So.....who loves capitalism?

[Tartarus Sauce]

And that pretty much sums up my thoughts.

I and I, the reason I asked for you to defend your position is because the way you have acted on this forum has served the purpose of adding fuel to your false assumptions of our understanding of communistic theory. Since you have only done direct attacks on capitalism and dismissed, distorted, and generalized the responses here, the pathway has not been opened up for civil discourse. We don't have constructive discussions with you on aspects of different theories in communism because you don't want to open up that can of worms. You enjoy assuming we are unacquainted with communistic theory because that is the assumption you came in with and that is the assumption that is reinforced through the way you structure your one-sided topics.

You set up false dichotomies about what base camps people are capable of falling under when it comes to political theory. It's more complicated than just "you either love or hate capitalism." You then apply this false dichotomy to the forum's population. We are not capitalist apologists, in fact most of us have read political theorists accompanying both sides of the spectrum. We agree that capitalism has its faults, but we HAVE also read about communism and know the faults there as well. Both theories have their pros and cons, and both have a HUMONGOUS branches of sub-variants. It's a diverse and complex field, and you are continually simplifying, exaggerating, and distorting both the issues at hand and our own views to the issues with your self-imposed assumptions.

THAT is why we are annoyed with you, not because you are expressing a different viewpoint, but because you are being a huge asshole about it. That does no favors for you in terms "educating people who are misinformed about communism." YOU are the one coming across as misinformed because you aren't even applying any time to discussing it. You haven't opened any thread encouraging us to debate about different forms of communism, a type of conversation where you could actually LEARN just HOW MUCH we actually know about the political theory of the field. But you have actively and intentionally stuck to capitalist bashing, and that YOUR view on communism is the right one without sway. Anybody that has not fully agreed with your accusations you have labeled as a capitalist apologist, and this is a gross distortion and dishonest tactic. No, maybe we don't agree with everything you say BECAUSE we are well educated among communistic theory and see you as a deluded, close-minded fuck who has a one track mind incapable of acknowledging different viewpoints from your own.

You are the one making assumptions and setting the hostile tone and then blaming us for being close-minded. Grow up.

[I and I]

(05-12-2012 02:41 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(05-12-2012 02:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  What are your thoughts on Primitive Accumulation? It was a big topic for the classical economists including Marx.

What is a "free" market? Free to who?

Communism isn't against people being more wealthy than others, communism is against exploiting the labor others as a means to acquire wealth, no communist government ever implied, said or even tried to implement a policy where a doctor gets paid the same amount as a janitor. (That is a very funny and old misconception of communism.)

A market in order to be "free" would mean that all benefit from societies wealth in education, living standards, wages and political participation by everyone at some level. The capitalist system doesn't allow this kind of freedom, it only allows freedom for the small minority of people who own most of productive capacities and privately own the wealth that is produced by the labor of others. This system is designed to where only a few can or ever will be able to participate in a "free" market.

The Capitalist system is designed where many economic policies and foreign policies are due to the needs and wants and persuasion of this small capitalist class. The Capitalist class has great influence and control politically and economically yet the people do not vote them into or out of power, this is not a free market, at least it is not free to most of the population.

Previous accumulation was and still is a major issue, yes. Any economic system exploits the ideal, capitalist or not.

I never implied that communism bestowed equality on income for specific jobs. You make too many assumptions about your opposition's understanding of Marxist theory. I said the idea of it protecting workers and the common people from exploitation is wrong.

A free market is simply an economic system that operates off of supply and demand, without imposed government regulation. It has nothing to do with a just distribution of money, dissolution of classes, or necessarily astronomical poverty rates. However, I do disagree with an unregulated capitalist economy. That is why I support a mixed capitalist economy or certain forms of market socialism.

Capitalism simply deals with the privatized means to produce capital. An individual will sell his expertise and labor to another individual. Whether or not the laborer is justly payed is solely up to the ethics of all involved parties (including the government and its economic regulation, thus the minimum wage). Like different forms of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, there are different forms of Capitalism. However, the core theory is just that. Any additions are a variation of the theory.

Quite plainly you can have multiple theories enacted at once, which is what I support. However, to specifically target one theory and blame all your woes on it is intellectually dishonest. No one, I repeat, no one on this forum has said or even implied that capitalism, or any other economic system, is perfect. Stop acting as though we are all far right hicks with no education.

The idea of a mixed capitalist economy is based on a false assumption that the government structure under capitalism is a separate entity that keeps capitalism in check. This is a nice idea but so is eating cake all day and having free sex with strippers. All throughout history capitalism needs a subservient government that exists for their interests in order to survive as capitalism. This government under capitalism exists to maintain laws that benefit capitalism and to keep capitalism afloat by creating mechanisms in which the capitalists don't eat themselves and the economy into the ground. Government and Capitalists even being discussed in this manner gives the false impression that they aren't one and the same, when in reality if you look at where the politicians come from, they usually come from the military and/or economic sector. The capitalist class control of the state apparatus is the means in which the exert their control over the working class.

