property; moreover, they speak of the prohibition of robbery and trespass among other misdeeds. These are property offenses, and would require a powerful state to provide a police force to ensure that said property remains inviolate!

So the LPUSA would have you believe that they're against the state, when at the same time they express their support for a right of property! Does that mean each and every one of you has a right to a plot of land? No. Of course not. It does mean that if you can purchase some land, that you'll be able to "join the club". Once you purchase this land, your "right" of property is established, and is defensible only by the power of the state.

This is why the LPUSA is such a profoundly MIDDLE CLASS party--because these people are property owners, and don't like the government taxing them for their ownership of land. But at the same time, they cannot keep their property safe without police and government. This paradox is characteristic of bourgeois ideologies.

To the Libertarian, property is the means to liberty and life. In this respect, they resemble classic economic liberals in their outlook. Those without property should aspire to it. Property is the means to salvation. This is THE party line of the Libertarians.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Voluntary...relations among individuals means employees working for a property owner. The Libertarian Party line is "well, nobody FORCED you to work there. You CHOSE to." But as I've said elsewhere, there is no "choice" between work for another or die--the sane choose life; the insane call that free agreeement!
They say people should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. But what is an employee of a capitalistic firm if not someone sacrificing their lives (represented by time) for the benefit (profit) of others (the owner[s])?

Anarchists agree that people should not be forced to work for anyone else's profit--but this is not what the Libertarians are saying, for if it was, it would negate their very premise--for they pretend that "work for another or die" IS a free choice offered in capitalist society!

The Libertarians are saying, instead, that those WITH PROPERTY should be protected from expropriation, regardless. They use benefit to confound the very real issues of want and need.

Then they go on about the free market as the sole safeguard of liberty. I wonder what individual rights they are speaking of that the free market can possibly protect? Property? Liberty? Life?

What they are effectively saying is that people trade one master (government) for another (capitalism). This is essentially their argument, although, in fact, they aren't really abandoning the idea of the state--no capitalist CAN! They merely want the "omnipotent" state whittled down so it is more accountable to the demands of the nation's propertarians, rather than the nation's people as a whole. Society is evolving in this direction as you read this, so the LPUSA should be quite tickled at the current situation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1996 Party Platform
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

This is more mumbo-jumbo against taxation and safeguarding of property. Funny how party platforms reveal the constituency the various parties are speaking to. This is also an extension of the bourgeois myth of autonomy--that society itself is nonexistent--that we are all just a horde of unconnected, conniving individuals welded together for the heck of it. Name one person you know who's sovereign over their own life. Society is the result of interaction, connectivity, reciprocity, and cooperation, not the absence of it.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Again, the chuckleheads talk again about these individual rights without enumerating them. Are these rights those of life, liberty, and property? They are engaging in ambiguity, a linguistic fallacy, to further obfuscate their meaning. Would a Libertarian recognize a right to food as a necessary precondition to the "right to life" they endorse?
Of course they wouldn't. All they say is that you have a freedom from the initiation of force against you, without elaborating (with reason). For the right to life, taken in the abstract, is meaningless, because human beings are not self-sustaining--we need food, water, shelter, etc. to survive. Thus, the abstract right to life is grounded in a very concrete reality. But the Libertarians don't touch that one, and with good reason--property rights supersede rights to life (and thus liberty) in Propertarian society.

If you're starving and you pluck an apple from a Propertarian's tree, you will go to jail as a robber and a trespasser (assuming you aren't shot at the scene, naturally). It doesn't matter if you're starving--all that mattered is you violated the Propertarian's property rights--thus you see the natural dissolution of the right to life when crossed with the right of property...you would not be able to defend your "theft" on the basis of a "right to life". I guarantee it.

The repetition of prosperity within this section is more bourgeois, middle class capitalist apologia. Capitalist prosperity comes from the labor of others, which is, in itself, a violation of the exploited's liberty. The LPUSA's endorsement of capitalism as the economic system of choice is a guarantee that fraud and force will remain alive and well in Propertarian society, producing not a free world, but a world of masters (owners) and slaves (workers). They call this "freedom", but they're wrong.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

Let's take the apple thief example again...I'm peacefully plucking the apple from yon Propertarian's tree (they would classify this as initiation of force--theft and trespass), even though I'm honestly starving. But I'm shot as a trespassing thief. Thus you see the manorial, essentially feudal relations the Propertarians would have you governed by. I didn't initiate physical violence against the propertarian, but they would still toe the line I established--why? Because the Propertarians weld life and profit together. I've just "harmed" the landowner by taking an apple from "his" tree.
Free to follow my dreams in my own way, free from any government interference or authoritarian power? Okay, I want to live. But I can't do that, because I don't own my own land. The land's all owned by various wealthy Libertarians in the region. Thus, I am surrounded by authoritarian powers who've already demonstrated a willingness to persecute trespassers--so, how can I possibly be "free" to do anything except starve and die??!

