Is Capitalism still the answer?

[Alyekra]

Is capitalism the answer?

Please. It's the problem.

Welp, I guess I better renounce my ideology and become a communist.

[Tehraan]

I don't understand why you think that it always wil. It's not about thinking or acting the same, it's about democratic control and management over commonly owned economic property, living without bosses, a society without class or hierarchal social relations. It's about giving working people around the world the means to control their own economic activity in a meaningfull way as opposed to renting themselves to a boss who maintain the legal entitlement to a monopoly on a given property by right of having the wealth to do so. Workplace democracy, mutual aid and interconnected structures of economic interaction, that doesn't have to be forced upon working people, they'll do it and have done so themselves when given that option, just the same way people have created their own social structures to survive & struggle together against the elements for centuries. But they're now adays often undermined or obstructed by institutions power that demand obedience and conformity to the status quo.

The only cases it has been forced upon people is during the Marxist-Leninist regimes, who simply replaced the owners of capital with the white-collar worker run bureacratic government apperatus. The same way right now the capitalist social-relations are forced upon people around the world, driving them from their lands after local government sold it to corporations and other subsidaries, cutting down forests, forcing poor farmers to compete with industrialized and subsidized western argicultural giants and people being relagated to low pay long hour jobs in the new sweatshop factories as the only means to take care of themselves. I don't call that socialism, the same way lulbertarians claim the latter isn't capitalism, it's devoid of anything that socialism originally meant and why right now socialism is as non-word that is thrown around the same way a fascism is.

We have seen people & communities take control over their own lives and their own resources, many times and always it always worked towards the best interest of everybody, but often ended up destroyed by existing order of power, regardless of colours they carried. The Bolsheviks in Russia destroyed the worker control over the factories, took the land from the peasants who worked it and forced all of them to operate under a stratified, hierarchal and centralized state planning & control structure. In spain the anarchist worker communes and councils were attacked Stalinist communists and nationalist factions alike. In Greece the British reinstalled a right-wing regime after, removing the self-managed structures set up by the anti-facists partisans, the same thing happened during the liberation of Italy, defecting facist bureacrats were put back in place to undermine the society left-wing partigianos were building, as before the cooperatives and communes were attacked by facist militants in the 20s. In the 90s the Mexican government and right-wing militias tried to destroy the Zapatista movement that was taking land and giving back to the native peasants and faciliting an alternative socio-economic, who as we speak have constructed and are constructing a egalitarian and free society.

In the end all social structures fall appart when they can no longer sustain themselves under the technological circumstances and this is what's happening to what's left of capitalism. Welfare, minimum wages, regulations, central banks, those are all there to keep the existing order running, without it the entire economic system would probably have collapsed somewhere in the early 20th century, but those measures themselves do not solve the inherent structural faults of market capitalism, for decades all wealth that was produced has flown towards the top, which has only been excellerated during the crash. Concentrating power both politically and economically, with the inherent issue that it destabilizes and stagnates the economy and detaches the political system from the general population. It has become more profitable to receive tax cuts, to invest useless speculatory derivatives, driving down wages or cutting costs through reduced quality or materials and buying up competitors. Around the world the entire political system has essentially been bought up with concentrated wealth and this is increasingly apperant to people. There is absolute nothing that more or less government can do to really solve this.

The thing is if you give people and communities the ability to run themselves in their own way, you don't need to force anything upon them and you don't destroy diversity in lifestyle, mind and being. And this is what many have been promoting and persuing despite opposition, just same way all liberty and freedoms who do enjoy today have been gained in the past with effort and sacrifices. Else we would still have lived under feudalism and monarchy or whatever social construct came before that. It's worth fighting for until the system bends on breaks from the push the popular will.

I live in a society in which people can't really take care of themselves. They need a boss, a person with the power to tell or sometimes force them to do what they wouldn't do otherwise. I'm not saying that they don't want to do it, I'm saying that they simply don't know how to do it. Let's face it, most of the people of a lot of the nations around the world have not really reached a level of self-awareness and do not really have an adequate understanding of any of this. Besides, the problem that some people still don't 'want' such an economic system must be addressed. I'll be honest, in the country I live, nobody knows what Capitalism IS. Nobody knows their own country is essentially a Capitalist one. For decades, the people of this oppressed nation have had a 'leader' or a 'boss' to dictate conformity to them; it's been so long that they haven't even thought of how their lives could be if they controlled their own economic activity/production.

