• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Freedom of speech

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Where's your evidence that regulations actually cause unemployment? I mean there is absolutely no evidence that regulations cause unemployment.
First of all, paying the thousands of dollars it costs to create a business means people are less likely to create a business.
With less businesses, you have less jobs.

Second, if I all of the sudden have to pay $2/hr instead of $1/hr, I don't just get the extra money out of thin air. I fire half of my workers, hurting everyone.



anomaly said:
You can't just have thousands of small businesses popping up. Imagine the chaos. I imagine that's why the gov't regulations are there. Again, the gov't isn't as evil as you'd like it to be.
Oh no, the chaos of competition for a better product! :eek:
The chaos of people being able to get a job easier than ever! :eek:

The horror of it all!!!

Good thing we have our big government to stop the evil small businesses from providing a better product and new jobs. What a relief. :rolleyes:



anomaly said:
See, that's where we disagree. I argue that the factory worker still has the right to live (and you say minimum wage isn't enough, but that's where the gov't can step in and help), obviously you don't think so. You must begin to undertand that workers are not the ones who benefit from capitalism. This most obvious point is the one you deny.
You argue the assembly line worker deserves to be paid as much as the experienced carpenter, even though his work is definitely not worth that.

The people that work jobs in factories and other cheap places are mostly teenagers, college students, and young adults. They are there for the EXPERIENCE, not for the wads of cash.

They NEED the bad jobs to put meat on their resume so they can get good jobs.

There's no such thing as artificially changing market value of something without consequences.
The market value of a job is what it is.
When you try to screw with the value of the job, you screw with the whole market.



anomaly said:
Uh, isn't that the point I'm trying to make? You've just said that people on minimum wage make more money faster than those not making minimum wage. I think you meant the reverse, so can I see this 'study'?
By "those not making minimum wage" I mean people that make MORE than it.
Those people are moving up the ladder slower than the min-wagers.



anomaly said:
Show me where the worker in China can go from making 20 cents/hr to making 9 bucks/hr? I'm sure he'd like to know about this miracle too! Again, you've made a claim of someone who believes in idealistic capitalism. While I'm talking about tihs, may I suggest a book: One Market Under God by Thomas Frank. It exposes this myth that market are always 'good'.
I'm not here to solve China's problems.
Their entire economic system is totally different than ours.
But I do know a worker earning 20c/hr in the US could get to $9/hr.



anomaly said:
Small businesses in a system of competition will always be hard to maintain, duh!
You know what, you're right. It's already hard, so why the hell shouldn't we make it even harder?
We should make it so hard that nobody EVER makes a small business and the corporate giants can have the whole market.



anomaly said:
Also, I don't know if you know this, but people have a natural want to have a job. They want to feel beneficial. That's why, even in the welfare state, there is no shortage of workers.
Yes, everyone yearns for a job.
And that's why we don't have thousands of families on welfare teaching their children how to live on welfare....

O wait, we do...



anomaly said:
There are always more jobs.
If there ARE always more jobs, then that means the worker wins.
The # of jobs is more than the # of workers, so supply-demand follows.
The companies must compete for the limited supply of workers, so they compete against each other to offer the best wages and benefits.
If a worker is unhappy with the treatment or pay of a job, they simply switch to a company that will treat them better, or they work for a small business.

Therefore, companies that offer low wages and no benefits will run clear out of workers, and then go bankrupt.
But the ones that offer good conditions and wages will prosper, with new employees flocking to their side.



anomaly said:
The workers of a foreign country do not benefit from capitalism, it forces them to work for a meager salary in order to make someone else richer (the trickle up effect).
LMFAO!!!

Please, never use the words "capitalism" and "force" in the same sentence ever again.

Capitalism is the ONLY system that doesn't use FORCE to achieve its means.
Under free market, everyone chooses for themselves. There is no such thing as the use of FORCE or COERCION.
The only time FORCE and COERCION occur in a marketplace is when the government steps in and uses it in the name of "justice".



anomaly said:
Where's your evidence that we had the highest standard of living 100 years ago (I've never heard anything of this)?
I can't find any statistics for 100 years ago.
But I do know from 200 years ago.

During that time we had the least regulations of all.

And we DEFINITELY had the best living conditions compared to others.

We WERE "land of the free, home of the brave".



PS: I gotta go to bed, talk more tomorrow. ;)
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Now, before I start, I must say, Gabo, it seems we're caught in the same thing as before, but I will not give into you this time. The debate will continue.



Gabo said:
First of all, paying the thousands of dollars it costs to create a business means people are less likely to create a business.
With less businesses, you have less jobs.

Second, if I all of the sudden have to pay $2/hr instead of $1/hr, I don't just get the extra money out of thin air. I fire half of my workers, hurting everyone.
Again, if the USA is so terribly evil with its regulations (I must say, I am no fan of this country, but for reasons exactly opposite of yours), why oh why is the unemployment rate at 6%? And, what your offering (the abolition of minimum wage) not only is inhumane, but will also cause a drastic increase in poverty. People in poverty often have not the luxury of buying things in the glorious 'free' market. Sales would go down, and inevitably a huge surplus of good would be created, causing recession (that's basically what MArx said himself, some 150 years ago...some things never change eh?)




Gabo said:
Oh no, the chaos of competition for a better product! :eek:
The chaos of people being able to get a job easier than ever! :eek:

The horror of it all!!!

Good thing we have our big government to stop the evil small businesses from providing a better product and new jobs. What a relief. :rolleyes:
Well, how will this market look then? Competition is not always so smoothe. With so much competition and so many companies, some are bound to go under, and those that do obviously fire their workers, leaving them to search for new jobs. This is quite mad for the worker! 'Get a new job every week to make us richer say the employers. I really don't know what your idealistic system would look like, but I can assure you it wouldn't work like you'd hope. Also, in any free market, we see the tendency for monopolies to develop (deja vu), so then the gov't would have to step in to help small businesses. Just to name two flaws I see...




Gabo said:
You argue the assembly line worker deserves to be paid as much as the experienced carpenter, even though his work is definitely not worth that.

The people that work jobs in factories and other cheap places are mostly teenagers, college students, and young adults. They are there for the EXPERIENCE, not for the wads of cash.

They NEED the bad jobs to put meat on their resume so they can get good jobs.

There's no such thing as artificially changing market value of something without consequences.
The market value of a job is what it is.
When you try to screw with the value of the job, you screw with the whole market.
First, when did I ever say I wanted to see a good artisan making 5 bucks an hour? Obviously he deserves more. You're putting words in my mouth, Gabo. Yes, most of them (in cheap jobs) are teenagers, but some are just people who need a second chance and need to start somewhere. And not all factory workers press a button all day, some are quite skilled, so perhaps this generalization has gone far enough. Are you honestly saying, though, that the 'loser' in a cpitalist system deserves not even enough to eat, clothe himself, and rent an apartment (as $1/hr obviously doesn't meet this requirement)? I agree with you somewhat on the market...it is dynamic enough by itself (but sometimes, artificial change is neccesary, as in the case of FDR inflating the currency after the great depression, so its not always bad).




Gabo said:
By "those not making minimum wage" I mean people that make MORE than it.
Those people are moving up the ladder slower than the min-wagers.
Thanks for clarifying, but its as you said before, those making the lowest have the greatest cahnce to make more (it's easier to go from $5/hr to $7 than it is to go from $9/hr-$15, with the lowest wages there is nowhere to go but up).




Gabo said:
I'm not here to solve China's problems.
Their entire economic system is totally different than ours.
But I do know a worker earning 20c/hr in the US could get to $9/hr.
Yes, and we have a much lower unemployment than they do. The facts hurt sometimes. Life for the worker in the USA with regulations is pretty good, obviously you say his life shouldn't be so good. Why should he suffer for choosing a different path (as is often the case)? In China with few workers' rights, the worker literally suffers. There is no comparison, these facts speak for themselves.




Gabo said:
You know what, you're right. It's already hard, so why the hell shouldn't we make it even harder?
We should make it so hard that nobody EVER makes a small business and the corporate giants can have the whole market.
Well, its either the workers who suffer (from few regulations) or the capitalist system (from monopolizing). It is difficult being a capitalist (which is why I am not one). Capitalism is not a miracle system, it is simply a quite crude, but extremely productive system. The question is this: Should the workers suffer in unregulated capitalism (as is always the case, don't spin the facts, Gabo) but then have the businessmen (the true geniuses) flourish? Or should the workers and the businessmen be more equal, should the worker get all basic rights that we on the left say he deserves? The answer determines whether you're to the left or right. Now, go ahead, put you little twist on it Gabo, as I know you will. It will be interesting to see if you ever accept that inevitably the majority will suffer under capitalism at the expense of the 'greatest and most skillful' (as Ayn Rand herself may say).




Gabo said:
Yes, everyone yearns for a job.
And that's why we don't have thousands of families on welfare teaching their children how to live on welfare....

O wait, we do...
Now, your hatred probably blinds you, but most (atleast 90%) on welfrare are ashamed of this fact and have but one goal: to get off welfare.




Gabo said:
If there ARE always more jobs, then that means the worker wins.
The # of jobs is more than the # of workers, so supply-demand follows.
The companies must compete for the limited supply of workers, so they compete against each other to offer the best wages and benefits.
If a worker is unhappy with the treatment or pay of a job, they simply switch to a company that will treat them better, or they work for a small business.

Therefore, companies that offer low wages and no benefits will run clear out of workers, and then go bankrupt.
But the ones that offer good conditions and wages will prosper, with new employees flocking to their side.
This again is an idealized version. Why doesn't it work like this then? Why don't the ill-treated workers of China simply go to another business? Is it all the stare's fault? Why can't a worker laid off at an auto plant just go do work at another business? You generalize the 'worker'. They have different skills, they are not simply a commodity for companies to compete over. Indeed, in capitalism the workers compete with only each other to get jobs. The company will give as few benefits as it can get away with (again my fave examply: China). I can't believe how perfect you believe this system is! It is crude and productive, it evolved out of feudalism. It is by no means perfect. Concentration of wealth charaterizes it. Stop pretending that it is perfect, when you can travel the globe and see the wrong it does. Again, never in my study of history have I EVER heard of a company runnig out of workers! Workers need work, and if you leave your job there is ALWAYS someone new to take your place.




Gabo said:
LMFAO!!!

Please, never use the words "capitalism" and "force" in the same sentence ever again.

Capitalism is the ONLY system that doesn't use FORCE to achieve its means.
Under free market, everyone chooses for themselves. There is no such thing as the use of FORCE or COERCION.
The only time FORCE and COERCION occur in a marketplace is when the government steps in and uses it in the name of "justice".
Another idealized version...Everyone chooses for themselves? The homeless man chose tobe that way? The all-powerful market can destroy people's lives as easily as it can improve them. Capitalism FORCES the worker to give into to the moneyowner's demands, he needs that money! And unless, as history proves, the gov't steps in to regulate, companies do as little as possible to keep workers just happy enough. But under capitalism, the worker can never be too greedy, he must give in to his master's demands, for if he chooses not to, he will find himself without food the next day (obviously a generalization, but it does hold true in some parts of the world; in the USA the worker simply finds himself jobless and in poverty, how delightful!).




Gabo said:
I can't find any statistics for 100 years ago.
But I do know from 200 years ago.

During that time we had the least regulations of all.

And we DEFINITELY had the best living conditions compared to others.

We WERE "land of the free, home of the brave".
200 years ago it was 1805...the Spanish still occupied the land west of the Mississippi...our popultaion was extremely low, and I doubt there is any proof (statistics) saying we had the highest standard of living. It is simply speculation on your part. But the west was their to be conquered, their were limitless opportunities, but today we lack this great frontier, we lack these limitless possibilities, it is difficult to compare 1805 with 2005...
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Now, before I start, I must say, Gabo, it seems we're caught in the same thing as before, but I will not give into you this time. The debate will continue.
I think we must once again agree to disagree.

You just go ahead and believe that communism/socialism works.
And I will continue to believe in freedom under capitalism.

But I might as well answer some of your responses anyways...



anomaly said:
Again, if the USA is so terribly evil with its regulations (I must say, I am no fan of this country, but for reasons exactly opposite of yours), why oh why is the unemployment rate at 6%?
There are 1.41 million people in the USA without jobs.

To me, that's 1.41 million too many.



anomaly said:
And, what your offering (the abolition of minimum wage) not only is inhumane, but will also cause a drastic increase in poverty. People in poverty often have not the luxury of buying things in the glorious 'free' market.
Abolition of minimum wage would be letting people decide upon things themselves. Allow people to work for wages deemed fair by both parties. You say this is inhumane?
To me, inhumane is restricting people's rights so they don't even get to decide how much a job is worth anymore.

