My Rant on Capitalism and Communism

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Shredder@Jul 30 2004, 08:56 PM



Basic 'freedoms' exist totally outside of the state, as a state can only take away freedoms to a greater or lesser degree. A 'free' state may impinge on fewer freedoms, but still take some away. Where is my freedom of murder?

You take from society exactly what you put into it. The means of production are no longer privately owned, and workers--now everyone--employ those means of production, instead of being employed by them.

Wrong. Capitalism has separated the creation of wealth from the ownership right to wealth. It is by this that in capitalism everyone starts out at an unequal state of poverty, for one man only has his labor to sell but another man has capital.

You submit this notion as if this situation exists in an established caste system, when in fact that is not the case. The hypothetical man who has his labor to sell also has the granted determination to start his own business, and thus build his own wealth. By the same token, the man of capital is constantly at risk of losing it.

A capitalist would have you believe that every man is a capitalist, for they try to define capitalist as one who trades.

By definitions of all contemporary dictionanries, and dictionary.com, "capitalist" is defined in a myriad of ways, including as those who merely support the economic ideology itself. Also, it defines anyone of "wealth" as a capitalist, but such a word as "wealth" is subjective and subject to relevance. Thus, by American standards, i am merely middle class, but per world average, I am wealthy.

But in reality, there are two distinct "business cycles" for the two distinct classes. The proletariat sells its labor for money and spends his money for the benefit of his life. C-M-C. The bourgeoisie spends his money on labor power and then trades the product of the labor power for more money. M-C-M. Opposite systems with opposite interests.

Well, the proletariat does not always and exclusively dedicate all of his resources to day-to day sustenence. Many in middle/working class situations still save and invest their resources, and yield a certain rate of return, based on the market. Again, the captain of uindustry, while often seeing significant profit as the result of his personal risk and investment, is also often subject to great loss at the expense of his pockets.

Opposite systems with opposite interests.

I think that you are creating a negative false correlation with rhetoric. Possibly different interests, and a different exchangge of resources, but again, they are each party's own volition, and not really opposite.

New wealth can only be created by labor. New gold only enters the market as currency once it is mined and smelted. Would a commodity drop from the sky when one willed it to, that commodity would be so bountiful as to have no price.

Not exclusively. Market fluctuations of commodities and other instruments add wealth to existing resources, as do refinement, processes, and services. The service sector of the United States is much larger than the manufacturing sector, and in this sector value is derived from actions and processes as opposed to mere refinement and manipulation of physical materials. Thus, "labor" in the classic sense of refinement or manipulation of materials is not needed to create value. Things like consultation services, food service, and teaching, all have perceived value, and thus also are sources of wealth creation. One of the major constituents of free-market capitalism is the value-added proposition.

But in capitalism, wealth itself is created and the right to that wealth is bought. It is by this quirk that one man invests his entire wealth of $100 and is returned $1 while another man invests his entire wealth of $1,000 and is returned $10. But once the means of subsistence are subtracted, the richer man can only get richer.

But this idea doesn't sell, due to the fact that proportions of loss are comensurate with proportions of gain in such a market. Thus, yes, if I invest $1000 I stand to get a higher return than a man who invests $100, but I also stand to lose a greater proportion. This phenomenon is even worsened on a percentage basis, i.e If I invest $1000 and take a 50% loss, then my net loss is 500. Now, I would need to make 100% on my remaineder (500), not just 50% again, just to break even (back to 1000), while the man who only invested 100 in the beginning only loses/as to make up $50. This is why risk/reward is such an important component of capitalist economics, it serves to maintain some equilibrium and parity in capitalization.

Basic 'freedoms' exist totally outside of the state, as a state can only take away freedoms to a greater or lesser degree. A 'free' state may impinge on fewer freedoms, but still take some away. Where is my freedom of murder?

I concur with this. In theory, pure freedom would be a state much like nature itself. However, just like a refrigerator is used in the north pole to keep food from freezing as opposed to merely fresh, state decrees are created to set certain minimums with regards to freedom and individual sovereignty. They also establish that while we have cetain freedoms "of" things, we also have certain freedoms "from" things, which is really the fundaental concept of law, which brings us to...