What you describe is what I'd like to call an ideal world, with ideal people and, well, people who genuinely care for the wellbeing of other people. I don't really think we are like that. When we formed communities/societies to tackle humanity's greatest obstacles together, we did it because we had a common purpose; we did it to survive. Now, things are different. It's not about survival as much, as we'd all survive under either of the economic models we are analyzing. The 'common purpose' has been eliminated. Some people still retain this sense of purpose, and, well, they form communities as you've already said it. BUT, even amongst those who do, there is no single opinion which they all share. You and I would both probably want some changes done to the current economic models; but your solutions to such issues are most likely different from mine. Now, this isn't about either of us. This is about the people of the world at large. That is my main issue with what I see as Socialism being forced; some people simply do not agree.

Also, I believe that as Socialism is achieved (at least as much as it was in some of the countries you've listed), more corrupt people would eventually gain power. Socialism in itself, as I've heard someone else say, is not sustainable. People with power are only going to want more power. That's something we have to blame our human nature for. That's just my personal opinion, anyway. I've got nothing to back this up, aside from the former governments of a few countries, which Socialists claim weren't really Socialist! Socialism seems to be so easily exploitable by those power-hungry people who simply do not care for the people at all. They just want more power.

Capitalism is not always forced on people. I actually look at Capitalism as I do with different species. It also has evolutionary design. We designed it over such a long time, and even today, it continues to evolve. Capitalism as it exists today, is not how it was a hundred years ago. The system has matured, has been much more complex and intricate over time. I believe that, eventually, Capitalism does have the potential to solve most of the economic hardships that we face today. And by Capitalism, I don't mean how it was when it first emerged as an economic model. Yes, Socialism is important. That's why many Capitalistic countries have taken some of the aspects of Socialism and, well, they follow policies that are pretty much in between the models. Everything's been like this. The system that exists in many countries today is not just one of those. I believe we should utilize both models for economic fruitfulness. Both have their own advantages, and disadvantages. What I'm saying is, we don't necessarily have to destroy the current system to be able to solve our prominent issues.

Unnecessary sacrifice is just that - unnecessary. I think there has to be an alternative to trying to completely replace the current system. We could start with educating the masses, maybe. Many people despise Socialism because of the name! Informed citizenship is the very basis of democracy, isn't it? And if we truly want to achieve Socialism in a democratic matter (i.e. people choosing the system themselves, without it being forced on them), they need to be given the right to choose, and the right to know about their options. That way, nobody would steal all the power. It wouldn't even be too centralized if people knew what Socialism was. People wouldn't allow that. However, that has yet to happen, and I, as well as many others, cannot be too sure of what it would eventually lead to.

I don't describe an ideal world, just one that is better than the current one, do expect it to be a utopia? No I do not, that doesn't change the fact that we can solve a lot of problems by getting rid of their cause, and that cause is a system that puts material gain and power for a few as more desirable outcome than the full filling the desires and well being of everybody else (by themselves). If you want to stop the power hungry, don't build a system that puts people in power over others through any means and you also shouldn't cling onto one that already does just that. The 'mixed-market' models are not the solution, in fact they're part of the problem, what we have now was created to facilitate the changes in technology and society, but purely with the intent of reinforcing the existing order. As it is, welfare (what you refer to as the 'socialist' element adopted) is a subsidy for the negative results of treating humans as rentable commodities for the labour market. Although it is low on my list of things that has to go, it is is as much a solution to the problem as much as morphine is the cure for cancer, it levitates pain nothing more. Other things that have been done is that productive work has been outsourced to second and the third world, business if further subsidized and protected from market forces. As it stands, the original concept of capitalism, that being lassaiz-faire market capitalism is a dead ideology either used by obscure internet dissidence, detached economists and rulers who appeal to a religious adherence to outdated principles when in fact most of our economic activity is already run through a set of central and decentralized plan models for production between corporate and state institutions. Markets are there to discipline the working and middle class, they function only for distributing outcomes of production and controlling people. While at the same time we are made to bear the burden of this systems mistakes. Profit is privatized, risk is socialized.

