Capitalism 104

[Osborn F Enready]

Well, thanks for the funny papers.... it was a good laugh.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Well, thanks for the funny papers.... it was a good laugh.

Your sense of humor underwhelms me..

[WindWip]

Quote by: Century 25 Wind.. Capitalism, in order to be a healthy, viable system has to sustain constant growth. A young, growing population is counted as a plus. A capitalist economy that does not grow is in a "depression." And yet, the earth has finite resources, and a finite carrying capacity. Capitalism is.. always has been.. a pyramid scheme. Why don't you show us a long lived and successful example of capitalism..??

I'm done. You didn't respond to a single statement I made or question I asked. I asked you what prevents capitalism from growing, you dodged the question. I asked for what you meant by Earth being a finite quantity and you ignored it. I asked you what lack of resources would prevent capitalism from growing and you failed to answer. You skimmed my post and reiterated what you already wrote. If you don't listen to what other people have to say then it isn't a debate, it's you talking to yourself.

[Osborn F Enready]

It is usually pointless to argue against anti-capitalists windwip, and I have over 10,000 posts on this site to prove the point.

Gramps and I have been going round and round since he came here, and much as Century25, he refuses to lay aside the "criticism" of capitalism to address the actual remedy to such problems, or propose their own logical solutions for what "they envision".

Thanks for keeping the faith though.....

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
-Dresden James

“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
-George Orwell

“In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
-George Orwell

[WindWip]

I've noticed that. I was following your debates with gramps a bit too. I don't mind if the argument doesn't resolve itself since I enjoy debating, but I do like the other person to actually read and respond to the points in your posts. It seems that you and gramps have been doing at least that much.

“In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell

One of my favorite quotes there.

[Century 25]

Quote by: WindWip I'm done. You didn't respond to a single statement I made or question I asked. I asked you what prevents capitalism from growing, you dodged the question. I asked for what you meant by Earth being a finite quantity and you ignored it. I asked you what lack of resources would prevent capitalism from growing and you failed to answer. You skimmed my post and reiterated what you already wrote. If you don't listen to what other people have to say then it isn't a debate, it's you talking to yourself.

I asked you what prevents capitalism from growing,

That's the problem, Wind. Capitalism is like a cancer.. it devours healthy tissue, and produces malignant "growth" - yeah.. capitalism is all about "growth" and who gains from all the "growth"..?? Why.. it is the biggest eater at the tip of: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ist_System.gif ...That too is from your fav source ~ lol.. wikipedia..

I asked for what you meant by Earth being a finite quantity

Hmm.. that seems obvious enough. Do you propose to tell me we have unlimited resources to.. exploit..??

Here is your answer to refute the pyramid scheme/scam:

A pyramid scam is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered. Capitalism and other market systems deliver products and services in exchange for money. The two are very different.

Ok.. let me take a huge example.. especially since I notice you are involved in real estate.. and for all of us, a dwelling is our greatest expense.. this is from a site: http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/antic/

Architecture and Morality

Our houses and apartments are built as compromises for profit, not for perfection or quality. They stand as pale imitations of what they could be. We spend our lives living in plasterboard boxes made of cheap materials fashioned to look like little suburban mansions. Their cheapness of construction is covered up with every manner of superficial adornment -- wallpaper, paint, face brick, plaster stucco, hollow cornices, fake ionic columns, fake fireplaces, cheap noisy ventilation systems or uncomfortable, inefficient, heating systems.

We build these live-in lies in the name of profit. Those on the low end have the worst of it. Small, noisy, apartments and houses in neighborhoods made unsafe by the prevailing social misery. Roaches, drafts, flimsy appurtenances and furnishings that fall apart before the interest is paid all stand in mockery of a failed ideal for living. With each new storm or tornado these cheap excuses for human habitation fly apart or collapse, leaving families displaced or dead. Houses built in a day from low-cost non-renewable wood products are made for first sales only, ignoring the long-term benefits of building houses that last, that are fireproof, tornado proof, and beautiful by virtue of stone, steel, structure, and spaciousness instead of cheap superficial adornment. The shallow, deteriorating quality of our residential architecture seems to reflect the direction our profit-based society is headed -- to obsolescence.

If, instead of sacrificing the quality of human life for the profit fantasies of a few, we built a world of lasting quality in all things, wouldn't everyone end up rich? Buckminster Fuller once said that the world could have one billion billionaires, in terms of the quality of our lives, if we worked together. This is an achievable goal if we work for the good of everyone, instead of the good of the few.

All consumer goods are driven to converge on cheapness and imitation by the profit motive, as Karl Marx the mathematician astutely observed a century ago. Except for the occasional scientific advance that produces useful new materials, most products deteriorate in quality. The scientists who develop improvements, it should be noted, are almost always focused on achievement, not money. Many artists and musicians are likewise driven by the desire to achieve excellence much more so than money. As Theognis advised thousands of years ago, "Spend time on excellence, and love the right, and don't let shameful profit master you."