Law is a mutual agreement between people. If I don't kill you, you won't kill me. If I do kill you, someone will kill me back. But this agreement has become alienated from the people

I'm not sure what is meant by "alientated from the people". While I agree that we may have become to overzealous and overbearing in our lawmaking, I think certain "cornerstone" laws are still appreciated and desired by any populace, such as laws against murder or any violent crime, robbery, rape, reckless driving, etc.

Now it is not my law, it is someone else's; now it is not in my hands, but in those of a uniformed man on 5th avenue with a pistol and a painted car; now it is an instrument of class oppression. If the law will not protect me, the law must be done away with

I agree that there may be some laws that can be viewed this way, but not the fundamentals outlined in most penal codes. The man/woman with the pistol and painted car is actually a member of what you would define as proletariat. He/she is not really an instrument of the law as much as a messenger for intruments of the law. His/her increased presence is in responce to increased crime at the steet level, not for the desire for greater class oppression. Greater class oppression takes place much easier, and en masse, through centally planned governments and assignment of labor, where futility is distributed equally and without self-determination.

If it is not in my interest to obey the law, then I will not obey the law.

I would surmise, then, that in the end you will only worsen your own situation.

. And the "right to labor" in reality a right of the capitalist to exploit the workers' labor power is not in the interest of the vast majority of the population; 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth.

A common "pareto" fallacy. In actuality, the vast majority of American wealth is distributed thrroughout the middle class.

This sick version of "free trade" is no better than the freedom to murder. All because right to wealth is separate from the creation of the wealth.

But the key is, everyone has access to the same means of wealth creation, albeit usually only in early stages, but aside from inheritance, which is really a small proportion of total acquired wealth, parity exists.

You do not get from society what you put into it. You put your labor into society, but the spoils go to the highest bidder.

What do you propose that a labor worker gets out of society, besides a house, a car, food, and clothing? Who are you to define what a laborer gets as inadequate or not?

This system must be smashed. Ownership of all means of production will be shared. The government of peoples will be replaced with the administration of things.

Translation: Freedom will be compromised, as will individual determination and competition inherent to free enterprise, thus the invention, innovation, and progress inherent to free enterprise compared to any other system, and proven more in the 20th century than ever before, will be diminished, and the entire collective of mankind ceases to progess.

Education will be provided at dead cost to provide lubrication to the job market as it replaces the stock market as a tool for ambitious peoples.

but it will be virtually wasted on state-assignment as opposed to applying such education passionately on a freely chosen endeavor

The demand for a new commodity is a demand for a new type of labor to create that commodity. And as the bourgeois invester sits in his armchair and exploits the fluctuations in supply and demand, the ambitious laborer sends his body and mind where society wants it.

you are inaccurately removing self-determination as well as the risk taken by the captain of industry from ths assessment

. The profit motive will become obsolete; the production of commodities will be organized in cooperation according to the want of the commodities. And finally, you do not buy the rights to more wealth. You put your labor into society, and after a few small deductions are made for education and other "lubrication," you are given a certificate for your labor. You take from society exactly what you put into it. The means of production are no longer privately owned, and workers--now everyone--employ those means of production, instead of being employed by them.

I.E., everyone capitulates to central planning and an equal level of mediocrity. Opn the bread lines, my friends.

The time for heirarchy and exploitation has come and gone. If you idolize the 'alpha male,' we will throw you to the wolves.

Textbook class envy.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags@Jul 30 2004, 11:01 PM
Pinochet wasn't a capitalist.

Why is it that you are allowed to freely choose which historically capitalistic figures are 'real capitalists' and which ones aren't, but we aren't allowed to declare which historically communistic figures are 'true communists' and which ones aren't? When we bring up the fact the Mussolini, Hitler, and Pinoche claimed to represent capitalism, you state that they didn't really allow capitalism, and expect us to accept that. But when we point out that Pol Pot didn't really bring true communism or socialism, you continue to insist that he was a communist; regardless of the fact that there is probably not a single communist in the world who supports him.