All issues can only be solved by getting rid the current system of control and power imposed upon us all. There is no way around it. In fact we are already dead set on destruction through environmental and societal collapse as both climate chance will take increasingly damaging forms and economically we'll be moving from economic crisis to economic crisis as it becomes increasingly more unsustainable. One way to do this is to spread awareness and knowledge as fostering critical thinking and real debate (not the non-sense presented in mainstream politics), the other way is to seek to empower other working people by uniting them rather than letting them be crushes and left helpless by the pretentious 'individualism' enforced upon the community by our neoliberal leaders. Uniting them through giving them alternative models, organisations that resist the institutions of power. This is already being done and done so for a century. Labour unions, the anti-war movement. They're manifestations of this. Because people need to realize, there is always an alternative, it may not be perfect, but there has always been an alternative because no societal structure lasts and we can organize any society as long as we want it. In whatever way we want it, we can make it equitable, with freedom to act, think and do as to your abilities and desires. We have the productive capacity to meet every ones real needs many times over with only a fraction of labour power expended, we can spend more time on things that truly interest us as individuals, rather than slaving our lives away in bureacratic structures to pay of our mortgages, taxes and the like. The only reason we as whole haven't done so is that it would undermine the existing order and the structures created by it, which always results in a response to reinforce that order.

[Liberaxia]

exactly. my point is, the food from the organic grocery store tastes far better than mcdonalds. dont believe me, try it.

I have. And nothing beats McDonalds.

Nothing. Well, at least with respect to fast food restaurants.

[Geilinor]

I live in a society in which people can't really take care of themselves. They need a boss, a person with the power to tell or sometimes force them to do what they wouldn't do otherwise. I'm not saying that they don't want to do it, I'm saying that they simply don't know how to do it. Let's face it, most of the people of a lot of the nations around the world have not really reached a level of self-awareness and do not really have an adequate understanding of any of this. Besides, the problem that some people still don't 'want' such an economic system must be addressed. I'll be honest, in the country I live, nobody knows what Capitalism IS. Nobody knows their own country is essentially a Capitalist one. For decades, the people of this oppressed nation have had a 'leader' or a 'boss' to dictate conformity to them; it's been so long that they haven't even thought of how their lives could be if they controlled their own economic activity/production.

What you describe is what I'd like to call an ideal world, with ideal people and, well, people who genuinely care for the wellbeing of other people. I don't really think we are like that. When we formed communities/societies to tackle humanity's greatest obstacles together, we did it because we had a common purpose; we did it to survive. Now, things are different. It's not about survival as much, as we'd all survive under either of the economic models we are analyzing. The 'common purpose' has been eliminated. Some people still retain this sense of purpose, and, well, they form communities as you've already said it. BUT, even amongst those who do, there is no single opinion which they all share. You and I would both probably want some changes done to the current economic models; but your solutions to such issues are most likely different from mine. Now, this isn't about either of us. This is about the people of the world at large. That is my main issue with what I see as Socialism being forced; some people simply do not agree.

Also, I believe that as Socialism is achieved (at least as much as it was in some of the countries you've listed), more corrupt people would eventually gain power. Socialism in itself, as I've heard someone else say, is not sustainable. People with power are only going to want more power. That's something we have to blame our human nature for. That's just my personal opinion, anyway. I've got nothing to back this up, aside from the former governments of a few countries, which Socialists claim weren't really Socialist! Socialism seems to be so easily exploitable by those power-hungry people who simply do not care for the people at all. They just want more power.

Capitalism is not always forced on people. I actually look at Capitalism as I do with different species. It also has evolutionary design. We designed it over such a long time, and even today, it continues to evolve. Capitalism as it exists today, is not how it was a hundred years ago. The system has matured, has been much more complex and intricate over time. I believe that, eventually, Capitalism does have the potential to solve most of the economic hardships that we face today. And by Capitalism, I don't mean how it was when it first emerged as an economic model. Yes, Socialism is important. That's why many Capitalistic countries have taken some of the aspects of Socialism and, well, they follow policies that are pretty much in between the models. Everything's been like this. The system that exists in many countries today is not just one of those. I believe we should utilize both models for economic fruitfulness. Both have their own advantages, and disadvantages. What I'm saying is, we don't necessarily have to destroy the current system to be able to solve our prominent issues.

Unnecessary sacrifice is just that - unnecessary. I think there has to be an alternative to trying to completely replace the current system. We could start with educating the masses, maybe. Many people despise Socialism because of the name! Informed citizenship is the very basis of democracy, isn't it? And if we truly want to achieve Socialism in a democratic matter (i.e. people choosing the system themselves, without it being forced on them), they need to be given the right to choose, and the right to know about their options. That way, nobody would steal all the power. It wouldn't even be too centralized if people knew what Socialism was. People wouldn't allow that. However, that has yet to happen, and I, as well as many others, cannot be too sure of what it would eventually lead to.

