Log in

View Full Version : Imperial power: A proposal



peaccenicked
28th January 2002, 21:27
It is become quite clear to me what the crux of our dispute is all about.
Your fundamental premis is that Capitalism does not exploit workers.ie Libertarianism
My fundamental premis is that capitalism exploits workers ie marxism.
One of us is clearly mistaken.
Now you seem to think that your premis is undeniable.
If so all you will be able to do is declare this ad infinitum.
Before I die of boredom is there any point to this?
Here is your thesis
"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.) "
Firstly,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."
Here you deny the primacy of the profit motive. Do you really believe that the capitalists first priority is workers wages.
Is this an argument for the abolition of trade unions?
What you are saying is a con.
Are you still claiming to be honest.
you are saying trust the capitalist he will take care of you. You want the capitalist to become the State.
we want neither state nor capitalist. We want independence from both. Thus our individualism out ranks yours on all levels. Leave us alone.
secondly, "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." I take it you don't mean this as blasphemy but you have just rubbished christianity. Capitalists and inventors are two different species. They do not always exploit their inventions for money, that is usually left to some charlatan with dough.
So we have all to be grateful for the goods available in shops and not to humanitarians who waste their time helping people instead of making money.
We are supposed to believe that the trickle down theory works. The gap between rich and poor is getting
wider.
Who are you trying to fool? yourself
because you have no chance of convincing most of the human race and certainly not socialists and those who have taken part in negotations with the profit mad employers who we would trust no more than we trust it's hand glove puppets like you who deny the fundammental reality of exploitation.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:24 pm on Jan. 28, 2002)

Imperial Power
29th January 2002, 04:45
You seem to think a capitalist is someone without a heart hmm? If you were dieing of thirst on the side of the road peace, I'd give you water. Im not a cold hearted bastard. I just don't believe someone should hold the peoples hand (the governemnt) their whole life and tell them how to live. My fundamental premise is to defend capitalism.

peaccenicked
29th January 2002, 11:22
you are so kind. how magnanimus?
capitalists can be personally philantropic.
my argument is that the role of the capitalist within the mode of production is that of exploiter. Then he or she can afford to be nice.
defending capitalism is not a premise
There is no predicate.
you are saying capitalism is not exploitative of workers
that is a premise.

Imperial Power
29th January 2002, 22:28
A capitalist is someone who supports capitalism as the form of government. The garbage man, assembly line worker, truck driver, these can all be capitalists. They support the system they know will allow them to advance in life. Unlike a socialist system that locks the poor into their class for life.

peaccenicked
29th January 2002, 22:36
God help the workers who trust you.
http://www.attackcartoons.com/libmanfica.GIF

Moskitto
29th January 2002, 22:43
No IP, that's called Fuedelism. Socialism makes everyone equal.

Imperial Power
30th January 2002, 02:42
Moskitto everyone is not equal in socialism.
Show me one socialist country where everyone is equal.

peaccenicked
30th January 2002, 16:09
Print View


socialism



Hear this word spoken
Click the speaker icon of the best audio format for your computer.


so·cial·ism [ssh lėzm ] noun

1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles

2. movement based on socialism: any of several political movements or theories of the 19th and 20th centuries based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and the exploitation of workers

3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need.

and a quote from moskitto
"Yes every "communist" regime that has ever existed has been Stalinist (bar Grenada and Nicaragua), that's why we don't like them."

how many times do you need to be told.
equality is not achievable overnight
Thats why the third of the above definitions is
partially true.

Imperial Power
30th January 2002, 23:51
Are you simply jealous of your neighbors success? Do you feel you need to take his wealth and distribute it?

reagan lives
31st January 2002, 04:28
Yeah, defining socialism against communism. Productive.
"1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles"
And my MWC (10) definition for Communism:
"A system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed."

Are they really so different? And are they both different from "Marxism":
"The political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; esp: a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society"

I realize that this isn't exactly on topic, but I'm just a little tired of Marxists/communists/socialists trying to make superficial distinctions between the three whenever it suits the particular purpose at hand. Such attempts are as disingeuous as they are superficial. I usually let it go, since you probably wouldn't be able to sleep at night if you allowed yourself to face the fact that the ideology that you choose to identify yourself by has been responsible for nothing but pain and suffering since its conception. But you should know that the glazed-over look that people get when you start your spiel about how socialism isn't communism isn't Marxism isn't Leninism (the theory and practice of communism developed by or associated with Lenin) isn't Stalinism (the same definition basically, but with this addition: "marked esp. by rigid authoritarianism, widespread use of terror, and often emphasis on Russian nationalism) doesn't mean that they're not following your higher train of thought...it means that they understand how full of shit you are and are allowing you to continue only for your own benefit.

I think the quote you posted from Moskitto is quite pertinent to this discussion. Have you ever stopped to wonder *why* that might be the case? (I'll give you a hint: it's not because the evil capitalist West never let's communism get on its feet because we all know that it would save the world).

"equality is not achievable overnight"
How long does it take? Just out of curiosity, because nobody ever really bothered to address this question. The answer always seems to be "more time than nation X had." But theoretically, how long does one need to suffer through Stalinism (see definition above) before equality is earned? And, for the average citizen, how does this time frame compare with his prospects for earning economic independence via capitalism? And which option is more painful?

vox
31st January 2002, 05:13
Imperialist wrote:

"A capitalist is someone who supports capitalism as the form of government. The garbage man, assembly line worker, truck driver, these can all be capitalists. They support the system they know will allow them to advance in life. Unlike a socialist system that locks the poor into their class for life."

Question 1: Please explain how capitalism, which in another thread you called an economic system that demanded separation from the gov't, is a political system. That is, what tenets of capitalism demand a certain type of gov't?

Question 2: Marx defined a capitalist as one who owns the means of production. You define it differently. How can a person be a capitalist if that person has no capital, but only labour-power to sell? Doesn't being a capitalist mean that one has to have capital?

Question 3: By what reasoning can socialism, a classless political structure, be said to lock a person into a certain class for life?

I doubt you're at all able to answer, in your own words, any of these questions. You're not up to the task, I know, but I thought it would be funny to laugh at you when you fail.

vox

peaccenicked
31st January 2002, 16:00
Regan lives is really full of shit.
He wants to force his definitions down our throats.
He is using insuaition to be insulting plus from his logic.
I am now renaming him the Spanish inquisition.

reagan lives
31st January 2002, 23:19
Har har.

"He wants to force his definitions down our throats."
You're the one who started posting definitions. In fact, you started an entire thread about it. When you do it, you're educating people. When I do it, I'm forcing it down your throats. That's convenient.

"He is using insuaition to be insulting plus from his logic."
I don't know what that means. But I'm flattered.

"I am now renaming him the Spanish inquisition."
Zing!

Moskitto
31st January 2002, 23:24
Do what Clinton did with the Lewinsky affair. Say "And what is your definition of a ..."