My Rant on Capitalism and Communism

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Drake Dracoli@Aug 4 2004, 04:20 AM

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



With that logic, isn'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?

Your means of survival is your brain, not your boss.

Although in your case...

[Professor Moneybags]

HA! Ya right. I mean after all, isn't it 'human nature'? Isn't that what you cappies are always saying?

It's not human nature to become a fascist dictator.

If there were no state, it would be a 0% chance, wouldn't it?

Don't be daft. An elected mob is a "state".

What if you sell yourself into slavery?

You can't. Someone has to force you- by definition.

<snip the other tripe I can&#39;t be bother to go over again>

[The Sloth]

It&#39;s not human nature to become a fascist dictator.

Because human nature does not exist.

But, of course, the way people act these days is reinforced by their environments, and you have plenty of authoritarian individuals that seek to be "fascist dictators."

You&#39;re proof enough that there are people who will be too stupid to know how to act; you haven&#39;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.

*Sigh*

Arguing with you, especially correcting you, is like training a disobedient dog.

Rational human behavior is not competition and cut-throat economics, as only those such as yourself that hope to pervert behavior would encourage such barbaric systems.

I don’t understand how someone could be so fucking stupid as to actually say, “…the state is not initiating force.” You have very little understanding of “the state” other than the pre-conceived notions you have that were picked up every now and then from little textbooks, movies, etc. The typical idiot’s mentality: “We need the state, look at what we’d be doing to each other&#33;” I gave you a simple fucking request, and that was to outline in detail what the state is, and when it becomes necessary (because, as we all know [err, actually, all of us minus yourself] ‘the state’ has not always existed). Failing that simple task, you resort to dancing and prancing around in a mix-up of “logic” such as applying “self-defense” to mean “not an initiation of force,” when the question naturally arises: just WHY does “the state” find itself in a position where it “needs to” protect the people FROM the people?

According to you, it’s because the people like to kill, steal, and snort cocaine for the fun of it. According to you, Harlem has a 50% unemployment rate because blacks are inherently lazy. According to you, every sociologist’s idea that the environment shapes the people cannot be accepted because it actually puts some responsibility on “the state” instead of putting it all on “the people.” You’re a joke&#33;

I already showed you that the police force came to be out of the factory owners’ desire for protection of the sustenance-level wages, 13-hour work days, to break up strikes, etc. You declare, “so what?” as if you are REFUSING common sense. Obviously, “the state” didn’t give a fuck about protecting “the people” from “the people,” did it? There are REASONS for murder, rape, robbery, etc. If “the state” was doing its job, and not transforming one form of distress for another, then there would be no need for a police force, etc. and therefore no need for the state. The state arises for the purpose of protecting the people because the people are put in a position where they are given the incentive to kill and to steal.

There is no anything "class".

Oh, so now there are no classes in society. Keep these strokes of brilliance up and I won’t find it necessary to return to Opposing Ideologies because there’s absolutely nothing I can say as a retort to such idiocy.

A social class would be indifferent from an enforced caste system and the rulers of it would still be kings and lords.

Which is what I have been insinuating all along – capitalist society has a reinforced caste system where only a few change their positions. Thank you for articulating that for me. I’m surprised you haven’t been accepted to Commie Club yet, considering the fact that your opinion on such a pivotal point is so similar to mine.

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

If business owners find it necessary, they can come together and decide on certain issues. If there was no state regulation, they could easily push the work day to ten hours, expand their business, increase prices, etc. with little competition. Robert Owen was offering a ten-hour work day, I believe, during the 1800’s, for powerful pay, rest breaks, free education, adequate food and housing, etc. He didn’t make the other factory owners “lose business” though.

Keep repeating the mantras...

Keep repeating your mantras.

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

*Sigh*

You can’t “demand” anything…capital in Italy was not “capital in Italy.” Huge banks are dependent on one another, with lesser banks being subordinate to them. Businessmen and business owners work internationally, too. If Mussolini would “take over” the industries, he would lose support from this “chain of command” and be choked off economically.

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.

Property rights are more meaningful to a rich person because he has the most to lose. A poor person wouldn’t mind living in a communist society. Bill Gates would.

[Professor Moneybags]

Because human nature does not exist.

Water has a nature. Stones have a nature. Birds have a nature. Humans have a nature too.

Arguing with you, especially correcting you, is like training a disobedient dog.

Do you see yourself as a "master" and me as "servant" who needs to "obey" your "commands" ? Interesting...

Rational human behavior is not competition and cut-throat economics,

"Cut throat" ? Is that the one where we all kill each other over money ? Very creative. I don&#39;t know who has advocated that, but it&#39;s certainly not me. Looks like a bit of package dealing to me.

as only those such as yourself that hope to pervert behavior would encourage such barbaric systems.