All issues can only be solved by getting rid the current system of control and power imposed upon us all.

By replacing it with a new system of control and power?

[Tehraan]

All issues can only be solved by getting rid the current system of control and power imposed upon us all.

By replacing it with a new system of control and power?

No. By replacing it with structures based on voluntary association, horizontal organisation and democracy.

[The USOT]

I'm not claiming that. I'm asking if that's moraly acceptable.

In my book? No.

However it seems like your just a nihilist in which case you can't realy be argued with.

Moral nihilism is simply acknowledgement of reality. There is no objective morality. How could there be? There are no deities to dictate it, or superior human beings to enforce it. It's all about consensus. If humanity agrees something is moral or immoral, then it just is. Who can dispute that? Aliens?

That depends on what you consider morality to be.
I.e. concepts themselves may have no objective reality, but objective rules can be made about them. There may be no Queen in the universal sense, but there are objective rules about the concept of Monarchy which mean that no matter how popular I may be, I will never be a Monarch.
In practical day to day ethics (such as those used in medical, political or legal ethics) the concept of wellbeing is the driving force; and I would argue it has been since even ancient times. We can make a degree of non-universal (or value pluralist) yet objective statements about someones ethical practice/what is ethical in relation to somebody with those factors. If Janes wellbeing includes living (so she has stated that she wishes to live, as opposed to wishing to die) then shooting her in the face is a failure in ethics in relation to her etc.

At the very least even if we don't consider there to be an objective ethics, I see no reason why a Moral Nihilist position would at all counter a Subjective Morality position considering all the inherent justification subjective ethics needs is "because I feel this way".

[Grenartia]

Well there's two possible answers:
1. Mad science - divide the world into test groups and test economic models on societies like guinea pigs. (Most would find this answer unethical.)
or
A. Democracy - Let all businesses be co-ops. Co-ops are a nice option most people would be comfortable with, I imagine.

Unlike in politics, in economy the best solution is not the one that people like, it's the one which has the most private control and concurency. A community cannot control a factory, there needs to be a leader who can take the consequences and lead the factory.

Lel. Such outdated thinking.

Only because comparing a fast food place to a grocery store (organic or not) is an unfair comparison.

exactly. my point is, the food from the organic grocery store tastes far better than mcdonalds. dont believe me, try it.

Apples to oranges.

or OR... Or.... not everyone has the same taste preference as you.

My point is, mcdonalds is s***. literally. pure, tasteless, unhealthy, s***.

You can cuss here. Also, nobody's disputing that about McDonalds. However, at the same time, its stupid to compare McDonalds to organic groceries. OF COURSE McD's is going to lose. Its like having a running competition between a person in a coma and a high school track runner. If you want a fair comparison, compare non-organic grocers to organic ones. Apples to apples.

Wendy's beats McDonald's.

I mean, even if you don't ignore the food, the competition is between creepy pedophile clown and a dimpled redheaded girl. Seems a no-brainer.


What a terrible idea. Pesticides and herbicides are what provide modern food for millions of people. They're a good thing.
Pink slime is just a meat substitute/stand-in/stretching, it's not really a problem just don't eat at McDonald's.

No their not. they are unhealthy toxins that poison your food just so farmers can sell more. take away pestacides and herbacides, our lifespans increase greatly.

Lel. Conspiracy theory.

Pesticides kill the bugs that destroy crops, while herbicides kill the weeds and whatnot that crowd out and outcompete crops (therefore ensuring more make it to the food supply (AKA: preventing a nationwide famine due to food shortages)).

hmmm... democratic factories... wonder if that would work?

Having worked in a factory (unlike most communists I've met, and Mr. Marx) I can say that running that factory through direct democracy without managers and team leads would have been disastrous. Production would have suffered significantly without accountable, knowledgeable individuals directing production, enforcing discipline, and seeing to inter-line cooperation and the ordering of neccisary materials and parts. If there was no team leads and department managers the amount of slacking and abject chaos would have been rediculous.

Of course it would fail. Running everything that requires more than about a dozen people off of direct democracy would cause it to fail. However, that does not justify workplace dictatorship. Representative workplace democracy is the only way to go.

No it's main principles are open markets and strong private property rights.

In a way it does. Some may advocate a small one but others believe the economic strength brought on by low taxes facilitates more charity and jobs which more efficiently replace government welfare.

