My Two Cents... - on Socialism vs. Capitalism

[WolfieSmith]

When a rich American looks at his big car, big house, DVD, high-speed modem, wide-screen TV, Pentium Pc, surgically-enhanced girlfriend etc. he could be forgiven for thinking "Capitalism Works - look at me!".

But he would be wrong, because his wealth is only made possible by the fact that other people are poor.

If everyone had a million dollars, then a million dollars wouldn't be worth jack shit. A million dollars is only alot of money because most people in the third world live on less than a dollar a day.

How do we rid the world of this injustice? By abolishing usuary (profit-making, rent, interest). However, I do not advocate communism.

If we take Cuba as an example, I do not condone the lack of parlimentary democracy or restrictions on the freedom of assembly, speech, movement, etc.

However, I enthusiastically support Castro's anti-capitalist measures. I also applaud his attempts to introduce free schooling, free healthcare, etc.

Many people in the west (I'm thinking of the anti-cappies in this community) lead ecomonically comfortable lives. Yet we do not advocate capitalism because of the alienation and fear it creates.

Work, Consume, Die. Is that it? Socialists say "NO".

[Rob]

I think that this may be merely a question of definiton. The system in place in Cuba, China, and North Korea is not communist, according to Marx's definition of communism.

[Son of Scargill]

But it's a few nations in the right direction.Maybe not ideal,but if more of you mofo's took the time to think about what you are actually doing to this planet,and thought about the real meaning of life(the continuation of the species)then maybe you'll realise that the capitalist way of thinking is not achieving anything,other than the keeping the status quo.Whice is slowly(nowadays more quickly)poisoning this planet.Which keeps you comfortable,and hundreds of millions on starvation,or subsistence levels.If you are happy with this then fuck you!Your opinions are meaningless,and worthless.Be happy in your world,but know many more are paying for it.If you are not happy with this,then work towards reparation with the nations we have exploited.It's as simple as that!(well,not quite.)

[Hattori Hanzo]

DANM STRAIGHT!

[Guest]

I am a worker, but I will oppose your union every step of the way. Property, be it, intellectual, monetary, luxury, or personal is a virtue that I will not concede without a fire fight.

[WolfieSmith]

Interesting replies. Rob, you have a point there. I think we need to distinguish between Lenin's reading of Marx and Marx himself. I think the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" invites alot of misunderstanding. Any thoughts on this?

In response to the guest, I would ask you to consider the meaning of your life, what makes you happy and what makes you miserable.

If I can make a real, positive and lasting difference to the life of another person, that is the greatest feeling on Earth. Intellectual, athletic, professional and personal achevements are great but there is even more to life than that.

I do not wish to deny your right to property, freedom of speech, association, movement, etc.

However, I do not grant you the right to exploit people.

Capitalism is predicated on the notion that production and consumtion are the be all and end all of human existence. I see them as requirements for existence, not the purpose of it.

Consider what money really represents - power over other people. How much money will it take to make you happy? How much power over others do you require?

[Angie]

"I feel a revulsion for money. Its a fucking fetish." Che GuevaraGorgeous. It's times like this that I wish Che had spoken a little English from time to time, and that I had access to a sound file of that line. :biggrin:

[Supermodel]

Wolfie, I think you make the same idealogical assumption upon which many economic errors are based.

Someone is not rich just because someone else is poor.
Someone is not poor just because someone else is rich.
There is not a direct cause and effect, although there is no doubt this does happen.

The flaw in the philosophy is that the world has one limited total of resources which we must all share. This is a false assumption.

Value is created by the labor of the worker. Some are certainly more productive, physically and intellectually, than others. It is leveraged by the capital of the capitalist/collective. It grows in the fields. It dies when we die and increases when we start producing. Thus the world increases in value, and the problem at hand is how to disperse that value, plus the future value of goods in progress, among the human beings alive today.

Angie, I would have loved to have conversed fetishes with Che too. On my deathbed I will make a list so Che and I can get started right after I snuff it.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Son of Scargill on 5:07 am on June 17, 2002
But it's a few nations in the right direction.Maybe not ideal,but if more of you mofo's took the time to think about what you are actually doing to this planet,and thought about the real meaning of life(the continuation of the species)then maybe you'll realise that the capitalist way of thinking is not achieving anything,other than the keeping the status quo.Whice is slowly(nowadays more quickly)poisoning this planet.Which keeps you comfortable,and hundreds of millions on starvation,or subsistence levels.If you are happy with this then fuck you!Your opinions are meaningless,and worthless.Be happy in your world,but know many more are paying for it.If you are not happy with this,then work towards reparation with the nations we have exploited.It's as simple as that!(well,not quite.)