Libertarian "theory" only withstands scrutiny when said scrutiny is withheld.


In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

I'll create a site to comment on these various policy stances to further illustrate the hypocrisy of the Libertarian Party. I think you'll find the enumeration of their policies to be revealing. Some of their stances are good, but the real core of their program is very, very bad.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

In the world of the Propertarian, only those with property are free. By taking property as the means to liberty, it establishes a continuum of liberty, rather than an absolute. This dangerous precedent means that liberty will only be there for those who can afford it--thus becoming a luxury, and not a right, as the LPUSA would have you believe.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MORE ON LIBERTARIAN STANCES
The following is excerpted from the official LPUSA page...

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
No conflict exists between civil order and individual rights. Both concepts are based on the same fundamental principle: that no individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

"Initiation of force" is the cardinal sin in propertarian society, carefully defined to encompass anything propertarians oppose. For example, if Libertarians hold to this fundamental principle, then why do they not return the land their ancestors stole from the American Indians? There are fewer purer examples of initiation of force than the European conquest of the New World! Let's explore further...

THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY
There is no conflict between property rights and human rights. Indeed, property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property, and as such, are entitled to the same respect and protection as all other human rights.

Here we get to the foundation of Libertarian (or, more accurately, Propertarian) ideology, as I mentioned. Property. Note how they establish (sans proof) that there is no conflict between property and human rights--thus, if a wealthy landowner's property rights contribute to the abject poverty of the people in a given region, there is no conflict, in the eyes of Libertarians!
Here we see another logical fallacy -- begging the question, in the statement that "property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property; they circle back to their conclusion:


Q: What are property rights?
A: Property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property.
It doesn't explain what they are! This is fallacious.
Notice how they refrain from enumerating "all other human rights"--what are these other human rights? Anarchists can think of quite a few human rights, all of which clash head-on with property "rights".


All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.

As I'd said, Propertarians view property as the keystone of liberty--in this, they are correct--WITHIN propertarian society, only those WITH property are free. They pussyfoot around the issue by saying that we are all propertarians, based on self-ownership--however, they fail to note that self-ownership does NOT equal self-sustenance...that is, in their society, the dispossessed are "free" only to starve...self-ownership does not put bread on the table (nor provide the table, for that matter!)
Here we have yet another logical fallacy -- the absolute statement. "All rights are inextricably intertwined with property." To the propertarian, no proof of this is required; it is taken as a given.

"Involuntary servitude", as mentioned above, is another misconception of the Propertarians--they take it as a given that anyone working at a place of employment is there because they want to--coal miners, sweatshop workers, cashiers, garbage collectors--whatever...no one forced them to work where they do (so the mythology goes). This is, however, fallacious--those without property MUST, in fact, work for another--be it employer or client (misnamed, "self-employment"). There is no choice in the matter, for to choose death is not a rational option. It is in this fashion that people enter into jobs they wouldn't ordinarily undertake--it is this situation that produces the very real involuntary servitude of capitalism...Propertarians pretend that the ability to choose your own master equals freedom, but this is a lie!


We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

Here we come across the nail in the coffin of the myth of the Libertarian Party--The above is the "every man a king in his castle" clause of their platform. The property owner is the ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY regarding his property. It is this idea that puts the lie to any pretensions toward anarchism that Libertarians have. They do not reject authority at all--rather, they object to authority over THEM! Such is the way of all parties, alas--they expect everyone else to play by the rules they created for their own profit.
The use of "valid rights" here is very important, since Propertarians have a very skewed sense of what rights are "valid".

For example, if you're starving, and in dire need of food, the Propertarians would not recognize this as a valid right (that is, the right to eat). I know it's crazy, but this is their stance! They'd say it's not THEIR fault you're hungry (or homeless, or whatever), and probably have the police drub you into jail--but really, it IS their fault--that is, it's the fault of propertarians everywhere that poverty even exists--why? Property breeds poverty--once some take more than their fair share, it guarantees that many will not get anything. Every propertarian society has poverty on a wide scale--they are, and always have been, intimately linked. I cannot think of a more valid right than the right to be able to eat!