Except, charity ain't that effective, and never was (which is the entire reason we established welfare in the first place, because charity just wasn't fucking doing the job). And jobs would be preferable, but some people can't be employed. To say nothing of the fact that people need some way to survive between jobs.

Some factions do, but it depends really on what you like. I think society needs security and that's what the governments for.

While I understand that position as an AnCap I don't think an involuntarily funded safety net is moraly acceptable, as it constitutes theft under threat of violence, regardless of how much good it serves.

An involuntarily funded safety net is morally unnacceptable, but involuntarily-caused starvation and exposure (which are what happens by default without welfare) is? Those are some fucked up priorities.

I have. And nothing beats McDonalds.

Indeed. I'd rather have a large fries than a quinoa salad.

I'll take a double bacon cheeseburger over wheat grass and facon any day.

I'm awful for having a different opinion?

Also, I've been to stores like Whole Foods and the like. Their food tastes fine, for the most part, but organic stores like those are just marketing gimmicks to make people pay more.

This.

Indeed. If I'm going to pay $30 for a loaf of bread, it better wipe my ass, do my laundry, sexually service me, be gold encrusted, and taste like the nectar of the gods.

Somehow, I doubt it'd actually do those things.

By replacing it with a new system of control and power?

No. By replacing it with structures based on voluntary association, horizontal organisation and democracy.

Democracy is good. Horizontal organization is ok, but some vertical organization is necessary, and totally voluntary association is impossible (even the very act of being born is involuntary, as you have no ability to give informed consent before the fact of even conception, much less birth).

[North Yakistan]

Having worked in a factory (unlike most communists I've met, and Mr. Marx) I can say that running that factory through direct democracy without managers and team leads would have been disastrous. Production would have suffered significantly without accountable, knowledgeable individuals directing production, enforcing discipline, and seeing to inter-line cooperation and the ordering of neccisary materials and parts. If there was no team leads and department managers the amount of slacking and abject chaos would have been rediculous.

Of course it would fail. Running everything that requires more than about a dozen people off of direct democracy would cause it to fail. However, that does not justify workplace dictatorship. Representative workplace democracy is the only way to go.

In a way it does. Some may advocate a small one but others believe the economic strength brought on by low taxes facilitates more charity and jobs which more efficiently replace government welfare.

Except, charity ain't that effective, and never was (which is the entire reason we established welfare in the first place, because charity just wasn't fucking doing the job). And jobs would be preferable, but some people can't be employed. To say nothing of the fact that people need some way to survive between jobs.

While I understand that position as an AnCap I don't think an involuntarily funded safety net is moraly acceptable, as it constitutes theft under threat of violence, regardless of how much good it serves.

An involuntarily funded safety net is morally unnacceptable, but involuntarily-caused starvation and exposure (which are what happens by default without welfare) is? Those are some fucked up priorities.

Representative worker democracy (soviet style or otherwise) can work, but what system is used is up to those who paid for and continue to support and maintain the means of production (ie. the owners). If that's the workers than fine, but if not or if that's higher level management then demand a stock option and become an owner.


I have survived in between jobs. I lived in my jeep for a month. It was hard and I was totaly broke but I was able to do odd jobs and find ways to get food, and entirely without charity. But also consider that prior to LBJs establishment of the modern welfare state poverty was falling by an average of 1% a year, and now after 50 years of the safety net is once again at massive levels.


I believe in Negetive rights, while you seem to be expounding positive rights. You believe in rights "to things" (ie. the right to food) while I believe in rights "to be free of things" (like the theft of your property). Even living below the poverty linei still go get mcchickens for homeless guys, but they have no right to those mcchickens. I worked hard to aquire currency which I use to buy those mcchickens, and I voluntarily give them to panhandlers.

98% of the worlds surface is uninhabited. Even removing ocean and desert and mountain regions there are vast swathes of land where an individual can create a living for themself. You can survive in the North Woods up in Canada, people have for 20,000 years.

[North Yakistan]

By replacing it with a new system of control and power?

No. By replacing it with structures based on voluntary association, horizontal organisation and democracy.

To bad socialists don't believe in voluntary association of capitolist individuals.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

No. By replacing it with structures based on voluntary association, horizontal organisation and democracy.

To bad socialists don't believe in voluntary association of capitolist individuals.

Who are these Capitolists and where do they get off on basing their economic systems around legislative buildings?

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Of course it would fail. Running everything that requires more than about a dozen people off of direct democracy would cause it to fail. However, that does not justify workplace dictatorship. Representative workplace democracy is the only way to go.



