My Rant on Capitalism and Communism

The idea of "privately owned, government controlled" a bit of sick joke actually. "The state doesn't own your car, it just dictates when you can and cannot use it and what you can and cannot use for."


Which would no longer make it a capitalist state, but whatever. The same could be used to describe socialism and even today's mixed system (and I'd describe total control of the economy a little bit more that "some" intervention).

Yeah, look at how well Jewish property was protected under Hitler.

Please elaborate.

Geez. Okay, let's put it simple. Say you work in a factory. You produce goods worth 100 $ an hour. In a capitalist society, you will in the west, most likely be given 10 $ for an hour work. The rest goes into the hands of the capitalist.

In a socialist society those 100 $ will be yours. What's the difference? The capitalist won't sit on his ass and still receive money. That thief will no longer exist. The worker will no longer have to do unpaid labor.

Capitalism is not an ideal. Society went from feudal to capitalist.

I recommend reading: Myth: Hitler was a leftist

Hitler advocated capitalism. He advocated competition over co-operation. I think he said it pretty clear:

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."

Alright, I'll quit it with the truth for now.

Except it's not "government controlled."

You can drive your car wherever you'd like, whenever you'd like, but then again, there are certain rules you have to follow.

It's as if you're against a mixed economy.

The closest to a purely capitalist state was back in the 1800's...child labor, sustenance wages, and thirteen hour work days. Mmmmm, I wish I could go back to the days when government couldn't tell you what the fuck to do with your business.

And oh, by the way, like Mussolini, Feroci, and Popo d'Italia admit, there was no "total control of the economy." But whatever, it's not like you care for facts anyway.

What's this have to do with anything? Jews were singled out, as if you didn't know.

That's like me ranting about the fact that capitalism does not protect private property because blacks weren't allowed to own anything a century and a half ago. :rolleyes:

I've already established that "the state" exists in our society to protect, to an extent, the interests of many. But mostly, "the state" exists to protect the interest of the few from the many. Whether you believe this or not should be left up to another thread, if you'd like.

Now, with that being said, in a fascist state there is a mixed economy that maintains the core of capitalism (you only need to read works by Mussolini and the quotes I've provided to understand this). And in a fascist state, I'm sure you know that "the state" is actually a "police state," when the laws are stricter, and the punishments more severe, in the name of protecting the government from the people a.k.a. the elite minority protected from the majority.

Regardless, that's what you have to do to attain Communism, according to Marx. It doesn't matter if it was a viable option at that time.

And communes are not inherrntly communal. Not when they are run by an elite vanguard.

You're missing the entire point. No; Hitler didn't really do anything to allow free trade, he didn't let corporations do whatever they wanted to do. I wasn't making an argument that Hitler was an advocate of capitalism, and that Capitalism was at fault for Nazism. I was pointing out that if capitalists refuse to adress communist philosophical ideals directly, and instead hide behind the "(Self-Proclaimed Communist Dictator) was a murderer!" argument, we will hide behind the "(Self-Proclaimed Capitalist Dictator) was a murderer!" argument.

What about the money that has to go back into production ? (i.e. usually around 80-90% of it)

This is ignoring the question of who provided the factory to work in.

I'd argue that mercanilism preceded it, but capitalism is an ideal, if followed.

Seen it years ago. I wasn't impressed with the false dichotomies. Demanding the sacrifice of one's life for the "greater good" of one's race and country is hardly individualist.

Both derive from Hegelian collectivism.

This is equivocation. "Competition" in the market place and "competition" on the battlefield are two very different things.

I think you were doing that from your first post.


Don't play games; just because the state has the right to prevent you from murdering people doesn't mean it has the right to restict your actions in whatever manner it pleases. There is only one rule, that is don't initiate the use of force.

I am.

They ALWAYS dig this pittiful argument up, as if the government decended from heaven and "gave" us 8 hour days out of the goodness of it's heart. The reason you don't work thirteen hours a day now is that's to industrialisation and the mechanisation it bought with it, otherwise you'd be spending 18 hours a day farming, just to eat.

I'm sure that if Mussolini had demanded that factories be handed over to him, I'm sure the factory owners would have protested, and then I'm sure Mussolini would have said "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to violate your property rights. Whatever was I thinking ?" And did you know that the word "gullible" wasn't in the dictionary ?

