Question to socialists

[Libertie76]

The problem is that for socialists, the end goal is no government and no policy; any step in between the classless, stateless society based on the social control of the means of production and the overthrow of bourgeois rule is simply a means to an end.



Oh, and where does this claim that "in a true capitalist state the government will have no over sight in production [sic]" come from? That's not how people generally use the term "capitalism" - in fact, even the early British liberals, that American libertarians claim to slavishly follow, were well aware that regulation is necessary for commodity production, for the markets, to function (see Smith for example). In fact you seem to agree as well since you talk about a capitalist state.

So in fact when you talk about "capitalism" you don't mean to talk about what people generally call capitalism but some extra special "real" capitalism that can't exist.



Presumably the workers' councils would be elected. How they would be elected is an open question; "one person one vote" is not a sacred principle to us, and ensuring class dominance is more important than ensuring "fair" representation.



Well that's nice.

Unfortunately we care about the ability of women to have abortions at any point for whatever reason far more than we care about people being "forced to pay" for abortions (or gay marriage or IVF or affirmative action or whatever).



Again, I refer you to my comments about "capitalism" - you can't redefine widely understood terms at will so that your argument sounds coherent.



What are you talking about? The CFS was Leopold's private property. According to the libertarians, he had a sacred right to do whatever he pleases on it. Or do you think that a market needs to be forcefully opened in your house?



Except I am talking about social raising - the raising of the new generation is a matter of social interest. Even today, a significant role is played by the staff at creches, kindergartens, schools and so on. As for "who knows better" for your child, if you try to teach your child that they should listen to you unconditionally, that blacks are a lesser kind of humans, that being gay is a sin etc., apparently society does know better than you. And no rational, consciously planned society will give you the right to do whatever you please to your child as if they were your chattel.

Laissez faire capitalism promises no government oversight besides the protection of certain property rights.

Just because you believe you can allow abortion at any time doesnt mean everyone in the movement does, however you say too bad you have to pay for something you dont agree with. What if they decide there is no abortion allowed are you ok with that, or even gay rights would you be ok with that if the community disagrees or do you think people need rights

It was leopolds property the same sense that russia was stalins property, or germany was hitlers property. However, the terrible history of what happened in congo, shows that that country was not practicing capitalism. Maybe instead of blaming a thought we can blame the fact that he was GIVEN TAX PAYER MONEY to do this, which of course is not capitalism but rather fake corporatism.T here was no free enterprise there was monarchy and corporatism. Its the equivalent of me saying Adolf Hitler is what happens when socialism takes form.

Your suggesting that we need to reeducate the children into what you think the perfect world would be, and you dont see that as any invasion on human liberties. Ok thanks for the insight. Now i know why i will never follow trotsky i plan on being able to say whats on my mind and not be forced to learn something else because you think its better for me. Just like i dont think its right for me to force things on you. But yea, lets go ahead and end the churches because they force their religion on us but then lets destroy civil liberties at the same. Your arguments are totalitarian and its what you advocate for. No civil liberty no rights to humanity.

[Illegalitarian]

It is a crony capitalism, because corporations decide policies to create influence over economy, its not a free market economy. You can say its to a certain level of capitalism but its the same as saying its a certain level of socialism that Canada practices, even america has socialism in its current policy with things like welfare and social security. This mentality that we blame capitalism because of crooked corporations is not true at all, its the failed policies of the officials with the corporation taking control of the government. If there is free market capitalism this would not exist and non intervention, this would not exist.

Welfare and social security are not socialist policies. There is no such thing as a "socialist policy" that can be enacted by any sort of bourgeois government, because socialism is a socioeconomic system, not a set of rules that can be applied here and here and not there and there. Capitalism is as most people define it, private ownership over the means of production, and the political and social implications thereof. Nothing more.

I mean your suggesting that the revolutionaries in china or russia were not socialist, so then thats your stance, however it seems that corruption and strong central government has been a result of socialism every time its been tried to be put into place. The same argument you make against capitalism.

It's not my stance, it is fact, based on the definition of socialism v. what happened in those nations.

So your suggesting that the failure of the revolution is because of the enemy, so are you saying that the enemy has always won in these regards?

I'm saying it failed in these nations because the material conditions were not conducive to a global revolution, which means the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeois were not synthesized into a new mode of production. Socialism and isolationism do not work, period.