A "valid" right, to the Propertarian is any right the Propertarians DEEM valid. Such absolute authority is the source of much tyranny throughout history. As Thomas Hobbes so rightly observed, wealth IS power--and in propertarian society, only the propertied will have the power! Precious little liberty in such a world.

You see here that the inclusion of "life and liberty" to the triad (life, liberty, and property) is ultimately obviated by the "right" to property--for, if humans have a right to life, it is criminal for them to be deprived of it--thus, the propertarian withholding food from his fellow human is committing a crime. Moreover, the dispossessed within a propertarian society are definitely without liberty (that is, the right to do as they please).

So, you see how property negates the 2/3 of the rights the Propertarians pretend to value! Political parties do things like this to make their draconian systems more palatable--they are swindlers, like all the rest, using honeyed words to con the majority of people into accepting their own exploitation!

This is by their own admission--property is the way to the other "inalienable" rights. Which means that those without property have no liberty! Makes me wonder why the Propertarians even bothered to say we have rights to life and liberty, when all they really care about is property!

Just like the Democrats and Republicans adopted favorable-sounding names that don't remotely resemble their agendas, so have the Libertarians adopted a name that doesn't even come close to what they stand for. Again, as I've said, these people are Propertarians, although given how slipshod they are with the facts, Glibertarians would not be too far off the mark, either!


Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

This gem is priceless, as it reveals the hypocrisy inherent in all parties--they SAY one thing, and do another. If the Propertarians actually believed in their own words, they would rush to return the property stolen from the American Indians. But funny, you don't see them doing that!
Let's see how the Propertarians resolve the issue of the grand theft (and genocide) committed on the Native Americans...


AMERICAN INDIAN RIGHTS
These major factors underlying the unconscionable plight of America's Indians may be summarized as follows: (1) the unresolved complexity of dual national citizenship; (2) the attrition of reservation lands and abridgement of Indian rights to remaining properties; (3) the subjugation of individual Indians to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal government authority; and (4) various federal commitments to provide the tribes with health, education, and welfare benefits "forever" in exchange for expropriated lands.
We favor the following remedies, respectively: (1) individual Indians should be free to select their citizenship, if any, and tribes should be allowed to choose their level of autonomy, up to absolute sovereignty; (2) Indians should be allowed to have their just property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting and fishing; (3) the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be abolished and tribal members allowed to decided the extent and nature of their government, if any; and (4) negotiations should be undertaken to exchanged various otherwise unclaimed and unowned federal properties for any and all remaining governmental obligations to the tribes.


Here we see the BIG LIE of Libertarianism in practice--after saying that they: 1) reject initiation of force; 2) support restition of property to the dispossessed, we see them backpedalling on the very real issue that Libertarians are holding stolen land!!! Thus, they invent four "remedies" to skirt around the clear contradiction of their propertarian creed, the real reason for the "unconscionable plight" of the Native American people--as if this simply happened to them!
This is precisely what I mean when I say that Libertarians seek maximum liberty for themselves (through property) and fail to extend the privilege to the rest of us!

We have a clear case of wrongful expropriation (let's call it THEFT and ROBBERY, since that's what it is), one that ideologically consistent Libertarians should be able to clear up--1) Europeans and Americans wrongfully initiated force against the Native Americans; 2) said initiation of force expropriated the Native Americans; 3) their lost property should be restituted without hesitation.

But you don't see that. You see a waffle word..."just property rights" added to protect them from their own hypocrisy--thus, in classic Glibertarian fashion, it is UNJUST (!) for the Native Americans to push for the restoration of their property!!

See the contradiction? Playing by the stated rules of the Propertarian game, the LPUSA's membership is acting in violation of their own platform! Would that this were the only case of such flagrant hypocrisy on the part of these swindlers!

This contradiction occurs throughout propertarian ideology, in that the apologists desire maximum latitude for themselves, while depriving it for everyone else. This is the way of all vanguardists--those who would, despite contrary declarations, oppress you for their own gain. Until the LPUSA's membership abandons ALL Indian lands, how can anyone take them seriously as defenders of property rights, and hence, liberty?? Like all partisans, they are liars.

You see the very real reliance in force that lies behind property "rights" in this instance--the LPUSA's membership holds wrongful property because the state protects them from the consequences of their crimes--this is the way of "free traders" everywhere.