"Economists are merely apologists for the existing capitalist order."

..... Karl Marx

What is Anti-capitalism? To answer this begs the question - What is Capitalism? For all intents and purposes, capitalism is a system that allows an oligarchy (government by the few) or a plutocracy (government by the wealthy) to accumulate capital and thereby restrict the natural circulation of wealth through the economy. Invariably such a system allows for the diversion of wealth to non-productive purposes like decadent dissipation and conspicuous consumption or to counter-productive purposes like politics and war.

Enjoy..

[grandpa]

Quote by: WindWip A tenant would not be hurt if they didn't have to pay rent, the landlord would. Why is the landlord a 'social parasite'. They provide a necessary service. Most renters can't buy a place, so they rely on a landlord to rent a place to them.

They provide a necssary service? How? They accumulate a bunch of houses and use the law to get money out of people. That's a form of social parasitism. It's a protection racket. It even sounds like something the Mafia does.

The only service being provided is the threat of eviction, which for most people is a pretty serious (and unnecessary) threat.
Everything else "tenants" can do themselves.
People can live in a house without landlords, rent or property taxes. In fact, most would prefer it. But the law doesn't encourage sanity, so we have to be artificially placed under duress.

Quote by: WindWip Are you talking about a communist society?

I consider myself far more of an anarchist. I loathe authority.

Grandp h.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: grandpa I consider myself far more of an anarchist. I loathe authority.

Wade, how do you define "authority"? The reason I ask is because it seems to me that your definition of "authority" includes things that nearly everyone else views as peaceful, voluntary interactions. For example, buying and selling are typically not viewed as violent, yet (from what I gather) your definition of "authority" would stipulate the buyer and the seller having authority over one another. I think that we need to come to a common ground on what constitutes authority before the debate can go any further.

- Rob

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa They provide a necssary service? How? They accumulate a bunch of houses and use the law to get money out of people. That's a form of social parasitism. It's a protection racket. It even sounds like something the Mafia does. The only service being provided is the threat of eviction, which for most people is a pretty serious (and unnecessary) threat. Everything else "tenants" can do themselves. People can live in a house without landlords, rent or property taxes. In fact, most would prefer it. But the law doesn't encourage sanity, so we have to be artificially placed under duress. Grandp h.

Landlords maintain and keep the property up to some sort of standard, thereby removing the responsibility from the tenant. The tenant is free to direct his talents and efforts in other directions. Its a win-win for both parties.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos Wade, how do you define "authority"? The reason I ask is because it seems to me that your definition of "authority" includes things that nearly everyone else views as peaceful, voluntary interactions. For example, buying and selling are typically not viewed as violent, yet (from what I gather) your definition of "authority" would stipulate the buyer and the seller having authority over one another. I think that we need to come to a common ground on what constitutes authority before the debate can go any further.

1. Authorities are persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law.

In this discussion it must include landlords, banking institutions and private property in general--a setup entrenched in laws, and for understandable reasons. Without laws to protect them and without an indoctrinated population willing to go along, these features of human life would likely be greatly undermined, seeing as to how it's not necessary for people to be constantly subservient.

And, of course, authority can more broadly be defined thusly:

"Authority is a power or right, usually because of rank or office, to issue commands and to punish for violations: to have authority over subordinates. Control is either power or influence applied to the complete and successful direction or manipulation of persons or things: to be in control of a project. Influence is a personal and unofficial power derived from deference of others to one's character, ability, or station; it may be exerted unconsciously or may operate through persuasion."

As anyone knows, authority can be labeled public or private, but it can all be challenged--and should be, if we want to be intelligent observers.

Grandpa h.

[Autolykos]

Wade, for the purposes of debate, you must use only one of those definitions. To do otherwise is to engage in equivocation, a kind of logical fallacy.

- Rob

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO Landlords maintain and keep the property up to some sort of standard, thereby removing the responsibility from the tenant. The tenant is free to direct his talents and efforts in other directions. Its a win-win for both parties.

Many landlords do not do this. But the crucial point you seem to miss is that landlords aren't necessary to maintain and upkeep a building. The people living there can take care of these things as they see fit. The landlord is merely an entity of legally imposed rights, one of which is to to draw money out of people for no absolutely necessary reason (other than a lust for exploitation, though I'm sure not all landlords live without guilt).

In the grand sense, it is a lose-lose situation, I think. The landlord is a thief, and so is the tenant, for they are contributing to the build-up of a massive state program of theft of land that could otherwise be commonly held (the massive theft exists, whether we're talking about municipalities or the state in general). The landlord must also always be in the position to breathe down a tenants neck, to constantly threaten the tenant with eviction. In other words, to be cruel and sadistic. The tenant gets a house (or a small room) because land is not allowed to be available for free, and thus must agree with what is essentially a form of servitude.