[Professor Moneybags]

Wrong. His government was entirely regulated by trade.

Hitler commanded, industry obeyed, not the other way round.

That is what fascism is. The distilled essence of capitalism. Freedom, right, and all the other unquantifiable ideals go out the window when they no longer succeed as tools of class opression.

Freedom is a tool of class oppression ?

Force must be used instead. The illusion of democracy must be replaced by naked force of bourgeois over proletariat.

What have I said repeatedly about the initiation of force ? We want to ban it. You can't exist without it.

Wrong. Capitalism has separated the creation of wealth from the ownership right to wealth.

I recall socialism doing that, but as for capitalism...

<snip the marxist bunk>

Basic &#39;freedoms&#39; exist totally outside of the state, as a state can only take away freedoms to a greater or lesser degree. A &#39;free&#39; state may impinge on fewer freedoms, but still take some away. Where is my freedom of murder?

Freedom to act as you please providing you do not violate the rights of others. Murdering them violates their rights. Trading with them doesn&#39;t.

Law is a mutual agreement between people. If I don&#39;t kill you, you won&#39;t kill me. If I do kill you, someone will kill me back. But this agreement has become alienated from the people.

What the hell are you talking about ?

If the law will not protect me, the law must be done away with. If it is not in my interest to obey the law, then I will not obey the law. And the "right to labor" in reality a right of the capitalist to exploit the workers&#39; labor power is not in the interest of the vast majority of the population; 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth.

Right and wrong is not a social phenomenon and the flaw of "pie" economics is well documented already.

This sick version of "free trade" is no better than the freedom to murder.

Why is that ?

All because right to wealth is separate from the creation of the wealth.

The LTV is flawed, as I noted in my reply to Brooklyn.

You do not get from society what you put into it.

You won&#39;t be getting that under socialism either, just as you don&#39;t see us getting it today.

Education will be provided at dead cost

By whom ? At whose expense ?

the ambitious laborer sends his body and mind where society wants it.

At whose command ? His, or "society&#39;s" (or whatever claims to be representing society) ? Whatever happened to freedom ?

The profit motive will become obsolete;

Too true, as will the work motive and the production motive.

If you idolize the &#39;alpha male,&#39; we will throw you to the wolves.

You seem to be using "society" as a surrogate for it.

[Professor Moneybags]

Why is it that you are allowed to freely choose which historically capitalistic figures are &#39;real capitalists&#39; and which ones aren&#39;t, but we aren&#39;t allowed to declare which historically communistic figures are &#39;true communists&#39; and which ones aren&#39;t?

Lenin was a communist. He tried to put communism in to practice. Same with all the others we mention every now and again. No, these places did not result in any sort of paradise, because the means to communism communism themselves does not result in anything other than dictatorship.

Pinochet did not try to put free trade into practice. Nor did he put the NIF into practice. Those are the essential characteristics of capitalism. These were never put into practice (never mind "resulted in dictatorship"), nor did he have any intention of doing so. Therefore, he was not a capitalist. Same with the others.

When we bring up the fact the Mussolini, Hitler, and Pinoche claimed to represent capitalism,

None of them claimed to represent any such thing. Quote.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags@Posted on Jul 30 2004, 11:42 PM
Lenin was a communist. He tried to put communism in to practice.

What do you base that on? His decision to undermine and dismantle the Factory Committees? His decision to crush strikes? His decision to put everything under the control of "the party" which was the only allowed party and ruled by an unelected dictator? Lenin&#39;s intentions in Russia were clear from the beginning, he wanted to create a centrally-planned economy run completely by the state. Communists believe in a highly-organized society of the masses, that is not what Lenin had in mind.

[Shredder]

But the key is, everyone has access to the same means of wealth creation,

Wrong. You&#39;ve been caught in a contradiction. Production under capitalism presupposes capital. Capital is private by definition. Everybody possesses the means of labour power... but only the bourgeoisie possess capital&#33; Proletarians possess only their labor power and are forced to be employed by capital.

