Capitalism 104

[Osborn F Enready]

Brien said:
And this is because the guy who buys his widget from the businessman is taken advantage of, correct? Let's say you smoke pot. You buy your pot from a delear. You get what you want, his pot, and your supplier gets what he wants, your money. You continue to do this for as long as you enjoy smoking pot. You are both getting what each other wants out of the trade. How is this "leading to the destruction of mankind"?

Let's even take the money out of it. You grow grapes and make excellent wine. You have a surplus of this wine. You like to smoke pot but can't grow the good stuff for the life of you. You trade your excellent Claret for some 1st grade sensimillia with a Panmanian friend. How does this "lead to the destruction of the human race"?

I know, everyone sits around smoking pot and drinking wine; which leads to the destruction of the human race. What a way to go man.

Exquisitely said, perfect analogy, and excuse me while I pick myself up the floor from laughing so hard at that last summation......

Priceless.....

[BobbyO]

On first glance, those definitions would seem rather accurate. However, on closer inspection, it is revealed that they are not.

For one thing, what is meant by "community"? Is this any arbitrary group of people? If so, then some forms of private, albeit group, ownership could be considered socialist. The limited liability company springs to mind.

Second, what is meant by "organized"? Again, if any arbitrary organization is used, combined with any arbitrary community (i.e., group of people), then all or nearly all private business enterprises could be considered socialist.

Let me propose alternative definitions:

Socialism - coercive control of the means of production.
Capitalism - non-coercive control of the means of production.

- Rob

The organised community being the local area of people.

I don't disaagree with your definitions. But it is a definitions which will get nobody anywhere fast. No socialist is going to accept the claim that theirs is coercive and capitalism is not. Any argument at that point becomes moot and stillborn.

[brien]

Exquisitely said, perfect analogy, and excuse me while I pick myself up the floor from laughing so hard at that last summation......

Priceless.....

Gee I wrote that??? Sorry, I was so busy with regard to all of that smoking and drinking resulting in the destruction of the human race, I forgot. Pardon me, it's almost time for happy hour.

[WindWip]

I'm saying that I personally do not use "capitalism" as a reference to governments. Therefore, if you wish to engage in a productive debate with me, you will accept my usage thereof.

If you understand that the word capitalism has other meaning as well. If you randomly decide that you will call a lemon, "sewioqui", no one is going to know what the hell you're asking for when you want a lemon.

If you really want to go down this route...

I use the commonly accepted definitions for words, it's not a 'route' I'm going down, it's a response to your request for definitions and how you define these words.

Language is a market phenomenon. It involves people mutually agreeing to corresponding certain sequences of sounds with certain mental images and concepts. There are no objectively right or wrong correspondences; thus, all correspondences (and all languages) are subjective/arbitrary. What matters is that the set of correspondences in question is logically self-consistent. See Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems.

- Rob

There are no 'right' or 'wrong' definitions, there are socially accepted definitions which we use so that we can actually communicate. If you do not use the commonly accepted definitions of words, then they become arbitrary, but then communication deteriorates between you and the society.

What matters is that the set of correspondences in question is logically self-consistent.

I'm pretty sure this part doesn't mean anything. I think you meant to use something other than 'self-consistent'.

[Century 25]

"Free trade" is a euphemism capitalists love to trot out.. proudly expounding on how wonderful our "democracy" is for us.. how "free" we are to make such profits & how wonderful they have made America... What dribble.. why.. I can practically see the dribble from their slobbering greed..

Oh.. by the by.. lets all wish the Virgina Company (LLC..??) a happy 400th b-day.. :rolleyes: Umm.. that's us.. our founder's.. :eek:

americas.org - Birth of a nation: Jamestown at 400

Browse this too: Manifest Destiny our "manifest destiny"..

[Autolykos]

If you understand that the word capitalism has other meaning as well.

Not for me.

If you randomly decide that you will call a lemon, "sewioqui", no one is going to know what the hell you're asking for when you want a lemon.

Thank you for proving my point.

I use the commonly accepted definitions for words, it's not a 'route' I'm going down, it's a response to your request for definitions and how you define these words.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that there are commonly accepted definitions for words like "capitalism".

There are no 'right' or 'wrong' definitions, there are socially accepted definitions which we use so that we can actually communicate. If you do not use the commonly accepted definitions of words, then they become arbitrary, but then communication deteriorates between you and the society.