And poverty would most likely decrease. With 1.41 million more people easily able to work, they would be able to afford SOME stuff instead of NO stuff.



anomaly said:
Well, how will this market look then? Competition is not always so smoothe. With so much competition and so many companies, some are bound to go under, and those that do obviously fire their workers, leaving them to search for new jobs.
The companies that go under would be the ones that don't provide well for their workers in the first place. It's much better to have those companies out of the market.


anomaly said:
'Get a new job every week to make us richer say the employers. I really don't know what your idealistic system would look like, but I can assure you it wouldn't work like you'd hope.
Yes, and companies going bankrupt every week is good for the company owners....



anomaly said:
Also, in any free market, we see the tendency for monopolies to develop (deja vu), so then the gov't would have to step in to help small businesses. Just to name two flaws I see...
In a truly free market, monopolies only remain so as long as they provide well.

They are 100% reliant on the consumer for everything, so if they don't do a good job they risk losing ALL of their money and power.


Also, the government is one of the hugest creator's of monopolies. Everything you see that is "government owned and operated" is a monopoly.
-Water and power
-Retirement
-Education
-Transportation



anomaly said:
Yes, most of them (in cheap jobs) are teenagers, but some are just people who need a second chance and need to start somewhere.
People that need a second chance DO have experience on their resume, meaning they are more able to get a better job than bottom-rung.

They can start where they left off when they messed up.



anomaly said:
Are you honestly saying, though, that the 'loser' in a cpitalist system deserves not even enough to eat, clothe himself, and rent an apartment (as $1/hr obviously doesn't meet this requirement)?
It is unbelievably easy to find a niche in the world of services. Anyone can find something people like and cater to that to make enough to live off of.


I know bums living Venice Beach that jump on glass in front of people all day to make a living. They do perfectly fine, enough to buy food and clothes.

It's what they've decided to do with their lives. They could do better, but its their own choice to stay in the same place living the same way.



anomaly said:
I agree with you somewhat on the market...it is dynamic enough by itself (but sometimes, artificial change is neccesary, as in the case of FDR inflating the currency after the great depression, so its not always bad).
The FDR was the stupid ones that caused the great depression in the first place.
They deserve no praise for simply fixing something they messed up on.



anomaly said:
Thanks for clarifying, but its as you said before, those making the lowest have the greatest cahnce to make more (it's easier to go from $5/hr to $7 than it is to go from $9/hr-$15, with the lowest wages there is nowhere to go but up).
You now seem to be agreeing with me....

The lower wages you make, the faster and easier it is to get to higher wages.
Therefore, those who work for hardly anything can soon be earning a decent amount.



anomaly said:
Well, its either the workers who suffer (from few regulations) or the capitalist system (from monopolizing). It is difficult being a capitalist (which is why I am not one).
The only difficult part for me is trying to enlighten all the socialists and communists.



anomaly said:
Capitalism is not a miracle system, it is simply a quite crude, but extremely productive system. The question is this: Should the workers suffer in unregulated capitalism (as is always the case, don't spin the facts, Gabo) but then have the businessmen (the true geniuses) flourish? Or should the workers and the businessmen be more equal, should the worker get all basic rights that we on the left say he deserves?
Actually, those on the left are against rights.
You want to provide everyone with equal benefits, regardless of what they do.

You FORCE people into "working together", taking away rights.

You FORCE people to follow rules upon rules of what the politicians deem "right".


Capitalists are the ones that want everyone to have complete freedom.
The freedom to do your best, or do nothing at all.
The freedom to work your way to the top, or wallow down at the bottom.
The freedom to live your life the way YOU choose, not the way that's chosen for you.



anomaly said:
The answer determines whether you're to the left or right. Now, go ahead, put you little twist on it Gabo, as I know you will. It will be interesting to see if you ever accept that inevitably the majority will suffer under capitalism at the expense of the 'greatest and most skillful' (as Ayn Rand herself may say).
I am neither left nor right.

Lefts want personal freedom, but no economic freedom.
Rights want economic freedom, but no personal freedom.

I choose the best of both worlds.

I choose REAL freedom.

I choose libertarianism.



anomaly said:
This again is an idealized version. Why doesn't it work like this then? Why don't the ill-treated workers of China simply go to another business? Is it all the stare's fault? Why can't a worker laid off at an auto plant just go do work at another business? You generalize the 'worker'. They have different skills, they are not simply a commodity for companies to compete over. Indeed, in capitalism the workers compete with only each other to get jobs. The company will give as few benefits as it can get away with (again my fave examply: China). I can't believe how perfect you believe this system is! It is crude and productive, it evolved out of feudalism. It is by no means perfect. Concentration of wealth charaterizes it. Stop pretending that it is perfect, when you can travel the globe and see the wrong it does. Again, never in my study of history have I EVER heard of a company runnig out of workers! Workers need work, and if you leave your job there is ALWAYS someone new to take your place.
Last post you say there's always more jobs.
This post you say there's always more workers.

It's one or the other.

If there's more jobs, the workers are in control.
If there's more workers, the employers are in control.

Plain and simple.



anomaly said:
Another idealized version...Everyone chooses for themselves? The homeless man chose tobe that way? The all-powerful market can destroy people's lives as easily as it can improve them. Capitalism FORCES the worker to give into to the moneyowner's demands, he needs that money! And unless, as history proves, the gov't steps in to regulate, companies do as little as possible to keep workers just happy enough. But under capitalism, the worker can never be too greedy, he must give in to his master's demands, for if he chooses not to, he will find himself without food the next day (obviously a generalization, but it does hold true in some parts of the world; in the USA the worker simply finds himself jobless and in poverty, how delightful!).
The homeless man DID choose not to work.
The worker DID choose to give in to the moneyowner's demands.

The workers need to stand up for themselves and their rights.



anomaly said:
200 years ago it was 1805...the Spanish still occupied the land west of the Mississippi...our popultaion was extremely low, and I doubt there is any proof (statistics) saying we had the highest standard of living. It is simply speculation on your part. But the west was their to be conquered, their were limitless opportunities, but today we lack this great frontier, we lack these limitless possibilities, it is difficult to compare 1805 with 2005...
We had more freedom, the most important thing to life.

If you have no freedom, you have no life.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
There are 1.41 million people in the USA without jobs.

To me, that's 1.41 million too many.
Out of 280 million, that's not that bad. Do you honestly think that in a laissez-faire stting, everyone would have a job?? That's not only idealistic, but also very, very optimistic.




Gabo said:
Abolition of minimum wage would be letting people decide upon things themselves. Allow people to work for wages deemed fair by both parties. You say this is inhumane?
To me, inhumane is restricting people's rights so they don't even get to decide how much a job is worth anymore.

And poverty would most likely decrease. With 1.41 million more people easily able to work, they would be able to afford SOME stuff instead of NO stuff.
To me, paying a factory worker 20 cents an hour is inhumane. To me, child labor is inhumane. To me, allowing employers to force (there's your favorite word) employees to work long hours is inhumane. Regulations are there to protect the blue-collar worker, don't you see that? And poverty is not a measure of how many things you can buy. There is a poverty line. And paying workers 'what they earn' (according to you) would make more people below this line. Under the system you're talking about, the gap between rich and poor would widen, the poor would get poorer, the rich richer (like it's always been). The poverty level in the USA is 12%. To me, that's not great. But if we went in the direction you suggest, this number would increase. We really should start reforming our gov't, and then head the other way, toward democratic socialism.



Gabo said:
The companies that go under would be the ones that don't provide well for their workers in the first place. It's much better to have those companies out of the market.
Where's your evidence for this? Again, I've never ever heard of a company struggling to get workers, workers want to work. They need that money. In such a competitive market (and what you want to do would only make it more competitive) it is very difficult to land the ideal job, many fail (the 'losers' of cpaitalism; and they're not always the ones who don't work as hard, sometimes it's just bad luck) and then they have to work for whatever company will give them a paycheck. Now, hopefully that means getting $5/hr, but you do want to abolishmin. wage, so inevitably we will see very educated people making 20 cents/hour in some factory because of bad luck. Perhaps your vision isn't so idealistic after all.



Gabo said:
Yes, and companies going bankrupt every week is good for the company owners....
Again this concerns your belief that workers are somehow picky as to which jobs they get. Workers often accept their place below the 'bourgeouis' (thank you capitalist schools) without question. Why else do you think these poor workers n China and Mexico actually do what they do? They can't afford school, so they must work in a factory to make ends meet.




Gabo said:
In a truly free market, monopolies only remain so as long as they provide well.

They are 100% reliant on the consumer for everything, so if they don't do a good job they risk losing ALL of their money and power.


Also, the government is one of the hugest creator's of monopolies. Everything you see that is "government owned and operated" is a monopoly.
-Water and power
-Retirement
-Education
-Transportation
There are no regulations on the car market in Europe, yet the number of companies selling cars has dwindled from 100's of companies to today less than 10. Monopolies happen naturally under any market system, which is why even the most 'laissez-faire' thinkers want gov't to step in and handle this atleast.




Gabo said:
People that need a second chance DO have experience on their resume, meaning they are more able to get a better job than bottom-rung.

They can start where they left off when they messed up.
Usually these people get thrown to the bottom rung, having to climb their way back up. And in such a highly competitive job market, who knows, the 'failure' may spend the rest of his days on this bottom rung. A second chance isn't a guarantee. That's why the gov't has welfare or a 'safety net' as the Europeans call it. If you somehow lose everything, you can fall back onto something.




Gabo said:
It is unbelievably easy to find a niche in the world of services. Anyone can find something people like and cater to that to make enough to live off of.


I know bums living Venice Beach that jump on glass in front of people all day to make a living. They do perfectly fine, enough to buy food and clothes.

It's what they've decided to do with their lives. They could do better, but its their own choice to stay in the same place living the same way.
But they can't afford a home. And, is that what they want to do with their lives? Perhap you should ask them, because I doubt that's their dream. Perhaps they were born into a family not able to afford schooling, and so they could never get a good education.




Gabo said:
The FDR was the stupid ones that caused the great depression in the first place.
They deserve no praise for simply fixing something they messed up on.
Hahahah...FDR was a president!! Please never make such an ugly mistake again, as I may have a hard time taking seriously.




Gabo said:
You now seem to be agreeing with me....

The lower wages you make, the faster and easier it is to get to higher wages.
Therefore, those who work for hardly anything can soon be earning a decent amount.
No, I'm saying that of course those making min. wage will be able to get an increased wage more easily than someone making, say, $9. Someone on the bottom has nowhere to go but up. But, that's today. Today it's pretty easy to go from making $5 to $7 an hour. But how easy will it be to go from making 20 cents to $7 dollars an hour?? Such optimism on your part.




Gabo said:
The only difficult part for me is trying to enlighten all the socialists and communists.




Actually, those on the left are against rights.
You want to provide everyone with equal benefits, regardless of what they do.

You FORCE people into "working together", taking away rights.

You FORCE people to follow rules upon rules of what the politicians deem "right".


Capitalists are the ones that want everyone to have complete freedom.
The freedom to do your best, or do nothing at all.
The freedom to work your way to the top, or wallow down at the bottom.
The freedom to live your life the way YOU choose, not the way that's chosen for you.
You know nothing about communism or socialism, and yet you sit here telling me it's wrong! Some of the brightest men ever to live were socialist/communist. Go view the Zapatistas and tell me that socialism/communism doesn't give you a choice. They are completely democratic in every decision they make. Now, that's a choice. That's what socialism is all about: the nationalisation of goods. It doesn't mention the gov't. Thats for us to decide. History has shown that a democracy (or democratic republic) operates far more smoothely with socialism than any type of tyranny. Socialism gives you more of a choice, as you vote for the people running the economy. If it's going bad, simply vote them out of office (kind of like today, but without so much privatization). The people control the gov't, ensuring that it operates in the way they want it to. The market doesn't control your life, you do. Capitalism is a mad rush to control, dominate, and create profit. Democracy need not be involved (and a country that is run by a dictator can be just as successful as a democratic country, China's economy is growing more powerful thanks to their heavy deregulation...at the expense, of course, of the worker). Under capitalism, yes you have the freedom to win, but you also have a greater chance of failure, as competition dominates your life (along with obedience, you know, to stop those pesky labor unions). When the governement doesn't regulate, big business triumphs, and the economy grows (at the expense of the majority of people-workers). You must understand that workers need not have any rights under capitalism (in fact, some, such as Ayn Rand, argued that this should be the case, that workers should indeed suffer to make the lives of the rich more comfortable, after all, the rich did earn that life through hard work, according to Ms. Rand). Getting back to alternative systems, you really should read something about communism. It is the most idealistic system out there. Many say, yes, it seems great, but it isn't possible. I agree, it isn't possible-as long as capitalism survives. Communism is characterized by the 'withering away' of the state, leaving people totally free to live and work together. Many argue about what communism would look like, but I think it would look something like this: there would be local groups working together to achieve common goals (the de-centralization of power) and the people of the world would be connected by one thing-communism. You see, it must be a global effort, because, to sum it all up, communism is simply human productionstrictly for use rather than profit. Sorry that was so long, but you asked for it!!