Actually,it is communism that stifles human progression, all of the major advancements in human ability in the last 200 years have come from western, capitalist nations. What exactly do you mean, sir??

[WolfieSmith]

Supermodel:

What is money? I'm sure you would agree that it is not a natural resource, or a technology. It has no intrinsic value. Money is nothing more or less than power over other people. It is an inducement that bends others to our will.

The profit economy puts people in competition with each
other. That is my only beef. The non-profit ecomony does
not have this flaw.

[vox]

Quote: from Supermodel on 4:03 pm on June 17, 2002
Wolfie, I think you make the same idealogical assumption upon which many economic errors are based.

Someone is not rich just because someone else is poor.
Someone is not poor just because someone else is rich.
There is not a direct cause and effect, although there is no doubt this does happen.

The flaw in the philosophy is that the world has one limited total of resources which we must all share. This is a false assumption.

Value is created by the labor of the worker. Some are certainly more productive, physically and intellectually, than others. It is leveraged by the capital of the capitalist/collective. It grows in the fields. It dies when we die and increases when we start producing. Thus the world increases in value, and the problem at hand is how to disperse that value, plus the future value of goods in progress, among the human beings alive today.

Angie, I would have loved to have conversed fetishes with Che too. On my deathbed I will make a list so Che and I can get started right after I snuff it.




Economics is generally a zero sum game, isn't it? And, of course, the world indeed does have a number of limited resources, oil being an obvious example that's always in the news.

However, and more importantly, the argument can be made that any society that allows a great disparity in people regarding income and wealth is also a society with social relations of production that causes a great disparity between people regarding income and wealth. The flow of capital does not take place in a vacuum, and certainly you've been on this board long enough to have seen many articles about rules that favor the welathy, for example, virtually all "free trade" laws.

Actually, you might be interested in this article (http://www.lol.shareworld.com/zmag/articles/hermanjuly97.html), which begins:

Back in 1849, the British economist Nassau Senior chided those defending trade unions and minimum wage regulations for expounding an "economics of the poor." The idea that he and his establishment confreres were putting forth an "economics of the rich" never occurred to him; he thought of himself as a scientist and spokesperson of true principles.
------

You will see that economics is guided by the ruling class. It may not provide a "direct cause and effect," as you say, but it does provide for the social relations that limit the size of social classes.

While it's true that there is some class mobility in a capitalist economy, it's not true that [/i]everyone[/i] can be rich in a capitalist economy. While individuals may cross class boundaries, certainly you will not find the entire working class suddenly bringing home ten million dollars a year, correct? This is part of the basic functioning of a capitalist system: the worker gets paid less than the owner. Also, you can see the silliness in the suggestion that everyone can be an owner.

Also, you say that the world increases in value and the problem is how to disperse that value, however, you don't seem to understand that someone already lays claim to that value. You make is sound like there is all this unclaimed value just lying around and we have to decide how best to distribute it, but that isn't the case at all. Nothing is produced in a capitalist society without it being owned, from start to finish.

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

$$$ = resources

Putting people in competition for the limited # of resources (a situation we have already regardless of politics , unlimited wants/needs, but limited resources, the fundamental rule of economics) brings out the best in people, it encourages invention, innovation, and original thinking. It benefits mankinds evolution much more than the mediocrity of state controlled economics and industry. Capitalism is, if nothing else, very utilitarian.

[James]

Its also very dangerous though, and countless lives are lost to give way to big corporations, and their "needs"

(Edited by James at 10:33 pm on June 17, 2002)

[vox]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:22 pm on June 17, 2002
$$$ = resources

Putting people in competition for the limited # of resources (a situation we have already regardless of politics , unlimited wants/needs, but limited resources, the fundamental rule of economics) brings out the best in people, it encourages invention, innovation, and original thinking. It benefits mankinds evolution much more than the mediocrity of state controlled economics and industry. Capitalism is, if nothing else, very utilitarian.