[Moskitto]

American Politics is wierd. In Europe (generally) A left-winger is a libertarian (social programs and proggressive legislation for anti-censorship and minorities), a right-winger is an authoritarian (privatisation, conservative legislation on censorship and minorities.) In America, people think it's the other way round cos they don't know much.

[vox]

Imperialist, your profound idiocy is embarrassing to all but yourself. I'll now show that by dealing with each of your inane objections.

"1. Campaign finance reform is currently going through congress, a lame argument anyways considering the IRS watches like hawks for illegal contributions."

Did you understand what you copy and pasted? I don't believe that you did, for you would understand that I responded to what you posted, not to the current state of affairs in DC. Indeed, I asked you specfically if, contrary to you Objectivist posturing, you thouht that personal freedom should be limited on this issue. You counter that there is a bill in Congress. Perhaps you don't understand your own propaganda?

"2. Have you not heard of the Environmental Protection Agency? I don’t think they would allow you to dump chemicals in a river."

Yes, but your extremist propaganda doesn't allow for the EPA, right? Also, you didn't answer the point about economic sefl-interest not always being in everyone's interest, as your pasted post claims it to be. I'm not surprised that you're zero for two on actually responding to what was written. Your kind rarely do, preferring instead to hope that no one notices that you're desperately trying to change the subject.

"3. Here’s a "your wrong" argument. Read the quote again this time for meaning and understanding. Capitalism lets people think as one. It guarantees Independence, and Freedom. Society gains contributions from free minds."

Au contraire, impererialist. I gave you some background into why your preposterous interpretation of Marx and Engels was wrong, and not at all supported by what they wrote, and then went on to show that you don't even know if you're talking about a political system or an economic system, for you seem to wish to have it both ways. Perhaps you should read things before you paste them here. O for 3.

"4. Income tax paid for those roads. Guess were the most income tax comes from...Corporations"

Actually, that's not true. The share of the tax burden paid by corporations has shrunk dramatically over the past few decades, but don't take my word for it, look it up. After all, you have the biggest collection of facts ever assembled right at your finger tips. The gov't keeps records about such things, and it's all online, please look it up.

Now then, the point wasn't about who paid the taxes that paid for the roads, as any fool can see, but the role of the gov't. The roads were paid for by public funds, but you think that's a bad idea, however, only after they've already been built by public funds. The point was, for the very dense, that your notion about the role of gov't is only possible because of the public works that gov't has already provided, and even then your absurd belief fails as soon as we talk about upkeep. So far, you're batting .000.

"5. Yes in America you start in party you desire. Land of the free."

But what about in the America you propose?

"6. Yes the scientist does own the product. He is given a patent for his work."

You betray an extreme misunderatanding of how coporations are run, and of how the law works, by this incredibly untrue statement of yours. Perhaps you should do a little research before you humiliate yourself anymore. If you are employed by a corporation and do research for it, the corporation, not you, owns the research and any products or patents that may result from that research. You really don't know much about the real world, do you?

"7. Capitalism is an ideal not a person who owns capital. Your arguments on productivity are simple economics gone wrong. When production in one area becomes to high the market corrects itself because some companies will either change products or go bankrupt because there is too much competition, but it benefits the consumer."

I've already shown that productivity does not benefit consumers, for the idea is not to decrease price but increase profit, and there is no correlation between an increase in productivity and a decrease in price.

However, your initial objection is bizarre, since it was in response to the section "what is a capiitalist." I really don't think you even read what you pasted here. And again, as in every other instance, you've avoided the question.

"8. Civil rights have come a long way your argument has no merit in modern America."

You're right, but you don't like modern America, and what you pasted proves that, for it proposes a radical change in the role of the gov't in modern America. Please go back and read point #4 from your original post, and then explain how civil rights laws should be enforced by the kind of gov't YOU propose.

"9. Causes of the revoltuion are deeper than taxation without representation. I fail to see how this relates to Capitalism vs. Socialism. What is your point on taxes. Have you found a new way to fund goverment?"

My point, dense one, is that it's possible to believe exactly the same things, in this instance a belief in freedom and individual rights, and yet arrive at a very different conclusion. Too, you've not yet answered why, exactly, capitalism is the "only" system that can assure such freedoms. Of course, you can't even decide if capiatlism is a polotical system or an economic system, so I'm not expecting much from you.

"10. You think everything is sexist. Man is a general term for humans. It has been used for hundreds of year. There is no question in your Q10."