In a truly socialist country would i be able to eat meat if the majority said it wasnt allowed, yes or no

First of all there is no such thing as a "socialist state". Socialism is a socioeconomic system which precludes the state as we know it. Secondly, what if the majority of people now say you can't eat meat? Are you suggesting that the specific laws and regulations of a system being determined by the majority is exclusive to socialism? False.

Nature vs nurture is response to genes vs sorroundngs, such as if you have a violent hereditary gene you will be violent based on your surroundings it has eveything to do with power abuse.

No, it doesn't, because no one is seriously suggesting that humans are inherently violent or greedy or power-seeking. This is not an argument made in any philosophical or scientific field, sorry. This is a layman assumption based on nothing.

Im suggesting what is fair in terms of food and common necessities. Lets say an epidemic breaks out, who decides who gets the limited medicine or not?

You assume scarcity. Scarcity is a product of capitalism, so no such issue is inherent to a communist society.

[Libertie76]

Figures for 2009 (the last I could easily find):

Total male prisoners: 2,096,300
White prisoners: 693,800
Black prisoners: 841,000
Latino prisoners: 442,000

So... even though there are fewer African-Americans in the USA than Whites, there are still more male African-Americans than Whites in prison.

I think the US would have a lot further to go before it's non-racist.

Anyway, aren't you arguing that America is currently bad (it not being properly capitalist and all) and that it was better when it had slavery etc?



If you mean, civil wars are brutal, then yes I agree. Of course, if we could assume that the capitalists would see our point of view and not try to destroy us and everthing else just to hang on to their ill-gotten gains, then everything would be fine and dandy.



We're social beings. If you think you can do without the rest of us, good luck.



I'm sure this all means something to you, but I think you're quite wrong. The modern nuclear family is a very recent invention, and it doesn't hold true all over the world, so the idea that it somehow natural is just wrong. There are various African proverbs which express the idea 'it takes a village to raise a child'. I don't know why you find this idea so hard to accept, but I take it you don't have children.

You can just as much suggest that minorities in the country are more likely to commit crimes because of the struggle of civil rights as well as the creation of modern street gangs then because of racism.

I think the economic policies of america were better then, i think the foreign policy was way better. However, i do believe that slavery is a destruction of civil liberties so not in that sense. I do believe that every human has a right to grow the way they seem fit and slavery along with jim crow laws do not allow that to happen.

Its not a matter of hanging on to gains, but rather hanging on to civil liberty which is why capitalists are anti fascists as well.

Social beings? I never advocated for the aboloshment of communities or society, i do however advocate that society does not know what is better for me then i do.

Yes the modern nuclear family is modern, but by your own standards in china and india there is a mother and a father and they have their owned structered family. I know this because i am married to a chinese women, her family, though culturally is different, holds same state of hierarchy. You suggest that certain african tribes say this, however by your own admission of majority rule we would stick to the family hierarchy considering MORE PEOPLE PRACTICE IT.

[JahLemon]

I mean your suggesting that the revolutionaries in china or russia were not socialist, so then thats your stance, however it seems that corruption and strong central government has been a result of socialism every time its been tried to be put into place.

then explain revolutionary Catalonia, The Free Territory in Ukraine, or the Paris Commune. All examples of socialism taking root.

In a truly socialist country would i be able to eat meat if the majority said it wasnt allowed, yes or no

no such thing as a socialist country. The majority could not force you to not eat meat because it takes away your freedom to eat meat.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

There was a short period during the height of the industrial revolution in England where there were private courts run by factory owners and the police were nothing but privately owned groups of thugs that would break strikes and harass labour organisers. This was deemed largely inefficient and it benefited the factory owners to have their contemporaries in parliament put through laws creating what we know as the modern police and court systems. That way, judges, police, jails could be funded by the very taxes they collected from the poor workers. It was cheaper for the capitalist to get their favoured results by proxy. Hence, the state functioned purely for the needs of the capitalist class. 'Big government' or 'small government'... the difference is largely arbitrary as the existence of the state will remain. Capitalists don't want to state to disappear. This concept of 'true capitalism' without a state is a mythology more fantastical than Harry Potter.

[DDR]

1. How do we transition out of a USSR?

Tricky question. Since we don't know in practice, here's the theory:

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/wo...erev/index.htm

2. Freedom for the people in terms of exploring their own self identity through spiritualism or religion

IMO, one can belive in whatever the hell s/he wants as long as it is in his/hers private life. Or as the saying goes: "Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around"

3. I do not believe true capitalism has been practiced in america, i think its looking at the problems this empire has created and blaming it on something that it identifies itself as, just as we cant say ussr is the reason communism doesnt work because they weren't practicing true communism like you stated.