Does it bring out the "best" in people? I suppose that's a question of ethics and morality. We know that corruption is the norm rather than the exception in corporate America, and there have been plenty of headlines recently to back that up. But let's go further than that. We can look at the incredible pollution that industrial capitalism has inflected on communities and say that's bringing out the "best" in people, I suppose, but I doubt most would agree with that sentiment. All of those Superfund cleanup sites came from somewhere and it wasn't the Marxists! Or we can look at Chapter 11 of NAFTA, which all the capitalists wanted, and say that allowing multinational corporations to sue states for trying to protect citizens from toxic chemicals shows the "best" in people, but, again, I doubt that most would agree. Or we can look at the way corporations used to put a known poison, lead, into gasoline for nothing but profit (http://past.thenation.com/issue/000320/0320kitman.shtml) the "best," but I'm thinking that still falls a bit short of the mark.

Hmmm.

The old adage tells us that necessity is the mother of invention, but you would have us change that to read that profit is the mother of invention. Maybe you're right. Profit certainly drives people to be inventive when it comes to manipulating the law or covering up the evidence against them, but I don't agree with you that's the "best" in people.

vox

[Lefty]

great sig wolfie :-)

[Supermodel]

Good points, vox.

Let me just say that I fundamentally believe that economics is not a zero sum game and that value can be created.

You are right that someone lays claim to that value immediately, in fact the world's strife is caused by disagreements over the ownership of the resources.

If I had all the answers, then you'd be calling me "My Lady" but I have no answers at all today. I think we agree that the disparity between society's richest and poorest is a fundamental flaw in society. All societies should strive to close that gap. Locally, nationally, and eventually globally. It is very hard to argue against that philosophy, even if you have the most to lose.

You also put your finger on how democracy does not really exist in the USA: the very rich are always the tiny minority: yet it is they who control power by buying the opinions of our politicians. The founding fathers would be horrified.

[vox]

SM,

Okay, I've a question for you. Actually, I had it before, too, but my post was long enough.

If, as you say, workers create value, does this mean you agree with Marx's LTV? A lot of Marxists no longer agree with that, and I've yet to see a non-Marxist agree with it. However, I'm not sure what else to think.

If you do, then do you also agree with the idea of value as crystallized labor (not just the commodity, but the actual value, for some commodities would have to have more labor in them than others if value is created solely by labor).

Just curious,

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

hhhmmmm... I believe that the soviet industrial complex shot, and china is shooting, just as many cfc's and other poisons into the air as the US, if not more, and of course did/does so without the reciprocation of attempted clean-up initiatives submitted bt the EPA (the 1st state-sponsored environmental protection office ever, compliments of the united states). So while I agree that environmental pollution is a major world-climate issue let alone morality, it resulted as a byproduct of the industrial revolution, not capitalism.

Aside from what left-spun media pundits want the non-thinking world to believe, corruption is the very infrequent exception, not the norm. If it were truely the norm, consumer confidence in the US market would have eroded long ago, imploding our economy.

[vox]

CI,

That's pretty weak for a response. After all, you talked about how great capitalism is, I gave you examples of how maybe it's not so great, and the best response you have is that the evil commies are doing it, too? That's the definition of a weak argument! Try harder.

Now, here's a list of the top 100 corporate criminals of the Nineties (http://www.corporatepredators.org/top100.html). Maybe you're right. Maybe if consumers knew about this, there would be a crisis in confidence. Maybe not. We don't know. Your rhetoric is not based on fact, for we really have no way of knowing.

Maybe this should be added to the idea of asymmetric information? I don't know.

Regardless, I don't think you'll see that list in the corporate media, do you? Better yet, have you?

vox

[WolfieSmith]

Capitalist Imperial:

You refer to a "left-spun" media. On what planet does this left-spun media exist? The media on my planet is owned by extremely wealthy men like Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch. I suppose you would call George Soros and Bill Gates "lefties" because they give a little dough to charity...

You said that "dollars = resources". I suppose you could wipe your ass on a banknote instead of toilet paper, or use it to snort cocaine. But other than that, money has no intrinsic value.

Dollars = Power Over Other People.

You claim that communism is "inefficient". Of all the criticisms you could level at the Soviet Union....

Soviet workers dragged themselves out of the pre-industrial dark ages, into a modern industrial society venturing into space before the US, and accquiring the most powerful armed forces of all time. Hundreds of years of progress in a few decades.

