Topic: Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes) - page 14. (Read 12620 times)

You lost me after LOL.
Warum ist Autarkie im Blut Gemeinde relevant Kapitalismus?

Still catching up on this thread, but didn't want to let this gem slip through:


So, what would you say if I told you that I am a real, actual count?

LOL. Not a single one. Hundreds of examples of religious, paternalistic, collectivist(-ic) interactions of dependent 'protection money payers'. Zero self-sufficiency and independence.
Self-sufficiency and independence (freedom) is there, where you produce for yourself (blood-community), but not for the hypercollective.

Nope.  You claimed you 'engaged' me because of my namecalling and meanness.  I expect you to prove it.  I will not suffer your slander.  If I called you anything harsh or unwarranted before you earned it, prove it and I will apologize.  Fail and you can expect whatever consequences of your slander that I can bring to bear.  And don't forget, you brought this upon yourself.


Hundreds, some better than others.  A dozen of them were listed in that other thread you abandoned because you couldn't spin an argument, most of which were there before you were even a member of this forum.  You choose to ignore them.  I'm not obligated to do anything, and I'm not here to entertain you by doing tricks.


Correct, "Racist Bastard" does not count, because you earned that title. 

umadbro?
I dont feel like rummaging through hundreds of posts, I'm on a smartphone.
Let's just say I made it up or am mistaken to save me the trouble of trying to prove it. Look it up if you want.
Ever come across that historical example of capitalism working?
(... and NOT obliterating tons of workers' potential in the name of 'freedom' or whatever...)
EDIT: "Racist bastard" doesn't count.

Quote me, now.

I'm sure that everyone here, including you, were aware that was a joke.

Says he who assumes that anyone who doesn't fit the An-Cap / Libertarian / Laissez Faire world view must be a government agent...



Anyway, to try and summarise this "my Capitalism versus your Capitalism" debate:
-An-Caps + Libertarians seem to be using the word 'Capitalism' to describe a set of Western values: free/voluntary trade, using money and/or barter. And it's seen as purely an economic system.
-ktttn seems to be saying "no, it's also a political system. Those 'Western values' re: money, contracts, property rights, freedom, etc, are not natural, they are enforced, even if that enforcement can be a bit sloppy and incomplete."


Though I don't agree with everything kttn says, it's a refreshing change from the:
-"property rights are totally natural"
-"I don't know how my mind got to inhabit this body, but I hereby claim ownership upon it (the body)"
-"property rights are derived from the axiom of 'self-ownership', which is derived from property rights "
-"freedom is a wondrous thing, let's relabel it 'security' and have friendly freedom companies 'security companies' sell/restrict it on the 'free' market"
-"competition is great, cooperation is great, but monopolies are evil...
-unless they're natural monopolies because sometimes economies of scale make cooperation more efficient than competition...
-unless they're governments because self-enforcement doesn't count as 'natural'"
-"and a majority exerting its will over a minority is coercive and evil...
-but a minority exerting its will over a majority is less evil because it's obviously more righteous...
-however, the coercive minority shouldn't be too small because then they become leaders in an authoritarian system of government like an oligarchy or dictatorship...
-therefore all governments are evil in principle,
-but without them there would be total anarchy and chaos, which is where the (haaallelujah!) Non-Aggression Principle comes in...
-Surely everyone agrees with The Golden Rule? Right? We'll just quietly slip in some Western values here like property rights, which implies concepts of theft, justice and all that other stuff we can't imagine living without (no thanks to our evil government that keeps oppressing us) NOTHING TO SEE HERE!! Hopefully no-one will notice"
-"Of course we wouldn't be so silly to presume we'd ever actually get this utopia, which kind of works in our favour. Conveniently, our idealism cannot be disputed with the help of real-world examples, and whenever someone engages us in debate it's always a great opportunity to for us to educate them about the error of their ways..."

...mind-numbing circle-jerk that regularly besieges the politics forum.

OK, let me see if I got this straight:

Private ownership of land and machinery, and voluntary purchase and sale of labor on an open market: Idealist Fantasy.

Everyone sharing and giving freely of themselves, working for the good of all rather than themselves: Totally Realistic.

Does that sum it up properly?

When I first engaged you, it was because you were namecalling and being mean. Since then, I've learned that you don't think you owe the world anything and you don't think an opinion can be a persuasuive argument.
You think I can "learn" what capitalism is from you? When I've been under its boot and the boot of its conjoined twin, the state, my whole life?
What you're advocating is a popular idealist fallacy. While you can't disagree with me on any meaningful way, I strongly object to the revisionist rhetoric you obviously consume and regurgitate.
Your position is one that relies on what amounts to the blind systemic abuse of billions.
Read more stuff you don't like and you might have a clue about what I'm saying.

You object to something altogether different than what is advocated.  Again, you don't understand what capitalism is, and are apparently unwilling to reconsider your position; and thus assume that we are your opposition because you misunderstand our position.  Your confusion is not our responsibility; and despite our attempts to clarify your misunderstandings, you don't seem to have any interest in understanding anything.  I'll admit, in the beginning I misunderstood your position as well, as your's is a rather unusual perspective in my experience; but I'm no longer confused.  I understand your position, I don't disagree with it in any significant way; but you have a severely closed mind, either unwilling or unable to consider circumstances or possibilities outside of your prior consideration or comprehension.

Even that hypothetical "pure" Capitalism needs to have wage slaves indentured with economic coersion to generate profit for a profiteer -otherwise it's just squirrelish stockpiling.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.

There you have it.  That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.

Dude, just walk down the hall.  I'm sure that he works in the same five sided building you do.

They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.

I can't claim to speak for the AnCaps, but I think they do not ignore state power in any way.
Rather they seek to make state power redundant or obsolete, and to separate the influence of capital upon state power.
By your description of the oppression and coercion inherent in naked stateless capitalism, it seems you often mean what most might call enticement.  The rights of violence is the monopoly of the state.

that dude? read "prometheus rising" about 15 years ago. I think I might have to revisit.

Theyre sure to resist the machine entirely replacing them. Determination of what toil is can't be made based on pay, it has to be identified by toilers and communicated to automators, a process pay interferes with.

I oppose it because I believe it is impossible.
Capitalism analyzed ignoring state power (which requires analytical gymnastics) still results in oppression and coersion.