Thank you again for helping to prove my point.

Let me further say that many words used today in political discourse do not have common or socially accepted definitions. I think that is the primary reason for the breakdown in actual political debate. People do not talk to each other, they talk past each other, because neither one quite understands what the other is talking about.

Finally, when it comes to debate, which is by definition logically rigorous, a set of definitions has a one-to-one correspondence with a set of words. That is, each word has a single definition used for the debate. Otherwise, one runs the risk of using one definition at one point in his arguments, and using another at a second point. Doing this is known as equivocation, and it's a logical fallacy.

I'm pretty sure this part doesn't mean anything. I think you meant to use something other than 'self-consistent'.

Did you read what I linked to?

- Rob

[grandpa]

Until you respond to my arguments in "Questioning the Right to Own Property", I will not respond to your arguments here.

- Rob

Of course you would do that.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

False cause and effect relationship.
If there are mainstream disinformation techniques, and horrific lies, the
peoples rights aren't being protected adequately by government.

So it's simply the governments fault if a company doesn't provide reliable information?
You seem to assume the profit motive has nothing to do with inaccuracy in public relations. Why?

This is the fault of government, and the people, and
the people can rectify this in a capitalist, self-governing,
free-market society.

If they can afford to fix it. I'm not saying people cannot coordinate their
consumption desires, but why can't workers coordinate their work? Why can't corporations put the dollar signs away for a moment and share resources freely?
That's not what they are designed to do.

And once again, your railing against what we have TODAY,
which is neither capitalism, or a free-market.
How about addressing the issues of the debate?

I am. You are trying to discuss a hypothetical system--I'm discussing the system as it exists and as it seems intended to exist. Somehow, this apparently means I'm engaging in ignorance. The "free market" is merely the concept of letting
prices be determined by supply and demand (which has never been the case--the seller, the banks and other regulatory forces determines the prices, not consumer demands). That alone isn't going to solve problems.

What you are doing, is like me pointing to soviet
russia and calling it socialism, when it was REALLY communism.
False analogy.

I've spelled it out for you already, but I'll do it again: The prevalence of economic institutions and the money and the legal protection of both is perfectly in line with capitalism. Capitalism is perfectly in line with state power, which is increasingly being privatized. Privatization is not surprise, private security forces and even armies can be utilized to protect profits. You might not like it, but it's the logical conclusion of using abstraction and legal codes to define private property and trade.
Such a state of affairs as we've seen is almost inevitable with these things paired.
Hence, I've spoken against money, private property and the state. They are clearly linked, no matter what some delusional, highly ideological people would have me believe.
The EVIDENCE is overwhelming. Look for yourself.

Gramps...... you couldn't be more wrong.

Whatever.

Capitalism and free-market trade have nothing to do with
living under anyones yoke but your own.
Is that why you fear it?

I wouldn't say it's only fear. I also simply hate it and would like it abolished. And capitalism does have us living under the yoke of landlords, banking institutions, bosses, and unnecesary general duress.

The only thing required in a free market is a
government to protect the RIGHTS of the people who interact
with that market, and that would entail much less government
then we have today, probably about 60% less.

Well, good luck with that.

No Gramps, what is convuluted logic is ignoring peoples natural
rights to property, defense, privacy, free-speech, free practice of
beliefs, free-expression, free choice of education, right to barter,
right to labor with equal "legal" respect to one another.

Again, I haven't spoken against a single one of these things.
In the existing society, people can live somewhere if they can afford it and if the state and other abstract entities allow them to. That's a general fact, though apparently people have a hard time seeing it. Second, I haven't argued against self-defense, which doesn't necessitate capitalism or the state. Capitalism also doesn't encourage privacy, seeing as to how people may end up in asituation where landlords--who are legally-backed social parasites--can come in and inspect the place you are living in, or evict you if you don't pay them rent (which never needed to eb paid in the first place). The system hardly leaves people alone. Virtually everyone has to buy into it and follow its demands or they'll be evicted from society or worse. Free speech is not encouraged in most workplaces, nor is education free. You have to pay for it, and in order to do that you must be under the yoke of economic institutions. And capitalist workplaces aren't intended to have equality of working relations, nor are they supposed to have equality of bargaining power.