Hee! You make me laugh, boy. I didn't say it was sexist! If I did, please quote me, directly. I know you know how to copy and paste, so do it. You can't, of course, because you're lying yet again.

Actually, there were two points for you to answer in my response, even though you again claim that you can't find any. One: if capitalist social relations reflect man's true nature, why did it take so very long for capitalism to arrive. Two, do you disagree that Marx opposed collectivism and, if so, based on what? See? Two questions, no responses. Typical.

"11. Your not debating anything here."

I'm saying that von Mises was a fool, and that his followers (that would be you) are idiots, and I'm ready to go on that anytime you are, but I don't think you will, for I've already shown that you don't even understand what you copy and paste.

"12. Not debating here either."

Again, I'm asking whether capitalism is a political or an economic system, for your pasted post claims that it's both. You can't answer the question. It's pretty clear to everyone but you, imperialist.

Now then, since you've shown yourself to be stupider than even I thought you were, please try to answer at least ONE of the questions, in order to save face if nothing else. You'll undoubtedly do a poor job and be wrong, but at least you'll have tried.

vox 12--imperialist 0

vox

[Reuben]

According to Impal Power "What is capitalism's essential nature?
The essential nature of capitalism is social harmony through the pursuit of self-interest"

To be honest that this defeats imperial power's own arguments regarding capitalism because of the numerous example which in contrast have shown the pursuit of capitalist interest ddiiminishing social harmony.

For example, when the United Fruit Company felt their interests to thhreatened by the policies of the democratically elected government they consdpired with the U.S. government to install a military dictatorship.

Across the world social harmony is threatened by paramilitary orginisations acting on behalf of capitalist interests (Colombia).

[vox]

imperialist,

If my arguments are so silly, you should be able to easily defeat them. However, you choose to say nothinng at all.

Perhaps you should change your name to imperial coward?

vox

[Moskitto]

I know IP won't post this, so I'll post it for him, enjoy.

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.

Yep Capitalism doesn't like democracy too much does it.

[Moskitto]

Here's annother one. Capitalists moan about intellectuals dying in Cambodia. Well.

Intellectuals
Why is capitalism so despised, maligned, and misrepresented by the intellectuals in our universities?
The intellectuals despise Capitalism because it is completely in opposition to their basic, philosophical principles.

Capitalism is the system of individual rights; the intellectuals on all sides are for some form of collectivism. Capitalism is the system of individualism, self-interest and happiness; the intellectuals are for altruism, self-sacrifice, and misery. Capitalism is pro-reason; the intellectuals are steeped in mysticism and subjectivism. Capitalism is is a social system for living in reality; a reality which the intellectuals despise, or whose existence they deny.

No wonder the bulk of the intellectuals who infect today's universities are against Capitalism -- it represents the antithesis of everything they stand for. How could they not be?

[vox]

Hey, Imperial Coward, don't you think you should at least attempt to answer my posts before you declare victory?

Typical of the right-wing, though. Just keep lying and hope someone believes you.

vox

[El Che]

My god Imperial Power... What utter garbage! If you want to cut past the lies of capitalist lackies cant you at least find one with a brain? a child could find the errors and the subjectiveness (to say the least) of the reasoning behind those worthless articles. This has no interest at all, its not even a challange.

[vox]

Still awaiting a reply, you imperialist coward. What's the matter? Did I use too many big words? You can't do it, can you?

Of course you can't. Otherwise, you'd have responded.

What a true fool you are.

Dance now, for our collective amusement. If you're lucky, someone will throw you a biscuit, and then you can say you worked for it.

vox

(Edited by vox at 5:34 pm on Feb. 6, 2002)

[vox]

This isn't every ten minutes, Coward. I've been waiting since January.

Admit your impotence.

vox

[Imperial Power]

Vox

Do you read the threads; I answered this one a long time ago shooter.

[vox]

The question is, do YOU read the threads, for I answered your pitiful response. By the way, calling me "shooter" is reather amusing, for I've always spoken against violence.

Here's a reminder, son:

Imperialist, your profound idiocy is embarrassing to all but yourself. I'll now show that by dealing with each of your inane objections.

"1. Campaign finance reform is currently going through congress, a lame argument anyways considering the IRS watches like hawks for illegal contributions."

Did you understand what you copy and pasted? I don't believe that you did, for you would understand that I responded to what you posted, not to the current state of affairs in DC. Indeed, I asked you specfically if, contrary to you Objectivist posturing, you thouht that personal freedom should be limited on this issue. You counter that there is a bill in Congress. Perhaps you don't understand your own propaganda?