Brutal? Repressive? Tyrannical? Yes. Inefficient? No Way.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from vox on 11:31 pm on June 17, 2002
CI,

That's pretty weak for a response. After all, you talked about how great capitalism is, I gave you examples of how maybe it's not so great, and the best response you have is that the evil commies are doing it, too? That's the definition of a weak argument! Try harder.

Now, here's a list of the top 100 corporate criminals of the Nineties (http://www.corporatepredators.org/top100.html). Maybe you're right. Maybe if consumers knew about this, there would be a crisis in confidence. Maybe not. We don't know. Your rhetoric is not based on fact, for we really have no way of knowing.

Maybe this should be added to the idea of asymmetric information? I don't know.

Regardless, I don't think you'll see that list in the corporate media, do you? Better yet, have you?

vox


Now, hold on, you gave a response as to how capitalism is perhaps not such a good system, but your submission was based on a problem that is not inherently capitalist, but industrial. My references to china/russia was not "the commies do it to" as much as "this is not a capitalist problem, it is a problem of/from all industrialized nations" (or just mankind as even a basic campfire is bad for the environment).

Your website is a good read, and makes some good points; but, please, it contains an introduction by ralph nader (self explanatory), and is far from objective.

By the way,the "corporate media" you speak off is left-leaning (if you mean institutions like cnn, nbc news, and the like). They attack corporate america as much as many lefies in this forum. Any patriotic capitalist will tell you the US media is no ally of capitalism.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from WolfieSmith on 11:36 pm on June 17, 2002
Capitalist Imperial:

You refer to a "left-spun" media. On what planet does this left-spun media exist? The media on my planet is owned by extremely wealthy men like Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch. I suppose you would call George Soros and Bill Gates "lefties" because they give a little dough to charity...

You said that "dollars = resources". I suppose you could wipe your ass on a banknote instead of toilet paper, or use it to snort cocaine. But other than that, money has no intrinsic value.

Dollars = Power Over Other People.

You claim that communism is "inefficient". Of all the criticisms you could level at the Soviet Union....

Soviet workers dragged themselves out of the pre-industrial dark ages, into a modern industrial society venturing into space before the US, and accquiring the most powerful armed forces of all time. Hundreds of years of progress in a few decades.

Brutal? Repressive? Tyrannical? Yes. Inefficient? No Way.



Ted Turner is one of the most liberal individuals on earth!!! remember his wife siding with thew NVA in vietnam????

Dollars represent trade of resources, wolfie, it is just more efficient to use them than it is to trade and barter actual goods!!! Any economist will tell you this.

Most of Soviets "pulling themselves out of the dark ages" was done so using American inventions, innovations, and concepts. They shot a man into space b4 the US, but were quickly surpassed and never caught up to US space technology. Also, they ucquired the 2nd most powerfulmilitary of all time. The US military was always superior. And the soviet economy was horribly ineffiicient, that is in fact the biggest reason for the USSR collapse, a dilapidated, innefficient economy.

[vox]

"They attack corporate america as much as many lefies in this forum"

Really? I don't know how I could have missed that. Surely you don't mean talking about the illegal activities at Enron, right?

Perhaps you could give a few recent examples of this widespread phenomenon, for I truly don't believe it. If you're correct, and the coporate media are as "bad" as the lefties on this board, you should have no trouble. However, it really doesn't change the fact that I didn't see this list in any major media outlet, and, if your theory is correct, one would think that I would have. After all, it's a great list to use against corporations. Or, for that matter, this article about the government giving huge contracts to corporations that repeatedly violate the law (http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/MJ02/unjust.html) is another good one that could be called anti-corporate, but again, I didn't see it in any major media outlet, only in a small liberal/left magazine. Why is that? Don't you think that "cnn, nbc news and the like" would have picked this up and run with it? After all, no one disputes the article factually. Indeed, "Mother Jones" has always had a good track record when it comes to its investigative reporting. It's the magazine that exposed the exploding Ford Pinto and it's been going good ever since. Your theory might not stand up to scrutiny, but I'd like to hear your response.

vox

[Hattori Hanzo]

hey, you've got two cents? capitalist! ;)

[Hattori Hanzo]

no, but really- CI your most used stragtegy is not directly defending the cappie system, but critisizing communism!

[vox]

"Now, hold on, you gave a response as to how capitalism is perhaps not such a good system, but your submission was based on a problem that is not inherently capitalist, but industrial. My references to china/russia was not "the commies do it to" as much as "this is not a capitalist problem, it is a problem of/from all industrialized nations" (or just mankind as even a basic campfire is bad for the environment)."