As Anarchist Bob Black put it:
"The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament
totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites....
You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline
in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact,
as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about
the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each
other's control techniques. A worker is a par-time slave. The boss
says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He
tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his
control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the
clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few
exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you
spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every
employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' just as if a worker
is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you
for unemployment compensation. Without necessarily endorsing it for
them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in school
receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their
supposed immaturity. What does this say about their parents and teachers
who work?"

You are in blatant denial of nature, and have the nerve to allude to my logic being convuluted......

Haven't you realized yet that this "nature" point of yours is utterly pointless? It's a pretty simple tactic to justify whatever position one claims: "Disagree with me? Well, you're stupid because you are disagreeing with nature!"

Whatever.

Shake your fist at the sky gramps......see how much change you get. Maybe you can get mother nature or your god to change human natural behaviour, instinctual behaviour, and learned cultures. Then again, most likely, not.
Commence your rain dance.

Are you interested in addressing actual issues or simplistic diversions, including not just these boring attacks, but also your imaginary version of capitalism.

Hey Gramps, if you want to debate, deal with the topics. If you want to insult my intelligence, just use name calling as its much clearer and doesn't waste as much space.

I wasn't talking about you specifically. Is it possible to honestly debate you?

Here is what I actually said, which I encourage you to reply to:
"Look at so much of the modern world. It'd hardly even an exaggeration to say people are taught to believe money and production are the only important things in this universe.
That's why capitalism and statism are so interchangable. The institution and all its abstractions are placed above the human being."

I have been "dealing with the topics."

Do you think individual rights are being protected today?
If so, please explain the littany of laws which violate
the rights of individuals?
If not, OBVIOUSLY this isn't capitalism, and free trade, is
it, by definition?

I didn't say individual rights are well-proptected today (seriously, where do you get this stuff from?). It'd be nice if you would address things I've actually said.
I think institutional rights are being placed over individual rights, which can be expected when peopel place more faith in institutions than in human beings (which is clearly teh cas efor you as well, given your implications that going to the bank is simply a part of human nature).
Capitalism also encourages hierarchy, which is why it makes perfect sense there would be laws violating individual rights, whether we're talking about general access to resources or laws against free, unpaid speech on the airwaves. Economic institutions need some kind of protection in order for people to go to them. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to dominate resources. Some would disobey this "nature" of yours, as paying for everything is a pain in the ass.

It doesn't make sense at all. They share none of the same requirements.

Really? In capitalism there are no private, elitist burueaucracies determining how resources are used?

Subjective, inaccurate and rather ignorant of the facts.... no suprise.

So capitalist institutions aren't highly bureacratic, don't often engage in censorhip and aren't elitist and hierarchical in nature? What facts am I ignorant of?

[grandpa]

Ahh, so you are caught up with the class warfare issue? Is this what taints your reality interpretation?

It's interesting that you took this far out of context, though, yes, class warfare certainly exists.

Please show me an example before the US adopted protectionism, and nanny-statism?

How about the genocide of Native Americans? Chattel slavery and white indentured servants?

How about Debt Bondage? As Wikipedia remind sus:

"In Colonial America, some settlers used indentured service to obtain passage or an initial settlement, then continued working independently after completing their bonded labor.
The American South - Such a system was often used in the southern United States after the American Civil War where African-American and poor white farmers, known as sharecroppers, were often extended credit to purchase seed and supplies from the owner of the land they farmed and pay the owner in a share of the crop."

Again, what facts am I ignoring? What arguments haven't I defended?

Surely then, you can provide an example?

I've done so already. The very system grants us rights only if we can buy them and if we have permission from the state and banking institutions. We'll have to be dependent on them unless we want to be blacklistsed from society (literally in many parts of the world, seeing as to how homelessness has often been regarded as a type of crime throughout history).

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Lots of fancy talk, no facts to substantiate the claims made.... no suprise.

Really? Capitalist institutions do not try to dominate resources, even resources generally considered essential to human life (which may include housing, which most would consider not merely a luxury, especially in harsh weather)?
It's pretty incredible that anyone would just dismiss my points out of hand, especially when they are a fundamentally correct description of the system around us.

Show me in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where
there are lies?
Outside of the denial of slaves their rights, which WAS rectified by the choice of the people, and the denial of women to vote, which was ALSO rectified, please show me?

I don't recall mentioning the bill of rights, although a few documents are not necessary to guarantee anyone's rights for anything. The point I made was the rights of human beings to life and liberty are overwhelmingly found not in obeying authorities and abstract economic theory, but in actual human solidarity and activism that goes beyond an institution (I wonder how you will pervert this statement now).