"2. Have you not heard of the Environmental Protection Agency? I don’t think they would allow you to dump chemicals in a river."

Yes, but your extremist propaganda doesn't allow for the EPA, right? Also, you didn't answer the point about economic sefl-interest not always being in everyone's interest, as your pasted post claims it to be. I'm not surprised that you're zero for two on actually responding to what was written. Your kind rarely do, preferring instead to hope that no one notices that you're desperately trying to change the subject.

"3. Here’s a "your wrong" argument. Read the quote again this time for meaning and understanding. Capitalism lets people think as one. It guarantees Independence, and Freedom. Society gains contributions from free minds."

Au contraire, impererialist. I gave you some background into why your preposterous interpretation of Marx and Engels was wrong, and not at all supported by what they wrote, and then went on to show that you don't even know if you're talking about a political system or an economic system, for you seem to wish to have it both ways. Perhaps you should read things before you paste them here. O for 3.

"4. Income tax paid for those roads. Guess were the most income tax comes from...Corporations"

Actually, that's not true. The share of the tax burden paid by corporations has shrunk dramatically over the past few decades, but don't take my word for it, look it up. After all, you have the biggest collection of facts ever assembled right at your finger tips. The gov't keeps records about such things, and it's all online, please look it up.

Now then, the point wasn't about who paid the taxes that paid for the roads, as any fool can see, but the role of the gov't. The roads were paid for by public funds, but you think that's a bad idea, however, only after they've already been built by public funds. The point was, for the very dense, that your notion about the role of gov't is only possible because of the public works that gov't has already provided, and even then your absurd belief fails as soon as we talk about upkeep. So far, you're batting .000.

"5. Yes in America you start in party you desire. Land of the free."

But what about in the America you propose?

"6. Yes the scientist does own the product. He is given a patent for his work."

You betray an extreme misunderatanding of how coporations are run, and of how the law works, by this incredibly untrue statement of yours. Perhaps you should do a little research before you humiliate yourself anymore. If you are employed by a corporation and do research for it, the corporation, not you, owns the research and any products or patents that may result from that research. You really don't know much about the real world, do you?

"7. Capitalism is an ideal not a person who owns capital. Your arguments on productivity are simple economics gone wrong. When production in one area becomes to high the market corrects itself because some companies will either change products or go bankrupt because there is too much competition, but it benefits the consumer."

I've already shown that productivity does not benefit consumers, for the idea is not to decrease price but increase profit, and there is no correlation between an increase in productivity and a decrease in price.

However, your initial objection is bizarre, since it was in response to the section "what is a capiitalist." I really don't think you even read what you pasted here. And again, as in every other instance, you've avoided the question.

"8. Civil rights have come a long way your argument has no merit in modern America."

You're right, but you don't like modern America, and what you pasted proves that, for it proposes a radical change in the role of the gov't in modern America. Please go back and read point #4 from your original post, and then explain how civil rights laws should be enforced by the kind of gov't YOU propose.

"9. Causes of the revoltuion are deeper than taxation without representation. I fail to see how this relates to Capitalism vs. Socialism. What is your point on taxes. Have you found a new way to fund goverment?"

My point, dense one, is that it's possible to believe exactly the same things, in this instance a belief in freedom and individual rights, and yet arrive at a very different conclusion. Too, you've not yet answered why, exactly, capitalism is the "only" system that can assure such freedoms. Of course, you can't even decide if capiatlism is a polotical system or an economic system, so I'm not expecting much from you.

"10. You think everything is sexist. Man is a general term for humans. It has been used for hundreds of year. There is no question in your Q10."

Hee! You make me laugh, boy. I didn't say it was sexist! If I did, please quote me, directly. I know you know how to copy and paste, so do it. You can't, of course, because you're lying yet again.

Actually, there were two points for you to answer in my response, even though you again claim that you can't find any. One: if capitalist social relations reflect man's true nature, why did it take so very long for capitalism to arrive. Two, do you disagree that Marx opposed collectivism and, if so, based on what? See? Two questions, no responses. Typical.

"11. Your not debating anything here."

I'm saying that von Mises was a fool, and that his followers (that would be you) are idiots, and I'm ready to go on that anytime you are, but I don't think you will, for I've already shown that you don't even understand what you copy and paste.

"12. Not debating here either."

Again, I'm asking whether capitalism is a political or an economic system, for your pasted post claims that it's both. You can't answer the question. It's pretty clear to everyone but you, imperialist.