Gabo said:
I am neither left nor right.

Lefts want personal freedom, but no economic freedom.
Rights want economic freedom, but no personal freedom.

I choose the best of both worlds.

I choose REAL freedom.

I choose libertarianism.
I'm a bit of an anarchist myself, of course I support collectivist anarchism while you support 'political' anarchism, you still want and need your 'free market' (which is, by the way, an oxymoron).
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo,we really should go start this debate in the economics section and attempt to shorten it somehow. My original writing was too long, hich is why I couldn't respond to everthing you said. I would say let's just stop, but I feel that this is a very important debate.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
To me, paying a factory worker 20 cents an hour is inhumane. To me, child labor is inhumane. To me, allowing employers to force (there's your favorite word) employees to work long hours is inhumane.
To me, choosing to work for 20c/hr, choosing to work as a child, and choosing to work longs hours is not inhumane.

The people doing these various "inhumane" acts are doing it VOLUNTARILY.

And to me, there is nothing wrong with that.
Sure, I may think its strange, stupid, or wrong.
But I'm not going to FORCE my way into a mutual agreement and change things.



anomaly said:
Regulations are there to protect the blue-collar worker, don't you see that?
I see the ONLY purpose of government as protecting our rights to life, liberty, or property.

Therefore I don't think it proper that the government hinder those rights in the name of protecting them.

These regulations that are said to protect us from violation of our rights are violating our rights all on their own.

That I find unacceptable.



anomaly said:
Where's your evidence for this? Again, I've never ever heard of a company struggling to get workers, workers want to work. They need that money. In such a competitive market (and what you want to do would only make it more competitive) it is very difficult to land the ideal job, many fail (the 'losers' of cpaitalism; and they're not always the ones who don't work as hard, sometimes it's just bad luck) and then they have to work for whatever company will give them a paycheck. Now, hopefully that means getting $5/hr, but you do want to abolishmin. wage, so inevitably we will see very educated people making 20 cents/hour in some factory because of bad luck. Perhaps your vision isn't so idealistic after all.
Capitalism only works properly when there are more jobs than workers.

But I believe a free market allows for an unlimited number of jobs, therefore giving workers an advantage over employers.



Suppose there are more jobs than workers.
The workers are in control of the job market.

Would you then support the free market?



anomaly said:
There are no regulations on the car market in Europe, yet the number of companies selling cars has dwindled from 100's of companies to today less than 10. Monopolies happen naturally under any market system, which is why even the most 'laissez-faire' thinkers want gov't to step in and handle this atleast.
I don't know much about purchasing a car in Europe.

But I am betting the consumers are quite satisfied with the variety those few companies provide.

Because if they weren't happy, purchasing would decline. New companies would arise to meet the challenge of providing something the people actually wanted.



anomaly said:
Usually these people get thrown to the bottom rung, having to climb their way back up. And in such a highly competitive job market, who knows, the 'failure' may spend the rest of his days on this bottom rung. A second chance isn't a guarantee. That's why the gov't has welfare or a 'safety net' as the Europeans call it. If you somehow lose everything, you can fall back onto something.
You only need such a "safety net" if you can no longer climb the ladder.
When there are more people than ladders this happens.

But when there are more ladders, everyone can climb up even if they fell off.



anomaly said:
But they can't afford a home. And, is that what they want to do with their lives? Perhap you should ask them, because I doubt that's their dream. Perhaps they were born into a family not able to afford schooling, and so they could never get a good education.
They can't afford a home because they are hanging out at the bottom rung.

It is there choice if they wish to try the climb or not.
Many seem content enough with staying at the bottom.



anomaly said:
Hahahah...FDR was a president!! Please never make such an ugly mistake again, as I may have a hard time taking seriously.
:rofl Sorry, big mistake!!!!

But at least it was a good laugh! :D



anomaly said:
The people control the gov't, ensuring that it operates in the way they want it to. The market doesn't control your life, you do.
The government is a single cookie cutter.
There is demand for 280 million different kinds of cookies.

One cookie cutter ain't gonna work.


A system of majority rules, like the one we have now, is unfair to plenty of people.

Instead of the government controlling everything with a one size fits all attitude, why not let everyone control themselves individually?

Everyone makes their own cookie cutter that fits them uniquely.

That's a true system of fairness.



anomaly said:
Under capitalism, yes you have the freedom to win, but you also have a greater chance of failure, as competition dominates your life (along with obedience, you know, to stop those pesky labor unions). When the governement doesn't regulate, big business triumphs, and the economy grows (at the expense of the majority of people-workers). You must understand that workers need not have any rights under capitalism (in fact, some, such as Ayn Rand, argued that this should be the case, that workers should indeed suffer to make the lives of the rich more comfortable, after all, the rich did earn that life through hard work, according to Ms. Rand).
I understand you believe capitalism is vulgar and "dog eat dog".

But would you allow those of us who want a free market that retains our freedom to opt out of the government's "mommy" position?

Would you let us have a free market amongst ourselves if we so desire?



anomaly said:
It is the most idealistic system out there. Many say, yes, it seems great, but it isn't possible. I agree, it isn't possible-as long as capitalism survives.
Not all types of communism are good.
The kind where the state is massive and controls everyone is bad.


anomaly said:
Communism is characterized by the 'withering away' of the state, leaving people totally free to live and work together. Many argue about what communism would look like, but I think it would look something like this: there would be local groups working together to achieve common goals (the de-centralization of power) and the people of the world would be connected by one thing-communism. You see, it must be a global effort, because, to sum it all up, communism is simply human production strictly for use rather than profit.
I have no problem with individuals in communities working together.

In fact, that's something I believe will emerge from a free society.


The major problem in communism is the use of FORCE. Communism has devastating consequences when it is FORCED upon an unwilling people. Those who do not like the system can and will easily abuse it and corrupt it.

That's why the only good working forms of communism are formed from VOLUNTARY, MUTUAL CONSENT. Something only derived when the government does not use FORCE to achieve it's means.

That's why I support the minimizing of government to the single role of honoring and protecting our natural rights.

The rest should be left up to the mutual consented decision made by the people for themselves.



anomaly said:
I'm a bit of an anarchist myself, of course I support collectivist anarchism while you support 'political' anarchism, you still want and need your 'free market' (which is, by the way, an oxymoron).
It's not an oxymoron.

Market: exchanging of goods and services

Free: not derived from FORCE


Free Market: voluntary exchanging of goods and services
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
To me, choosing to work for 20c/hr, choosing to work as a child, and choosing to work longs hours is not inhumane.

The people doing these various "inhumane" acts are doing it VOLUNTARILY.

And to me, there is nothing wrong with that.
Sure, I may think its strange, stupid, or wrong.
But I'm not going to FORCE my way into a mutual agreement and change things.
And what a 'choice' workers currently have. Either do your job and work for that measley 20 cents an hour or starve (or waste time applying for another job that pays the same amount). The frightening thing is that children often do the work in these factories, in order to bring home money for their poor family, since the child's parents probably work in a factory too (of course, these are the poorest people, but then again, they appear in great numbers in the global south). The child's parents force them to work in order to gain money which is obviously needed. The system only indirectly forces the child to work (how many 11 yr olds do you know that are just dying to work in a dirty factory for less than a quarter an hour?). Again, the great choice in capitalism for the worker is to live or starve, put another way, live or die.




Gabo said:
I see the ONLY purpose of government as protecting our rights to life, liberty, or property.

Therefore I don't think it proper that the government hinder those rights in the name of protecting them.

These regulations that are said to protect us from violation of our rights are violating our rights all on their own.

That I find unacceptable.
You find it inacceptable that, because of the gov't, the steelworker can fight for his rights by joining a labor union? Please don't cry that 'labor unions happen naturally in a free market society'. Labor unions are a direct threat to profit for the greedy capitalist, which is why he almost always (and I really can't think of a case where business welcomes labor unions) opposes them. Workers lose under capitalism. Plain and simple. There is no getting around it.




Gabo said:
Capitalism only works properly when there are more jobs than workers.

But I believe a free market allows for an unlimited number of jobs, therefore giving workers an advantage over employers.



Suppose there are more jobs than workers.
The workers are in control of the job market.

Would you then support the free market?
I do not disagree with you that there would be an infinite number of jobs. The whole problem is, there are absolutely a finite number of jobs that one can live off of. There are more jobs than workers now (consider that, although the unemployment rate hovers around 6%, the poverty rate is at 12%, meaning that atleast 6% of employees can't afford basic goods and services...of course, this is in a rich country, think of the poor global south!)




Gabo said:
I don't know much about purchasing a car in Europe.

But I am betting the consumers are quite satisfied with the variety those few companies provide.

Because if they weren't happy, purchasing would decline. New companies would arise to meet the challenge of providing something the people actually wanted.
But, even if a new product somehow threatens this larger company, the large company can simply buy out the little one, and continue to use that brand. This not only fools the average 'logo-conscience' consumer, but also adds to the big problem of monopolizing.




Gabo said:
You only need such a "safety net" if you can no longer climb the ladder.
When there are more people than ladders this happens.

But when there are more ladders, everyone can climb up even if they fell off.
Yes there are more ladders than people, it's just that some of ladders are molding and not very beneficiary to climb, all of the good ladders already have climbers. (my attempt at an analogy of intense job competition).




Gabo said:
They can't afford a home because they are hanging out at the bottom rung.

It is there choice if they wish to try the climb or not.
Many seem content enough with staying at the bottom.
Actually, none are 'content'. Everyone on this earth wants to be successful. But everyone also wants to be able to feed their families. So, should this worker use his meager wage to attempt (in most countries of the global south, finding food to eat is an everyday challenge, famine and hunger are real problems) to feed his family and clothe them etc., or should he use the money for his own education, and thus start a new 'climb up the ladder'? The choice is indeed his, isn't it!








Gabo said:
The government is a single cookie cutter.
There is demand for 280 million different kinds of cookies.

One cookie cutter ain't gonna work.


A system of majority rules, like the one we have now, is unfair to plenty of people.

Instead of the government controlling everything with a one size fits all attitude, why not let everyone control themselves individually?

Everyone makes their own cookie cutter that fits them uniquely.

That's a true system of fairness.
And let them fight with each other over jobs, money, and one's own well being? The gov't (or, my hope for this earth one day, the people provide each other with this resources i.e. the withering away of the state, which is not needed) can provide all people with these resources, unfortunately, the gov't is no longer in control. Capitalism has gone beyond the control of the state, regulations can be ignored or bypassed, leaving giant corporations to do anything they want to to make a massive profit, and thus, gain power.




Gabo said:
I understand you believe capitalism is vulgar and "dog eat dog".

But would you allow those of us who want a free market that retains our freedom to opt out of the government's "mommy" position?

Would you let us have a free market amongst ourselves if we so desire?
Yes of course. But that is not what 'the people' desire, I feel. The people want equality and fairness, they want ways to end worldhunger and poverty, and it is widely known that these goals cannot be met through capitalism. To me, the question of 'is communism desirable' are plain silly. Of course it is (the only ones who hate it are usually the ones who know least about it, or are openly against the average worker in some way). The question is how to get there. Where to begin? Obviously it is not through the 'free market'. Perhaps, when a revolution of some kind finally happens, th world may be split into 'zones', capitalist, socialist, and communist. Now that is a utopia if I ever saw one. But, you must understand that profit is always made in capitalism at the expense of the worker, in other words, the 'unsuccessful' one. And the damage it is currently doing to the majority of the people in this world is appaling and simply unacceptibel (we have satellite TV that can have thousands of channels, but we can't even feed everyone? we can advance everywhere but economically??). The only 'people' who support capitalism anymore are those in former Communist states and the majority of people in America, whose population is largely ignorant (that's not a shot at you, Gabo. You are simply an optimist) of everything. Europe, Africa, the rst of North America, certainly South America, and parts of Asia are largely against the rise of 'neo-liberalism', or this idea of transnational capitalism.




Gabo said:
Not all types of communism are good.
The kind where the state is massive and controls everyone is bad.
Actually, if the state controls everything, it is not communism. It's socialism. The worst kind of socialism: Authoritorian socialism (more about this later).



Gabo said:
I have no problem with individuals in communities working together.

In fact, that's something I believe will emerge from a free society.
Not under a free-market society, my friend. A free market society inevitably puts man against fellow man, in the name of competition. Someone wins, the othe loses. Capitalism promotes inequality and individualism, meaning that people care about themselves and their own money, not the wants and needs of someone 'less important' than them.