Ah, so you're a liberal (in the european sense of the word) and belive in the free market and the invisible hand and all that. IMO your branch of capitalism is imposible to fulfil or if it is done you become Somalia. Also, for me, the fall of the USSR was not an economic problem (structure) rather than a cultural problem (superstructure).

4. Why should we not allow freedom across the board even if they dont agree with the society? And who will decide who the enemy is?

Freedom to speak your own mid, yes of course, but should we allow racism, homophobia, machism or any other kind of bigotry and slander to be spoken out without consecuences? Is that freedom?

Not in my book. In my country we have a saying that goes like: "My freedom ends where my neighbours' begings" or to put it simple, freedom to opress others is not freedom at all.

5. Do you have any solution to other ways raising children besides delegating them to the surrounding community or nuclear family because i am unaware

Not all societies, both pressent and pass, have upbrought their children in a nuclear family. One can look for other examples there. But for me, children must be with their own, other children.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Laissez faire capitalism promises no government oversight besides the protection of certain property rights.

Ah, so now it's not that the state shouldn't intervene in the market, but that it should do so only under the circumstances you advocate. And in any case, laissez faire is merely one liberal current, hardly the most influential one. The fact remains that economies that have private ownership of the means of production, wage labour and so on are called capitalist by nearly everyone (except people who talk about some impossible "pure" capitalism).

Just because you believe you can allow abortion at any time doesnt mean everyone in the movement does, however you say too bad you have to pay for something you dont agree with. What if they decide there is no abortion allowed are you ok with that, or even gay rights would you be ok with that if the community disagrees or do you think people need rights

But in fact, everyone in "the movement", even pretty milquetoast reformists, do. Socialism is incompatible with any restrictions on women or homosexuals - because restrictions on abortion, sexuality etc. are mechanisms that capitalism uses to reproduce the proletariat as a dispossessed class of direct labourers.

It was leopolds property the same sense that russia was stalins property, or germany was hitlers property.

No, it wasn't. It was legally the private property of one Leopold, incidentally the King of the Belgians. The Congress of Berlin specified that this was the case.

However, the terrible history of what happened in congo, shows that that country was not practicing capitalism. Maybe instead of blaming a thought we can blame the fact that he was GIVEN TAX PAYER MONEY to do this

He wasn't. He founded the CFS with his own considerable wealth.

Your suggesting that we need to reeducate the children into what you think the perfect world would be, and you dont see that as any invasion on human liberties. Ok thanks for the insight. Now i know why i will never follow trotsky

I could have told you the same thing a few pages ago.

[Libertie76]

Tricky question. Since we don't know in practice, here's the theory:
]



IMO, one can belive in whatever the hell s/he wants as long as it is in his/hers private life. Or as the saying goes: "Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around"



Ah, so you're a liberal (in the european sense of the word) and belive in the free market and the invisible hand and all that. IMO your branch of capitalism is imposible to fulfil or if it is done you become Somalia. Also, for me, the fall of the USSR was not an economic problem (structure) rather than a cultural problem (superstructure).



Freedom to speak your own mid, yes of course, but should we allow racism, homophobia, machism or any other kind of bigotry and slander to be spoken out without consecuences? Is that freedom?

Not in my book. In my country we have a saying that goes like: "My freedom ends where my neighbours' begings" or to put it simple, freedom to opress others is not freedom at all.



Not all societies, both pressent and pass, have upbrought their children in a nuclear family. One can look for other examples there. But for me, children must be with their own, other children.

Thank you for your reply you are the only one who actually puts it in a way that makes sense to me, i do have one last question for you. The allocation of oppression, can mean for people even a majority a suppression of freedom of speech. Your idea of if it is racist or homophobic is good by nature, but what happens if the majority decides that all brown people are enemies of the community and that they can not speek? I know that this is not protocals of true socialism, but in this possible society it most definitly can happen. What then protects the people that are living in that society from being forced to no longer be able to speak? Shouldnt there be civil liberties in place?

[Libertie76]

Ah, so now it's not that the state shouldn't intervene in the market, but that it should do so only under the circumstances you advocate. And in any case, laissez faire is merely one liberal current, hardly the most influential one. The fact remains that economies that have private ownership of the means of production, wage labour and so on are called capitalist by nearly everyone (except people who talk about some impossible "pure" capitalism).