It would only be under communism that everyone has access to the same means of wealth creation. There, capital is replaced by the common ownership of the means of production. Only there will man have equal opportunity; each with his own labor, each with the same means of production.

That the law has become "alienated" from the people is a Marxist way of saying that what once was once a part of them has turned into something outside of them and turned against them. "Right" to ownership means I allow you to have something. It can have no other meaning on an empirical basis. But we see every day people claim "rights" to this or that as if the "right" were given to them by some alien force. You have probably done this by saying something like, "I have a right to be mad&#33;"

Let us put aside the accusations of "class envy" and the usual rhetoric that commies simply want to steal wealth because we&#39;re too inept to earn it. Hypothetically you can even assume that&#39;s true for this example. If we communist thieves were to make up the mass of society, and it was in our interest to "steal" your wealth, why shouldn&#39;t we steal it? Because you "earned" it? Because you have a "right" to it? But who gives you this "right"? God perhaps? Let him try to stop us, then.

That is how the law is alienated from the people. It is always just a mutual agreement to begin, but on the macro scale it transforms into the opposite with but a nudge. What once was the interests of all is now the advantage of a minority.

[Professor Moneybags]

Production under capitalism presupposes capital.

Nonsense. This has all been refuted before. Production creates wealth, not the other way round.

<snip the rest of the nonsense>

Let us put aside the accusations of "class envy" and the usual rhetoric that commies simply want to steal wealth because we&#39;re too inept to earn it.

Most of you are, but whatever.

Hypothetically you can even assume that&#39;s true for this example. If we communist thieves were to make up the mass of society, and it was in our interest to "steal" your wealth, why shouldn&#39;t we steal it? Because you "earned" it?

This is a call for mob-rule; the ideology behind gang-rape.

Because you have a "right" to it? But who gives you this "right"? God perhaps? Let him try to stop us, then.

Might/numbers-makes-right mob rule didn&#39;t impress me when Hitler put it into practice, it won&#39;t impress me when you do, either.

[The Sloth]

Well, who is to say what the metric for hard work is? I wouls say that while blue-collar work is in fact physically hard, it pays the way it does because that is what the market has deemed it is worth, based on the fact that aalmost any able-bodied person can do it. I&#39;m sure your mom works very hard, and her rewards go beyond money, but that is what the market pays for her service. She is free to try something ese if she desires more monetary compensation. I heard a statistic once that says over 50% of self-made milionaires have filed for bankruptcy. Its a hard road to the top.

First of all, how do my mother&#39;s rewards "go beyond money"? What are you trying to say, exactly?

Second, I understand that any "able-bodied" person can do it. However, if we&#39;re talking about construction, while the worker may not have been "trained" for it as opposed to an office secretary, remember that when he is out there, at that point the work becomes difficult, you begin to sweat, and the minutes go by very, very slowly. Not only that, the worker is just as important as the secretary...not everyone can be secretaries, as "the market" also deems the worker to be a valuable asset...that gets paid much less because he is not a master "manager of finances and capital."

The billionaire CEO, on the other hand, has skills that not everone posseses, as a matter of fact few people do. Mental cpability and leadership characteristics are much harder to come by than the ability to dig a ditch or attach bolts to widgets, thus the market will pay more for that. It is a self-proving concept. Often times people assume that CEO&#39;s don&#39;t work hard. Nothing could be fatrther from the truth. They often work 18 hour days under a lot of stress and a lot of responisbility, which, believe me, can be just as tiring and exhausting as a man swinging a hammer. White collar workers work just as hard as blue collar, it is just that the effort is coming from a different place.

No, I don&#39;t think so. The CEO is a "manager of finances," which does not benefit the people, while the blue-collar worker is doing work for the public but is somehow deemed "less important," when, in reality, both are working as hard as they can at their respective skills. You make it seem as if the CEO sharpened his skills to the point of being above the blue-collar worker...both are important to the function of society as a whole, but for some odd reason, one is "more important."