Gabo said:
The major problem in communism is the use of FORCE. Communism has devastating consequences when it is FORCED upon an unwilling people. Those who do not like the system can and will easily abuse it and corrupt it.

That's why the only good working forms of communism are formed from VOLUNTARY, MUTUAL CONSENT. Something only derived when the government does not use FORCE to achieve it's means.

That's why I support the minimizing of government to the single role of honoring and protecting our natural rights.

The rest should be left up to the mutual consented decision made by the people for themselves.
Communism can never be forced, it mut be achieved through a global effort. It is a noble 'global goal'. An authoritarian marxist (now that is really an oxy-moron, as in most cases the man is not a Marist himself, example: Stalin. He was plain crazy, and in about a year destroyed everything that Lenin had worked so hard for. He claimed to be a Marxist, but his only goal was to make the USSR a powerful country, and did that how he felt best, again he was crazy!) believes that one must to control people to give the socialism, in most cases its a desperate attempt to gain power through lies and corruption. "the rest should be left up to the mutual consented decision made by the people themselves". Absolutely. Read about the Zapatistas. Not only do the people mutually agree on every decision made, most decisions are unanimous, meaning that everyone hears everyone else before action is taken.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
This is actually quite interesting.
We both want the same thing.
But we both want it in completely different ways.



anomaly said:
And what a 'choice' workers currently have. Either do your job and work for that measley 20 cents an hour or starve (or waste time applying for another job that pays the same amount). The frightening thing is that children often do the work in these factories, in order to bring home money for their poor family, since the child's parents probably work in a factory too (of course, these are the poorest people, but then again, they appear in great numbers in the global south).
When there are more jobs than workers, something I believe happens in a free market, things aren't as you say.

Companies realize that workers are in limited supply, and they compete to earn more workers. In order to become the most profitable through having the largest workforce, companies compete to offer more to their employees so they will stay loyal, productive, and happy.



anomaly said:
The child's parents force them to work in order to gain money which is obviously needed. The system only indirectly forces the child to work (how many 11 yr olds do you know that are just dying to work in a dirty factory for less than a quarter an hour?). Again, the great choice in capitalism for the worker is to live or starve, put another way, live or die.
The child should never be forced into working.

If the guardian is mistreating them, they should have every right to emancipation.



anomaly said:
You find it inacceptable that, because of the gov't, the steelworker can fight for his rights by joining a labor union? Please don't cry that 'labor unions happen naturally in a free market society'. Labor unions are a direct threat to profit for the greedy capitalist, which is why he almost always (and I really can't think of a case where business welcomes labor unions) opposes them. Workers lose under capitalism. Plain and simple. There is no getting around it.
The only limitations and bans put on labor unions were set by government during the Industrial Revolution.

It is not possible for bans on unions in a free market society, because the initiation of FORCE against such unions is violation of law.



anomaly said:
But, even if a new product somehow threatens this larger company, the large company can simply buy out the little one, and continue to use that brand. This not only fools the average 'logo-conscience' consumer, but also adds to the big problem of monopolizing.
Buying out companies is costly and ineffective.

Because even if BIG-GUY buys out LITTLE-MAN, LITTLE-MAN can simply just create another business exactly the same as the one BIG-GUY bought out.

LITTLE-MAN can then just become infinitely rich off of BIG-GUY as he continues to sell out business after business.

Include the fact that there are probably more than one LITTLE-MAN, maybe even hundreds. Each of them is able to create an infinite number of companies, one after the other, for BIG-GUY to buy out.

BIG-GUY is going to run out of money very quickly.

This is why monopolies never last in a free market unless they provide good service.



anomaly said:
Actually, none are 'content'. Everyone on this earth wants to be successful. But everyone also wants to be able to feed their families. So, should this worker use his meager wage to attempt (in most countries of the global south, finding food to eat is an everyday challenge, famine and hunger are real problems) to feed his family and clothe them etc., or should he use the money for his own education, and thus start a new 'climb up the ladder'? The choice is indeed his, isn't it!
Like I said before, it is possible to earn enough for basic supplies and still have enough to save for an education without having prior education.

There are jobs paying as much as $9 or even more per hour that require no experience or education at all.



anomaly said:
And let them fight with each other over jobs, money, and one's own well being? The gov't (or, my hope for this earth one day, the people provide each other with this resources i.e. the withering away of the state, which is not needed) can provide all people with these resources, unfortunately, the gov't is no longer in control. Capitalism has gone beyond the control of the state, regulations can be ignored or bypassed, leaving giant corporations to do anything they want to to make a massive profit, and thus, gain power.
Capitalism is not a fight. It is peaceful exchanging among people that leaves both parties feeling better off, or they wouldn't do it.



anomaly said:
Yes of course. But that is not what 'the people' desire, I feel. The people want equality and fairness, they want ways to end worldhunger and poverty, and it is widely known that these goals cannot be met through capitalism.
"The people" each have their own desires and goals for their lives.

No one has the right to impose goals upon others.



anomaly said:
To me, the question of 'is communism desirable' are plain silly. Of course it is (the only ones who hate it are usually the ones who know least about it, or are openly against the average worker in some way). The question is how to get there. Where to begin?
Working communism is unattainable without complete freedom.

Unless the people truly represent themselves and only themselves, someone will be getting the short end of the stick.

We have yet to achieve complete freedom anywhere on earth, but that is a goal I am working towards.



anomaly said:
Obviously it is not through the 'free market'.
Freedom is the only key to fair treatment.

When people are not free, they are misrepresented and oppressed.

Freedom is a must-have in a fair society.



anomaly said:
Perhaps, when a revolution of some kind finally happens, th world may be split into 'zones', capitalist, socialist, and communist. Now that is a utopia if I ever saw one.
That most certainly would not be a Utiopia.

But I would most certainly like to see it done.

Only then would we see the true proper form of government.



anomaly said:
But, you must understand that profit is always made in capitalism at the expense of the worker, in other words, the 'unsuccessful' one.
That's a common misconception.

When people interact with each other in a mutual agreement, both believe they are better off than before or they wouldn't do it.

If someone suffers under the system, its because they chose badly.



anomaly said:
And the damage it is currently doing to the majority of the people in this world is appaling and simply unacceptibel (we have satellite TV that can have thousands of channels, but we can't even feed everyone? we can advance everywhere but economically??).
There is no such thing as a society of equals, unless achieved by mutual consent.

Trying to FORCE equality on a society causes more harm than aid.



anomaly said:
The only 'people' who support capitalism anymore are those in former Communist states and the majority of people in America, whose population is largely ignorant (that's not a shot at you, Gabo. You are simply an optimist) of everything. Europe, Africa, the rst of North America, certainly South America, and parts of Asia are largely against the rise of 'neo-liberalism', or this idea of transnational capitalism.
While most people in the US claim to support captialism, most do not.

The Democrats and Republicans are simply 2 different socialist factions vying for the taxpayers' money and freedoms.

The only true capitalist party left is the Libertarians.



anomaly said:
Not under a free-market society, my friend. A free market society inevitably puts man against fellow man, in the name of competition. Someone wins, the other loses. Capitalism promotes inequality and individualism, meaning that people care about themselves and their own money, not the wants and needs of someone 'less important' than them.
Humans are social beings.
The more we interact with each other, the more we can achieve together.

Those that interact with kindness, fairness, and generosity prosper.
They do so because others flock to their side, hearing of their hospitality and wanting to share in the benefits.

Those who treat others cruelly, unfairly, and mean DO NOT prosper.
People learn not to deal with these folks.
They are avoided.

Through free market, those who interact in peaceful, mutually beneficial ways prosper more than those who use parasitic, deceitful ways.

Life is not win-lose as so many people believe.
It is either win-win or lose-lose, depending on the attitudes and willingness of people.
Free markets operate under consentual, win-win conditions. Both parties go away from transactions feeling like they have gained something, or they wouldn't do it.
Governments operate under coercion, force, and deception. They make our world a lose-lose place, where everyone is left with less than threy bargained for.



anomaly said:
"the rest should be left up to the mutual consented decision made by the people themselves". Absolutely. Read about the Zapatistas. Not only do the people mutually agree on every decision made, most decisions are unanimous, meaning that everyone hears everyone else before action is taken.
And THAT, my friend, is a free market society.

One in which every interaction made is done with mutual consent.
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
First let me just say Wow! You guy got quite a thing going here. I haven't looked in on this thread in some time. Very interesting. Good points interesting thoughtful discussion. For some unknown reason I've been trying to educate some other posters on another thread that Fox may not be the most honest News Network on the planet. Which it turns out is like asking a cloud not to float.

anomaly said:
You find it inacceptable that, because of the gov't, the steelworker can fight for his rights by joining a labor union? Please don't cry that 'labor unions happen naturally in a free market society'. Labor unions are a direct threat to profit for the greedy capitalist, which is why he almost always (and I really can't think of a case where business welcomes labor unions) opposes them. Workers lose under capitalism. Plain and simple. There is no getting around it.

Yes, and the points you're making here are exactly why it's been so important for the conservative movement to paint labor unions in this country out to be evil and only interested in screwing their members. The GOP, Cato, and Heritage have all engaged in this campaign to basically slander the labor unions. If you listen to the stuff they put out labor unions aren't helping anyone but the union presidents. Labor unions in this country got working class people the 40 hour work week, safer working conditions and a living wage. Among other things. The push is on to get rid of what they've built. It started several years ago but their first major victory was the repeal of the overtime rules. The conservative movements gaining ground, taking hold and turning it's back on workers and their rights it would be their last victory.




anomaly said:
But, even if a new product somehow threatens this larger company, the large company can simply buy out the little one, and continue to use that brand. This not only fools the average 'logo-conscience' consumer, but also adds to the big problem of monopolizing.


Don't we already have a big problem with monopolization? And by that I mean our media outlets. Basically six companies:Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, News Corporation, Vivendi owns the entire worlds media. Here's a link that will break down who owns what in what part of the world. http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/granville.shtml


Am I the only one a little alarmed by the fact the so much is controlled by so few?
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Pacridge said:
Am I the only one a little alarmed by the fact the so much is controlled by so few?
I know I am not alarmed.


And that is because I believe these companies are doing a fine job at what they do.

The only reason they can continue to own so much of the industry is because so many people continue to support them.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First, let me say to Pacridge, don't be surprised by Gabo's surprisingly optimistic attitude towards capitalism. And Gabo, in the interest of time, I will only respond to those debates that are going somewhere (or are just interesting).
Gabo said:
This is actually quite interesting.
We both want the same thing.
But we both want it in completely different ways.
Hopeless optimism isn't the key, though. Sometimes we must be realists in order to advance. The USA has been pushing (sometimes forcing) capitalism upon countries who do not want it. I am pushing for something revolutionary and different, whereas you are seemingly pushing for more of the thing that is causing so much harm in this world, capitalism. Sometimes the gov't is at fault (consider Sudan's and ours in our 'handling' of Iraq) but other times it is the capitalist system which is at fault (as in the case of South Koreans wanting workers' rights ten yrs ago or the landless peasants in Brazil, of the child working in a sweatshop in China.




Gabo said:
When there are more jobs than workers, something I believe happens in a free market, things aren't as you say.

Companies realize that workers are in limited supply, and they compete to earn more workers. In order to become the most profitable through having the largest workforce, companies compete to offer more to their employees so they will stay loyal, productive, and happy.
If this is the case, why do we not see it today? Jobs will always outnumber people in almost any society in almost any economic system. The problem is the quality of jobs (my ladder analogy). The only a way a company can be profitable through a large workforce is is if workers are paid very little. Another problem we see developing in modern capitalism is technology, which, in many cases, can replace the worker rather easily. This means that companies can get by with a smaller workforce. And there is no limited supply of workers in a third world factory, where factories of rich corporations dominate the job landscape. Many are unemployed, and when there is an opening, it is quickly filled. This leads to the high unemployment rates we ee in 3rd world countries. Another fantastic byproduct of globalization.





Gabo said:
The child should never be forced into working.

If the guardian is mistreating them, they should have every right to emancipation.
This sounds nice, but who's gonna force that upon China?




Gabo said:
The only limitations and bans put on labor unions were set by government during the Industrial Revolution.

It is not possible for bans on unions in a free market society, because the initiation of FORCE against such unions is violation of law.
What law is this? Is this another law that you simply 'hope' will be adopted when the gov't completely recedes before capitalism is dead, thus giving total control of this 'free market' (which, as Pacridge points out, is never 'free' for long)?




Gabo said:
Buying out companies is costly and ineffective.

Because even if BIG-GUY buys out LITTLE-MAN, LITTLE-MAN can simply just create another business exactly the same as the one BIG-GUY bought out.

LITTLE-MAN can then just become infinitely rich off of BIG-GUY as he continues to sell out business after business.