But in fact, everyone in "the movement", even pretty milquetoast reformists, do. Socialism is incompatible with any restrictions on women or homosexuals - because restrictions on abortion, sexuality etc. are mechanisms that capitalism uses to reproduce the proletariat as a dispossessed class of direct labourers.



No, it wasn't. It was legally the private property of one Leopold, incidentally the King of the Belgians. The Congress of Berlin specified that this was the case.



He wasn't. He founded the CFS with his own considerable wealth.



I could have told you the same thing a few pages ago.

Laissez faire capitalism is a response to the monarchy of england. In essence its the purest form of capitalism that has been practiced in history, however capitalism by defnition is no governmental oversight which is something we would need to accomplish in order to protect civil liberties.

Just because you suggest that eveyone in the movement agrees with you, doesnt make it so

It was legally lobbeyed by a group of business men under a guise of a different operation, however it was still subsidized by tax dollars. Leopold bought it himself, who happened to be the king of belguim if i am correct, which in that case shows governmental influence over buying property. Regardless of whether he was one man or not, he was still a monarch. Not capitalism, government intervention and government colonialism. Infact, you can argue that freedom of press and speech actually caused his terror in congo to cease.

Why does this forum ask for money if no one agrees with money?

[DDR]

Thank you for your reply you are the only one who actually puts it in a way that makes sense to me, i do have one last question for you. The allocation of oppression, can mean for people even a majority a suppression of freedom of speech. Your idea of if it is racist or homophobic is good by nature, but what happens if the majority decides that all brown people are enemies of the community and that they can not speek? I know that this is not protocals of true socialism, but in this possible society it most definitly can happen. What then protects the people that are living in that society from being forced to no longer be able to speak? Shouldnt there be civil liberties in place?

It's imposible, the ultimate goal is to form a society where there's no more oppression of humans by humans. There's not suppossed framework where that case can came to be. And if for any reason that stuff happens than it means that we did a very crappy job.

[Illegalitarian]

Goalpost moving again, trying to change the definition of something to fit your own agenda. No one except for libertarians accept that capitalism must necessarily have no government intervention, this is a fiction you will have to move past if you want a serious discussion

[Blake's Baby]

You can just as much suggest that minorities in the country are more likely to commit crimes because of the struggle of civil rights as well as the creation of modern street gangs then because of racism...

You could, but the very fact that there has to be a civil rights struggle means that the society is racist, so your argument falls down. Structural racism is the problem not htat black people are bad.

...I think the economic policies of america were better then, i think the foreign policy was way better. However, i do believe that slavery is a destruction of civil liberties so not in that sense. I do believe that every human has a right to grow the way they seem fit and slavery along with jim crow laws do not allow that to happen...

You think invading Mexico and killing Native Americans was better than invading Afghanistan and killing Arabs? (No I don't think these are all the same thing, I'm referring to several events here.)

...Its not a matter of hanging on to gains, but rather hanging on to civil liberty which is why capitalists are anti fascists as well...

I'm sorry, but if you've taken leave of your senses then there's no point in continuing this conversation. Both Mussolini and Hitler were supported to the hilt by their respective bourgeoisies, as were Franco, Salazar, Pinochet, the Argentinean Junta and any number of fascist, pseudo-fascist or prot-fascist dictators and regimes you could name. Fascism is capitalism's way of disciplining a beaten working class. It is as capitalist as bourgeois democracy.

...
Social beings? I never advocated for the aboloshment of communities or society, i do however advocate that society does not know what is better for me then i do...

Bully for you. I'm sure you'll be fine on your own as we have nothing to tell you. You can of course grow your own food (knowing all about it), do all of your own medical procedures etc.

...Yes the modern nuclear family is modern, but by your own standards in china and india there is a mother and a father and they have their owned structered family. I know this because i am married to a chinese women, her family, though culturally is different, holds same state of hierarchy. You suggest that certain african tribes say this, however by your own admission of majority rule we would stick to the family hierarchy considering MORE PEOPLE PRACTICE IT.

So? At the moment most people believe in a god and think capitalism is a sensible idea. Doesn't mean I agree, it doesn't mean that I consider that they're right. But you are right that at that the moment, ideas that I think are wrong are the ideas that most people hold. What difference does that make? I don't think that people's ideas, in the current situation, are necessarily 'true' in any meaningful sense. All this boils down to is 'we live in a class society, and in such a society, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class'.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Why does this forum ask for money if no one agrees with money?