Well, we all know that life isn&#39;t really fair no matter where you live...

So it&#39;s our job to fix that.

...but at least here you do have some autonomy over your own destiny. As far as your "fair share", fair share of what?

Fair share of money; fair share of the opportunity to live life like anyone else, without the hassle of worrying about bills, college, and getting shot at when being caught in a drive-by.

No ideology comes with pre-rationed "shares" of anything.

Egalitarian wealth distribution?

Thats true, there is not pure parity in the dstribution of wealth or even opportunity, but there is a lot, and it is the best system in the world with regards to what you can do with individual determination, unequivocally, bar none.

There is "a lot" of "equal" distribution, but not enough. Especially when looking at the Third World, where there is not only "not enough," but "none"&#33;

And those factory workers and laborers can still make enough of a living to put them in the top 5% of world citizens.

You&#39;re very parochial in your thinking as you&#39;re only taking into consideration the United States and the rest of the Western world.

Let&#39;s pretend that all of a sudden, huge corporations and industries decide to pay everyone in the Third World a fair wage Now, when this happens, and the capitalist hopes not to lose much profit, then wages in America would decline.

And, it will be, "so much for equality."

Poverty everywhere.

Under capitalism, that is the outcome of having a desire to actually create equality between us and the slaves in the Third World.

We really have to distinguish between pure hard labor, and working smart, and taking risks, which are also large components of reward. The ditch-digger is guaranteed a wage if he works, the investor can actually go to work and lose money, so can the business owner. If they lose money in their construction business, the ditch digger working for them still gets paid, regardless.

If a CEO loses his business, he&#39;s not out in the street.

If a CEO starts with ten million dollars and ends up with fifty billion, you best believe that the blue-collar worker&#39;s wage isn&#39;t going up to those proportions.

risk/reward, get it?

Yes, the "master of capital management" takes a risk on decreasing wages in South America, and is rewarded for his "boldness" when there is a strike which is put down by armored police officers that crack some skulls with their batons.

There seems to be somewhat of a correlation between lack of financial success and leftism on this board. Lets not kid ourselves, not every talented rapper is going to get a &#036;5 million contract. if that was the case, we&#39;d all be in hip-hop. I&#39;m not sure, maybe because they didn&#39;t shave their goatees? They weren&#39;t ambitious enough? I honestly think that they are probably over-intellectualized liberals who don&#39;t actually apply themselves to the extent that they should. Maybe the "refuse to be slaves to the corporate machine".

They&#39;re not ambitious because they&#39;re leftists?

How would you know?

That would mean that out of the hundreds of the most active members, none of these "over-intellectuals" apply themselves. Think about what you&#39;re saying.

I just don&#39;t agree.. I think that anyone with cpacity, desire, and a little effort can find a decent job. I&#39;ve seen it happen too many times to deny it.

I had to laugh at this one.

Maybe you should talk to some of my friends from the projects, where the menial jobs have been leaving the inner city for a couple of decades now.

There are no jobs&#33;

Of course I know who they are, they&#39;re all mainstream. Maybe their music isn&#39;t politically relevant, but some of them have some cool joints for party purposes.

And joints for "party purposes" are really what sell records these days, because "the market" finds it "profitable" to capitalize on anti-intellectualism. No one cares about making the world "better," or reading a book and learning something. They want to party, pass classes with a 65 and fail as much as they can, get drunk, and be gangsters.

"The market" demands it&#33;

I think 50 is actually a pretty good lyricist.

You need to get out more

I could send you some songs from "real" artists and lyricists if you want. Because I used to think that 50 Cent was a "pretty good lyricist" up until I realized that half the kids that listen to him want to be like him (which isn&#39;t too good), and up until I actually heard music from Blackalicious, Mos Def, Talib Kweli and etcetera.

At the end of the day, pro musicians actually work very hard between touring, recording, and endless promotion. Have you ever seen brittany spears perform? I don&#39;t like her music, but she does a 2-3 hour show that requires near-olympic fitness. Not only that, but she rehearses for hours every day&#33;&#33;

I know a few artists, so I understand what you&#39;re saying.