Oh riiiiiiiiiight. What was stopping them from singling anyone out ? Nothing.

That wasn't a result of capitalism, though, was it ? Arguing by non-essentials again.

You mean an illusion of capitalism. He's not the only one; Hitler did that too.

Capitalism must be backed up with the protection of absloute individual rights- not "sort-of" rights.

...written immediately after...

Communism turns out to be dictatorial the same way as Fascism does for the same reason- by stripping people of their individual rights.

Funnily enough, that is exactly what it means. I mean, if you had the sole monoploy on the use of force, wouldn't you do whatever the hell you want? I mean, that would be rational after all. The state doesn't have any rights. It has a monoploy on the legitimate use of force, thus it does whatever the hell it wants.

'The government' didn't 'give' us the 8-hour work day. It was fought for and won.

Could you stop missing the point for two seconds? No here is saying that capitalism should never have existed. Were saying that it will inevitably destroy itself. He was just pointing out that the closest thing to an LF capitalist state sucked ass.

*sigh* :rolleyes:

Yes, I could say the same thing about George Bush and it would be just as true. He could demand the handover of factories. But why in the hell would he? He would risk upsetting the ruling class. The thing is, the state and the ruling class have a symbiotic relationship. The ruling class uses the state to increase its own fortunes and the state uses the ruling class to keep stability by maintaining the support of a large enough segment of society.

Thusly, why would the head of any state ever do that? Answer: They wouldn't. Therefore your point is rather moot.

A lot of things, actually. I mean, they have no reason to target their supporters, it just wouldn't make sense, so that stops them from singling out a lot of people.

But it did exist during capitalism. If capitalism didn't start slavery, it at least has no problem with continuing it. After all, that would mean initiating force against the slaveowners. NIF = status quo.

Whatever. If most people can't tell the difference between fascism and capitalism, well that isn't very flattering, is it?

No, it must be backed up with the illusion of rights for some, but actual ones for the rich. In morality, it is essentially no different than feudalism.

You didn't answer my post, it was easy to miss a couple of pages back but I’m really curious about your answer so I'll ask again.


But he is not “really rich” right, so you still would consider him a slave right?

Quote:

---

Osman Ghazi

---

Why are you going to University if slavery awaits you either way? What do you want to study?

Sure.

Ahhhh, but it does!

The whole fucking point of a state is to initiate force for the purpose of "telling" people what to do (club them with batons if they disobey) because they are too "stupid" to know how to act for themselves! Check the other thread where I'm focusing on the state to get a better understanding.

See above.

So if there was pure capitalism and no state laws on business, the "capitalist class"
wouldn't profit from keeping you thirteen hours in a factory?

:angry: How naive!

Don't you understand that in capitalism there is an unholy alliance between the capitalist class and the state? They are inseperable!

Mussolini did not have the power to demand a "hand-over" of the factories because he would lose support!

The first statement I just quoted claims that there was nothing to "stop" Hitler from singling out everyone.

The second quote claims that slavery was not the result of capitalism.

Well, then, I propose you this question: was it the fault of capitalism that Hitler singled the Jews out?

These rights are most meaningful for the upper-class minority though.

So, in the name of democracy and majority rule, I suggest that we first cater to the majority and forget about the minority if the minority lives at the greater expense of the majority. That is, we suppress the minority that controls a little too much of the international capital, squeeze them motherfuckers dry, and humble them down.

I got the "morals of an armed robber," correct? :lol:

I don't mind, though! Thanks for the compliment, anyway!

Well, not really. He certainly has enough money that if he wanted to, he could actually work for himself instead of someone else.

[QUOTE]Why are you going to University if slavery awaits you either way? What do you want to study?
[QUOTE]

I plan to, if possible study history and political science, as those are the subjects I am most interested in. I suppose I'll try to get a job where I'll use that, though there isn't really much demand for that sort of thing, is there?

Erm...no. I'm not really into dictatorships, even one run by me.

And which state is more likely to do this ? One with limited powers with no legal right to do whatever it wants, or one where the elected mob is free to run riot ?