A couple of things:

Number one, you said that capitalism brings out the best in people, and now you're claiming that industrialization has nothing to do with capitalism. At the same time, you're posting all over this forum that capitalism is the greatest engine of "progress," which one would think includes industrialization. Regardless, this is a problem that occured in a state that has capitalist social relations, and capitalism not only didn't avoid the problem, its players purposefully hid the problem, lied about the problem and obfuscated the facts for years in the name of profit. Now, if you want to agree that there is no basis for suggesting that capitalism brings out the "best" in people, and deny your original stance completely, that's great. However, if you do not, you need to explain why, in the instances I listed, capitalism failed to deliver a higher moral standard (the "best" in people) and only delivered a profit for the bosses, who acted in their own enlightened self-interest without regard for the citizens of the communities in which they polluted.

Number two: a basic campfire is not bad for the environment, for one needs to consider quantity. If you spill a thimble of crude oil into the ocean, it won't matter. If you spill a tanker full of oil into the ocean, it will. See the difference? If a campfire spewed 8,000 tons of sulfer dioxide into the air each year, I'd agree that it's bad for the environment, but it doesn't. This is basic stuff, CI.

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from vox on 12:21 pm on June 18, 2002
"Now, hold on, you gave a response as to how capitalism is perhaps not such a good system, but your submission was based on a problem that is not inherently capitalist, but industrial. My references to china/russia was not "the commies do it to" as much as "this is not a capitalist problem, it is a problem of/from all industrialized nations" (or just mankind as even a basic campfire is bad for the environment)."

A couple of things:

Number one, you said that capitalism brings out the best in people, and now you're claiming that industrialization has nothing to do with capitalism. At the same time, you're posting all over this forum that capitalism is the greatest engine of "progress," which one would think includes industrialization. Regardless, this is a problem that occured in a state that has capitalist social relations, and capitalism not only didn't avoid the problem, its players purposefully hid the problem, lied about the problem and obfuscated the facts for years in the name of profit. Now, if you want to agree that there is no basis for suggesting that capitalism brings out the "best" in people, and deny your original stance completely, that's great. However, if you do not, you need to explain why, in the instances I listed, capitalism failed to deliver a higher moral standard (the "best" in people) and only delivered a profit for the bosses, who acted in their own enlightened self-interest without regard for the citizens of the communities in which they polluted."

I believe the USA far from hid the fact that byproducts of industry were harming the environment, nixon established the EPA, the world's 1st and largest state sponsored Environmental Protection Agency. We still have a lot of work to do, but I don't believe that polluters are inherently "hiding" their emissions.

As far as capitalism bringing out the best in people, I submit a small list of american inventions that revolutionized the world in a utilitarian way:

The airplane, the harnessing of electricity (a development which can't be underscored enough), the telephone, the television, the radio, the locomotive, the light bulb, the assembly line (a revolution in the economies of production), the personal computer, the internet (both of which we are using as you read this), the cotton gin, crop rotation, nuclear power

Now, I understand that you can take some of these developments and pick them apart, exposing certain negatives, but you must agree that they have done much more good than harm, and are truly utilitarian, as well as a testament to capitalism bringing out the best in people by fostering healthy competition, thus innovative thinking and invention.

vox

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 7:33 pm on June 18, 2002)


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 7:34 pm on June 18, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

sorry about the bad quote post

[Hattori Hanzo]

what was the point of that ci?

[Capitalist Imperial]

That capitalism is utilitarian in nature and benefits mankind's progression as a species overall.

[Hattori Hanzo]

hmm because in cap. the general prevail over the specific?

[Capitalist Imperial]

The good of the many benefit over the good of the few

[Hattori Hanzo]

i meant economically, like for example- walmart has a higher GNP than Greece

[Capitalist Imperial]

Is that wal-marts responsibility or greece's responsibility?

[Hattori Hanzo]

yeah sure but people don't live in walmart, don't you think the people of greece deserve better?

[Goldfinger]

I would like to call myself a communist, even as I am against dictatorship, but for full democracy. That's what most of the communist parties support.
Peace, freedom, democracy.
Yeah.