I read a book a long time ago about the building of the transcontinental railroad in the U.S. during the 1800's. One thing that stood out was how much the private companies relied on, bribed, and manipulated the state apparatus to get the railroad built, from the police, the military, local officials in different states and counties etc etc. all were subservient to and were a tool in which the capitalist class implemented it's control. Even before capitalism the ruling classes always rely on and use the government structure as a means to exert control so this is nothing new.

Communists believe that the working class should control the state apparatus and use it for it's own good in which laws, police, military will all be used to help the working class (the vast majority) instead of the state being used by the capitalist class (a small minority). A political system that aims to help and is designed to help the majority is surely a more democratic system wouldn't you say?

[nach_in]

(05-12-2012 06:28 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(05-12-2012 02:41 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Previous accumulation was and still is a major issue, yes. Any economic system exploits the ideal, capitalist or not.

I never implied that communism bestowed equality on income for specific jobs. You make too many assumptions about your opposition's understanding of Marxist theory. I said the idea of it protecting workers and the common people from exploitation is wrong.

A free market is simply an economic system that operates off of supply and demand, without imposed government regulation. It has nothing to do with a just distribution of money, dissolution of classes, or necessarily astronomical poverty rates. However, I do disagree with an unregulated capitalist economy. That is why I support a mixed capitalist economy or certain forms of market socialism.

Capitalism simply deals with the privatized means to produce capital. An individual will sell his expertise and labor to another individual. Whether or not the laborer is justly payed is solely up to the ethics of all involved parties (including the government and its economic regulation, thus the minimum wage). Like different forms of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, there are different forms of Capitalism. However, the core theory is just that. Any additions are a variation of the theory.

Quite plainly you can have multiple theories enacted at once, which is what I support. However, to specifically target one theory and blame all your woes on it is intellectually dishonest. No one, I repeat, no one on this forum has said or even implied that capitalism, or any other economic system, is perfect. Stop acting as though we are all far right hicks with no education.

The idea of a mixed capitalist economy is based on a false assumption that the government structure under capitalism is a separate entity that keeps capitalism in check. This is a nice idea but so is eating cake all day and having free sex with strippers. All throughout history capitalism needs a subservient government that exists for their interests in order to survive as capitalism. This government under capitalism exists to maintain laws that benefit capitalism and to keep capitalism afloat by creating mechanisms in which the capitalists don't eat themselves and the economy into the ground. Government and Capitalists even being discussed in this manner gives the false impression that they aren't one and the same, when in reality if you look at where the politicians come from, they usually come from the military and/or economic sector. The capitalist class control of the state apparatus is the means in which the exert their control over the working class.

I read a book a long time ago about the building of the transcontinental railroad in the U.S. during the 1800's. One thing that stood out was how much the private companies relied on, bribed, and manipulated the state apparatus to get the railroad built, from the police, the military, local officials in different states and counties etc etc. all were subservient to and were a tool in which the capitalist class implemented it's control. Even before capitalism the ruling classes always rely on and use the government structure as a means to exert control so this is nothing new.

Communists believe that the working class should control the state apparatus and use it for it's own good in which laws, police, military will all be used to help the working class (the vast majority) instead of the state being used by the capitalist class (a small minority). A political system that aims to help and is designed to help the majority is surely a more democratic system wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't, I think that's the main problem with communism and the main reason why it failed historically. Once the working class is in charge (or the few who make it to the top at least) they change, they stop being the working class and become the ruling class and the abuse of power is ensued.

[GirlyMan]

(05-12-2012 02:13 AM)I and I Wrote:  According to everyone here ALL communist countries are the spawn of evil, ...

What you mean by "everyone here", little bitch. You got me on your Ignore List, or you just being intentionally provocative (Girly ain't got no problem with that, btw, little bitch.) This post deserves more than a bump, it deserves a repost, little bitch.

Ahhh ... the old bullshit Capitalism vs. Communism debate. A false choice between two equally unrealizable social systems. No such thing as pure Capitalism 'cause Adam Smith's invisible hand assumes perfectly rational agents looking to maximize their own gain. Yeah, that's fucking funny. Closest thing to Capitalism exists only in the black markets, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, sex trafficking, etc. No such thing as pure Communism 'cause Jesus disciples' assumption that everyone will buy into "From each according to their ability and to each according to their need" (that's right bitches, ain't Marx's idea, see Acts Chapters 4-5). Yeah, that's fucking funny. Closest thing to Communism exists only on a small scale in hippie communes and Hebrew kibbutzim.