Because it costs money to run a website. Socialists advocate for overthrowing the entire global capitalist order; simply not using money accomplishes nothing toward that goal. It's not a matter of 'not agreeing with money', we simply recognize the reality that money will become obsolete with the abolishment of generalized commidity production.

I don't have time right now to address the rest of your post, but if you honestly think that was a clever retort to anything brought up in this thread then I don't think engaging with you will get us anywhere.p

EDIT: I think it says something about your mindset, now that I think about it. You seem to understand ideas as existing completely divorced from their historical context. For example, your concept of 'true' capitalism as same vague stateless ideal has never before existed nor has any causal material reason to emerge in the future. You then show that you are only able to comprehend the arguments of others in the parameters of this mindset, thinking that people who advocate for democracy in a socialist world must do so out of support for popular opinion regardless of the context, and would therefore support popular opinion as influenced by bourgeois democracy, for instance. Or your assumption that those who call for a moneyless society must do so out of some arbitrary hatred of money, as opposed to recognizing that we do so out a view of money from a historical materialist perspective. Most of the people you are engaging with are Marxists, so I suggest you figure out what that means before continuing on any further, some of your representations of other posters's arguments show a complete lack of understanding.

[Sinister Intents]

You might as well respond to my post because I'm sure at this point anything I could've said to finish has been covered

[Libertie76]

You could, but the very fact that there has to be a civil rights struggle means that the society is racist, so your argument falls down. Structural racism is the problem not htat black people are bad.



You think invading Mexico and killing Native Americans was better than invading Afghanistan and killing Arabs? (No I don't think these are all the same thing, I'm referring to several events here.)



I'm sorry, but if you've taken leave of your senses then there's no point in continuing this conversation. Both Mussolini and Hitler were supported to the hilt by their respective bourgeoisies, as were Franco, Salazar, Pinochet, the Argentinean Junta and any number of fascist, pseudo-fascist or prot-fascist dictators and regimes you could name. Fascism is capitalism's way of disciplining a beaten working class. It is as capitalist as bourgeois democracy.



Bully for you. I'm sure you'll be fine on your own as we have nothing to tell you. You can of course grow your own food (knowing all about it), do all of your own medical procedures etc.



So? At the moment most people believe in a god and think capitalism is a sensible idea. Doesn't mean I agree, it doesn't mean that I consider that they're right. But you are right that at that the moment, ideas that I think are wrong are the ideas that most people hold. What difference does that make? I don't think that people's ideas, in the current situation, are necessarily 'true' in any meaningful sense. All this boils down to is 'we live in a class society, and in such a society, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class'.

So the fact that there has to be a civil rights struggle shows the country is racist today, ok no actual point there that's like saying. Since hitter came to power there's a problem with Jews

Yes there are problems with America historically, however your suggestion was towards the actual creation of the colonies into the union not almost 100 years later. Still this does not show how capitalism is failed what your doing is trying to insult the integrity of a nation.

Yes there have been business owners that invested in the rise of fascism but that's still not showing me that capitalism is wrong, it's like saying the American people who funded Mao shows how communism is capitalist. It's a dumb argument that your proposing especially since the United States took out hitler. However what is true, is, hitler used socialism in its economic policies as proposed for race, in fact in his boo mein kampf he actually calls himself a socialist.

No I do require doctors to save my health, however if I got cancer id get a second opinion which is not allowed in a true socialist state

Well it shows that the mentality of majority rules you stand for allocates for something you don't agree with. Should you be forced to accept it? Or do you wish to use civil liberties to propose new ideas to support humanity in a more efficient manner.

[Libertie76]

Goalpost moving again, trying to change the definition of something to fit your own agenda. No one except for libertarians accept that capitalism must necessarily have no government intervention, this is a fiction you will have to move past if you want a serious discussion

Ok thanks for your point that actually proves nothing, hahaha goalpost moving that's got to be the lamest response I've ever heard my life

[Libertie76]

Well it's a lack of understanding because no body seems to agree on my questions.

However what is really funny is you suggest that true capitalism has never existed so therefore it can't exist. Yet, if I'm not mistaken, has there ever been a true communist nation? That's a really funny contradiction. You don't have time to respond to my questions but you have time to edit your post to try to insult capitalism? You're like a walking typing contradiction!