You little worker's warrior, you. You didn't "fight" for it- it was given to you courtesy of mechanisation. Let's see you fight for a one-hour working day. I hope you don't mind starving...

Prove it.

Relative to what ? Ignoring historical context.

It made no sense to invade Poland, but they did.

Slavery is an intiation of force which goes contrary to capitalism.

You are MENTALLY RETARDED. The slave owners are the initators of force.

Pure social metaphysics.

Feudalism advocates the intiation of force.

breeding room!

You're proof enough that there are people who will be too stupid to know how to act; you haven't got the slightest clue of what does or does not constitute rational human behaviour, as can be seen from your "might/numbers makes right" approach to ethics. In defending some people against others, the state is not initiating force, but retaliating on their behalf. What is there about this that you do not understand.

There is no anything "class". A social class would be indifferent from an enforced caste system and the rulers of it would still be kings and lords.

Not if others were offering 8 hour days and no one wanted to work for them as a result.

Keep repeating the mantras...

Why does he need support ? He can demand anything and take it by force whether his actions are "supported" or not.

Why would you think it was ?

What do you mean by "meaningful" ? Why would a poor person hold property rights in less regard than a rich one ? The poor person has less to steal and thus more to lose by not having his rights respected.

<snip the rest of the blather>

"lebensraum" was a lame excuse, if you ask me.

So your father is “really rich” then, because he does meets your criteria for avoiding slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)Though enslavement awaits everyone (except the really rich) sooner or later[/b]

---

What did your father do to earn that money, or was your father born “really rich”?

Quote:

---

Osman Ghazi

---

Quote:

---

@
I plan to, if possible study history and political science, as those are the subjects I am most interested in.

---

That’s good many students get forced into majors their parents want them to pursue and it never works out, stick with your passion and success will follow if you work hard. What schools are you looking into?

Quote:

---

Osman Ghazi

---

Oh I don’t know teachers are in short supply. Who knows maybe you’ll end up as a left wing professor at some big university :D

But back to our discussion on slavery for a moment, do you believe there are gradations of slavery?

How were those posts contradictory. Did you even read them?

With that logic, isn&#39;t capitalism dictatorial, because you work for a boss, and you have to do what he or she said, or risk loosing your means of survival?

Well, members of the upper middle class can usually make the leap to being capitalists if they are ambitious enough. However, in the more prominent jobs, it becomes less and less like slavery.

He dropped out of high school at 17 and joined the navy. Then eventually he went back to school and became a licensed electrician. Now he works as the General manager of an energy management company. Ironically, capitalism &#39;worked&#39; for my father in that he was born to an immigant family that lived in subsidized housing but became rich.

Canadian Universities. You probably wouldn&#39;t have heard of them, but I&#39;m considering U of BC. It may also be something closer to home, depending on how things turn out.

With any luck&#33; :lol: But seriously, that would allow me to indoctrinate thousands and advance my evil schemes.

Absolutely. For example, a good manager may be able to bargain with his employer to stay on; a skill the common labourer lacks. Also, you have to consider that money is very closely tied to freedom (in the real, tangible sense of being able to do what you want, rather than what may be possible with your limited choices). Thusly, the more money you have, the more freedom you have to do whatever you want within our society.

HA&#33; Ya right. I mean after all, isn&#39;t it &#39;human nature&#39;? Isn&#39;t that what you cappies are always saying?

If there were no state, it would be a 0% chance, wouldn&#39;t it?

That doesn&#39;t make any sense. How did mechanisation (an abstract concept) give me anything? But seriously, can they only run the machines for 8 hours at a time?

Relative to non-LF societies. Take Prussia for example, little freedom, especially for non-aristocrats, but they put an end to child labour, among other things, much sooner than the Lf states.

What if you sell yourself into slavery?

I was referring to the continuation of slavery by early capitalism. Since slavery was accepted as a valid institution, it required the initiation of force (the Civil War, among other things) to end it.

So does capitalism, so has every single system of governance yet seen on the face of the earth.

Something is up with your quotes, bro.

It still made sense to them though.
Also, the polish corridor.
And of course as an invasion platform for invading russia (we could also go as far to say that poland happened to "seal the deal" between hitler and stalin).