(Edited by Apocalypse When at 9:16 pm on June 18, 2002)

[WolfieSmith]

Capitalist Imperial wrote:

<<Ted Turner is one of the most liberal individuals on Earth!!! Remember his wife siding with the N.V.A. in vietnam???>>

Wow, a three-exclamation point liberal. That's pretty liberal. Ted Turner is a billionaire capitalist parasite, whatever his views are on "liberal issues". He may be having sex with an actress who opposed the Vietnam War, but didn't everyone with a brain oppose the war?

If Ayn Rand gave me a blow job, does that make me a conservative?

<<Dollars represent trade of resources, it is just more efficient to use them than it is to trade and barter actual goods. Any economist will tell you this.>>

Excuse me. Did I advocate Barter? No. I want to abolish profit, rent and interest (usury), not cash itself. Funnily enough, they have been using barter in Argentia, where the money system has recently collapsed.

<<They shot a man into space before the US, but were quickly surpassed by the US>>

When Sputnik started broadcasting, America thought: "Holy Shit, last time we checked those guys were peasants! Let's spend billions of tax dollars to pull a bigger stunt..."

As for the USSR collapse, I think maybe soviet people were fed up of being dominated and expolited by their ruling class (the communist party). How long will it be before people in capitalist nations start thinking the same way? I wonder...

[vox]

"Now, I understand that you can take some of these developments and pick them apart, exposing certain negatives, but you must agree that they have done much more good than harm, and are truly utilitarian, as well as a testament to capitalism bringing out the best in people by fostering healthy competition, thus innovative thinking and invention."

Actually, there's a long history of covering up pollution. Love Canal, anyone? And I believe I linked to the award-winning article from "The Nation" about the history of leaded gasoline, correct? The EPA was created only to stem the common abuses of industry. These abuses were, and still are, the rule and not the exception.

Now then, about the term "best," is it your assertion that the "best" humanity has to offer is technology? Not something a little more, well, human? Determining what is "best" in the human condition is a moral judgment, to be sure, and I just want to be clear that you reduce humanity to utilitarian functionality and call it the best that we have to offer as a species. I disagree with that notion, of course, for I think that we are much more than that, but that's what you're saying, correct?

Oh, and I know I made it two different posts, but I responded to you about the media. You might have missed it, but I'd be interested in what you have to say in response.

vox

[El Che]

Someone should throw CI a towel :P

[Capitalist Imperial]

You make a good point about what defines "best". My response was admittedly techno-centric, but that is what I found to be the most measurable facet of human progression. What do you submit we define as "best"?

Oh, let me go back to the media snipet, and I will see if I can respond to it.

[WolfieSmith]

Capitalist Imperial in response to Vox:

<<You make a good point about what defines "best". My response was admittedly techno-centric, but that is what I found to be the most measureable facet of human progression. What do you submit we define as "Best">>

I'm sure C.I. would agree that freedom of speech, association, affiliation, assembly, etc. are essential prerequisites for all that is brightest and best in humanity.

I also think he would applaud scientific, artistic, academic and athletic pursuits (defined as broadly as you like).

Even greater than those ideals are those of altruism and heroism. Ayn Rand equates survival with heroism.

I see heroism as practical unselfishness.

I think people all over the world were touched by the heroism of the firefighters who entered the World Trade Center just as everyone else was being evacuated.

It turned out their efforts were in vain, but of course that is not the point. They were heros in a very tangible sense. In the aftermath, their co-workers picked through the wreckage 24/7. Again, self-sacrifice and altruism.

The NYPD repaid that heroism by threatening to use teargas on firefighters who protested for more time to pick through the wreckage for human remains.

Well-intentioned, practical and honest altruism is its own reward. It makes you feel super-human.

Although I make a very modest living by western standards (18,000 pounds sterling/annum) I have every luxury item that I could reasonably desire.

Now I can spend my "surplus" on my family, friends and good causes. That is much more satisfying than buying pointless crap that I don't need.

[vox]

"You make a good point about what defines "best". My response was admittedly techno-centric, but that is what I found to be the most measurable facet of human progression. What do you submit we define as "best"? "

I'm not certain that we should conclude "human" progress from observable technological progress.

Personally, I don't know that there is a generic "best" in humanity. If forced, I might say compassionate action, but then maybe not. Such essentialism isn't generally useful to me. I was just trying to get a bead on your definition, on the way you judge behavior from a moral basis, since you brought the issue up.

vox

[peaccenicked]

Best
A moral judgement?
Best
A category of essentialism?This thread loses me .
Best meaning most good.
The real question is best for whom?
Perhaps it is best to be concrete, no?