Yea, sure Gramps. Under a system of mutual conscent, mutual advantage, where free-choice is used and force is punished, yea..... some yolk of tyranny. Put down the Stalin and Marx for a couple minutes to educate yourself on the facts.

I'm not a Marxist, but anything to distract from the issues. Not only that, but this doesn't even address the statement you were supposedly replying to. But yes, there are all kinds of illegitimate authorities out there--institutions that use legal threats to dominate people and resources (pick up a history book, for crying out loud, or maybe a newspaper). You could say that peons are merely engaging in mutual consent, but that could be said of any number of harsh social archetypes.

Show me how you get a media without money for labor, where all the reporters AREN'T independently wealthy or "taken care of"?

I didn't say reporters can't be well paid (although on needn't receive a paycheck at all to report news to others). I was saying that profits actually encourage certain views to not be expressed in the vast majority of publications and television media. Again, please stick to the issue.

[grandpa]

And without the hierarchy, what would you have?

Increased freedom, increased opportunities, more solidarity between human beings, a thriving intellectual culture. We could see more people dealing with direct solutions to issues rather than going through some ritual process to address them. There could be less intimidation and less general fear.
Those are a handful of the most likely consequences.

The hierarchy is there to use force against force initiators,
as an extension of the peoples rights.
How is this used against them if held true to that cause, which is the job of the people?

Hierarchy--at least as it's commonly understood--is not an extension of the general population's rights. It's a system of domination, of authority title. The job of the people could just as well be to eliminate hierarchy as much as possible and make society more participatory and more intellectual.

You do it everyday you intellectually dishonest twit. You work for profit to feed yourself. Do you feed others with all your money? If you did, you would starve. Is this not common sense? Talk about a SMACK of reality.

Dishonest twit? Again, I wonder if you're capable of having a decent debate over the issues. I never said I have not worked to feed myself, nor have I claimed I'm capable of using my money to feed many others.

YOU PLACE PROFITS ABOVE PEOPLE EVERYDAY OF YOUR LIFE, its called survival of the fittest, and you exercise it everyday by watching out for you and yours before others.

This is nonsense. I do not place profits before people. I try to work the bare minimum necessary for my survival. I give money to homeless people, I do not have a "survival of the fittest attitude." I show solidarity with the exploited class.

It's interesting that you use the weaknesses of the system to make me look bad. Like I'm a hypocrite because I cannot eat principles and I live in a society in which I basically must make money to survive. I do not like money. I'll say it again. Nor do I like going to the bank, but because financial institutions dominate the food supply I basically have to go the them to live. It's as simple as that.

Would you let your mother die if you had the money to save her, or would you use that money to go down and feed people at the homeless shelter?

Although I hate unlikely, bogus scenarios, yours reveals something terrible about the system. The system assures that our ability to make good choices will be limited. If we play by the rules, we can only do good if we can afford it. Also, I am speaking against a system that deliberately creates homeless people.

Mythical?!? Its the basic philosophy, and it HAS been proven, and succeeded, which allowed the people to become complacent in protecting from overzealous lawmakers and the super-rich.

Then you support the system as it is? Make up your mind.

YOU want to remove a system that ALLOWS super-rich to exist by making other people money, instead of addressing the problems. You want to reduce man to hunter-gatherers again, which is exactly what you do once you remove the rights to property since man has no incentive to build, unless he has the force of defense required to protect it against all comers.

The system does more than "allow" things to happen. It compels them to, and you know it as well as I do. That's what laws are for--to protect the system of money, private property, etc. and to have people subordinate to abstract, so-called private entities.

As for claims that people have no incentive to build anything, that is truly bizarre.
There are all kinds of incentives to do all kinds of things--the arts and sciences, literature, writing, medical care, etc.
I can't imagine all of these aspirations would ever completely disappear.

Also absurd is the idea that anyone who builds anything is under the constant risk of attack (seriously, are all capitalists this paranoid of the very type of culture they advocate?).

Whose fault is it that your reading and comprehension fails you? Whose fault is it that you are jaded by your views which deny anything contrary to them? Whose fault is it you don't understand the meaning of voluntary conscent?

