Capitalists? Where.... - none around here I'm afraid.

[MJM]

Just to let you know what we marxists would consider a capitalist to be. Here's why I'd call you all capitalist sympathisers, or maybe wanna-bes. I'd be very surprised if you're here debating with us, when you could be stealing surplus value from the workers of the world.




As the conscious representative of this movement, the possessor of money becomes a capitalist. His person, or rather his pocket, is the point from which the money starts and to which it returns. The expansion of value, which is the objective basis or main-spring of the circulation M-C-M, becomes his subjective aim, and it is only in so far as the appropriation of ever more and more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he functions as a capitalist, that is, as capital personified and endowed with consciousness and a will. Use-values must therefore never be looked upon as the real aim of the capitalist; [7] neither must the profit on any single transaction. The restless never-ending process of profit-making alone is what he aims at. [8] This boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase after exchange-value [9], is common to the capitalist and the miser; but while the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser. The never-ending augmentation of exchange-value, which the miser strives after, by seeking to save [10] his money from circulation, is attained by the more acute capitalist, by constantly throwing it afresh into circulation. [11]

[Capitalist Imperial]

Now, you see, when leftist pukes make comments as transparent, idiotic, and unsupported as this, it sort of negates the fun in responding.

However, I still will.

The entire body of support for MJM's premise is a completely subjective, obviously slanted, agenda driven definition.

Anyone who hasn't read MJM's definition of "Capitalist" above, please do so. After you have read it, tell me with good concience that this definition is legitimate and deserves anything short of non-consideration.

Now, here is the definition for "Capitalism" Straight from Dictionary.com. Objective, clear, and concise:


cap·i·tal·ist
Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-st)n.

1.A supporter of capitalism.
2.An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3.A person of great wealth.



I'm confident that anyone who uses a paper reference (Funk/Wagnalls, Webster, etc.) will find a similar definition.

Lets look at #1

I am a supporter of capitalism, so I already qualify.

But wait, lets look at #2

I have monetary investment in both mutual funds and common stock. The stock in in a "Fortune 10" corporation, so I'msure that this would be considered an "important enterprise".

As of #3, I cannot say that I have ammassed "great" wealth yet. But, "great is relative. Compared to your average Ugandan or Costa Rican, I probably do posses "great wealth". Compared to bill gates, not even close.

My point is, that I fit the legitimate definition of capitalist by all 3 definitions (#3 using a little interpretation).

And all I needed was one.

Yet another hollow and obviously contrived commie arguement easily dismantled and refuted with relative ease.

[MJM]

The above definition would be Karl Marxs not mine, although I tend to agree with it -I'd say it's right on actually. As I said it's how us Marxists define capitalist I can't see your problem, maybe reality set in and you got all pissed at me, which I suspect by your first few lines of reactionary vomit.


So of all the 'capitalists' here you're the only one actually using capital. Definition 2 which I tend to agree with. Although the 'especially' part is a little namby pamby for me, but then if we apply it to you it even cancels out your little dabbling in the stock exchange doesn't it? LOL!

I'd say 3 was ok as a definition, although if I won the lottery it'd hardly make me a capitalist, so perhaps I was a little hasty.

1 however is a joke, by this definition Marx was a capitalist as he said capitalism was necessary for the socialist stage of society to eventuate and supported capitalism on this matter.

So I stand by what Marx said.

[Capitalist Imperial]

OK, MJM, good points. However, your definition comes straight from marx, so you must concede it paints a rather dark and sinister picture of capitalism, not an objective one.

And by my more objective definition, all capitalist supporters in this forum are in fact legitimate capitalists.

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 5:59 pm on Jan. 3, 2003)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:46 pm on Jan. 3, 2003
OK, MJM, good points. However, your definition comes straight from Marx, so you must concede it paints a rather dark and sinister picture of capitalism, not an objective one.

[Stormin Norman]

Don't you hate it when these morons force you to bust out the dictionary definition.

This fact and the underhanded move of putting a Malcolm X quote in my profile, are the reasons why I have my new signature. Do you like it, CI?

[antieverything]

Must I remind you of the "emperialism" incident, Norm? Not only could you not find "emperialism" in a dictionary (because you didn't know that it is spelled with an 'i') but I was forced to bust out the definition of imperialism to refute your argument.

[Stormin Norman]

An argument which you lost incidently.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Good new sig, Norm. Good stuff indeed, every one of those definitions fitt, as well!

They actually did the same to me, as you know, so I also replaced their incessant quote with one of my favorites from Ronnie.

[antieverything]

well, Norm, actually we just left it at the agreement that it was a matter of interpretation. But soveriegnty that extends only to the point where American corporations don't like it is no soveriegnty at all.

[Anonymous]

I'm suprised they haven't done anything to me yet. *knock on wood* :(

[Moskitto]

I would consider 1 and possibly 2 to be definite definitions of a capitalist, but 3 i'm not so sure about because someone who is born with great wealth but does not support the capitalist system or does a highly paid job merely because he likes doing it is not neccesarily a capitalist, but someone who does not earn much, or is poor may still support the capitalist system.

[j]

I agree with Moskitto's interpretation.

MJM-Your Marx quote is not complete. I believe he was talking about how the proletariat is devauled through his work. Marx put a value on the labor and exertion it took to work. I believe Marx was stating how the capitalist opposes this value or only views labor in its pure monetary cost. It was in part the definition of a capitalist but not in its broad sense. I belive that Marx would agree with "dictionary.com"'s 1 and 2 and perhaps 3 if you add that it was amassed by the wealthy person himself.

SN-I believe I also busted out dictionary.com to show how incredibly ignorant your signature is when you talk about other people's ignorance. You never really responded to that.

The "cappies" on this board are indeed capitalists. They have shown it through their comments and posts. I only wish some of the cappies here weren't so damn right wing!!! I mean, if we leftists don't represent the majority then the cappies on this board are in an even smaller minority. The only "cappie" I wouldn't pin this on is AK--he's a moderate. It would be interesting if we could debate a Democrat here, someone who likes John Kerry for example. I think Kerry is an ass.

So cappies, invite your moderate friends to the board. It's kind of asinine to debate far left v. far right. (but yet we continue to do it).

j