Apart from the dictatorships, we're all socialists. All we're fucking fundamentally arguing about is the degree of socialism. The Europeans seem to get that, the hormonal teenager in the room that is the USA doesn't. In the USA, "socialist" is a dirty word for some ignorant teatarded reason.



Sigh. ... In the words of my friend TrainWreck, "I hope you die peacefully."

[Tartarus Sauce]

(05-12-2012 06:28 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(05-12-2012 02:41 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Previous accumulation was and still is a major issue, yes. Any economic system exploits the ideal, capitalist or not.

I never implied that communism bestowed equality on income for specific jobs. You make too many assumptions about your opposition's understanding of Marxist theory. I said the idea of it protecting workers and the common people from exploitation is wrong.

A free market is simply an economic system that operates off of supply and demand, without imposed government regulation. It has nothing to do with a just distribution of money, dissolution of classes, or necessarily astronomical poverty rates. However, I do disagree with an unregulated capitalist economy. That is why I support a mixed capitalist economy or certain forms of market socialism.

Capitalism simply deals with the privatized means to produce capital. An individual will sell his expertise and labor to another individual. Whether or not the laborer is justly payed is solely up to the ethics of all involved parties (including the government and its economic regulation, thus the minimum wage). Like different forms of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, there are different forms of Capitalism. However, the core theory is just that. Any additions are a variation of the theory.

Quite plainly you can have multiple theories enacted at once, which is what I support. However, to specifically target one theory and blame all your woes on it is intellectually dishonest. No one, I repeat, no one on this forum has said or even implied that capitalism, or any other economic system, is perfect. Stop acting as though we are all far right hicks with no education.

The idea of a mixed capitalist economy is based on a false assumption that the government structure under capitalism is a separate entity that keeps capitalism in check. This is a nice idea but so is eating cake all day and having free sex with strippers. All throughout history capitalism needs a subservient government that exists for their interests in order to survive as capitalism. This government under capitalism exists to maintain laws that benefit capitalism and to keep capitalism afloat by creating mechanisms in which the capitalists don't eat themselves and the economy into the ground. Government and Capitalists even being discussed in this manner gives the false impression that they aren't one and the same, when in reality if you look at where the politicians come from, they usually come from the military and/or economic sector. The capitalist class control of the state apparatus is the means in which the exert their control over the working class.

I read a book a long time ago about the building of the transcontinental railroad in the U.S. during the 1800's. One thing that stood out was how much the private companies relied on, bribed, and manipulated the state apparatus to get the railroad built, from the police, the military, local officials in different states and counties etc etc. all were subservient to and were a tool in which the capitalist class implemented it's control. Even before capitalism the ruling classes always rely on and use the government structure as a means to exert control so this is nothing new.

Communists believe that the working class should control the state apparatus and use it for it's own good in which laws, police, military will all be used to help the working class (the vast majority) instead of the state being used by the capitalist class (a small minority). A political system that aims to help and is designed to help the majority is surely a more democratic system wouldn't you say?

FFS you really haven't been reading our responses.

No shit it would be more democratic, if it was actually correctly implemented. You are oblivious to the fact that the Party has historically become the new face of the oppressor and acted out of self-interest, hence becoming counter-revolutionary. It's human fallibility that causes this and it happens no matter what form of government you try to put in place.

ALL governments are inherently restricting on freedoms and bourgeoisie in nature regardless of whatever bullshit propaganda they feed you or what motto they stand by, it's only a matter of degrees. Actions speak louder than words, and the so called "communistic" governments have fallen under the same hypocritical tendencies of capitalist governments, because at heart they desire the same things all governments do, power, and therefore aren't really communistic at all since the people are just as useful in exploiting and oppressing for them as any other government. That's why nobody is buying your bullshit, not because of the core belief of communism itself, which is a great idea which overlooked vital aspects it needed to address. A great phrase you should take to heart, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

There is no point trying to reason with you. You admit acting like a twit as a means of informing people about communism yet you are the one who desperately needs the informing. Your ignorance and continuous appeals to logical fallacies is speaking louder than the occasional interesting point you bring up. Enough time and energy has been wasted on you already. To boot, you incorrectly conflate the diverse viewpoints of those who oppose you. If there is one thing you are excellent at doing, it's setting up strawmen.

I guess I can take comfort in the fact that your main contribution to this forum has been that your stupidity has done well in strengthening the logicality of our own convictions. Your use has been dried out by now though.

Good day and goodbye.