At the same time, there are musicians that "love it" and those that "hate it." Those that "hate it" and are in it for the money should not be musicians in the first place.

While I&#39;m sure that the majority love their work, remember the difference between making music that is relevant and making music that sucks the masses into a state of anti-intellectualism.

I&#39;m sure if I were to get an artist that truly, truly loves his work, he wouldn&#39;t care about the money as long as he&#39;s guaranteed an excellent standard of living, quality food, education for his children, (such as under communism) etc.

[Professor Moneybags]

Maybe you should talk to some of my friends from the projects, where the menial jobs have been leaving the inner city for a couple of decades now.

There are no jobs&#33;

That&#39;s the biggest pile of horse crap I&#39;ve ever heard. I look in the newspaper and see the same jobs available every day, week in, week out. Nobody bothers to fill them because they&#39;d rather be on the dole.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags@Jul 31 2004, 05:32 PM

That&#39;s the biggest pile of horse crap I&#39;ve ever heard. I look in the newspaper and see the same jobs available every day, week in, week out. Nobody bothers to fill them because they&#39;d rather be on the dole.

So, you&#39;re saying that fifty percent of males in Harlem are unemployed because blacks are pathologically incompetent and lazy?

I know people that are fucking starving while wishing they had a stable job or any job at all...I know fucking homeless people from Harlem that found themselves in unfortunate cirucmstances one day and are now reduced to currently working on menial tasks from friends because they can&#39;t find some fucking "normal" employment.

So, I don&#39;t fucking know where you live, but how about going up to 125th street in Manhattan and telling some of those folks that there are jobs out there in their community and they&#39;ll laugh in your damn face you ignorant idiot. The fucking jobs starting moving out of these communities decades ago, and current non-white residents can&#39;t compete with the white business owners that live in rich communities but maintain their shops in the choked-off black neighborhoods. This may not be the situation in South Brooklyn, but it&#39;s the damn reality in South Bronx, Brownsville and East N.Y. for your fucking information. Unlike you, I should know because I visit these places and actually know these people.

I guess drug dealers peddle crack because it&#39;s fun, too, right? And folks just "choose" to starve, because they would rather not compromise their pride in being "lazy" for some food?

I have an idea...let me fucking go to Manhattan and tell my friend Dawn that he&#39;s fucking unemployed because he&#39;s a worthless piece of shit and is lazy, and just isn&#39;t "trying hard enough."

Dumb piece of shit. :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer@Jul 29 2004, 01:52 AM
Basic freedoms exist independent of the state or any state system. Capitalism is the truest expression of said freedom, as it allows people to exchange value for value freely and deal with one another without intervention from society or the state.

Naive utopian crap.

Now, you socialists and communists tend to believe that society can shape human nature, so a socialist government could eventually eliminate individualism from a society whether through force, education or gradual introduction of more socialist policies.

Capitalism is supremacism, not individualism.
And "human nature" (if such a thing exists, in the sense you claim it does) was ALWAYS SHAPED. Remember religion? "Laws that protect private property"??? If private property is "human nature", why does it need to be protected?

And how can you guys find this palatable? That&#39;s EXACTLY what Pol Pot was doing with his killing fields.

You won&#39;t find many Pol Pot wannabes here. You will, however, find many Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao wannabes, although not too many. And not everyone here is a dictator-wannabe, so don&#39;t assume that everyone here wants a "totalitarian state", "killing fields", or a "vanguard party".

In our system of free market capitalism, everyone has equal opportunity to improve their situation. In communism, everyone starts out and dies in an equal state of poverty.

Blah blah blah. Nevermind that black, poor, uneducated people will still steal you since they don&#39;t have many other options.

[New Tolerance]

There are more than a few parallels there.

List them.

[Xvall]

Lenin was a communist. He tried to put communism in to practice. Same with all the others we mention every now and again.

