How Much Capitalism Will You Tolerate

That's like saying capitalism is as close as communism can get.
You see, in Romania nobody intended to bring about 'communism' , it was imposed by the soviet invaders.
Communist experiments? Name one. Lenin never wished for communism (sure I'l get flamed on that), all he wanted is what all capitalists want: power.

The final argument of any capitalist is human nature. That people are violent, selfish or who knows what. I'm not going to comment on that since it's silly to clasify all people by some rigid rules, but I am going to be skeptic about a world revolution (anarchist one that is) simply because I don't see these millions of dumbed-down people (due to advertising and governments) think for themselves any time soon.

No property laws, no state, after that if whatever happens that might be called capitalism in some form happens, thats fine, but I doubt much that could be called capitalistic could exist without property laws and the state.

Some anarcho capitalitst think that people without the state or property laws would simply just allow someone to own a huge part of the land whether or not they starve because of it, but I think that is rediculous.

Will you shut the hell up allready, why are you still bringing this up when its been disproven by empirical evidence dozens of times. Enough.

Actually stateless capitalism it's a possibility. Each land lord would make his own laws which would be imposed by private companies that would replace the now state owned police. What's the difference between statism and (stateless) capitalism? Not much, both systems are ruled by a greedy selfish minority and each one can exist without the other.

Well, twice--maybe three times each for their 15 mins. of fame.

And then there were the PIRATES. Aye, me hearties! :D

Your being ridiculous. Landlords could not pass "laws" in a stateless society. What you really oppose are restricted convenants.

Well thank god they have communist theoreticians to do their thinking for them.

Actually, I'll agree with you to this extent: most people who have their security, their bread and their circuses do not think about oppression or revolution very much.

Why should they? On the off chance their lives will improve after the revolution lays waste to their infrastructure and their lives?

I'll pass.

Good point. That's been the trouble all along....the Communists have a very difficult time "selling" their product to their target audience, the Proletariat. The Communists either have a lousy product to sell or their pitchmen (e.g. Stalin, Mao, :rolleyes:) just missed the mark.

Communist need a really good Infomercial. Billy Mays where are you when we need you the most? :(

Maybe freedom?
To bad so many believe in capitalists like Stalin, Mao and Obama.

Ok no more responding to trolls.

i agree somehow that communism need to be publicised differently.

communism is a positive thing, but too often folks argues about struggle and violence, and personally i think its a huuge turn off for most of people.

there is no need to advocate violence, considering that communism will create it by itself anyway, we should focus on positive things.

Since what you mean by "capitalism" is quite probably not the same as I do, answering such question will only favour ideological confusion.

So, as a previous question to make any communication significant,

What are you calling "capitalism"?

Luís Henrique

More than thay yes, which is incredible given the conditions.

And its been told to you over and over and over again that the USSR and States that followed the sae system WERE NOT COMMUNIST, or even real socialism, they did not follow socialist principles. So that is NOT how communism turns out dumbass, because it was'nt communist. Now stop it, don't make me have to say it again.

Call it what you want, conditions, or whatever the end result is the exact same as laws, your just calling it something different.

Most people don't have that.

Are you trying to be the Glenn beck of Revleft? Someone whos just stupid and ignorant trying to pass it off as humor, however lacking actual humor. I almost feel stupid responding to your posts.

They have a difficult time "selling" their product because A: for decades they have been thrown in prison in many countries, killed in many countries, and repressed in many, including the united states, and because the ruling class of the united states and many many other countries spends lots and lots of time and money to make sure the system is defended from any threats ideological and otherwise.

Most communist don't argue and advocate violence, most of that stigma comes from ruling class propeganda.

I would tolerate people having small private businesses and people having shares/stocks that are heavily regulated and highly taxed according to some principles. I dont mind that somebody has more money than me if he earns it by ways that are transparent to everybody and if his wealth goes to a level that has sense for a human being to have. Nobody NEEDS a luxury sports car, a villa, or a goldigger thai girlfriend who is a kind of an expensive unoficcial prostitute etc...

Although the idea of "big business", mass capital "runnin things ameriKan way", large scale investments, and other BS I cannot accept!

[QUOTE=Luís Henrique;1506756]Since what you mean by "capitalism" is quite probably not the same as I do, answering such question will only favour ideological confusion.

Private enterprise

Well, "private enterprise" is not what I call "capitalism". In fact, it is not what any consequent Marxist would call "capitalism". To us, capitalism is a system where production is controlled by capital, and capital is self-agrandizing money.

"Private enterprise" can be of a capitalist nature, if and only if society as a whole is capitalist. Private enterprises such as that of an slaveowner in Classic Athens (or modern Louisiannia), or such as that of a medieval guild member, or the modern owner of the shop around the corner are not capitalist.

To us, capitalism either is or is not; there is no much sence in expressions like "more or less capitalist", "a bit of capitalism and a bit of socialism", etc. Either capital controls production, and it is capitalism, or it doesn't, and it is not capitalism.

By "private enterprise" I suppose you mean economic private enterprise, ie, the production of commodities for sale in a market system. This is likely to survive for a significant period of time after a socialist revolution. Our point is not to abolish the markets as an end of itself, but to replace markets with more efficient mechanisms of distribution. Merely suppressing markets by decree is likely to result in even less efficient distribution of goods until higher forms of socialisation are in place.

What isn't likely to survive a revolution for much time is the private property of corporations. These will likely be socialised, meaning workers' control of the workplace and social control of the destination of their economic output, through democratically elected committees.

Is that what you are asking about?

Luís Henrique

if you can figure out a way to do it without private property laws, have at it.