Now then, since you've shown yourself to be stupider than even I thought you were, please try to answer at least ONE of the questions, in order to save face if nothing else. You'll undoubtedly do a poor job and be wrong, but at least you'll have tried.

vox 12--imperialist 0

vox

[vox]

Still no answer?

Silly boy. Don't you understand that, if what you say is true and I'm an idiot, you should be able to easily refute my points?

You can't, however. Or, can you?

I'm willing to give you one more chance. After all, it's another chance for everyone else to laugh at your extreme impotence.

vox

[TheDerminator]

"The gift o' God, I wish he'd gie us,
to see ourselves as others see us."
Robert Burns
You will have to excuse the language in this reply, but the objectve validity of the crude sexual metaphor is explained in the Language of Ethos, which is a part of my treatise, Heresies on God and Freedom. This is a summation of the Heresies on Freedom, although this summation only relates to the ethos of the "capitalism versus communism" discussion. The treatise gives a greater historical perspective.
Marx got it wrong. The classificaton of "capitalism" is inappropiate, because capitalism relates only to the economic system, and this is only the essential infrastructure of societies.
The Frankenstein of capitalist economy, was created by the fledgling bourgeoisie, of the English merchant class. Lenin realised that in the political sphere you always ask " who's interests" are being served, and it follows you ask of the limitations upon those interests.
Like all economic systems, (starting with the early barter system), was created in social consciousness. This also includes slavery and serfdom. It does not matter one iota, that economic systems were not objectified by the users. All the users require is a funtional knowledge of the system, and that is what the English merchant class, did possess. They knew exactly what was in their own interests.
Henry VII was not the driving force, but what he did was to change the taxation system, in England, and by doing so, he removed the ties to local feudal lords in England. Ties which prevented the merchant class from uniting. In doing so, he cut the throat of his own lineage, in the sense, that the unification of the merchant class led to the bougeoisie usurping power from the monarchy. We can call it usurption, because history records the fact that bourgeois democracy in these early days was limited to the bourgeoisie and to the aristocracy.
The fledgling bourgeoisie, created nope, not just capitaliism, but the Bourgeois epoch. It was created by the bourgeoisie to serve the bougeoisie, and herein lie many of its limitations. However, it is not that simple. Only some of the limitations. It inhereted some traditions from the Feudal tradition, and even further back.
The Christian ethos was a part of it, but the latter threw up huge contradictions. On the one hand you have The New Testament containing the simplistic humanism of Jesus Christ, and then on the other hand, this developed into the monstorious early Catholic Church, which included the Inquistion, and which brought a blanket of religious dogma down over Europe, to paraphrase Churchill.
The blanket lasted from Christian Emperor Justian to the time of Copernicus. It can be no accident that this Polish scientist, lived at the time of the Renaissance in Europe, which flowered in Italy, England, France and Germany. In fact Copernicus studied law in the town of Bologna in Italy. It is here he stayed in the house of Domenica Maria de Novara, who was a major influence on the direction Copernicus took into the field of science, because Domenica Maria was a professor of mathematics.
The point is that part of the contradiction within The New Testament is the way the concept of "tolerance" can be interpreted. In reality, because it is a shallow ethos, it tolerates excessess. The inquistion and the one thousand year winter. The small indulgence of Charlemagne, was a small respite during the winter, but it was still a winter, and a soon as Charlemagne died the bishops closed the schools.
The strange thing is about this tolerance of excesses, is that helped sow the seeds of the destruction of the power of the catholic church, because it allowed for the absolute power of a monarch, and when the push came to the shove, a monarch eventually put his own power over the power of the catholic church, and that monarch, was the successor of Henry VII, Henry VIII.
Excesses, excesses, excesses. The whole Renaissance grew out of the excesses of the wealth created during the Feudal epoch. Wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, such as the Medici family in Italy. The excessess allowed for large scale patronage, thus there was indeed a university in Bologna, and there was indeed a mathematical tradition in Italy, stemming from that patronage.
Excesses. Excesses.
Does that sound like as if it has anything to do with the Bourgeios Epoch. Yep. Concentration of power and concentration of wealth moved from the monarchies and aristocracies into the hands of the bourgoisie.
Perhaps, you should now be seeing a weakness in the Marxist approach, because it saw essence as creating forms of consciousness rather than seeing that consciousness created the economic structures, it let the Dr. Frankenstein of the world, off the hook, and that goes not just for our system, but for the creators of every slave system too.