And none of this is necessary---an ELEMENTARY point that I must emphasize again and again. People don't need to do this to live somewhere. The need for this state of affairs is a total fiction.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos Wade, for the purposes of debate, you must use only one of those definitions. To do otherwise is to engage in equivocation, a kind of logical fallacy. - Rob

It's not a logical fallacy to suggest we should challenge all forms of authority. Again, that's what intelligent people do.

Grandpa h.

[Autolykos]

Do I have to spell it out for you?

For the purposes of debate, either "authority" means

having the legal power to make and enforce the law

or it means

"a power or right, usually because of rank or office, to issue commands and to punish for violations: to have authority over subordinates. Control is either power or influence applied to the complete and successful direction or manipulation of persons or things: to be in control of a project. Influence is a personal and unofficial power derived from deference of others to one's character, ability, or station; it may be exerted unconsciously or may operate through persuasion."

It cannot mean both at the same time. That is called equivocation. It is a logical fallacy. Do you understand what that means?

I suspect that you do understand and are being deliberately obtuse. Please do not attempt to derail things any further.

- Rob

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos It cannot mean both at the same time. That is called equivocation. It is a logical fallacy. Do you understand what that means? I suspect that you do understand and are being deliberately obtuse. Please do not attempt to derail things any further. - Rob

Authority DOES mean both things at the same time. It's a general term and this fact is perfectly relevant to the discussion. To challenge capitalism is by no means separate from challenging a wide variety of authorities.

If you want proof, do me a favor and look up "Enclosure Acts," the "Poor Law" (not Queen Elizabeth's original, but the second one), the Combination Acts. Also, consider how the conditions of Ireland's Potato Famine were exacerbated by evictions, by home demolitions and by laissez-fare ideology which prevented any significant kind of aid.

These are examples of various authorities all feeding into each all; linking private property concepts with legal actions that intentionally devastated people.

I wasn't being "obtuse" when I suggested we should question authority in all its forms. I don't know how you can miss it, but all the definitions provided feed into each other. Even if we're talking about the "authority" of expertise, this knowhow can lead to the creation of elitism and authority titles (and often does). In other words, we shouldn't take any kind of authority at its word. That's not "obtuse."

Grandpa h.

[Autolykos]

I'm sorry, Wade, but it appears that you cannot comprehend the idea of logical debate. As a result, it seems pointless to try to debate with you about anything. So from now on, I just won't try.

- Rob

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa Many landlords do not do this. But the crucial point you seem to miss is that landlords aren't necessary to maintain and upkeep a building. The people living there can take care of these things as they see fit. The landlord is merely an entity of legally imposed rights, one of which is to to draw money out of people for no absolutely necessary reason (other than a lust for exploitation, though I'm sure not all landlords live without guilt). In the grand sense, it is a lose-lose situation, I think. The landlord is a thief, and so is the tenant, for they are contributing to the build-up of a massive state program of theft of land that could otherwise be commonly held (the massive theft exists, whether we're talking about municipalities or the state in general). The landlord must also always be in the position to breathe down a tenants neck, to constantly threaten the tenant with eviction. In other words, to be cruel and sadistic. The tenant gets a house (or a small room) because land is not allowed to be available for free, and thus must agree with what is essentially a form of servitude. And none of this is necessary---an ELEMENTARY point that I must emphasize again and again. People don't need to do this to live somewhere. The need for this state of affairs is a total fiction. Grandpa h.

Obviously land cannot be "free." And this is because it can be used for any number of things. So there will need to be mechanisms to determine the value, and thus best use, of land.

Yes, the tenants can maintain upkeep. But like I said, such activities takes time and effort and skills which tenants do not perhaps have, or perhaps would choose not to employ. It is certainly true that not all landlords keep up teir property to high standards. However, there are generally legal requirements that they do so and so tenants have options. By your own admission, tenants would uphold property only to the extent that they wish, which is no standard at all.

[Osborn F Enready]

Auto said: I'm sorry, Wade, but it appears that you cannot comprehend the idea of logical debate. As a result, it seems pointless to try to debate with you about anything. So from now on, I just won't try.

I have just reached the same conclusion about Gramps and a couple other anti-capitalists here.

Its almost like they are so mad at society and government, they deny that words have meanings, or that language has structure. Illogical, and not only not productive to debate, but PREVENTS debate.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos I'm sorry, Wade, but it appears that you cannot comprehend the idea of logical debate. As a result, it seems pointless to try to debate with you about anything. So from now on, I just won't try. - Rob

Interesting. You cannot comprehend the point of questioning authority in all its forms, yet you accuse me of not being logical? If you explain the logic you're applying here I'd be quite impressed. I think the main point is you're not interested in debate.

Grandpa h.

[Autolykos]

I've already explained the logic here, so I don't feel the need to repeat myself. It's not my fault if you cannot understand it.

You can have the last word here.

- Rob