People advocate for the end of capitalism meanwhile they allow themselves to use the assets that capitalism creates, such as computers! Does this website do profit sharing? How much money in donations actually go towards the revolution? How about this, do you currently practice in profit sharing? All of your assets do you share with the whole community? I guarantee you that you don't. It seems like you are a pretty good Marxist for a capitalist.

Addressed to fundamental attribution error

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Laissez faire capitalism is a response to the monarchy of england.

By the citizens of France.

I mean, the least you could do is get the facts right. "Laissez-faire" was a slogan of the French Physiocrats, an early liberal party whose actual ideas were far from pleasing to the modern America right-"libertarian".

In essence its the purest form of capitalism that has been practiced in history, however capitalism by defnition is no governmental oversight which is something we would need to accomplish in order to protect civil liberties.

And what definition would that be? The one you made up and expect others to follow because... why, exactly? Everyone knows what capitalism is. This attempt to redefine common words reminds me of how the religious regularly redefine the word "faith" so that everything is faith (or so they claim).

Just because you suggest that eveyone in the movement agrees with you, doesnt make it so

Well, you're free to point out counterexamples.

It was legally lobbeyed by a group of business men under a guise of a different operation, however it was still subsidized by tax dollars. Leopold bought it himself, who happened to be the king of belguim if i am correct, which in that case shows governmental influence over buying property. Regardless of whether he was one man or not, he was still a monarch. Not capitalism, government intervention and government colonialism. Infact, you can argue that freedom of press and speech actually caused his terror in congo to cease.

They caused the terror in the Congo to be transferred to the government of Belgium.

But wait, a man buys some property with his own money (the foundation of this money was of course the feudal property of Leopold's ancestors, but the same could be said of the Manchester industrialists), and now you make demands on him about what he can and can't do with his own property? You're not being particularly consistent.

Why does this forum ask for money if no one agrees with money?

Because we live in a capitalist society. I mean, at this point it just looks like you're here to troll, and you're not doing a particularly good job of it either.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well it's a lack of understanding because no body seems to agree on my questions.

However what is really funny is you suggest that true capitalism has never existed so therefore it can't exist. Yet, if I'm not mistaken, has there ever been a true communist nation? That's a really funny contradiction. You don't have time to respond to my questions but you have time to edit your post to try to insult capitalism? You're like a walking typing contradiction!

People advocate for the end of capitalism meanwhile they allow themselves to use the assets that capitalism creates, such as computers! Does this website do profit sharing? How much money in donations actually go towards the revolution? How about this, do you currently practice in profit sharing? All of your assets do you share with the whole community? I guarantee you that you don't. It seems like you are a pretty good Marxist for a capitalist.

Addressed to fundamental attribution error

I didn't have time at first which is why I came back to edit it later when I did have time

Communism as a social epoch has not existed, unless you count primative communism, but Marx's writing is based on rigorous use of the scientific method and evidence from history to develop a methodology that concludes logically to socialism.

But to address your not very well thought out point, simply refusing to work in a capitalist society does nothing to further the revolution. All you're doing is pointing out that we currently live in a capitalist system.

[Libertie76]

By the citizens of France.

I mean, the least you could do is get the facts right. "Laissez-faire" was a slogan of the French Physiocrats, an early liberal party whose actual ideas were far from pleasing to the modern America right-"libertarian".



And what definition would that be? The one you made up and expect others to follow because... why, exactly? Everyone knows what capitalism is. This attempt to redefine common words reminds me of how the religious regularly redefine the word "faith" so that everything is faith (or so they claim).



Well, you're free to point out counterexamples.



They caused the terror in the Congo to be transferred to the government of Belgium.

But wait, a man buys some property with his own money (the foundation of this money was of course the feudal property of Leopold's ancestors, but the same could be said of the Manchester industrialists), and now you make demands on him about what he can and can't do with his own property? You're not being particularly consistent.



Because we live in a capitalist society. I mean, at this point it just looks like you're here to troll, and you're not doing a particularly good job of it either.

What is the point of where laissez faire capitalism being created in any relevence to this?


National socialism SOCIALIST COUNTRIES

He used capital created by taxation to buy property that wasn't his. In fact, capitalism being practiced would have prevented it from happening. Guess what, it was civil liberties and free market economics that allowed the atrocities to stop. The money was used so it was actually old monarchys creating the autrocities. I dont see a contradiction in this at all, he also lobbyd and got governmental intervention.

So instead of creating your own commune and leading by example you use the evil money system to voice your ideals of a stronger humanity and yet you want to end money and not allow civil liberties. Ok way to have cake and eat it too