Except, charity ain't that effective, and never was (which is the entire reason we established welfare in the first place, because charity just wasn't fucking doing the job). And jobs would be preferable, but some people can't be employed. To say nothing of the fact that people need some way to survive between jobs.



An involuntarily funded safety net is morally unnacceptable, but involuntarily-caused starvation and exposure (which are what happens by default without welfare) is? Those are some fucked up priorities.

Representative worker democracy (soviet style or otherwise) can work, but what system is used is up to those who paid for and continue to support and maintain the means of production (ie. the owners). If that's the workers than fine, but if not or if that's higher level management then demand a stock option and become an owner.


I have survived in between jobs. I lived in my jeep for a month. It was hard and I was totaly broke but I was able to do odd jobs and find ways to get food, and entirely without charity. But also consider that prior to LBJs establishment of the modern welfare state poverty was falling by an average of 1% a year, and now after 50 years of the safety net is once again at massive levels.


I believe in Negetive rights, while you seem to be expounding positive rights. You believe in rights "to things" (ie. the right to food) while I believe in rights "to be free of things" (like the theft of your property). Even living below the poverty linei still go get mcchickens for homeless guys, but they have no right to those mcchickens. I worked hard to aquire currency which I use to buy those mcchickens, and I voluntarily give them to panhandlers.

98% of the worlds surface is uninhabited. Even removing ocean and desert and mountain regions there are vast swathes of land where an individual can create a living for themself. You can survive in the North Woods up in Canada, people have for 20,000 years.

So, what I'm getting from you is that you think that those lazy poor people should suck it up because you lived in your car for a month and that was hard and that you don't seem to understand just how exactly it is that governments function with regard to laws and rights and whatnot. You also seem adept at using words you can almost spell in a way that I'm sure seems impressive until you have an intermediate understanding of the English language.

[North Yakistan]

Representative worker democracy (soviet style or otherwise) can work, but what system is used is up to those who paid for and continue to support and maintain the means of production (ie. the owners). If that's the workers than fine, but if not or if that's higher level management then demand a stock option and become an owner.


I have survived in between jobs. I lived in my jeep for a month. It was hard and I was totaly broke but I was able to do odd jobs and find ways to get food, and entirely without charity. But also consider that prior to LBJs establishment of the modern welfare state poverty was falling by an average of 1% a year, and now after 50 years of the safety net is once again at massive levels.


I believe in Negetive rights, while you seem to be expounding positive rights. You believe in rights "to things" (ie. the right to food) while I believe in rights "to be free of things" (like the theft of your property). Even living below the poverty linei still go get mcchickens for homeless guys, but they have no right to those mcchickens. I worked hard to aquire currency which I use to buy those mcchickens, and I voluntarily give them to panhandlers.

98% of the worlds surface is uninhabited. Even removing ocean and desert and mountain regions there are vast swathes of land where an individual can create a living for themself. You can survive in the North Woods up in Canada, people have for 20,000 years.

So, what I'm getting from you is that you think that those lazy poor people should suck it up because you lived in your car for a month and that was hard and that you don't seem to understand just how exactly it is that governments function with regard to laws and rights and whatnot. You also seem adept at using words you can almost spell in a way that I'm sure seems impressive until you have an intermediate understanding of the English language.

1. I'm dislexic and using an iPod so proof reading for my spelling is a bit difficult.

2. I'm saying that one mans position no matter how bad dosnt entitle him to steal from someone who has in no way harmed him.

3. I understand exactly how governments work, and it disgusts me.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

So, what I'm getting from you is that you think that those lazy poor people should suck it up because you lived in your car for a month and that was hard and that you don't seem to understand just how exactly it is that governments function with regard to laws and rights and whatnot. You also seem adept at using words you can almost spell in a way that I'm sure seems impressive until you have an intermediate understanding of the English language.

1. I'm dislexic and using an iPod so proof reading for my spelling is a bit difficult.

2. I'm saying that one mans position no matter how bad dosnt entitle him to steal from someone who has in no way harmed him.

3. I understand exactly how governments work, and it disgusts me.

1. Sorry 'bout that, seemed to fit the rest of the persona.

2. Taxation is not theft and helps far more people than it harms. Additionally, one man's position can absolutely entitle him to a fairer shot. Poor people don't mean to be poor and they shouldn't have to starve for the crime.

3. Then your entire worldview is ridiculous and you should feel bad about yourself for supporting it.

[Gorgashia]

hmmm... democratic factories... wonder if that would work?