Include the fact that there are probably more than one LITTLE-MAN, maybe even hundreds. Each of them is able to create an infinite number of companies, one after the other, for BIG-GUY to buy out.

BIG-GUY is going to run out of money very quickly.

This is why monopolies never last in a free market unless they provide good service.
Perhaps you should take a look around you, Gabo. Monoplies stare you in the face when you go to the grocery store, you witness them when buying a car, and you even saw them when you bought that computer on which you are typing. And if 'buying out' the little guy is so ineffective and 'bad' for the company, why is it happening all the time? Why is the number of companies decreasing in all areas of the market?




Gabo said:
Like I said before, it is possible to earn enough for basic supplies and still have enough to save for an education without having prior education.

There are jobs paying as much as $9 or even more per hour that require no experience or education at all.
How simple! Tell this to the average middle or South American worker! Tell this to the North Korean! Tell this to the Chinese! Tell this to the average African worker! (etc., etc.) I'm sure these billions of people would love to get their hands on a job paying out $9/hr.




Gabo}Capitalism is not a fight. It is peaceful exchanging among people that leaves both parties feeling better off said:
When the gov't of Brazil gave land once belonging to farmers to big companies, was that a 'peaceful exchange'? It was certainly capitalistic, as the need for money and profit certainly determined the actions of both the companies and the gov't.




Gabo said:
"The people" each have their own desires and goals for their lives.

No one has the right to impose goals upon others.
Obviously. But, my qestion is, can your beloved free market give complete freedom to 'the people'? So far, any attempt at a free market has given power to the large corporations, while ignoring the needs of a good majority of the world's citizens.




Gabo said:
Working communism is unattainable without complete freedom.

Unless the people truly represent themselves and only themselves, someone will be getting the short end of the stick.

We have yet to achieve complete freedom anywhere on earth, but that is a goal I am working towards.
Very true. Democracy is seen by most contemporary communists and socialists as the ideal way of governing, and the ideal way of gaining power. See www.worldsocialistmovement.org for contemporary communist thought (don't let the name fool you, it is called socialist because of the terrible idea the avg American gets in their head when thinking of communism).




Gabo said:
Freedom is the only key to fair treatment.

When people are not free, they are misrepresented and oppressed.

Freedom is a must-have in a fair society.
This is the irony of the 'free market'. It gives only the freedom to use the market, meaning that the highest bidder in this market (the one with the most money) inevitably wins. Today it is scary, as even democracy is up for sale (I'm referring to the financing of campaigns mostly by large corporations, which is why a multi party system can't arise). Most who live under the glare of the free market today are having their freedoms stripped from them (even in the USA with the new 'Patriot Act'...Gabo, I know you're a libertarian so you're probably against the Act, right?).





Gabo said:
That's a common misconception.

When people interact with each other in a mutual agreement, both believe they are better off than before or they wouldn't do it.

If someone suffers under the system, its because they chose badly.
where is the 'mutual consent' today? Again, the choise you seem to say all workers have is this: work in whatever job (no matter how terrible conditions are) they are given, or starve and die. Some choice.




Gabo said:
There is no such thing as a society of equals, unless achieved by mutual consent.

Trying to FORCE equality on a society causes more harm than aid.
You refer to what I believe is the myth of equality: there is no such thing as complete and total equality ever. But then, how can we measure, since equality does not exist, which people are the 'best' and which are the 'worst'. Capitalists say it's by how much money they have. I say that this kind of judgment is often flawed and wrong, so I oppose using money as some kind of 'yardstick' for success. That is why I support communism i.e. human production for direct use instead of profit.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mine was too long again...here's the rest.
Gabo said:
While most people in the US claim to support captialism, most do not.

The Democrats and Republicans are simply 2 different socialist factions vying for the taxpayers' money and freedoms.

The only true capitalist party left is the Libertarians.
If this is true,then why are the winners of modern capitalism almost always Republicans? Republicans are certainly not socialists, and where the GOP does the Dems follow, as they too move toward the notion of 'free markets' and privatisation. You are, Gabo, economically a radical conservative. But otherwise, you are a radical leftist. Quite an odd combination. While I'm thinking about it, capitalism does not always invlve toal democracy (see capitalism.org on how democracy is sometimes 'wrong')




Gabo said:
Humans are social beings.
The more we interact with each other, the more we can achieve together.

Those that interact with kindness, fairness, and generosity prosper.
They do so because others flock to their side, hearing of their hospitality and wanting to share in the benefits.

Those who treat others cruelly, unfairly, and mean DO NOT prosper.
People learn not to deal with these folks.
They are avoided.

Through free market, those who interact in peaceful, mutually beneficial ways prosper more than those who use parasitic, deceitful ways.

Life is not win-lose as so many people believe.
It is either win-win or lose-lose, depending on the attitudes and willingness of people.
Free markets operate under consentual, win-win conditions. Both parties go away from transactions feeling like they have gained something, or they wouldn't do it.
Governments operate under coercion, force, and deception. They make our world a lose-lose place, where everyone is left with less than threy bargained for.
Capitalism is a competition (not only that, competition defines capitalism), and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen or heard of any competition that ended without a loser (except the boring ties in hockey and soccer but no one likes a tie, do they?) And I've definitely never heard of a competition where the end result was 'win, win'!!



Gabo said:
And THAT, my friend, is a free market society.

One in which every interaction made is done with mutual consent.
So a free market society sometimes doesn't involve the almighty dollar? But then it isn't capitalism! That's why the Zapatistas are not capitalists: they use democracy instead of currency (there is no dollar).
BTW, have you ever read any works of Marx? More importantly, have you ever read any works of Ayn Rand (in my mind, the mother of modern capitalist thought)?
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Hopeless optimism isn't the key, though. Sometimes we must be realists in order to advance. The USA has been pushing (sometimes forcing) capitalism upon countries who do not want it.
THE USA IS NOT A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY.

Just look at it.

Taxes on everything.
Regulations on everything.
Restrictions on everything.

THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM.


Also, I do not agree with FORCING anything upon anyone. Doing so is the opposite of capitalism, which makes it even worse when people do this in the name of captialism.



anomaly said:
I am pushing for something revolutionary and different, whereas you are seemingly pushing for more of the thing that is causing so much harm in this world, capitalism.
The only time our nation was almost completely capitalist is near its beginning.

Ever since then we've been moving towards more taxation, more regulation, and more restriction.

And where has that brought us?

From 1st place to 12th.



anomaly said:
If this is the case, why do we not see it today? Jobs will always outnumber people in almost any society in almost any economic system. The problem is the quality of jobs (my ladder analogy). The only a way a company can be profitable through a large workforce is is if workers are paid very little.
We do not see it because the USA does not practice capitalism.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs are shipped overseas because of minimum wage.

And the number of jobs DOES NOT currently exceed the number of workers.

There are 1.4 million unemployed, yet only about 500,000 available job positions.



anomaly said:
Another problem we see developing in modern capitalism is technology, which, in many cases, can replace the worker rather easily. This means that companies can get by with a smaller workforce.
Technology does not eliminate jobs, it just changes what kind of jobs there are.

Someone must create the machines used by the new technology.
New jobs arise to repair, restore, and enhance the new machines.

Newer pursuits of happiness arise when people have more free time.
These new pursuits increase our quality of life.

EX: When farmers learned to make oxen pull the plow, they saved themselves time. They used this time for other activities, like learning how to create all sorts of new inventions.



anomaly said:
This sounds nice, but who's gonna force that upon China?
As I've said before, I don't live in China and I'm not responsible for what happens there.

I have no say nor do I want to, because it's not my decision to make.

But if we can show our success of fair treatment to children and its benefits,
China may realize it is a good decision and adopt our policy.

EX: Out success at democracy led many nations to switch to it.



anomaly said:
What law is this? Is this another law that you simply 'hope' will be adopted when the gov't completely recedes before capitalism is dead, thus giving total control of this 'free market' (which, as Pacridge points out, is never 'free' for long)?
There is no law necessary for this.

The only law necessary for a free market is that nobody may violate anyone else's life, liberty, or property.

The government wouldn't be able to use FORCE against unions, but obviously the corporations wouldn't be able to either.



anomaly said:
Perhaps you should take a look around you, Gabo. Monoplies stare you in the face when you go to the grocery store, you witness them when buying a car, and you even saw them when you bought that computer on which you are typing. And if 'buying out' the little guy is so ineffective and 'bad' for the company, why is it happening all the time? Why is the number of companies decreasing in all areas of the market?
*looks around me*
*looks at definition of monopoly*

The true definition of a monopoly is one company controlling ALL of an industry.
The ability to do this only becomes available through the use of FORCE, something that is not permitted in a free society.

As we are now, there are many reasons for decline in # of companies.
-Big companies are providing good enough services that others can't compete
-People have less interest in a certain product or service
-People are pleased with the current variety in an industry

Yes, big companies do buy out plenty of small ones.
But they can't buy them all out. There's always another somewhere.
And if they buy that one out, there will be another.



anomaly said:
How simple! Tell this to the average middle or South American worker! Tell this to the North Korean! Tell this to the Chinese! Tell this to the average African worker! (etc., etc.) I'm sure these billions of people would love to get their hands on a job paying out $9/hr.
Once again, I am not responsible for other countries.

I live in the US, and that is the place I am trying to fix.

And people CAN get jobs paying well in the US without education.



anomaly said:
When the gov't of Brazil gave land once belonging to farmers to big companies, was that a 'peaceful exchange'? It was certainly capitalistic, as the need for money and profit certainly determined the actions of both the companies and the gov't.
That exchange was the epitome of anti-capitalism.

A non-consentual exchange in which one party has no say in the matter.

The farmers obviously didn't decide to give up the land, and they obviously didn't think they were getting a good deal.

This kind of exchange can only happen with big government intervention.



anomaly said:
Obviously. But, my qestion is, can your beloved free market give complete freedom to 'the people'? So far, any attempt at a free market has given power to the large corporations, while ignoring the needs of a good majority of the world's citizens.
Freedom is not power.

Freedom is choice.

A free market gives more choice to everyone than any other system.



anomaly said:
Very true.
You say complete freedom is necessary for a free society.....

But then you turn around and say a free market is a detriment to a free society...



anomaly said:
Today it is scary, as even democracy is up for sale (I'm referring to the financing of campaigns mostly by large corporations, which is why a multi party system can't arise). Most who live under the glare of the free market today are having their freedoms stripped from them (even in the USA with the new 'Patriot Act'...Gabo, I know you're a libertarian so you're probably against the Act, right?).
Unlike in a free market, our democracy system works using FORCE.

People are FORCED to pay taxes to a government that doesn't keep their interests at heart. And everyone knows it isn't possible for a government to spend tax money on programs that everyone in the country agrees on.

Which is why government shouldn't be stealing and spending our money in the first place.

And yes, I am completely against the Patriot Act.
It takes away even more from our ever-diminishing freedoms.



anomaly said:
where is the 'mutual consent' today? Again, the choise you seem to say all workers have is this: work in whatever job (no matter how terrible conditions are) they are given, or starve and die. Some choice.
As I've said before, when jobs outsupply workers, the workers decide.

And even if they don't, they still do agree to work in the bad conditions.
It is a choice made considering current circumstances as any choice is.



anomaly said:
You refer to what I believe is the myth of equality: there is no such thing as complete and total equality ever. But then, how can we measure, since equality does not exist, which people are the 'best' and which are the 'worst'. Capitalists say it's by how much money they have. I say that this kind of judgment is often flawed and wrong, so I oppose using money as some kind of 'yardstick' for success. That is why I support communism i.e. human production for direct use instead of profit.
Obviously, most say the 'best' people are those with the 'best' property.
This is partly true, and plays a big role in happiness.

But intellectual and social property matter as well.
The exchange of words, ideas, and opinions are valuable too.


It is impossible to say one or the other makes a person 'the best'. Everyone desires both things in different amounts depending on preference.

No one has the right to take away either from anyone by FORCE, as they both are products of the individual's time, energy, and talents.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
If this is true,then why are the winners of modern capitalism almost always Republicans? Republicans are certainly not socialists, and where the GOP does the Dems follow, as they too move toward the notion of 'free markets' and privatisation.
While Republicans claim to favor capitalism, more and more of them are favoring Big Government nowadays.

Just look at how much more of a police state the US has become ever since Bush came to power.

Look at the increase in federal budget spending since Bush came to power.


Nowadays, Republicans and Democrats feel deserving of praise and honor for simply limiting the budget to last year's plus "inflation".

They don't even think about keeping the budget the same as last year's, or reducing the budget at all.

I would not call that capitalist in any way.



anomaly said:
You are, Gabo, economically a radical conservative. But otherwise, you are a radical leftist. Quite an odd combination. While I'm thinking about it, capitalism does not always invlve toal democracy (see capitalism.org on how democracy is sometimes 'wrong')
Yes, I am the best of both worlds.