[I and I]

(05-12-2012 07:57 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  

(05-12-2012 06:28 PM)I and I Wrote:  The idea of a mixed capitalist economy is based on a false assumption that the government structure under capitalism is a separate entity that keeps capitalism in check. This is a nice idea but so is eating cake all day and having free sex with strippers. All throughout history capitalism needs a subservient government that exists for their interests in order to survive as capitalism. This government under capitalism exists to maintain laws that benefit capitalism and to keep capitalism afloat by creating mechanisms in which the capitalists don't eat themselves and the economy into the ground. Government and Capitalists even being discussed in this manner gives the false impression that they aren't one and the same, when in reality if you look at where the politicians come from, they usually come from the military and/or economic sector. The capitalist class control of the state apparatus is the means in which the exert their control over the working class.

I read a book a long time ago about the building of the transcontinental railroad in the U.S. during the 1800's. One thing that stood out was how much the private companies relied on, bribed, and manipulated the state apparatus to get the railroad built, from the police, the military, local officials in different states and counties etc etc. all were subservient to and were a tool in which the capitalist class implemented it's control. Even before capitalism the ruling classes always rely on and use the government structure as a means to exert control so this is nothing new.

Communists believe that the working class should control the state apparatus and use it for it's own good in which laws, police, military will all be used to help the working class (the vast majority) instead of the state being used by the capitalist class (a small minority). A political system that aims to help and is designed to help the majority is surely a more democratic system wouldn't you say?

FFS you really haven't been reading our responses.

No shit it would be more democratic, if it was actually correctly implemented. You are oblivious to the fact that the Party has historically become the new face of the oppressor and acted out of self-interest, hence becoming counter-revolutionary. It's human fallibility that causes this and it happens no matter what form of government you try to put in place.

ALL governments are inherently restricting on freedoms and bourgeoisie in nature regardless of whatever bullshit propaganda they feed you or what motto they stand by, it's only a matter of degrees. Actions speak louder than words, and the so called "communistic" governments have fallen under the same hypocritical tendencies of capitalist governments, because at heart they desire the same things all governments do, power, and therefore aren't really communistic at all since the people are just as useful in exploiting and oppressing for them as any other government. That's why nobody is buying your bullshit, not because of the core belief of communism itself, which is a great idea which overlooked vital aspects it needed to address. A great phrase you should take to heart, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

There is no point trying to reason with you. You admit acting like a twit as a means of informing people about communism yet you are the one who desperately needs the informing. Your ignorance and continuous appeals to logical fallacies is speaking louder than the occasional interesting point you bring up. Enough time and energy has been wasted on you already. To boot, you incorrectly conflate the diverse viewpoints of those who oppose you. If there is one thing you are excellent at doing, it's setting up strawmen.

I guess I can take comfort in the fact that your main contribution to this forum has been that your stupidity has done well in strengthening the logicality of our own convictions. Your use has been dried out by now though.

Good day and goodbye.

So your beef with communism is that a group of people get into power then oppress and exploit other people.....yet you like capitalism? Do you dislike capitalism for the same reason or do you look past that part of capitalism? I have never heard of a communist countries exploiting or oppressing other countries. The only one I can think of was for a good reason, when Communist Vietnam went into Cambodia to overthrow the western backed khmer rouge. That was one of the rare times when a communist country used it's forces to to go into another country (besides ww2 of course).

[nach_in]

dude, are you being annoying on purpose? to provoke some kind of reaction in us? because you're not understanding what others are telling you here and I don't think you're stupid.

If that's so, let me tell you, is not working, you're not Zizek man, you need to go way more over the top to cause the same effervescence he causes with his sarcastic extremism.

[I and I]

(05-12-2012 08:22 PM)nach_in Wrote:  dude, are you being annoying on purpose? to provoke some kind of reaction in us? because you're not understanding what others are telling you here and I don't think you're stupid.

If that's so, let me tell you, is not working, you're not Zizek man, you need to go way more over the top to cause the same effervescence he causes with his sarcastic extremism.

tartarus sauce defends capitalism yet his beef with communism is the same shit that happens under capitalism.

It all depends on what side you are on, if mass imprisonment and oppression of workers is how one gets their rocks off then capitalism is your thing, if imprisonment and oppression of people that want to exploit others through capitalism then communism is your thing. However since the working class is the vast majority then one that supports capitalism can't claim to support democracy.

[Vosur]

(05-12-2012 08:26 PM)I and I Wrote:  However since the working class is the vast majority then one that supports capitalism can't claim to support democracy.

Of course I can. Have you read my response to you?

[I and I]

(06-12-2012 12:44 AM)Vosur Wrote:  

(05-12-2012 08:26 PM)I and I Wrote:  However since the working class is the vast majority then one that supports capitalism can't claim to support democracy.

Of course I can. Have you read my response to you?

no, I didn't read any response that made the case for one small class having a lot of poltical control and the majority having very little political representation somehow being a democracy. I didn't read that one, wher is it?

Is it one of those "workers have control buy what they purchase" kind of arguments. Heard it before, not original at all and very easily refuted.