Not that you should possess a black and white moral view of historical development. There is no "objective reality" as Marx saw it. There is only the one reality, and this is a reality of eccentric organic subjective development. To paraphrase Marx, the point is for philosophers to objectify the world, and the objectification process requires an objective methodology, capable of giving an analysis of any subject essential in historical development.
Thus there has been no blueprint for historical development and that lack of a blueprint mitigates the evil contained within this subjective development.
Back to the Bourgeois epoch. Those who believe in the righteousness of the bougeois way of life accept up front its inequalities, and thus they use the examples of athletes, celebrities and the "self-made millionaire" to justify the inequalities. If you have not "made it", maybe it is because you have certain personal inadequacies, not talented enough, not bright enough, you do not possess the strength of character, you do not possess the resiliance. Yep, it is all your fault that you are a loser. And you fucking are a loser. Big style, because these inadequate bastards are treating you like you are a piece of shit.
These are deeply inadequate people and their inadequacy is contained within their shit ethos. It hinges upon the mythology surrounding the independence and self-reliance of the individual. It is extreme individualism.
A few examples: if you two people are born with roughly the same level of intellect, and roughly similar natural talents, but one child is sent to the best schools, money can buy, and the parents know the value of a good education, thus encourage the child in studies; whilst the other child attends a schools rated at the bottom of league, wherein there is a culture amongst the pupils which does not value education, and parents who came from a similar culture. Well. Fuck-off with your shit self-reliance, there can very little to be self-reliant upon. There is no equality in your shit theory of self-reliance. It is just a fucking moral convenience.
A few of the poor become millionaires. Big fucking wal. "I was poor, but I was happy". Fuck-off. If you were happy and poor you are like the content fucking slave. Poverty is abject fucking humiliation. Don't fucking sentimentalise your "happy" experiences within poverty. You have made it in this shit society. So fucking what? Big fucking deal.
Inequalities, inequalities, inequalites. Excesses. The tragedy is that you do not see the obscenity. You do not see the evil.
Think on it. Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Steven Speilberg, Bruce Springsteen, Paul Mc Cartney, Michael Schumacher, and Yoko Ono, have between them billions upon billions of money in their private back accounts. Billions. It costs about $20 dollars for a vaccine, that will save the life of a baby in the third world, and
you have helped to create a fucking third world $20, measily dollars, more than the parents can afford in some cases, and you do not see the fucking obscenity. It is a fucking scum brutal mentality that you possess.
It is totally fucking obscene. Objectively so.
Inequalities, inequalites, inequalities. Natural eh? They must be to your scum mentality, because, all it can boil down to is fucking eugenics, and you can fuck-off with your eugenic theories, because they end up in genocide. People like you are not born evil, it is something you become. Because, you are basically evil bastards, even if you do not know it. What you support is a total obscenity leading to the premature deaths of millions in your third world. It is an evil, and there is no other word for it.
Think of this you are in a limosuine on your way to a champagne function at a Hotel. You are among the super rich of a backward country like Brazil, and on the route you have to pass a large poor area consisting of hundreds and hundreds of shacks. The function you are going to has the purpose of raising money for UNICEF and UNESCO. You fucking crumb. That is all your shit governments are giving and that is all you are giving fucking crumbs. You are buying your own shit conscience with your cold shit charity, because that is all charity is, and it makes you bastards feel so good about yourselves. Bastards. Fuck-off. You probably still do not see your own brutal mentality, the obscenties of your shit ethos and your own brutal inherent evil. derminated.

[Forever capitalism]

Imperial power congratulations on giving those commies a lesson in political science, one that they can't find in their marx for beginners books or in how to kill innocent people in Guevara's and Mao's guerrilla warfare that condones violence and destruction.

[peaccenicked]

Where in Mao's book and che guevara do they condone the taking of innocent lives.
LIAR
LIAR
LIAR.

[Forever capitalism]

Where it says to start a guerrilla war, regardless of its popularity, location and time as long as a dictatorship can eventually be established

[peaccenicked]

where does it say that?

[Forever capitalism]

Where he describes how to kill conscripted soldiers and replace the present system with a communist/totalitarian one. Obviously you haven't read the books that is why you are questiong me about them so i can give you a quick synopsis. Guevara = murderer, communism = subordination to the state and dictator

[Nateddi]

capitalism = slavery!
no democracy because of the 2 party system!

Pretty good argument, huh FC? Considering I didn't back up any of my statements. Why don't you try and elaborate on your synopsis instead of using your hot words.