What are you blathering on about this time ? Which part of the NIF do you not understand ? There&#39;s nothing barbaric about respecting other&#39;s right to live their own lives as they see fit, or course provided they do not use agressive force against others.

I don’t understand how someone could be so fucking stupid as to actually say, “…the state is not initiating force.” You have very little understanding of “the state” other than the pre-conceived notions you have that were picked up every now and then from little textbooks, movies, etc.

Speak for yourself. In what context do you speak of ? Do you think that the mere *existence* of a state is an act of force against you ?

The typical idiot’s mentality: “We need the state, look at what we’d be doing to each other&#33;”

What you are planning to do to people is bad enough. Perhaps you don&#39;t realise that you are actually advocating grand theft (which is an initiation of force). If you can rationalise that, you can rationalize pretty much any act of agressive force.

Thank heavens the state is there to protect me from such brutal thugs.

I gave you a simple fucking request, and that was to outline in detail what the state is, and when it becomes necessary (because, as we all know [err, actually, all of us minus yourself] ‘the state’ has not always existed).

What do you mean by the state ?

Failing that simple task, you resort to dancing and prancing around in a mix-up of “logic” such as applying “self-defense” to mean “not an initiation of force,” when the question naturally arises: just WHY does “the state” find itself in a position where it “needs to” protect the people FROM the people?

Because of people like you. Of course, you can&#39;t see that because you&#39;re a collectivist. You see humanity as one great mass instead of individuals. There exist individuals in any society who attack other individuals (whom we call criminals). Some individuals cannot protect themselves from these people, so a state is needed to protect them. I can see why you oppose it; such a system would sanction retalliation against you if you ever tried to attack/steal from anyone, which is what you are planning to do.

According to you, it’s because the people like to kill, steal, and snort cocaine for the fun of it.

Or because someone never taught them to respect other&#39;s rights, or that rights only serve the "rich" ? (I wonder who...?)

According to you, Harlem has a 50% unemployment rate because blacks are inherently lazy.

When I did I say that ? That is a blatant lie.

According to you, every sociologist’s idea that the environment shapes the people cannot be accepted because it actually puts some responsibility on “the state” instead of putting it all on “the people.” You’re a joke&#33;

These people&#39;s problems are their own, not "the peoples". If you are a drug addict, it is your problem, not mine. How about some individual responsibility ?

There are REASONS for murder, rape, robbery, etc.

Really ? Do tell.

What is the reason for rape, then ? Economic inequality ? Not enough jobs, perhaps ? What about arson ? Low wages ?

If “the state” was doing its job, and not transforming one form of distress for another, then there would be no need for a police force, etc. and therefore no need for the state. The state arises for the purpose of protecting the people because the people are put in a position where they are given the incentive to kill and to steal.

I think you&#39;ll find that people just do it because they&#39;re scum.

Oh, so now there are no classes in society. Keep these strokes of brilliance up and I won’t find it necessary to return to Opposing Ideologies because there’s absolutely nothing I can say as a retort to such idiocy.

You have no evidence to support it, that&#39;s why. What are the definitions of "class" and what are the criterion for belong to these different "classes" ?

If business owners find it necessary, they can come together and decide on certain issues. If there was no state regulation, they could easily push the work day to ten hours, expand their business, increase prices, etc. with little competition.

From whom ? It&#39;s so cute the way you think they can just "do" these things without any strikes or consumer backlash.

You can’t “demand” anything…capital in Italy was not “capital in Italy.” Huge banks are dependent on one another, with lesser banks being subordinate to them. Businessmen and business owners work internationally, too. If Mussolini would “take over” the industries, he would lose support from this “chain of command” and be choked off economically.

Of course, "business owners" themselves are not intrinsically capitalist. Some can and do support socialism and interventionism to suit themselves- especially in Germany, when given the choice between the communist&#39;s "Up against the wall with you." and Hitler&#39;s "Do as I tell you or die.", they quite willingly supported the latter.

Property rights are more meaningful to a rich person because he has the most to lose. A poor person wouldn’t mind living in a communist society. Bill Gates would.

I don&#39;t think either a poor person or Bill Gates would fancy the idea of slavery.

[Osman Ghazi]

Osman Ghazi... were you stoned?

Actually, yes. And it was 3:00 in the morning. Sorry about that.

[Osman Ghazi]

It&#39;s not human nature to become a t dictator.

Probably true, but with that sentence, you revealed the weakness of the &#39;human nature&#39; argument. That is to say, yes, humans tend to do certain things, but really, they can do whatever the they they want whether its &#39;human nature&#39; or not.

Don&#39;t be daft. An elected mob is a "state".

I&#39;ve never promoted electing anyone. I mean, anyone who could win an election is not someone I want to be running anything. Demarchic organisation seems both the most realistic type for communism and, ultimately, the best.

You can&#39;t. Someone has to force you- by definition.