Having worked in a factory (unlike most communists I've met, and Mr. Marx) I can say that running that factory through direct democracy without managers and team leads would have been disastrous. Production would have suffered significantly without accountable, knowledgeable individuals directing production, enforcing discipline, and seeing to inter-line cooperation and the ordering of neccisary materials and parts. If there was no team leads and department managers the amount of slacking and abject chaos would have been rediculous.

A cooperative does not inherently mean direct democracy, it simply means a more democratic power system will appear.

FaSinPat is a cooperative ceramic factory and it's doing fine. Albeit, the workers were already heavily organized beforehand via unions and such. If someone just walked over to a factory and, without setting up a means of organization beforehand, made it into a cooperative, it just might end up like the scenario you described.

[North Yakistan]

1. I'm dislexic and using an iPod so proof reading for my spelling is a bit difficult.

2. I'm saying that one mans position no matter how bad dosnt entitle him to steal from someone who has in no way harmed him.

3. I understand exactly how governments work, and it disgusts me.

1. Sorry 'bout that, seemed to fit the rest of the persona.

2. Taxation is not theft and helps far more people than it harms. Additionally, one man's position can absolutely entitle him to a fairer shot. Poor people don't mean to be poor and they shouldn't have to starve for the crime.

3. Then your entire worldview is ridiculous and you should feel bad about yourself for supporting it.

It is theft if the individual in question would rather remove their property from the state in question, which of course a state does not allow. And the ends do not justify the means. Being poor is certainly not a crime but it dosnt give you extra rights either.


And no its your worldview that's rediculous, but simply reenforced by its being that of the majority. I certainly don't feal bad, but you being the one with the gun to people's heads should feal pretty crappy.

[North Yakistan]

Having worked in a factory (unlike most communists I've met, and Mr. Marx) I can say that running that factory through direct democracy without managers and team leads would have been disastrous. Production would have suffered significantly without accountable, knowledgeable individuals directing production, enforcing discipline, and seeing to inter-line cooperation and the ordering of neccisary materials and parts. If there was no team leads and department managers the amount of slacking and abject chaos would have been rediculous.

A cooperative does not inherently mean direct democracy, it simply means a more democratic power system will appear.

I mean FaSinPat is a cooperative ceramic factory and it's doing fine. Albeit, the workers were already heavily organized beforehand via unions and such. If someone just walked over to a factory and, without setting up a means of organization beforehand, made it into a cooperative, it just might end up like the scenario you described.

Is such a co-op feisable? Yes and I would certainly have no problem with one, I just think you should be able to form a non-co-op if you want. If co-ops are so superior to private industry idk why Marxists are so afraid of letting the latter exist when the free market would kill the less effective and efficient system.

[Gorgashia]

A cooperative does not inherently mean direct democracy, it simply means a more democratic power system will appear.

I mean FaSinPat is a cooperative ceramic factory and it's doing fine. Albeit, the workers were already heavily organized beforehand via unions and such. If someone just walked over to a factory and, without setting up a means of organization beforehand, made it into a cooperative, it just might end up like the scenario you described.

Is such a co-op feisable? Yes and I would certainly have no problem with one, I just think you should be able to form a non-co-op if you want. If co-ops are so superior to private industry idk why Marxists are so afraid of letting the latter exist when the free market would kill the less effective and efficient system.

Well, that's just the thing. Marxists will rage that Capitalism, having created the free market system and having been around much longer, has an unfair advantage over the Cooperative system.

Of course, I'm a non-Marxist telling you what an actual Marxist would feel. I'm sure one of NS's actual Marxists can give you a better explanation.

However, as a non-Marxist, I advocate cooperativization (I think that's a word ) under a utilitarian excuse. That, since the cooperative system will even fit more individuals than a private system, the cooperative system should be made mandatory. I am aware that not everyone agrees with utilitarianism, but it's pretty much the philosophy I adhere to.

[Xenuvia]

Capitalism is the question.

"Yes" is the answer.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

1. Sorry 'bout that, seemed to fit the rest of the persona.

2. Taxation is not theft and helps far more people than it harms. Additionally, one man's position can absolutely entitle him to a fairer shot. Poor people don't mean to be poor and they shouldn't have to starve for the crime.

3. Then your entire worldview is ridiculous and you should feel bad about yourself for supporting it.

It is theft if the individual in question would rather remove their property from the state in question, which of course a state does not allow. And the ends do not justify the means. Being poor is certainly not a crime but it dosnt give you extra rights either.