Freedom all around, instead of selective freedom.



anomaly said:
Capitalism is a competition (not only that, competition defines capitalism), and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen or heard of any competition that ended without a loser (except the boring ties in hockey and soccer but no one likes a tie, do they?) And I've definitely never heard of a competition where the end result was 'win, win'!!
While capitalism does involve competition to exchange goods and services, it is always win-win. The two individual parties participating in the exchange do so mutually, and both benefit in some way clear to themselves.

If I trade you one cow hide for seven coconuts, it is done mutually.
We both believe we are getting a good deal, and it improves both of our lives.

If you are offering seven coconuts, but someone else is offering eight, I will go to them instead. Both me and that person will have a mutual exchange that benefits both of us.

You won't participate in that particular exchange, but you can still exchange with others, or change your terms. And when you do exchange, it will benefit both you and the other person.

Like I said, win-win.



anomaly said:
So a free market society sometimes doesn't involve the almighty dollar? But then it isn't capitalism! That's why the Zapatistas are not capitalists: they use democracy instead of currency (there is no dollar).
Capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with the dollar.

In fact, national currencies are just another government monopoly designed to keep the public misinformed, and cheat them as well.

A free market society would barter with actual goods, or vouchers for those goods.

The USD, which has absolutely no real value, is fiat money that ruins the economy. The monopolizers can manipulate the amount in circulation at will, allowing them to create devastating effects on the nation (Great Depression anyone?).
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I will attempt to only respond to debates that seem to be going somewhere.
Gabo said:
THE USA IS NOT A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY.

Just look at it.

Taxes on everything.
Regulations on everything.
Restrictions on everything.

THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM.


Also, I do not agree with FORCING anything upon anyone. Doing so is the opposite of capitalism, which makes it even worse when people do this in the name of captialism.
Actually, under Bush, taxes and regulations have dropped. And this move of privatization has made Bush's 1st term the first term of a president since Hoover to see a net loss in jobs. Whether any other country (or any other people) like it, we live in a world of capitalism (the 3rd world has far fewer regulations than the US, yet workers there do not seem to be doing quite as well as workers here.) Since capitalism has never been used (just like communism), we will have to judge it by what the intellectuals said of it. This means Ayn Rand. And personally, I would not want to live in her world (or yours).




Gabo said:
The only time our nation was almost completely capitalist is near its beginning.

Ever since then we've been moving towards more taxation, more regulation, and more restriction.

And where has that brought us?

From 1st place to 12th.
I still don't know how the original US citizens were '#1' in living conditions; the only freedom they had that we lack was the freedom to escape gov't. I suppose you find this as somehow better than today. It may be good to point out that since the New Deal (regulations and more regulations) unemployment, which was quite high from 1870-1920s (also the era where laissez-faire policies were implimented) has dropped to 6%.




Gabo said:
We do not see it because the USA does not practice capitalism.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs are shipped overseas because of minimum wage.
And the number of jobs DOES NOT currently exceed the number of workers.

There are 1.4 million unemployed, yet only about 500,000 available job positions.
I find it surprising (not really) that you blame the worker for globalization, when the object at fault is capitalism. Regulations in the US prevent it from 'functioning' i.e. making the rich richer, so they go and pursue cheap labor elsewhere. May I ask how abolishing minimum wage would make the number of available jobs increase (I'm willing to bet that salaries would be meager for these new jobs)?




Gabo said:
Technology does not eliminate jobs, it just changes what kind of jobs there are.

Someone must create the machines used by the new technology.
New jobs arise to repair, restore, and enhance the new machines.

Newer pursuits of happiness arise when people have more free time.
These new pursuits increase our quality of life.

EX: When farmers learned to make oxen pull the plow, they saved themselves time. They used this time for other activities, like learning how to create all sorts of new inventions.
How optimistic. Let's look at this issue with a pessimist view. The 'unskilled' factory worker used to spend his day manufacturing things. Now a machine can do that. This worker obviously loses his job, or accepts making far less money, as a new job of running a machine would require less skill.



Gabo said:
As I've said before, I don't live in China and I'm not responsible for what happens there.

I have no say nor do I want to, because it's not my decision to make.

But if we can show our success of fair treatment to children and its benefits,
China may realize it is a good decision and adopt our policy.

EX: Out success at democracy led many nations to switch to it.
China's situation is caused by unregulated capitalism. Giving people rights means that minimum wage would be increased, child labor laws would have to be made, and other regulations, which you despise. So are you willing to allow regulations exist in the name of the good of the Chinese people? Of course, China doesn't institute such policy because companies would leave China, in search of cheaper labor (sound familiar). So will China give people the rights they deserve at the expense of its economy?




Gabo said:
There is no law necessary for this.

The only law necessary for a free market is that nobody may violate anyone else's life, liberty, or property.

The government wouldn't be able to use FORCE against unions, but obviously the corporations wouldn't be able to either.
Actually, under unrestrained capitalism, the gov't would own absolutely nothing, and thus have no power, while corporations would own everything, and control the means of production. And when corporations own everything, who's gonna punish the corporations?




Gabo said:
*looks around me*
*looks at definition of monopoly*

The true definition of a monopoly is one company controlling ALL of an industry.
The ability to do this only becomes available through the use of FORCE, something that is not permitted in a free society.

As we are now, there are many reasons for decline in # of companies.
-Big companies are providing good enough services that others can't compete
-People have less interest in a certain product or service
-People are pleased with the current variety in an industry

Yes, big companies do buy out plenty of small ones.
But they can't buy them all out. There's always another somewhere.
And if they buy that one out, there will be another.
This is the process of monopolization. There is no 'monopoly' yet. But at the rate we're going, the prospect of a monopoly existing sometime in the not too distant future seems pretty good. Also, it's odd how, in one aspect you blatantly reject the idea of the US being capitalistic, and yet when it comes to this area, you approve of everything happening because it is capitalistic. The extreme competition in the US is reason enough for it to be labeled 'capitalist'. We are a 'real' capitalist country, not an idealistic one, as you hope for.




Gabo said:
Once again, I am not responsible for other countries.

I live in the US, and that is the place I am trying to fix.

And people CAN get jobs paying well in the US without education.
But that is the whole problem. Most people in the US have a nice, cozy life. This, of course, comes at the expense of the livelihood of others in distant lands. And all of this is a result of what business people call capitalism or globalization. Socialists who see this and recognize that there is something very wrong here have finally said Ya Basta, enough is enough.




Gabo said:
That exchange was the epitome of anti-capitalism.

A non-consentual exchange in which one party has no say in the matter.

The farmers obviously didn't decide to give up the land, and they obviously didn't think they were getting a good deal.

This kind of exchange can only happen with big government intervention.
No, it can only happen when the corporations have more power than the nation. Brazil needed these corporations to help its economy, corporations needed that land to make a (bigger) profit. And perhaps you should read something on the subject of anti-capitalism (as it is a huge movement) before generalizing it and lying to anyone who read your writing. You should really be careful not to make yourself out to be so ignorant, because Gabo, you're really very smart, you just sometimes find it neccesary to make ignorant claims.




Gabo said:
Freedom is not power.

Freedom is choice.

A free market gives more choice to everyone than any other system.




You say complete freedom is necessary for a free society.....

But then you turn around and say a free market is a detriment to a free society...
A free market involves the buying and selling of everything. Now, as much as you would like the people to have all the 'choice' in this buying and selling, it hasn't ever happened in a capitalist market. The buying and selling is controlled by people who can't be voted out of office every few years, it is controlled by corporations. A free market allows a corporation to take away some freedoms of the worker, it also gives almost everything a price, making almost everything able to be bought and sold. Sadly, this even includes truth nowadays, as every single media outlet is controlled by a corporation, and these media outlets then do not lie, they're much too smart for that, they simply distort the truth and make it hard to find. In the words of Arundhati Roy, "the free market has reduced free elections, free press, and an independent judiciary to commodities on sale to the highest bidder."
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
Unlike in a free market, our democracy system works using FORCE.

People are FORCED to pay taxes to a government that doesn't keep their interests at heart. And everyone knows it isn't possible for a government to spend tax money on programs that everyone in the country agrees on.

Which is why government shouldn't be stealing and spending our money in the first place.

And yes, I am completely against the Patriot Act.
It takes away even more from our ever-diminishing freedoms.
Exactly. Well somewhat. It is true that the gov't doesn't have our interests at heart, but why is that? Could it be that this gov't has two parties which are supported mostly by huge corporations, you know, the ones who finance their campaigns. It seems obvious then that the party will work to appease the financers of their campaign, not the voters. And history shows that what is good for big business is almost always bad for the worker. But the answer does not lie in giving these already corrupt companies who value money more than human life even more power, it lies in something we on the left call revolution. And for this, you should look to the huge anti-capitalist movement, or you could ask me questions about it.




Gabo said:
As I've said before, when jobs outsupply workers, the workers decide.

And even if they don't, they still do agree to work in the bad conditions.
It is a choice made considering current circumstances as any choice is.
What a choice you give to them! Work or die! Isn't there something better than that? Can't we make things better? That's about as good as the choice missionaries give people: "Believe in and worship Christ or go to hell". But the choices don't matter, right? What matters is that we get to make the choice, giving us a sense, however distorted it may be, of 'freedom'.




Gabo said:
Obviously, most say the 'best' people are those with the 'best' property.
This is partly true, and plays a big role in happiness.

But intellectual and social property matter as well.
The exchange of words, ideas, and opinions are valuable too.


It is impossible to say one or the other makes a person 'the best'. Everyone desires both things in different amounts depending on preference.

No one has the right to take away either from anyone by FORCE, as they both are products of the individual's time, energy, and talents.
Perhaps the 'best' people aren't neccesarily the richest. I agree with this. But then why do the 'not best' people continue to get the most money? And money is never a good indicator of a person's worht, nor of a person's time, energy or talents. While there are plenty of ways to become skilled (thru hard work), the fact that one is skilled is not always an indicator of wealth. So I ask, should we measure a person's worth by money? Or is there another way? Have we, in the last 2500 years, advanced at all?


Gabo said:
While Republicans claim to favor capitalism, more and more of them are favoring Big Government nowadays.

Just look at how much more of a police state the US has become ever since Bush came to power.

Look at the increase in federal budget spending since Bush came to power.


Nowadays, Republicans and Democrats feel deserving of praise and honor for simply limiting the budget to last year's plus "inflation".

They don't even think about keeping the budget the same as last year's, or reducing the budget at all.

I would not call that capitalist in any way.
Republicns like to rely on the market, they like to cut regulations and taxes, and many of them support repealling the New Deal (effectively destroying minimum wage). I'd call this very capitalist. I'm sure that if you sat down and talked with a Republican and stuck to economics, you could find plenty of common ground.




Gabo said:
Yes, I am the best of both worlds.

Freedom all around, instead of selective freedom.
Freedom to let the corporations control us instead of the gov't. This, of course, could result in something much worse than we currently have, as we'd be subjected to intense competition amongst companies.




Gabo said:
While capitalism does involve competition to exchange goods and services, it is always win-win. The two individual parties participating in the exchange do so mutually, and both benefit in some way clear to themselves.

If I trade you one cow hide for seven coconuts, it is done mutually.
We both believe we are getting a good deal, and it improves both of our lives.

If you are offering seven coconuts, but someone else is offering eight, I will go to them instead. Both me and that person will have a mutual exchange that benefits both of us.

You won't participate in that particular exchange, but you can still exchange with others, or change your terms. And when you do exchange, it will benefit both you and the other person.

Like I said, win-win.
Pretend you're an illegal immigrant. I offer you a job at a slaughterhouse, and you, knowing that you have no mode of transportation nor any food or shelter, reluctantly accept the job. Obviously work conditions are terrible. Now is that what you mean by mutual consent? It benefits the employer greatly, but does it really benefit the worker? You are trapped under my rule, I sould fire you, and thus, sentence you to starvation if I wish. Again, is this the choice that you say exists? Is this consent?




Gabo said:
Capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with the dollar.

In fact, national currencies are just another government monopoly designed to keep the public misinformed, and cheat them as well.

A free market society would barter with actual goods, or vouchers for those goods.