And Mussolini and Hitler were self-proclaimed capitalists. I&#39;m sure you can find pleanty of people here who don&#39;t agree with the ideologies of Lenin and Stalin. Even so, most of the deaths you attribute to the Soviet Union were due acts of tyranny. These acts of tyranny (Assuming that all of them are true) would have been done at the whim of whatever &#39;evil&#39; leader you are reffering to, and not because of the economic principles in which the nations that were established.

No, these places did not result in any sort of paradise, because the means to communism communism themselves does not result in anything other than dictatorship.

What about Moldova? They elected a communist president a while back, and I haven&#39;t heard any stories of dictatorship. Chile didn&#39;t establish a dictatorship until the elected socialist there was overthrown and replaced with a tyrant.

Pinochet did not try to put free trade into practice. Nor did he put the NIF into practice. Those are the essential characteristics of capitalism. These were never put into practice (never mind "resulted in dictatorship"), nor did he have any intention of doing so. Therefore, he was not a capitalist. Same with the others.

With that logic, I can claim that because Stalin never sought out the withering away of the state, and never abolished currency, he wasn&#39;t really a communist. Those are, after all, the essential characteristics of communism.

None of them claimed to represent any such thing. Quote.

Mussolini outright defended capitalism in many of his works, talking about the necessity of corporations. As for Hitler:

"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." - Adolph Hitler

[Professor Moneybags]

So, you&#39;re saying that fifty percent of males in Harlem are unemployed because blacks are pathologically incompetent and lazy?

Who said anything about blacks ? Why is it you try shoehorn racism into every argument ?

So, I don&#39;t fucking know where you live, but how about going up to 125th street in Manhattan and telling some of those folks that there are jobs out there in their community and they&#39;ll laugh in your damn face you ignorant idiot.

Yeah, right.

I know people that are fucking starving while wishing they had a stable job or any job at all...I know fucking homeless people from Harlem that found themselves in unfortunate cirucmstances one day and are now reduced to currently working on menial tasks from friends because they can&#39;t find some fucking "normal" employment.

What&#39;s wrong with menial tasks ? I used to do them when I was a student. Is manual labour "below you", is it ?

Unlike you, I should know because I visit these places and actually know these people.

Put the violin away. I know quite a few unemployed people too. I also know the reason they&#39;re unemployed and let&#39;s just say it&#39;s not though lack of skills or jobs.

And folks just "choose" to starve, because they would rather not compromise their pride in being "lazy" for some food?

Whatever happened to the welfare state ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Naive utopian crap.

Expecting the government not to interfere with voluntary transactions is utopian ?

Capitalism is supremacism, not individualism.

Enough with the sloganeering.

And "human nature" (if such a thing exists, in the sense you claim it does) was ALWAYS SHAPED. Remember religion? "Laws that protect private property"??? If private property is "human nature", why does it need to be protected?

The right to life is part of "human nature", but that needs protecting doesn&#39;t it ?

You won&#39;t find many Pol Pot wannabes here. You will, however, find many Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao wannabes, although not too many.

That&#39;s certainly open to debate.

And not everyone here is a dictator-wannabe, so don&#39;t assume that everyone here wants a "totalitarian state", "killing fields", or a "vanguard party".

When you demand positive rights and an end to private property, you are demanding a totalitarian state.

Blah blah blah. Nevermind that black, poor, uneducated people will still steal you since they don&#39;t have many other options.

No other options . That&#39;s what they all say...

[Professor Moneybags]

Even so, most of the deaths you attribute to the Soviet Union were due acts of tyranny. These acts of tyranny (Assuming that all of them are true) would have been done at the whim of whatever &#39;evil&#39; leader you are reffering to, and not because of the economic principles in which the nations that were established.

Communism requires tyrrany. It cannot enforce positive rights and a command economy without it because these things requite the initiation of force in order to work.

With that logic, I can claim that because Stalin never sought out the withering away of the state, and never abolished currency, he wasn&#39;t really a communist.

Abolishing currency would have made economic calculation impossible an annihilated the economy and withering away the state would have made the command economy impossible to enforce.