And no its your worldview that's rediculous, but simply reenforced by its being that of the majority. I certainly don't feal bad, but you being the one with the gun to people's heads should feal pretty crappy.

The state will let you pack your shit and leave if you don't want to be taxed, I don't get what you're saying. Being poor is a crime if it's punished by enforced starvation, something a system of publicly sponsored capitalism with no welfare state does. Being poor doesn't entitle you to anything, but being human does, and we don't let human beings starve or live on the street, or at least we shouldn't.

Nope. Your worldview is shit and motivated by a misunderstanding of what your rights and entitlements are and a severe case of political sociopathy, because, in truth, it takes a hefty dose of narcissism and a lack of appreciation for other people to support an ideology promoting the breakdown of a societal system that protects and helps people on the basis that you demand more "freedom". Freedom from poverty is the only one you don't care about, and it's about as basic as it gets. You know what? If you don't want to pay your taxes, you can leave or go to jail, because you drive on roads and use water and live in a society propped up only by the state. You get to pay for your share of it.

[North Yakistan]

Is such a co-op feisable? Yes and I would certainly have no problem with one, I just think you should be able to form a non-co-op if you want. If co-ops are so superior to private industry idk why Marxists are so afraid of letting the latter exist when the free market would kill the less effective and efficient system.

Well, that's just the thing. Marxists will rage that Capitalism, having created the free market system and having been around much longer, has an unfair advantage over the Cooperative system.

Of course, I'm a non-Marxist telling you what an actual Marxist would feel. I'm sure one of NS's actual Marxists can give you a better explanation.

However, as a non-Marxist, I advocate cooperativization (I think that's a word ) under a utilitarian excuse. That, since the cooperative system will even fit more individuals than a private system, the cooperative system should be made mandatory. I am aware that not everyone agrees with utilitarianism, but it's pretty much the philosophy I adhere to.

Alright I see where your comming from. While I disagree I certainly tecognize your right to make all the co-ops you want, assuming you start them with justly aquired property and not by stealing a bussines from the previous owners. I just want the same courtesy to not co-op if you wish.

[Ardoki]

1. Sorry 'bout that, seemed to fit the rest of the persona.

2. Taxation is not theft and helps far more people than it harms. Additionally, one man's position can absolutely entitle him to a fairer shot. Poor people don't mean to be poor and they shouldn't have to starve for the crime.

3. Then your entire worldview is ridiculous and you should feel bad about yourself for supporting it.

It is theft if the individual in question would rather remove their property from the state in question, which of course a state does not allow. And the ends do not justify the means. Being poor is certainly not a crime but it dosnt give you extra rights either.


And no its your worldview that's rediculous, but simply reenforced by its being that of the majority. I certainly don't feal bad, but you being the one with the gun to people's heads should feal pretty crappy.

It isn't theft. It is merely confiscation of the proceeds of exploitation (and crime).

[North Yakistan]

It is theft if the individual in question would rather remove their property from the state in question, which of course a state does not allow. And the ends do not justify the means. Being poor is certainly not a crime but it dosnt give you extra rights either.


And no its your worldview that's rediculous, but simply reenforced by its being that of the majority. I certainly don't feal bad, but you being the one with the gun to people's heads should feal pretty crappy.

It isn't theft. It is merely confiscation of the proceeds of exploitation (and crime).

Exploitation how?

[Ardoki]

It isn't theft. It is merely confiscation of the proceeds of exploitation (and crime).

Exploitation how?

The bourgeois make their profits from exploiting the proletariat, therefore the confiscation of their assets is merely the confiscation of the proceeds of exploitation, it is not theft.

[Grykten]

Seems to me that either socialism or capitalism can work perfectly if you have one person or a group of like minded people. Otherwise, I choose capitalism as with our modern society it holds up the best from my perspective. The desire to put as many goods out to as large of a group possible and the need for a strong wealthy middle class ( and few poor people) creates a haelthy market society. Capitalist societes are really bad when everyone's poor and monopolies run the place. Without those problems it will work way better. To each their own though.

[North Yakistan]

Exploitation how?

The bourgeois make their profits from exploiting the proletariat, therefore the confiscation of their assets is merely the confiscation of the proceeds of exploitation, it is not theft.

No I understand what you think, I have read Marx, I'm asking explain how a owner-employee trade of labor in exchange for wages is exploitive.

Voluntary trade is by definition mutually beneficial.