More diversions. I understand perfectly well the meaning of voluntary consent, which means decisions made not under duress. This does not very well describe the system we live under, which has legally protected debt servitude, the threat of eviction, systematic deprivation of resources, etc. etc.
If we want to maximize voluntary consent we make things free and more open to participation. We get rid of restrictions and threats to our well-being.

Have you ever traded somebody for something? That is mutual conscent. Did you notify the state? Did you have to jump through hoops? Were you forced NOT to trade?

Of course I've traded things. I've had people buy my artwork from art galleries (again, I need money to eat). But I've also traded under more purely independent circumstances.

What is a sick joke, is your skewed perception of what is capitalism and free-trade, because you can't identify what in the CURRENT SYSTEM doesn't measure up to what is in the system of CAPITALIST and FREE-TRADE PHILOSOPHY.

I'm sorry for preferring discussions of reality over your poorly explained philosophy, which has been defended by arbitrary personal attacks and bizarre arguments (such as that people have no incentive to build anything or that we'll all simply revert to "hunting and gathering" if we no longer chased after cash--as if people cannot organize industries in a very different fashion).

Educate yourself, you have the power.

Another personal attack.

Yea... and life doesn't necessarily entail living.........pffft.

No, democracy is also commonly defined as "The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community." Voting may or may not be attributed to it.

Well, you have just explained a worker-owned, worker operated corporation................they exist now.........and capitalism allows it, encourages it, and in no way tries to discourage it. Why isn't your idea dominating the world? Why fight capitalism and free-trade which not only MAKE THIS POSSIBLE, but also make it LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE and beneficial to both the people who make it up, and the people who use it?

Actually, if cooperatives has to pay property taxes and rent, they have a systematic slant against them. My point is getting rid of systematic barriers that exist, not that anarchic tendencies are totally lacking in the world today. A further step--one that open, egalitarian, non-hierarchical organizations are capable of taking--is the elimination of liquid currency as a means of determining trade. But even if that step is not taken, cooperatives are still better than highly hierarchical corporations. Why aren't they dominating the world? Well, their point is not to dominate and compete. However, they are pretty successful in many parts of the world.

Yea, and the sky is purple and pigs fly. Blame yourself, you have an ability to change things. You are a citizen, are you not?

Being just one person, I have a very limited ability to change the world around me. And it should not just be up to me.

So you are anti-privacy?

When it comes to important decisions that can affect a lot of people, yes, workers and consumers indeed should know what is going on. That's a pretty common sense principle, but it's often denied because it undermines the very nature of corporate power.

Grandpa h.

[WindWip]

Not for me.

If you don't want to use it yourself that is one thing, but people commonly use capitalism in reference to a government. For example dictionary.com defines capitalism as:

An economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption.

Obviously people use that definition. I don't care what definition you use in your writing, but there ARE more definitions to the word. Look how silly your claim is when you switch out the word capitalism:

"If you ever want to use the word 'car' with me, it can only refer to a train-car, because that's the only thing it means"

Thank you for proving my point.

I don't know what point you were talking about - it doesn't look like you have a point that would be proved by that, in any case though you are the one who is not accepting definitions of words, not me.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that there are commonly accepted definitions for words like "capitalism".

Of course there are. How else would the word exist if people did not agree on what the word meant. Look in a dictionary, those are all acceptable definitions. This is getting ridiculous.

Let me further say that many words used today in political discourse do not have common or socially accepted definitions.

Yes, they do. This is getting pointless though. You seem to only care about definitions and not the point at hand. Next response you'll probably claim that it is impossible to accurately define 'society' or 'cat'.

Finally, when it comes to debate, which is by definition logically rigorous, a set of definitions has a one-to-one correspondence with a set of words. That is, each word has a single definition used for the debate.

Again, no they don't. Words have multiple definitions. The definition intended is implied by the context of the situation.

And also, a debate is neither logical nor rigorous by definition. Look in a dictionary.

Otherwise, one runs the risk of using one definition at one point in his arguments, and using another at a second point.

Do you understand the following sentence?

I followed the river bank up to the bank to withdraw my savings.

AMAZING, I used the same word twice with different definitions in the same sentence and you (hopefully) understood it.


You are not arguing anything except definitions. You claim that you can only use one definition of a word or people will get confused. Everyone else here seems to be able to differentiate when we use a different definition of the same word, and I think you probably can too but you just want to be difficult. You also said that words do not have commonly acceptable definitions. You are wrong. We have dictionaries which show all the commonly acceptable definitions.