[vox]

"Best
A moral judgement?
Best
A category of essentialism?This thread loses me .
Best meaning most good.
The real question is best for whom?
Perhaps it is best to be concrete, no?

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

Perhaps it's best to be concrete in your criticism rather than the mish-mash of half-sentences and conjecture that you usually pass off as an argument to the dimmer members of the board.

Indeed, you yourself define best, in your limited way, by saying it's "most good," without, of course, realizing that good implies a moral judgment.

I've no more time for your grammatically-challenged half-thoughts, p. Feel free to invoke your "vox resolution" at any time and not respond to me anymore. Hell, I urge you to.

vox (oh he's so mean *wah*)

[marxistdisciple]

Wolfie and vox make a lot of sense. I think the key to defining "best" is in the philosophical arguments that you are talking of. I think when people have been indoctrinated, and lived their whole life in a system, learnt to deal with it, and made a living...many are fast to come to it's aid in an argument. We are so used to being sold things we "need" most every second of the day, without space or room to even make up our own mind about anything.

I for one crave real freedom, the kind of freedom that means I can make my own choices, not have them forced down my throat, by TV or radio or billboards Or the walking billboard little kids that walk around my town trying to mug people so they can buy their nike's....or whatever else they spend their money on.

I know Marx was an advocate of materialism, but I don't think he meant at expense of everything else, or materialism in the way most people understand the word. In my country (I think wolfie is british too right?) people of my generation think they should be spending 200 quid on a new mobile phone, because when they have the newest, they get more social attention. They are "cool" for wearing the expensive brands. People aren't interested in politics, but watch the TV program "big brother", where social experiments are performed on people for profit. Every time I criticise the program, I get told that it is out of choice.

I think it is out of a craving for the one thing that makes people do things that they would never choose to normally. It makes people lower their value system to get it, often in any way they can...whether it be crime, or exploiting 3 world nations in sweatshops. Either way, the fetish for money that wolfie quotes, is not remotely sensical....except that everything we need or crave depends on it. Do people get more money for being good people? If anything you make more money from being ruthless.

So what encourages anyone to do good deeds, or to follow their true desires as humans? It certainly isn't money. In fact, quite the opposite, money encourages people to sell out their values, their beliefs and their livelihoods, for a little more comfort, or the necessities of life.


</RANT>

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

"No day but today." - RENT

[Michael De Panama]

Vox, stop being an intellectual bully.

[vox]

"Vox, stop being an intellectual bully."

Everyone wants to take all of my fun away.

Fact is, I don't like him, and I've made no secret of that. If he wants to bait people with half-thougts, that's fine, but I'm bored with it already. If he wants to turn this into a popularity contest and post all over the board about how terrible I am, he's free to do it, but I'm not playing his game anymore. I don't like him, I don't like his posts and I don't like his Leninist bullshit. I'm not picking a fight, but I'm not going to silently endure his crap, either, nor give him the benefit of the doubt.

In case there were any questions. :)

vox

[peaccenicked]

Dear old vox so pissed off and huffy when are you going to grow up.I cant endure your ignorant bullshit and your pretence of intelligence by constant nit picking. Its all fuck and so what and cry baby insolent shite. You already proved by your Chomsky post and your in ability to respond to criticism of it that you nothing of what you claim expertise. Your anti leninism is based on puerile, witless misinformation. Best is a moral judgement only when it is a moral issue. Your spelling is so perfect and your is grammar and you think everybody is going to give you love for that. I dont like your cretinous childness. As far as anything personal goes. I am laughing right to the core of my being. I am 100% you are humourless blatant fool.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:26 am on June 21, 2002)

[Imperial Power]

I see vox and peace are at each others throats like the old days. I don't know how you guys keep at it. Peace and Vox you might as well write books with the hundreds of essays you written on this forum. I havn't been here for a couple months due to work and my social life but I'll get into some debates again. Guten abend.

[peaccenicked]

Well What do you know?
IP. I come here for a bit of fun and relaxation from the stresses of work. Much of my work is with very mentally ill people who need a lot of support and compassion.
A book might be an idea. I have started on a few ideas.
Mostly in the area of writing I get poetry and essays published.

[vox]

Not pissed or huffy, just sick of you and your Leninist garbage. "All power to the Soviets," he says, and gives all power to the party.

Worse yet, while excuses can be made for Lenin, his followers do not have that luxury.