Okay. Hypothetical situation here. My son needs say, a &#036;40,000 operation that I will never be able to afford. In order to save my sons life, I go to a rich business man and say, "I&#39;ll be your slave for a year if you pay me &#036;40,000 for my son&#39;s operation and give me room and board." That is slavery without force, and since LF-Capitalism relies on property rights, the pillar of which is self-ownership, there isn&#39;t a goddamn thing anyone could do about it.

I don&#39;t think either a poor person or Bill Gates would fancy the idea of slavery.

Actually, even socialism was an improvement for most poor people, so I don&#39;t think that&#39;s true.

What exactly is it that makes it slavery?

[Lardlad95]

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.

Ok Locke, care to state what these freedoms are. How you determined that these are natural freedoms, and why these freedoms take precedence over any other "non-natural" freedoms that exist.

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

Thats your opinion of the situation. I seek to eradicate the ability of one man to hold econmic, political, or social dominance over another man. I have no need, nor do I want to eradicate individuality. In the sense in which we use the two terms individuality and individualism are not the same term.

Communism comes after socialism? So we have to go through killing fields and starvation genocide in order to get to that ideal that Che Guerva and other like minds here advocate? No thanks&#33;

Please do not tell me that you honestly believe that anyone here advocates what those despots did. None of the founders of socialist thought ever said that socialism was supposed to be a repressive authratative society.

Here&#39;s an idea, read a book, you may learn something instead of just assuming that because they claimed to be socialist that they actualley were.

If I say that i&#39;m a duck that doesn&#39;t make it true, and if a despot says he&#39;s a socialist that doesn&#39;t make it true either.

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.

Equal oppurtunity? If you start off at a different economic levels how is it an equal oppurtunity. If I start off dirt poor, in a piss poor neighborhood, my mother is a crack head and my school hasn&#39;t had new books in 20 years. And you start off in a middle class neigherborhood. how in the hell is that an equal oppurtunity?

Oh and by the way, I got a &#036;13,000 raise over the past year. I began doing a different job, I was good at it, I approached my boss for a raise, and I received it based on the work I did. Isn&#39;t that nice how that worked out?

Oh thats wonderful because everyone who works hard gets what rightfully theirs i a capitalist system.

[Xvall]

Human nature is survival. Human nature has nothing to do with capitalism.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags@Aug 1 2004, 09:07 AM
Expecting the government not to interfere with voluntary transactions is utopian ?

Trade seems "voluntary" but the one who sells has more advantages and is just taking profits just because some irrational thing called "right" allows him to.

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

Let&#39;s see:
1. if human nature is capitalism, and the "right to life" (rights don&#39;t exist, they are an invention) needs to be protected, then it means that part of human nature would be to go against that "human nature"
2. According to "Capitalist Lawyer", "socialists and communists tend to believe that society can shape human nature", however he recognizes that, for some reason, protecting "individual rights" through the state is acceptable and it&#39;s not "shaping human nature" and "trying" to "eliminate individualism"(?) as leftists "want" is against "human nature". That makes no sense.

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

Prove me that the opposite of "private property" is a "totalitarian state".

You can&#39;t&#33;

And by the way, nothing would be more totalitarian than privately-owned streets, privately-owned air, privately-owned governments, etc.

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

Yeah, stealing or doing "illegal" stuff...of course the government coerces them not to do so&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

Trade seems "voluntary" but the one who sells has more advantages and is just taking profits just because some irrational thing called "right" allows him to.

Why does he have more advantages ?

Let&#39;s see:
1. if human nature is capitalism, and the "right to life" (rights don&#39;t exist, they are an invention) needs to be protected, then it means that part of human nature would be to go against that "human nature"

So you oppose the "right to life", then ?

2. According to "Capitalist Lawyer", "socialists and communists tend to believe that society can shape human nature", however he recognizes that, for some reason, protecting "individual rights" through the state is acceptable and it&#39;s not "shaping human nature" and "trying" to "eliminate individualism"(?) as leftists "want" is against "human nature". That makes no sense.

Rights are not a social phenomenon, just as the validity of a particular moral code is not socially determined.

Prove me that the opposite of "private property" is a "totalitarian state".

Violation of property rights is a claim that your property, a result of your labour, is not yours, but belongs to the "state" or whatever is representing the state. That is totalitarian.

You can&#39;t&#33;

I just have.

And by the way, nothing would be more totalitarian than privately-owned streets, privately-owned air, privately-owned governments, etc.

Straw men. You can only claim as property what you have modified, or in some way added value to.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Karo de Perro@Aug 4 2004, 11:46 PM
If human nature is the basis for capitalism

I never said it was.

[Osman Ghazi]

Why does he have more advantages ?

Obviously the owner is in a position of dominance over the worker. If the owner doesn&#39;t hire this guy, he can hire the 3 or 4 other guys waiting in the lobby. The worker, on the other hand needs a job to survive, unlike the owner who doesn&#39;t really need that particular worker.