The USD, which has absolutely no real value, is fiat money that ruins the economy. The monopolizers can manipulate the amount in circulation at will, allowing them to create devastating effects on the nation (Great Depression anyone?).
The more I debate with you, the more I think you're a communist! I know of no other capitalist who wanted to abolish the dollar. Perhaps a 'free market' as you describe it would exist in some communist society. So your ideal economy is a barter system? Well, that is certainly not communist.
OK, two quick questions.
Have you ever read any Marx? You may agree with much of what he says.
Have you ever read any Ayn Rand? Interestingly, you may disagree with much of what she says.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Exactly. Well somewhat. It is true that the gov't doesn't have our interests at heart, but why is that? Could it be that this gov't has two parties which are supported mostly by huge corporations, you know, the ones who finance their campaigns. It seems obvious then that the party will work to appease the financers of their campaign, not the voters. And history shows that what is good for big business is almost always bad for the worker. But the answer does not lie in giving these already corrupt companies who value money more than human life even more power, it lies in something we on the left call revolution. And for this, you should look to the huge anti-capitalist movement, or you could ask me questions about it.
There is no such thing as having the interests of all the common people at heart.
This is because each and every person has different interests.

I might want to spend my extra cash on space exploration.
You might want to spend yours on feeding the homeless.
Johnny might not want to spend his at all, but rather save for his future.

The money belongs to the INDIVIDUAL.
These are choices for the INDIVIDUAL to make.
There's no reason any group should be allowed to take our money and tell us what we want to spend it on.
Nobody but us knows what we really want.



anomaly said:
What a choice you give to them! Work or die! Isn't there something better than that? Can't we make things better? That's about as good as the choice missionaries give people: "Believe in and worship Christ or go to hell". But the choices don't matter, right? What matters is that we get to make the choice, giving us a sense, however distorted it may be, of 'freedom'.
"Work or die" is only happens under EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES.
Almost all of the time there is another, better choice available.

This as opposed to a regulated market, which goes something like:
"Do what we tell you or spend your life locked up".
And under a regulated market, this is ALWAYS the case.

A free market gives more choice than any other.
It is the only market in which everyone is granted equal rights.



anomaly said:
Perhaps the 'best' people aren't neccesarily the richest. I agree with this. But then why do the 'not best' people continue to get the most money? And money is never a good indicator of a person's worht, nor of a person's time, energy or talents. While there are plenty of ways to become skilled (thru hard work), the fact that one is skilled is not always an indicator of wealth. So I ask, should we measure a person's worth by money? Or is there another way? Have we, in the last 2500 years, advanced at all?
Accumulating wealth is a goal many people share in life.
With the elimination of the ownership of wealth, many people become unsatisfied.



anomaly said:
Republicns like to rely on the market, they like to cut regulations and taxes, and many of them support repealling the New Deal (effectively destroying minimum wage). I'd call this very capitalist. I'm sure that if you sat down and talked with a Republican and stuck to economics, you could find plenty of common ground.
You are referring to the traditional Republicans.
There aren't many of those left.
Most of them are now Bush supporting socialists.



anomaly said:
Freedom to let the corporations control us instead of the gov't. This, of course, could result in something much worse than we currently have, as we'd be subjected to intense competition amongst companies.
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING.

Being part of a government is NOT VOLUNTARY, and what the government does is by FORCE.

A free market HAS NO FORCE AT ALL. People simply have a choice.
Sometimes the choice doesn't have many good options, but its still a choice.

The corporations only control us as long as we let them control us.

If we stand up to them and say "NO!", they have nothing left.



anomaly said:
Pretend you're an illegal immigrant. I offer you a job at a slaughterhouse, and you, knowing that you have no mode of transportation nor any food or shelter, reluctantly accept the job. Obviously work conditions are terrible. Now is that what you mean by mutual consent? It benefits the employer greatly, but does it really benefit the worker? You are trapped under my rule, I could fire you, and thus, sentence you to starvation if I wish. Again, is this the choice that you say exists? Is this consent?
Lets see..... I have the choice to starving and dying on the street, or taking a low rung job to support myself.

It is completely up to me.

I can take the job if I think its worth it, or I can go search for other competitors, or I can attempt to find my own niche and offer my own service.

We obviously don't live in a world of one company, so I could check out others in the area for better conditions or pay. I would most likely find a business that needs new workers and is willing to offer a better deal than your business.

After working for that business for a year or two, I could save up for a bycicle to search around for better jobs, plus I will now have job experience on my resume.

I will soon be able to find a better job with better conditions, and now I'm one step higher up on the ladder!



anomaly said:
The more I debate with you, the more I think you're a communist! I know of no other capitalist who wanted to abolish the dollar. Perhaps a 'free market' as you describe it would exist in some communist society. So your ideal economy is a barter system? Well, that is certainly not communist.
Most people that claim to be capitalist are really not....

True capitalists despise anything that misrepresents or uses FORCE.
The US Dollar does both.
It has absolutely no value, is prone to inflation, and is FORCED upon the people.

Me and many other true capitalists are turning to a new private, 100% silver and gold backed currency.

It's called the Liberty Dollar, and it's REAL money. (www.libertydollar.org)


Also, communism isn't far away from a free society.

Essentially, it's a free society where somehow everyone is selfless and caring.
They all work together for the betterment of their community.
Unfortunately, this is unattainable.
Which is why I choose the next best thing, a free society.



anomaly said:
Have you ever read any Marx? You may agree with much of what he says.
Have you ever read any Ayn Rand? Interestingly, you may disagree with much of what she says.
I've never read either, though I plan to read both after I'm done with school.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
There is no such thing as having the interests of all the common people at heart.
This is because each and every person has different interests.

I might want to spend my extra cash on space exploration.
You might want to spend yours on feeding the homeless.
Johnny might not want to spend his at all, but rather save for his future.

The money belongs to the INDIVIDUAL.
These are choices for the INDIVIDUAL to make.
There's no reason any group should be allowed to take our money and tell us what we want to spend it on.
Nobody but us knows what we really want.
Individualism at its highest. We live in a very individualistic society, and what do we see? War, high crime rates, relatively high poverty. That's why I feel anarcho-communism is probably the best choice (note: I'm not switching my beliefs here, just letting you know that this communism of which I speak is a form of anarchism). Are you seriously saying that the people should not control the economy (democratic economy)? Are you seriously saying that every single person is capable of making economically sound choices? Wake up and see the damage that privatization is doing around the world. Wake up from this dream of yours, wake up from this terrible deception which you call truth. In India, and South Africa, privatization has been sought, and has been implemented. Look at the state of two countries: poverty level over 40%. Is this your dream? Is this how it's supposed to look? Idealistic capitalism looks absolutely great on paper (to some), but when the market, along with its mighty corporations, start to extend beyond the reach of any power, including gov't, the reality is that those on the top of the economic ladder gain greatly, while those on the bottom loses equally so. Ayn Rand admits that capitalism is not perfect. Atleast she can admit that, despite her odd beliefs. But you live in a dream, other countries' economic situations do not matter to you, the privatization you so desperately seek causes hardship among these poor countries, and worst of all, as we continue to see democracy fade away and we see the left wing of (organised) politics head right economically, we have no choice. There is little we can do 'from the inside'. Capitalism, even the non-idealistic version that exists today, hurts the majority of people. This is a fact. Your massive speculation and your seemingly unigue stance on what capitalism really is cannot change this. I would, finally, like to see you accept what capitalism really is. It is not a people's utopia. It is the utopia of the 'skilled' and the mighty and the rich. Please, oh please, read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand sometime. That book is capitalism, it is the utopia of you capitalists.




Gabo said:
"Work or die" is only happens under EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES.
Almost all of the time there is another, better choice available.

This as opposed to a regulated market, which goes something like:
"Do what we tell you or spend your life locked up".
And under a regulated market, this is ALWAYS the case.

A free market gives more choice than any other.
It is the only market in which everyone is granted equal rights.
Where is the law that says 'do what we tell you or be locked up'? Where are these mad claims of which you speak? In Sweden, it may be argued that the people have more freedom than in the USA, yet Sweden is socialist. A free market certainly doesn't give 'equal rights'. Does the sweatshop worker have equal rights to the businessman who owns that factory? Perhaps you should ask the worker about this. A free market (idealistically) gives equal chance, but never guaruntees equal rights. In South Africa today, privatization is the new way. Since Mandela, South Africa has been pressured to do that way by corporate powers. And today the black worker is worse off than he was during the era of racist apartheid. Equal rights! Don't make me laugh!




Gabo said:
Accumulating wealth is a goal many people share in life.
With the elimination of the ownership of wealth, many people become unsatisfied.
According to who? Besides, how does one attain wealth in you 'barter system'? The only way possible seems to be to cheat your business partner. Accumulating wealth is, by the way, an aspect of only the capitalist system. Do not assume that 'this is how it's always been'. In the days of subsistence farming, survival was the only key. Grow enough on which to live. Today, workers are made to produce a huge surplus, that means that we will have periods of overproduction, which means economic instability. The worker creates his own misery, all while, as Marx points out, he becomes alienated from his once proud work, as it is now only a tool with which to gain money.




Gabo said:
You are referring to the traditional Republicans.
There aren't many of those left.
Most of them are now Bush supporting socialists.
This is complete and utter ignorance to all of US politics. You have it totally wrong. The left is deteriorating. The right has swamped the left, and now a 'third way' of CLinton and Blair has emerged from once truly leftist parties. Privatization is the way everyone is going. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. All of them. Taxes are some of the last remnants of FDR's liberal state. And now Bush is cutting them. This leads to an underfunding of education. But hey, when everything's up for sale nowadays, there is only one needed subject: business. Who needs math, science, english, philosophy, gov't. Your whole argument is complete nonsense. Just type in the word neo-liberalism into google.




Gabo said:
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING.

Being part of a government is NOT VOLUNTARY, and what the government does is by FORCE.

A free market HAS NO FORCE AT ALL. People simply have a choice.
Sometimes the choice doesn't have many good options, but its still a choice.

The corporations only control us as long as we let them control us.

If we stand up to them and say "NO!", they have nothing left.
When corporations have the money, and you certainly want to give it to them, they do control us, because in a capitalist society, wealth is power. And the rest of us low lifes are, yes, forced to work long hours to produce more and more in order to give the rich the profit they seek. In a market without boundaries (as our 'free market' seems to be today) workers are never in short supply. With corporations in charge, there is no force left to say 'no that's not right' or 'no, the worker deserves more money'. This leads to great profit for management, and whatever's left (usually not much) for the worker. The worker only is paid enough to keep him coming to work, and as can be seen throughout the 3rd world, that isn't much.




Gabo said:
Lets see..... I have the choice to starving and dying on the street, or taking a low rung job to support myself.

It is completely up to me.

I can take the job if I think its worth it, or I can go search for other competitors, or I can attempt to find my own niche and offer my own service.

We obviously don't live in a world of one company, so I could check out others in the area for better conditions or pay. I would most likely find a business that needs new workers and is willing to offer a better deal than your business.

After working for that business for a year or two, I could save up for a bycicle to search around for better jobs, plus I will now have job experience on my resume.

I will soon be able to find a better job with better conditions, and now I'm one step higher up on the ladder!
The illusion of choice. The very word brings people to your side, as choice is always good, no matter its content. You forget that under your perfect world, labor is at the mercy of the market. If the market is down, this means that all businesses lay off workers. This will probably last atleast a few weeks. Now you, the ever optimist, probably think that would just make life dynamic (which it does)! But to anyone else, one will see he suffering caused by subjecting workers to the business cycle with no regulations to shield themselves. Instead of ending world hunger and poverty, you want to give these things fuel. But, as long as it's for the good of the ones who really matter, it's OK, right? I know Ayn Ran thinks so.




Gabo said:
Most people that claim to be capitalist are really not....

True capitalists despise anything that misrepresents or uses FORCE.
The US Dollar does both.
It has absolutely no value, is prone to inflation, and is FORCED upon the people.

Me and many other true capitalists are turning to a new private, 100% silver and gold backed currency.

It's called the Liberty Dollar, and it's REAL money. (www.libertydollar.org)
So who's to say that they aren't right? You? But atleast you admit that capitalists need some symbol of status, some recognition of o called success. It is used as something with which to control others, in actuality (the worker, namely). Wait...aren't you against this? This I see as the largest contradiction in your odd form of thought.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
Also, communism isn't far away from a free society.

Essentially, it's a free society where somehow everyone is selfless and caring.
They all work together for the betterment of their community.
Unfortunately, this is unattainable.
Which is why I choose the next best thing, a free society.
Communism is simply human production strictly for human use (the romantic add-ons you name are just those-add ons). Obviously, many in todays pro-capitalist world find it 'unattainable'. Most of the world has also never read Marx, who clearly states that socialism is a prerequisite for communism. That is why we on the left should push towards world socialism. Perhaps you need to once again see what communism would look like. There would be no gov't, and they wouldn't all work together. You'd have a loosely connected communist globe, or perhaps, less idealistically, an autonomous zone (the Zapatistas). This means that a localised group of people would work together. That's hardly utopian, in fact, it's being done today.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Communism is simply human production strictly for human use (the romantic add-ons you name are just those-add ons).
So, in essense, everyone pledges 100% of their property for public use.