Mussolini outright defended capitalism in many of his works, talking about the necessity of corporations.

Corporations are not inherently capitalist. Not when they are run by the state.

"We stand for the maintenance of private property...

Such as the Jews&#39; ?

We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." - Adolph Hitler

And did he do it ? Did he hell.

Not to mention that it is contradicted by :

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious citizen the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

Yes, he&#39;s calling for a mixed economy. (Does this answer your question too, New Tolerence ?)

[The Sloth]

Who said anything about blacks ? Why is it you try shoehorn racism into every argument ?

Because Harlem is an all-black community&#33; Did you want me to bring up the 1% white people that live there, too?

Therefore, fifty percent of blacks are unemployed. The statistics are similar to other black communities such as Bedstuy, Brownsville, and Crown Heights.

Why is this?

Yeah, right.

Is this the best you can do?

You&#39;re quite the humorous fucking character, ain&#39;t ya? If I didn&#39;t know these individuals, it would be one thing...but hey, I&#39;m in these "ghettos" all the time, know the people, see the conditions, etc. So when I say that they&#39;ll laugh in your face if you tell them there are plenty of jobs in their communities, it&#39;s true.

But don&#39;t take my word for it. Next time you go to New York City for whatever reason, how about dropping by in the heart of the world&#39;s most famous ghetto? You could even do a "survey" on employment if you&#39;d like&#33;

What&#39;s wrong with menial tasks ? I used to do them when I was a student. Is manual labour "below you", is it ?

Ha, nice attempt at making me look like an "arrogant commie," but it failed.

Notice that I said menial tasks "from friends," meaning, it&#39;s not an "actual" and "stable" form of employment because it really depends on the kindness of the friends that you have.

Second, when you are a writer, a musician, an intellectual, etc. such as some of these individuals that I mentioned, it&#39;s quite sad when they can do nothing but menial tasks for the rest of your life.

Put the violin away. I know quite a few unemployed people too. I also know the reason they&#39;re unemployed and let&#39;s just say it&#39;s not though lack of skills or jobs.

How nice.

But Harlem is still dying to take your survey.

I could care less about the people that you know that don&#39;t have a job because they&#39;re "lazy," because I have those types of friends too. However, you&#39;re basically denying everything I&#39;m saying in an attempt to dismiss me as a "liar" to save some face for your capitalist system. Not working.

Whatever happened to the welfare state ?

Didn&#39;t you know that welfare is only a minor socialist reform to keep the communists at bay?

By the way, one person in particular I can think of off the top of my head is homeless. I don&#39;t know how he&#39;ll qualify for welfare.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags@Aug 1 2004, 09:25 AM
Corporations are not inherently capitalist. Not when they are run by the state.

So Mussolini was a socialist, then?

Alright, alright...

You must understand that "the fascist state is not an owner of enterprises, but only an intermediary between their owners."

According to the fascist Italian newspaper, Popolo d&#39;Italia, "The corporative state directs and integrates the economy, but does not run it, which, given a monopoly of production, would be nothing but collectivism."

- June 11, 1936

"The corporative state is nothing but the sales clerk of monopoly capital...Mussolini takes upon the state the whole risk of the enterprises, leaving to the industrialists the profits of exploitation."

- Feroci

"If I desired to establish in Italy - which really has not happened - state socialism, I would possess today all the necessary and sufficient objective conditions."

- Mussolini

The latter part of the last statement, of course, is inccorect; Mussolini depended too much on the private owners of industry and capital to actually establish "state socialism." He would have never received their support.

Think of a fascist state as a capitalist state with some government intervention, where private property is protected to a much greater extent: stricter laws and crueler police officers.

[Professor Moneybags]

However, you&#39;re basically denying everything I&#39;m saying in an attempt to dismiss me as a "liar" to save some face for your capitalist system. Not working.

I&#39;ll point out for the millionth time that we live in a mixed system that I find undesirable, too.

Didn&#39;t you know that welfare is only a minor socialist reform to keep the communists at bay?

Don&#39;t start that again.