You write, "Best is a moral judgement only when it is a moral issue," and yet you yourself wrote, "Best meaning most good." How, then, do we decide what is "good?" (And please recall, we're talking, in the context of this thread, about human behavior.) We decide what is good and what is bad on a moral basis. Apparently, you don't think that, when calling a certain human behavior "best," one is making a moral judgment. Or, of course, you're a phony who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, which I persoanally think is more likely. Either way, your posts in this thread, as in so many, are completely worthless.

You know what's really funny? You didn't even try to support your mostly-incoherent first post. You devote one line to it, such is the weakness you display. Hee! C'mon, boy, you can't do any better than that? No, I don't think you can.

Should I expect a dozen copy-and-pasted excerpts from Lenin to follow?

vox

[Capitalist Fighter]

Hey Imperial Power. I'm sort of new and also an avid follower of capitalism. Not many capitalist here so i hope we can contribute to the debates in this forum. :)

[WolfieSmith]

I'd like to cordially welcome Capitalist Fighter and Imperial Power to the thread. I may not agree with your politics but I enjoy a good debate.

I was just wondering if either of you guys would like to post a rebuttal or critique of my last post in this thread?

[Michael De Panama]

I'm just joshin', Vox. I completely agree with you about Leninism. But, although I disagree with Peaccenicked, I certainly will tolerate his beliefs, as I have not seen him really shouting about democratic centralism or the like aside from in his arguments with you. I see him as one of the more pleasant people on this board. Then again, I'm not the one with fourty-something threads dedicated to me.

I guess this looks like the board is getting back into balence now that the Stalinists have left and the cappies have come back, and it is no longer a one-man show with Capitalist Imperial front in center.

[peaccenicked]

What a most pathetic post from someone who is merely drowned in capitalist propaganda. There is no excuse for promoting the lie, as done elsewhere, that Stalinism is a product of bolshevism. It is treacherous to the memory of genuine revolutionary murdered by the Stalinist State. Leninist 'bullshit'is better than pandering to capi lies. Chomsky himself, If you want the quote I will try to find it said that the Soviets gave power to the Party. Not Lenin.
Anyway anyone who 's intellectual dishonesty omit the Civil war from history, is a buffoon.
You have not the wit to see the humour in the 'Vox resolution' fiasco. I am here to explain real history to people and not your or chomsky's cowardly bastardised version of it.
A version so phoney and pretentious
that I can hardy take it seriously. Empty-headed philistine crap that has no real understanding of working class history and merely exists to give an identity to the anarchists and the petty individualistic trends who can not stand up to intellectual scrutiny and when criticised can only answer that their own words speak for themselves. If that is not a demand for unquestioning obedience and loyalty. I dont know what is. It is blatant and outright scandalous hypocrisy.
Incidently John Molyneaux, Chris Harman and Alex Callinicos, reccomended by you regular contributors to the Socialist Worker and very likely to be members of the Central Committee. How is that for Leninist 'bullshit'.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:31 am on June 22, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

Wolfie,

What to you propose? Is it the abolition of currency, or simply equal footing for all? To paraphrase the speach given by Fransisco de Anconia in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", 'Money is not the root of all evil, it is the love of money. It is the man who tries to live outside of his means, who is incapable of production, yet wants the benefits of production without the burden of producing, that is the root of all evil.'. In the book, these types were accurately depicted by 'the boys in Washinton' and their powerful 'friends in industry'. The real producers, the movers and shakers, were demonized and destroyed by the socialists; a respresentation that remains true today.

[WolfieSmith]

Stormin' Norman wrote:

<<What do you propose? Is it the abolition of currency, or simply equal footing for all?>>

As I said earlier, it is not currency I wish to abolish, but usury. "Equal footing for all" is a little unclear, but it sounds worthy...

<<Money is not the root of evil, it is the love of money>>

I would say that a profit-based system of distribution is the root of the problem...

<<It is a man who tries to live outside of his means, who is incapable of production, yet wants the benefits of production without the burden of producing, that is the root of all evil>>

I don't think that capitalists are incapable of producing, but they certainly want the benefits of production without the burden of producing it.

<<The real movers and shakers were demonised and destroyed by the socialists; a representation that remains true today>>

The "real movers and shakers" in my opinion are the working class people. Blue collar and white collar, industrial and service. They create the wealth. They are the "Atlas" that supports a parasitic class. Maybe, one day, Atlas will shrug.