Like I said before, I believe communism ONLY works when done voluntarily.
(I don't remember if you agreed with me or not).

Assuming it only works when derived from voluntary actions, then a communist society could ONLY exist under a free society.

Under a free market, people would be more than able to come together under the name of promoting the general welfare and working for the betterment of a community.

This is not possible when you enforce rules and regulations on people.



anomaly said:
Obviously, many in todays pro-capitalist world find it 'unattainable'.
I find working models of communism only attainable under mutual consent.

Therefore, the action must be derived from a free society.



anomaly said:
Most of the world has also never read Marx, who clearly states that socialism is a prerequisite for communism. That is why we on the left should push towards world socialism.
Socialism is a complete and utter failure, as proven before.
It is not possible to successfully FORCE everyone into the "nice guy" role.

There will always be those that will not cooperate regardless of everything.


That is why successful communism must be reached by voluntary agreement.
Unlike Marx's view, this can only come from a free society, not a socialist one.



anomaly said:
Perhaps you need to once again see what communism would look like. There would be no gov't, and they wouldn't all work together. You'd have a loosely connected communist globe, or perhaps, less idealistically, an autonomous zone (the Zapatistas). This means that a localised group of people would work together.
And those people work together under voluntary, mutual consent.
Which can only be achieved when one has a free society.


I completely understand the desire to live in a communist society.
But you cannot successfully FORCE communism on people.
Which is why the best way to achieve it is through free society.


I personally advocate the freest society possible.
One in which the ONLY role of the government is to protect our natural rights.


By having this type of government, people will be allowed to collaborate with other like-minded people to establish diverse communities with unique aspects.


People could join these communities by voluntary choice, or stay on their own.


Nothing would be preventing communism.
On the contrary, this is the best enviornment for communes to flourish.
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I work hard and have pride in my work. I have to do the job better than my coworkers and nothing else is acceptable.Even with my good work ethic and total lack of greed, I worked better on commission that rewarded my work than hourly jobs. It's hard to shake the"I get paid the same either way" additude and the quality of work suffers....Capitalism works,Comunism doesn't, and socialism is a disaster.California is so far left in some areas Socialism is close.Watch how bad things get there.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alienken said:
I work hard and have pride in my work. I have to do the job better than my coworkers and nothing else is acceptable.Even with my good work ethic and total lack of greed, I worked better on commission that rewarded my work than hourly jobs. It's hard to shake the"I get paid the same either way" additude and the quality of work suffers....Capitalism works,Comunism doesn't, and socialism is a disaster.California is so far left in some areas Socialism is close.Watch how bad things get there.
Are you an 'average blue collar worker'? If you think you fit, then lets look at what capitalism in the USA is doing to you: On average, your CEO makes over 400 times as much as you. In Japan, this figure is 11 times, in Britain, 24. Do you realize what kind of slave labor capitalism runs on? Do you realize all these sweatshops that produce the goods you and me buy? My problem with capitalism is this: With all of its productivity (and it is extremely productive), capitalism inevitably hurts more people than it helps. We in the USA are the lucky few, although maybe not for long, notice the numbers I previously mentioned. And socialism is not some 'utter failure' as you believe. It works quite well in Sweden today. The USSR did not work. Why? Socialism is the nationalisation of industry, thus, it is immensely dependent on the gov't. What if this gov't is a democracy (like Sweden)? And communism can be very successful. Look up the semi-communist group the Zapatistas. I have trouble discussing communism with you who haven't looked into it (mostly all of you) because honestly most of he time you just don't get it (Gabo is finally starting to 'get it'). Plus, that's the future. I would like to turn my attention to the present, to transnational capitalism and all its flaws. Alien, you must realize that capitalism only works when it is heavily regulated. Otherwise the market dominates the gov't, in our case, that means the market dominates our democratic republic. Our gov't is democratic in principle, while almost all corporations are a dictatorship, with a mighty CEO at the top. And you actually want to give these dictators all the power?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
So, in essense, everyone pledges 100% of their property for public use.

Like I said before, I believe communism ONLY works when done voluntarily.
(I don't remember if you agreed with me or not).

Assuming it only works when derived from voluntary actions, then a communist society could ONLY exist under a free society.

Under a free market, people would be more than able to come together under the name of promoting the general welfare and working for the betterment of a community.

This is not possible when you enforce rules and regulations on people.
Democratic socialism, the kind that was sought by Lenin, and exists today in Sweden, gives the economy to the people. The people have direct control over the market, unlike capitalism where workers especially have absolutely no control over the market, and thus are subject to the ups and downs of the business cycle. Regulations are needed to flatten these ups and downs, to make them withstandable for the worker. Regulations are almost always to the workers' benefit, and if they are not, the people should have the right to get rid of them by popular demand. Ah democracy, though, unfortunately, the US gov't must be reformed in order to create socialism. A two party system acts very similar to a one party state. As you may notice, Gabo, the Dems and GOP have effectively monopolized politics! And no, they certainly don't present the best product to the American people. I think we can agree on that!




Gabo said:
I find working models of communism only attainable under mutual consent.

Therefore, the action must be derived from a free society.
So giving everyone any equal voice isn't 'free'? Democracy isn't free? When corporations dominate the landscape, meaning few people own and control the economy. When the gov't (a democratic gov't) dominates the economy, I'd call that free.




Gabo said:
Socialism is a complete and utter failure, as proven before.
It is not possible to successfully FORCE everyone into the "nice guy" role.

There will always be those that will not cooperate regardless of everything.


That is why successful communism must be reached by voluntary agreement.
Unlike Marx's view, this can only come from a free society, not a socialist one.
Socialism can be free, if the people so choose. This is why I stress democratic socialism, and not tyrannical socialism like the USSR. Socailism simply gives people and inevitably the state dominance over the economic.




Gabo said:
And those people work together under voluntary, mutual consent.
Which can only be achieved when one has a free society.


I completely understand the desire to live in a communist society.
But you cannot successfully FORCE communism on people.
Which is why the best way to achieve it is through free society.


I personally advocate the freest society possible.
One in which the ONLY role of the government is to protect our natural rights.


By having this type of government, people will be allowed to collaborate with other like-minded people to establish diverse communities with unique aspects.


People could join these communities by voluntary choice, or stay on their own.


Nothing would be preventing communism.
On the contrary, this is the best enviornment for communes to flourish.
Here you are describing no capitalist market, my friend. You are describing one in which the people control their economy. And that is socialism by definiton. Giving people this much power gives them a chance to, one day, advance towards capitalism. In capitalism, communes hardly ever exist. If they do, unfortunately they must be created and maintained through military action. This is how the Zapatistas came about, and the only reason the Mexican pro-capitalist gov't doesn't crush them is because it would look very bad for the gov't to crush such a free and democratic people who have so much respect throughout the world.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Democratic socialism, the kind that was sought by Lenin, and exists today in Sweden, gives the economy to the people. The people have direct control over the market, unlike capitalism where workers especially have absolutely no control over the market, and thus are subject to the ups and downs of the business cycle. Regulations are needed to flatten these ups and downs, to make them withstandable for the worker. Regulations are almost always to the workers' benefit, and if they are not, the people should have the right to get rid of them by popular demand. Ah democracy, though, unfortunately, the US gov't must be reformed in order to create socialism. A two party system acts very similar to a one party state. As you may notice, Gabo, the Dems and GOP have effectively monopolized politics! And no, they certainly don't present the best product to the American people. I think we can agree on that!
This still does not address the fact that FORCED socialism is unfair.
Those that do not want to participate are FORCED into a life they don't want.
This is unfair to that individual.
They deserve the right to decide what type of society they live in.



anomaly said:
So giving everyone any equal voice isn't 'free'? Democracy isn't free? When corporations dominate the landscape, meaning few people own and control the economy. When the gov't (a democratic gov't) dominates the economy, I'd call that free.
"Freedom" is defined as the ability to think and act without imposed restraints.

When a government dominates the economy, NOBODY is free. EVERYONE is FORCED to give their money away (in the real world we call this stealing) in order to pay for and support a group that doesn't have their interests at heart.

A truly free society is one in which NOBODY is allowed to initiate FORCE, regardless of how good or bad they are.

In doing so, everyone can choose what is best for THEMSELVES.



anomaly said:
Socialism can be free, if the people so choose. This is why I stress democratic socialism, and not tyrannical socialism like the USSR. Socailism simply gives people and inevitably the state dominance over the economic.
And which 'people' get to choose?

I'm assuming you mean the majority of the population.
But how is this fair to the other part of the population that does not agree?
They are simply FORCED to obey the commands of the majority?

When I refer to the 'people' choosing something, I believe that choice is for every individual to make on their own. Which is why I believe this system will only work when it is voluntary.



anomaly said:
Here you are describing no capitalist market, my friend. You are describing one in which the people control their economy. And that is socialism by definiton.
I am describing a market in which each person controls their own life, without imposing regulations.

This is exactly how a capitalistic market is described.


In essense, if each person owns their own stuff, then the people certainly are controlling their economy. All choices are made by the people acting on their own behalf, instead of a small or large group making decisions for everyone.



anomaly said:
Giving people this much power gives them a chance to, one day, advance towards capitalism. In capitalism, communes hardly ever exist. If they do, unfortunately they must be created and maintained through military action.
Completely untrue.

Voluntary communes could most certainly exist under capitalism.

People could come together as a group to form a commune.
Within this commune, everyone could agree to work together and share equally.

There is no military action required whatsoever because it is VOLUNTARY.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
This still does not address the fact that FORCED socialism is unfair.
Those that do not want to participate are FORCED into a life they don't want.
This is unfair to that individual.
They deserve the right to decide what type of society they live in.
Ok well by that logic, every and any system is 'unfair' (I don't like capitalism, and yet it is being forced down my throat every day. Your proposed system would violate my 'individual rights', so we could never do it, right?). The majority of people would benefit under socialism, so I just assume the majority would want it. Democratic socialism usually succeeds capitalism. It is democratic meaning that the majority of people want it. If the majority feel they don't like it, they can vote leaders out. The power rests solely in the people.




Gabo said:
"Freedom" is defined as the ability to think and act without imposed restraints.

When a government dominates the economy, NOBODY is free. EVERYONE is FORCED to give their money away (in the real world we call this stealing) in order to pay for and support a group that doesn't have their interests at heart.

A truly free society is one in which NOBODY is allowed to initiate FORCE, regardless of how good or bad they are.

In doing so, everyone can choose what is best for THEMSELVES.
And if that gov't is itself dominated by the people, what does that mean? The people are free to dispose of their leaders. Are you saying that freedom is impossible? Even when the people control everything?




Gabo said:
And which 'people' get to choose?

I'm assuming you mean the majority of the population.
But how is this fair to the other part of the population that does not agree?
They are simply FORCED to obey the commands of the majority?

When I refer to the 'people' choosing something, I believe that choice is for every individual to make on their own. Which is why I believe this system will only work when it is voluntary.
Well, here t is shown how important the type of gov't is. Proportional representation is needed. I know you aren't so ignorant of that idea as Fant is, so you probably know that it can work. Minority rights are, of course, important.




Gabo said:
I am describing a market in which each person controls their own life, without imposing regulations.

This is exactly how a capitalistic market is described.


In essense, if each person owns their own stuff, then the people certainly are controlling their economy. All choices are made by the people acting on their own behalf, instead of a small or large group making decisions for everyone.
Ok so every person controls 'their own stuff'? Does this mean equal ownership? And what about the most important 'stuff' of capitalism, capital itself? It is true that capital becomes quite fluid in a capitalist society, that is, it can move quite rapidly. Capital cannot be owned, or it isn't capitalism. Capital is something representing value, to be traded. Someone ultimatly ends up with more capital than someone else, so they have more power than someone else. This means they can exert a bit of control over someone else. And, in capitalism, a 'large group' or 'small group' does control many things. Momopolies, businesses, corporations. These are controlling groups. Gabo, I think you have developed some sort of care for people, you want everyone to have rights, you generally care about people, and you're wary of controlling forces. You must realize that businesses and corporations are controlling forces. You have advanced beyond capitalism, you don't even speak of capitalism anymore. You speak of anarchism.




Gabo said:
Completely untrue.

Voluntary communes could most certainly exist under capitalism.

People could come together as a group to form a commune.
Within this commune, everyone could agree to work together and share equally.

There is no military action required whatsoever because it is VOLUNTARY.
The Zapatistas had to fight to gain an autonomous zone. Again, why can't communes exist today is capitalism is all volntary and righteous? Capitalism is dominated by competition and the accumulation of capital, how could a communist zone exist in the middle of such a system? Communists have no need for capital, and yet to the capitalist, the commune is wasting their labor force. To the capitalist, the commune would be using land otherwise being used to accumulate a profit.
 
Top Bottom